I’ve attended a few of the local AMA lunches in the past, and to be brutally honest, have often ended up feeling that I wasted time by attending the programs, other than the fact that I get to network with some great folks. Yesterday, I decided to give it another chance, and consider membership. Unfortunately, I have to say that it was no exception, and if I join, it will be mainly for the discount on the #ungeeked conference and because of some of the other people who are members, not for the programming.
The program was a panel discussion on the role of social media in market research. And the panelists surely have a lot to offer; this is not intended as a slight on them in any way. John Hink, manager of competitive intel at Fiserv shared some great tools on which I had not been focused: Pipl, Glassdoor, Addictomatic. Roger Phelps from Phelps Research shared how his firm uses LinkedIn as a global executive database to recruit research participants. And Brian Hutchinson from the UW System procurement office uses social media to get intel on possible vendors and talked about cross-platform listening tools like One Riot and Connecta. All very good, very helpful people.
What was missing, though, was the healthy debate I had hoped for on the bigger picture of how social media has impacted market research. The extension of the frequently-seen online discussion of whether Twitter has killed the focus group. Any discussion on the role of social media in a broader B2C context. I think anyone who came to this meeting to get a solid overview of the issues left with an unrealistically limited view.
Oh, and did I mention there was no one introducing the panel, on the panel, or moderating the panel, of the female persuasion? I thought we had moved beyond the days of the boys club, but perhaps I was wrong. A prominent local researcher mentioned to me after the event that he had recommended me for the panel. Was I not chosen because a) I am not that involved in the organization. Fair, in a way, but don’t we want outside perspectives? b) I don’t have a penis c) I have a big mouth d) other?
Now, I’ve said before I am not the smartest person in the room, and no doubt this event was no exception. There were many very, very smart people in the room. But I actually have a fair amount to add on this topic. The aforementioned researcher and I had a great conversation after the event regarding cross-demographic consumer willingness to comment on anything and everything, down to the smallest detail, and the growing dynamic of expectation of immediate brand response. We talked about how for one of my consumer retail clients, I used social media, specifically Twitter search not to supplant traditional research but as proof that it was needed. I think I would have been able to add value, and help answer some of the questions that were asked about broader applications.
I’m not saying that I, personally, am the holy grail or the answer. What I am saying is that I surely hope that the Milwaukee AMA will consider incorporating a broader range of perspectives into their programming, and I know that I am not alone in that hope. Five middle-aged white guys in similar jobs is just not representative of the Milwaukee marketing community.
I say this with all due respect to the good people who volunteer to put these programs together. As a speaker, I know how hard it is to find the “perfect match” of speakers to a topic; it’s impossible to please everyone in the room. I wish I could volunteer to help with programming myself, but that’s just not realistic for me right now. So, to the programming volunteers, thank you for your efforts.
What do you hope for the AMA? How has your experience of it been different from (or the same as) mine?
