Posts filed under 'research'
Inequality and public services
Rebecca Nash writes:
‘Public facing’ and ‘academic’ are two personal attributes that often don’t go together. But the IIPS was fortunate to host this rare breed at a breakfast briefing this week. Professor Danny Dorling both conducts groundbreaking research on patterns of place and social change, and makes sure it gets covered by the media (here and here and here.)
Danny’s presentation at the IIPS was on the evidence of the strong links between poor public services and local inequalities – part of the IIPS’s ongoing conversation about what role research and public services play in improving people’s lives. Worrying as much of his evidence is, his talk was also a hopeful call to action. Despite the correlation between local deprivation and poor services he argued two points: First, if we take a look at recent data from The Futures Company, there is public will for social change and social action - and permission for radical change. Second, government has the tools to improve things on local levels and to stop inequalities from continuing to spread on a national scale.
BMRB Social Research’s Head of Methods Joel Williams argued that research can support the policy and service delivery changes that Danny urges – and looked at some different research methods. He identified new research strategies for the places that most need them: for example, opening up administrative data bases in their original forms, targeting surveys in areas with the greatest variety of life outcomes, local authorities working together on common policy interventions, and more facilitation of local area modelling by those conducting national surveys.
Danny’s assumption that government could provide most of the solutions was challenged by Professor Paul Wiles, Head of Government Social Research. He raised questions about the persistence of long-term, local inequalities, and the way in which these shaped long-term social and cultural perceptions of poorer areas. In short, there are limits to government power and policy making, especially in the face of other powerful agents of change (communities, families, the housing market, and more).
Big questions about government, community, and public and social capital at 8.30 in the morning. But as we only begin to see the effects of economic crash, these issues are only going to get sharper over the coming year - or more.
The picture shows Diego Rivera’s mural, ‘Contradictions between Rich and Poor 01″. Sheffield University’s ‘Changing UK’ report, co-authored by Danny Dorling, can be downloaded as a pdf from here. The IIPS is a co-venture between The Futures Company and BMRB which develops and promotes the use of citizen insight to support the transformation of public service delivery in the UK.
Add comment 4 December 2008
Understanding the ‘Aldi effect’
Alastair Morton writes:
The Guardian last Friday splashed pictures of baked beans and ‘Beamers’ across its front page to make the point that consumers’ habits are changing as a result of the credit crunch and other pressures on incomes. In particular, there are some startling statistics about BMW sales (down 40% on last year) and people’s levels of savings (down 48% on last year). In all of this, they suggest that a number of companies are benefiting from the ‘Aldi effect’, meaning that budget retailers and products (such as Aldi, Premier Inn budget hotels and own label foods) are more in demand as consumers tighten their belts.
However, the headline effects of downturn mask some more complex value trade-offs that consumers are making, and will continue to make, as they manage their squeezed finances. Over the last 5 years, discounters (especially Lidl) have added branded goods to their shelves, reaching levels as high as 30% of the product assortment in UK stores (sourced from MVI research). So switching to these retailers need not mean buying different products. Are consumers trading down and buying lower quality, or are they simply looking for the same quality, even branded, products at a cheaper price? Paul Foley, UK Managing Director of Aldi, argues ‘there is no trading down in buying the same quality product. You are just trading down in price.’
In ‘Feeling the Pinch’, a piece of research that we did recently, we were able to dive deeper and unpick the different ways that consumers are managing their money differently. Using a factor analysis, we found eight themes of coping behaviour that consumers are likely to draw on over the coming year, from spending wisely to borrowing to cutting back to reducing ethical consumption. Obviously there’s far more detail in the 70-page report, but a couple of core findings stand out.
First, people’s initial response to downturn is to try to buy the same things cheaper rather than buying fewer or different things. After this they buy less or cut out treats or luxuries. Secondly, levels of anxiety about economic downturn are a strong predictor of consumer behaviour - the more anxious consumers are, the more likely they are to make specific changes to their consumption behaviour in order to save money. Measuring consumers’ anxiety levels about their economic position - and how they’re changing - is the best way to gauge how rapidly consumer behaviour is likely to change.
The ‘Feeling the Pinch’ report is available for £3,500+VAT. Tailored briefings, which explore the findings and their implications for individual companies’ strategies and brands, are available from £6,000+VAT. To find out more, please email ftp@hchlv.com.
