Raise your hand if you’ve seen this topic being discussed a million times!!!
Yet, it still continues to be one of the most painful points in market research. We can identify the businesses we need for our study, in the right industry, the right company size, operating in the market we need, even using the exact product or service we want to research. However, this is only step one towards our goal as all of this may be for nothing if we cannot interview the right respondent who should be answering our questions.
Oftentimes the respondent needs to hold a certain level of responsibility, or influence a particular decision, maybe have a more recent experience with specific products or services, or just possess direct knowledge of the topic that’s being researched. And then sometimes, the criteria that’s needed, is ALL OF THE ABOVE.
This is where things get complicated.
A job title does not always tell the whole story
One of the first challenges in B2B studies, is that job titles are not as reliable as they look.
To set an example, a Procurement Director in one company may be fully responsible for selecting suppliers; whereas a person with the exact same title in another organization, may only be involved in contract negotiations, while the actual decision making power sits with Operations, Finance or senior management.
This becomes more prominent in international studies where titles and responsibilities between departments may vary between the markets.
What we can conclude here, is that finding someone with the right title, does not necessarily mean we have found the right respondent.
What actually matters most, is WHAT the person actually does.
This is where phone interviewing fits the bill, as it often happens that the interviewers speak with multiple people within the same organization before finding the person with the right responsibilities or level of involvement that we’re looking for exactly.
Good screening should reflect reality
Is it too taboo to discuss good and bad screening? Let’s say not and do it anyway, and hope we don’t step on anyone’s toes.
Bad screening can sometimes happen with over-defining the target on paper, in such a way that it does not match how decisions are really made within the organizations we want to interview; or we’re too fixated on a decision making role that may actually NOT possess the knowledge we’re after.
Say we’re doing brand research on specific tools. Do we persist on interviewing decision-makers who may turn out to be office sitting people, or do we want to interview a person who’s out in field using that type of tool on a daily basis?
Often while scoping a project, certain B2B target groups appear to be quite large and the project seems quite feasible. However, then we may introduce company size, industries, specific areas of responsibility, maybe a product needs to be used, decision making powers, or maybe an actual decision had to be made in the past year.
All of this may significantly narrow our pool of respondents, and then suddenly the project doesn’t seem as feasible as we thought.
However, a narrow target does not necessarily become an impossible one. BUT, the project team really needs to understand what makes this audience difficult, and what level of effort is realistically required to reach them.
Once in field, the team needs to gather as much feedback as possible, like where people are screening in/out, whether the responsibilities differ from the initial expectations, and whether the original assumptions are actually realistic.
This is why we need to focus more on what adds value to our research, rather than filtering people out on titles or decision-making powers that only look good on paper (and making the screener an interviewer’s nightmare).
And then come the gatekeepers
Wouldn’t it be perfect if we called a company’s number, ask for our target respondent and get connected immediately? Ahh, if only…
Anyone who’s ever worked on a CATI project knows that passing the initial barriers like secretaries, assistants, switchboards or someone from a different department, is the first and most important step in B2B projects. These are the people our interviewers talk to first, and these conversations are essential in the identification process.
Experienced interviewers know how to clearly explain the purpose of the call, precisely describe the type of person they need to speak with, and gather all information needed to get them closer to the right respondent.
Despite often being viewed as a barrier, gatekeepers are not always the obstacle we imagine them to be. If the conversation is handled correctly, i.e. the interviewer is clear, honest and professional; they can be quite an asset.
They often possess wide knowledge of the organization and may be able to tell us if a certain job title is different or doesn’t exist in their company, if a specific responsibility sits with another department, or maybe the person we’ve asked for has switched roles, and now someone else sits in that chair.
Sample quality gets you through the door
Good sample is the essence of a B2B CATI project.
We need accurate company information like correct industry and company size, correct contact numbers and if available, the correct respondent info. However, organizations experience changes that cannot be captured in a sample file.
People leave, or switch departments.
Companies restructure.
Departments change.
Responsibilities shift.
And some information may never be publicly available in the first place…
This is where CATI comes in with another level of validation. Interviewers are not only working through the sample, they are actively confirming whether the information still reflects reality.
Sample is indeed what gets us through the door, but the interviewing process gets us to the right desk.
One of the most difficult, and if I may say, overlooked quality issues in B2B research is that an interview with the wrong respondent may actually look perfectly fine. They answered all questions, LOI is perfectly normal, answers are logical and consistent, and simply nothing raises a flag.
But if that respondent does not meet the criteria we need, this interview is not something we need in our data set.
Instead of waiting for data cleaning which may already be too late, quality control begins before the main questionnaire does.
It unfolds as: good screening, clear respondent definitions, interviewer training and briefings in order to make sure that every completed interview represents the audience the research was actually designed to understand.
The right respondent is worth the extra effort
B2B research often requires a lot of patience until we pass all barriers to get things moving.
However, all of this extra effort is what makes these interviews so valuable.
The objective here is not just to reach a number of completes, but to achieve those numbers with people who genuinely match and can contribute to our research.
Reaching 100 respondents in B2B studies is one thing, but reaching the RIGHT 100 people is another story.
At GDCC we support B2B CATI studies across specialized professionals, senior decision-makers, and hard-to-reach B2B audiences across many markets globally.
For us, finding and qualifying the right respondent is not just part of fieldwork, it’s part of the quality of the research.
GDCC – The CATI Consultants