| |
|
FMR’S QUALITY RESEARCH CHECKLIST |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
FMR |
"The Other Company" |
| |
| 1. |
Is the company owned by a (potentially) competitive broadcast company, consultancy, advertising agency or other competitive business? |
No |
? |
| | | | |
| 2. |
Does the company offer other services (such as programming consultation, advertising or telemarketing services) to sell, pitch and/or promote? |
No |
? |
| | | | |
| 3. |
Does the research company have other clients in your market targeted toward your same demographic audience? |
No |
? |
| | | | |
| 4. |
Does the company "farm out" much of its fielding operations so reliability is difficult to control? |
No |
? |
| | | | |
| 5. |
Does the company’s research method “sacrifice” objectivity (to save the company money or headaches) using the rationale that it is “just like Arbitron” (i.e., self-administered music tests)? |
No |
? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
FMR |
"The Other Company" |
| | | | |
| 1. |
Did the company actually invent and pioneer the technology (like the EARS® system in 1983 -- the original "dial" system), or just come up with a "recent alternative"? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 2. |
Are the company’s research "innovations" actually a better way of gathering data (see the EARS® Quality Research Comparison) and not just a "cheaper"/easier way for the company to collect data? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 3. |
Is a recommended methodology the best for your needs (not the only thing the company really knows how to do)? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 4. |
Does the company know how to use multi-research platforms to ensure the most valid and reliable results, yielding both qualitative and statistically-projectable results? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 5. |
Does the company have a track record of service-marked research innovations (like Behavographic® Segmentation, EARS® Music Research or PPM-like real-time content testing)? |
Yes |
? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
FMR |
"The Other Company" |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| 1. |
Does its apparent “lower price” sacrifice a “controlled” testing environment - and true projectability - such as “take home, self-administered tests,” self-directed phone or Internet surveys, and/or individually-administered “headphone” tests? |
No |
? |
| | | | |
| 2. |
Does the company require you to commit to a long-term expensive program, including services you may or may not need (or want)? |
No |
? |
| | | | |
| 3. |
Are the company's call-out respondents comprised of a pre-recruited panel of continually re-used respondents (not fresh and randomly-recruited each wave)? |
No |
? |
| | | | |
| 4. |
Does the fee quoted for a project seem “too good to be true”? (And probably is.) |
No |
? |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
FMR |
"The Other Company" |
| |
| 1. |
Are reports clearly written with analysis and insight provided for every question, and not just a lot of tables? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 2. |
Are there specific, supportable recommendations, along with an Executive Summary of Findings? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 3. |
Is there a personal PowerPoint presentation summarizing the study and its findings? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 4. |
Do the company’s call-out reports clearly trend and track all previous results in an easy-to-use, clear format? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 5. |
Do program content studies (like EARS® Morning Show evaluations) offer specific positive and negative elements of execution and specific recommendations to improve appeal based on qualitative and quantitative evaluations? |
Yes |
? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
FMR |
"The Other Company" |
| |
| 1. |
Do the company’s Format Opportunity studies include projectable (and consistently reliable) Arbitron shares for each alternative tested? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 2. |
On each project, do you work directly with the company’s research principal who has more than 30 years of perceptual research analysis experience? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 3. |
Has the company’s focus group methodology been described as “the best in the business” by leading programmers and marketing professionals? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 4. |
Does the company’s format share projection analysis take into account not only audience appeal (potential tune-in), but also competitive factors and associations, as well as key competitor “vulnerabilities,” as part of its analysis and recommendation support? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 5. |
Does the company control all of its perceptual research functions, thus providing a complete Dial Analysis and Incident Rate factor that can reliably be used in its analysis? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 6. |
Are the company’s recommendations based on your project’s findings, including cross-validated questions and market-specific results (and not “gut feel” or “previous market” experience)? |
Yes |
? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
FMR |
"The Other Company" |
| | | | |
| 1. |
Do the company’s perceptual studies include a complete analysis of all key demographic and "behavographic" variables (such as Arbitron diary-keepers or PPM-panelist types) when suggesting recommended actions? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 2. |
Are the results of an entire library music test available the morning after the last session in an Excel file - sortable any way you wish? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 3. |
Can the company’s use of statistical techniques (such as Correlation Analysis) be explained and used in a way that is relatable for your goals and objectives (not just sound impressive or “academic”)? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 4. |
Can a complete perceptual tracking/music mapping and/or strategic market study be completed in three weeks or less? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 5. |
Is the company independently-owned with no agenda on how the research outcome or strategic direction will affect other co-owned operating units? |
Yes |
? |
| | | | |
| 6. |
Are the recommendations and insights provided in an Action Plan unique to your station and market (and not just one of the company’s “paint-by-numbers” programs)? |
Yes |
? |
|
|
|