Add comment 11 September 2008
Learning from your staff
Andrew Curry writes:
Visiting the British Museum’s Hadrian exhibition on a wet Sunday in August isn’t perhaps the most sensible thing to do, although the exhibition is striking even when it’s teeming with visitors. But the trip was at least as educational about the BM’s approach to customer service.
While waiting to buy my timed tickets, the screens behind the ticket desk advertised to me the benefits of membership (’Join today and see Hadrian free’). I had some time to do the sums, and it seemed like a reasonable offer. So when I reached the desk I asked if I could buy membership instead. Not here, apparently, but over there - at a desk with another long queue at it. Having waited several minutes already, I bought the ordinary one-day exhibition tickets instead. Lost revenue, lost relationship, from the Museum’s point of view. ‘It doesn’t seem sensible to advertise membership here and not to sell it’, I observed, helpfully. ‘I know’ said the woman at the counter. ‘We have mentioned it to the management’.
Being a wet Sunday, I had an umbrella with me. It had been pretty visible when I bought the tickets, since umbrellas aren’t the sort of thing you tend to hide unless you’re a hitman. When we got to the entrance of the Hadrian exhibition for our timed entry, 40 minutes later, the attendant told me that I couldn’t take the umbrella in; it would have to go to the cloakroom. ‘I could have been told that when I bought the tickets’ I pointed out, both to the attendant and later to the man in the Cloakroom. ‘I know’, said the man in the Cloakroom. ‘We’ve been telling the management for the last two exhibitions, but they haven’t done anything about it’.
Of course, the British Museum’s not unique in not listening to its customer-facing staff. Lots of organisations forget that they’re the first to hear (often the only people to hear) when their customer-facing systems aren’t entirely customer friendly. Usually managers are too busy telling their staff about new instructions to find the time to listen to them.
As for the Hadrian exhibition, it’s open until 26th October. But don’t go on a wet Sunday. And if you do, don’t take an umbrella.
Add comment 18 August 2008
It’s the planet, stupid
Source: ICM/Guardian 2008
One of the more interesting pieces of data to be published this month was the result of a Guardian/ICM poll which showed that a majority of UK adults thought that it was more important to deal with environmental issues than the economy. Interesting, because the notion that people always turn back to financial self-interest when times are tight is so ingrained that my first thought was that the poll must be wrong.
But maybe not. Looking at the poll through the lens of our 2007 Green Consumer Segmentation (summary here), there are high degrees of consistency. The segmentation generated five segments: two small activist groups (about 8% of the population); a larger group, ‘Positive Choosers’, representing 31% of the population, who were informed about ethical and environmental issues, and expected companies and organisations to act on them; a fourth segment, the ‘Conveniently Conscious (35%), who are environmentally and ethically informed, but don’t tend to act unless choices are framed from them; and finally a group of Onlookers (26%), who are unaware or sceptical. The point is that the top three groups are all more likely to prefer that the government tackles environmental issues - and so is some of the fourth group. From this perspective, the 52% figure seems completely plausible.
There were also strong degrees of consonance between the ICM research and our findings. For example, both pieces of research find that young people and older people had the highest levels of environmental concern (with a sag in the age cohorts between), that women had slightly higher levels of concern than men, that there was a poor correlation between socio-economic class and environmental concern, and that there were relatively few differences between different regions of the UK. With one notable exception: in the South east, Britain’s richest region, 52% say the economy matters most, compared to only 38% of Scots, perhaps more evidence to undermine the widely held idea that environmental concerns are a product of affluence.
And as it happens, the Green Consumer Segmentation has just won an Atticus award from our parent company, WPP, for being one of the best pieces of work in the area of ‘Market Research and Insights’ across the whole group worldwide last year. The Atticus competition, named for the Cretan storyteller, is designed to encourage and promote new thinking across the company. We’re delighted, obviously.
Add comment 15 July 2008
Oil and consumer behaviour
Andrew Curry writes:
You have to pinch yourself as you leaf through the current issue of Newsweek, which is on the impact of high oil prices as pump prices climb and analysts are entertaining the thought of the $200 barrel of oil. Even a year ago, the coverage would certainly have been doom laden, even apocalyptic. But the cover story is almost upbeat, as it decides that this spring marked the moment when America changed:
With average gas prices per gallon edging toward $4, America’s notoriously profligate ways started to change fast. Americans are driving less, using mass transit more, buying fewer gas guzzlers, indeed shopping less wantonly in general, and lowering their previously unshakable confidence as consumers. Suddenly, Americans are acting differently; if not exactly like Swedes, then not quite like themselves, either. It’s a shift that could change the world.
