When did ‘research’ become ‘insight’?

At some stage, under the radar, a transformation occurred – but why does it matter? asks David Brennan, founder of Media Native.

I’m somewhat intrigued about the transformation of research into insight within the client, agency and media owner worlds. I was a bit out of the loop at the time it happened, working in Sydney, Australia, where, in the media world at least, such seismic changes went unregistered.

I thought Google might provide me with the answer, but I searched ‘when did research become insight?’ in vain; there were no answers within the first few screens before I gave up, only lots of ads offering DIY survey software and research into the Honda Insight’s engineering excellence.

In the far more reliable search engine I call ‘my head’, I came up with the answer ‘just over a decade ago’ which I think is as accurate as we need. Human 1 Google 0.

I can see why the transformation occurred under the radar; in those days of irrational exuberance, before the financial crisis sobered us up, we were still getting our heads around a tidal wave of innovative executive positions. Director of Freshness. Chief Cool Explorer. VP in charge of Hustle & Flow*. So a little nudge along from Head of Research to Head of Insight went by largely unnoticed in the broader sweep of our business world. It almost seemed inevitable.

Following the emergence of web 2.0, it felt at times as if research had to become insight, otherwise it would become swamped by the digital data explosion that was already beginning to send many an analytics dashboard aquiver.

In many organisations, traditional data-based ‘research’ would have been swiftly relegated to a subset of a much more diverse and fast-moving data flow, whereas ‘insight’ could offer a more strategic, holistic perspective. It also seemed to fit the Zeitgeist of those slightly fluffy, Blairite days. More importantly, it offered us all an opportunity to raise our game.

So, did we manage it? Well, as is often the case, there’s a little bit of yes and a little bit of no.

‘Yes’, because we see the results every time a new and innovative piece of insight is reported, which is often; just look at the sterling work from the media trade bodies in recent years, or the application of insight into effective planning demonstrated by the agencies.

We have a steady supply of new methodologies and enabling technologies (TouchPoints is, in essence, the old BBC Daily Life survey methodology boosted via mobile data collection).

On top of all that, we have learned how to communicate often complex findings and insights in more creative and engaging ways. In that sense, insight has proven to have been far more noticeable, engaging and relevant than boring, old ‘research’ ever seemed able to achieve.

‘No’, because the insights that we unearth, analyse and communicate still often get drowned out by the sheer volume of data that erupts from the digital pipelines. I’m not quite sure how that could have been avoided, but its roots lie in the inevitable split that occurred when research became insight.

I’m not saying insight became totally divorced from the analytics, but there has always been a degree or two of separation. In the early years at least, analytics was ‘owned’ by the digital department and treated independently from research.

I would also suggest that, to some extent, insight’s contribution to some major big data projects has been much less than it should have been. Insight and analytics generally inhabited parallel universes.

Meanwhile, we began to grapple with the very meaning of many of the numbers such big data projects rely upon in an age of non-human interactions, invisible exposure and ‘bought’ earned media. There has been a growing sense in recent years that the data is often compromised and rarely accurate, which helps to account for the poorer than expected performance of many digital media innovations (VOD, online-only newsbrands, online display advertising) and has certainly helped lead to some less than optimum investments.

Which is why, whilst celebrating insight’s achievements, one should also mourn a little for the demise of research. Because one of the key elements of the research department’s traditional function as the gatekeeper of the data was to ensure the accuracy and reliability of that data. There were countless back-office specialists who spent sleepless nights trying to ensure the numbers were watertight and the findings reflected the real world as far as possible.

I believe some of those disciplines were compromised when research became insight at a time when analytics dramatically increased their scope, scale and influence. Numbers became…well, just more numbers. Some were bigger, better, faster, newer than others but, through the haze, numbers became facts and prophecies began to self-fulfil. In particular, the digital teams had a vested interest in promoting the speed and impact of disruption by producing the biggest numbers possible, no questions asked.

So, for example, we were promised the death of brands, channels, print, advertising, TV, media, reading and even websites well before 2014, but in the end the numbers didn’t add up because they were rarely representative and often wrong.

Unfortunately, they were also rarely challenged, because the research gatekeepers had become the insight communicators and quantity appeared to trump quality; and, as always, the numbers won.

Or maybe not. Because, one thing I have noticed on my journey through media research these last ten years is that insight may still not yet have the visibility or obvious influence that data analytics has enjoyed, but many of the deeper insights we have unearthed have now become an integral part of the way our business operates.

In most meetings and events I have attended recently, there is a consensus emerging about the role of emotion in advertising, the power of our subconscious awareness, the complex roles that brands play, the importance of context and much, much more.

In short, the success of insight has been primarily at an implicit level. Most non-insight professionals in our industry would struggle to quote you more than a handful of numbers deriving from the data, but many of them will be making their calculations based on stuff they ‘just know’ but which has been shaped by the insights we have created and communicated. And, if you think about it, that’s exactly as it should be.

This is not to say that insight should yield ground on the issue of numbers altogether, although I believe we should be much more vocal about some of the more misleading industry claims based on data that traditional research professionals would have rejected out of hand.

Numbers will always be important. But the insights that we deliver through quality data, depth of analysis and engaging communication will last a lot longer and end up being a great deal more influential.

We just won’t necessarily notice it.

*only one of these is made up.

To get all the latest MediaTel Newsline updates follow us on Twitter.