What Are the Most Important Market Intelligence Challenges according to Frank Van Durme?

How Market Intelligent is Your Company?

What are the most important Market Intelligence challenges?

There is nothing new under the sun. But mastering, analysing and making Market Intelligence information available in a user-friendly way continue to be difficult. When I ask clients for certain data, for instance, getting them often entails a very arduous process.

Another typical challenge is switching to new systems such as SAP, for example. The current tools used for MI have often historically grown in an Excel or Access environment, making it difficult and costly to switch to new, extensive programmes.

I also tend to question increasingly the reliability of research:

• People are becoming less and less critical about data that are stored in systems. The reliability of that information often leaves a great deal to be desired. Garbage in, garbage out.
• Communication between different systems often does not run smoothly either.
• People can be too easily satisfied with quick and dirty research without being aware of the consequences.
• The translation process is not always successful because data are misinterpreted and representativeness ignored. 

What are the trends in Market Intelligence, in your view?

Data mining, data warehousing: people are faced with a mountain of data and they do not really know how to deal with them. Converting data into MI and a good knowledge management system still constitute a challenge for many companies.

My dream is to be able to interconnect internal and external data (better/more efficiently) so as to be able to make forecasts. This is still in its embryonic phase.

When segmenting a customer base, for instance, the process is often scarcely linked to market research data, so this segmentation often remains very basic.

Does Market Intelligence get sufficient buy-in from your experience? If not, what could you advise so as to gain credibility? Certainly with top management.

I think that at times the problem lies with the transformation of the information to the top management.

Before the information reaches them, it can be simplified very extensively, interpreted wrongly, etc. – with a loss of credibility as a result.

But this statement should be qualified, as it depends on the corporate culture. I have noted, for instance, that Anglo-American companies are far more data-driven.

In a more hierarchically structured company such as banks, for example, the way to top management is far longer; whereas in a transversal environment communication between top management and the rank and file can be far faster.

One tip that I can give is to develop a very strong dashboard system, where the most important parameters for the company are properly monitored.

Make sure that it can be used by top management and that it can be consulted easily and frequently. Because they will then be able to gauge the return on investment better at once.

Should Market Intelligence people have training or a background in marketing?

Training in marketing is not the key to success, in my view. Marketing and market research are separate fields which must cooperate closely but are complementary to each other.

An MI person must be a good researcher, first and foremost. The skills that such a person must have are: being able to turn data into information, analyse, synthesise and establish connections.

S/he must have training that has taught you to deal with data: psychology, sociology, economics, etc.

Moreover, s/e must be able to draw inspiration from things outside his or her area of expertise/job content in order to gain a broader insight into people and society, trends that are taking shape, barriers that (can) emerge.

Often you arrive at a different (and better) insight by taking a look at company-related affairs/data as an outsider with an open/global vision.

In your experience, are sufficient tools used in Market Intelligence? What are good tools, in your view?

I am referring to the SAP story cited in my answer on the first question. I think that SAP is a very important and advanced tool.

Furthermore, there is a great difference between B2B and B2C. Nowadays, you see that B2C fast moving companies are – or should be — extremely busy with social media data. I would like to add a critical note here.

The danger of social media is that people are bound to see easily what they want to see, and not to approach the data critically enough.

Furthermore, SPSS has become very commonplace in most companies. But ultimately, this is only a tool.

Do people do enough with the results obtained from market research? Or are they filed away too often, in your view?

It is up to Market Intelligence to convince everyone that market research is useful. A Market Intelligence department must not limit its task to just doing research.

They also have the responsibility to share their results, make them understandable, and show their utility. They must make sure that the work is not shelved.

What is your assessment in general, or what are your experiences with the place that MI departments are given in organisations?

If I could choose, Market Intelligence would report directly to top management, so that no information could get lost.

A direct communication line between top management and the MI department is/can be very fruitful – certainly when decisions have to be taken. A good knowledge management system as a basic tool is an absolute precondition.

I would never have Market Intelligence fall under sales or marketing. If you were to ask sales in a B2B environment whether they need research, they will easily say no or that they do not see the need for it.

They are in direct contact with the customer and that presupposes that they know the customer very well. What they forget is that the customer will certainly not tell them everything. Sales has other objectives than marketing or Market Intelligence.

What do you think about working together with external firms for market intelligence assignments?

You cannot always do everything yourself. So you are very often obliged to cooperate as a result. But that is not always possible without danger.

Owing to confidentiality and forgetfulness, companies will not always provide all important information to the external firm. People try to protect their own department in this way.

I think that is not totally incomprehensible, because in many market research firms, people will have to work together chiefly with juniors. And there is a high turnover.

People don’t dare put any time in a long-term relationship because they know that it will probably not materialise.

As a result, only the data are acquired externally in many companies, while the analyses and data interpretation are done in-house in order to retain control.

Can you measure the Return on Investment of Market Intelligence? If so, how?

This is certainly measurable. A very crucial question here is: What would be the cost if we conducted no research?

A wrong decision taken without market research can cost a company more than the research. Furthermore, you can assess what income to expect on the basis of the research.

For instance, a research study into the willingness to pay, price elasticity, etc.

The impact of an advertisement is also perfectly measurable by means of trial tests beforehand.
And that is not done sufficiently, in my view. You see that in the low quality of advertising nowadays.

Research need not always be expensive, for that matter. We must remember that we can always fall back on existing research. You need not always start researching anew.

Furthermore, the following rule applies: the more concretely a problem is defined, the easier it will be to measure the return on investment – such as customer satisfaction research, which is very easy to measure.

To conclude

I personally attach a great deal of importance to translating available data into intelligent data. This requires experience in the market, sector, etc.

Ideally, you make a different presentation each time, depending on the target group. A report for the market research department requires a completely different approach than a report for sales which in turn differs considerably from a report for marketing.