What’s interesting is that it isn’t just journalistic hyperbole. The latest data from America’s Department of Transportation shows that high gas prices are changing consumer behaviour. Estimates for March show that Americans drove 3.4% fewer vehicle miles this year - 11 billion miles - than last year. It’s the biggest year-on-year monthly fall ever seen in the US transport data, and to give a sense of scale, the last time the year-on-year March data tipped downwards Jimmy Carter was President. In fact, there’s been a general downward trend since last November. So it turns out that driving habits do respond to price signals provided the price signals are sharp enough and persistent enough. And this has good effects; one result has been that nine million fewer tonnes of greenhouse gases were discharged into the atmosphere in the first quarter of 2008.
And this also bears out one of the central findings of the recent report, Dollars and Consumer Sense, from our colleagues at Yankelovich, which looks at consumer trade-offs in the face of recession. Certainly consumers plan to cut costs, for example from buying at stores which have cheaper prices but a smaller product range, and by trading down on quality. But quite a lot of the trade offs reported in the research involve lower consumption, even less consumerism - delaying purchases, cutting back on food and gasoline, cooking from scratch instead of buying prepared foods, buying second-hand, and giving up ’shopping for fun’. Not exactly Sweden, at least not yet. But not exactly ‘shopping for America‘ either.
Thanks to Matt Cutts for the photo.
Update: Trendspoting, The Oil Drum has an account of the new American phenomenon of ‘hypermiling’ - or getting the maximum mileage per gallon from your vehicle. There’s even a website.
1 comment 3 June 2008
Different day, different hat
['Measuring cups', (c) Christine U'ren]
Becky Rowe writes:
We all live our lives on different planes and engage in diverse activities. As a consultancy we call this repertoire living - the idea that people are not defined by one interest, one value or one perspective, and instead engage in what can sometimes seem contradictory activities, often switching roles in a moment.
The starkness of the different roles I play came to the fore recently, when almost exactly 24 hours after the Millennials breakfast briefing I found myself in Oldham to interview two 19-year-old single mothers about their precarious financial situations. This is repertoire working in extremis. When we think of the Millennials in terms of marketing, we think of bright young things, Topshop shoppers, chatting away on their mobiles, playing on their Wiis - the children of affluent Britain. The reality of living at the other end of the spectrum hit me hard when I interviewed these two young women.
They shared with me how they manage their day-to-day lives on £60 a week. They dream of going to college to further their education and get jobs (one wants to be a social worker, the other a nursery teacher), but can’t afford the £3.90 bus fare it would cost them to get to college, let alone the additional money for childcare. They feel everybody hates them and judges them:
“I would stack shelves, sweep floors, make tea. I don’t want to be on benefits, but nobody will give me a chance. They turn me away before they have already seen me.”
These Millennials aren’t the target audience of big brands. They aren’t the most articulate or the most entrepreneurial. They are not ‘doted on’. I got the impression that our research interview was the first time anyone had listened to their perspective on anything for a long time, although what they said was sensible, interesting and practical.
Yesterday my work was about selling more computer games or jeans. Today it’s about the future of two desperate, young mums. I feel lucky that I get to wear so many hats in my professional role, but on this occasion, the contrast was disheartening.
The picture is by artist Christine U’ren, from her ‘Still Lives’ series. This picture, along with more of her work, can be found on her website.
Add comment 2 May 2008
Time to think
Josh Hunt writes:
As researchers, we are beholden to consumers in many ways, not least their willingness to expend time and effort to talk to us about how and what they think about things. Given that we are frequently reminded that consumers are time-poor, less and less willing to give personal information to strange people and keen to maintain privacy, one might think that nobody would ever take part in any research.
Yet I was struck in a recent project both by how willing people were to spend an hour and a half talking candidly about their plans for the future to a total stranger, and that in many cases people were delighted (and even grateful) to have had the opportunity to reflect on and consider the direction of their lives.
While I am not espousing some grim research-as-therapy model, I think we sometimes underestimate how much people like talking about themselves, how rare it is to have access to a non-judgmental listener, and how little the ‘time-starved’ spend sitting back and thinking. Perhaps research, for some people, is a way getting back some of that much-valued time.
Image with thanks to Polder
2 comments 18 March 2008
