The State of Marketing Research in Saudi Arabia (2) - Professionalism

Preamble

Professionalism, quality, and competence are loose terms that can be interpreted in different ways by practitioners of this profession. For some, they mean adopting best practices in conducting marketing research. For others, they mean executing the research according to the standards and guidelines of global marketing-research bodies. For yet others, they mean keeping the ethics of the profession in mind while conducting the research. So how can we actually judge quality, and judge whether local or global research agencies are committed to professional ethics and delivering professional, competent work? This article is intended to raise awareness among those working in the industry — whether at the agency or on the client side. It doesn’t aim to defame any party, only to offer constructive criticism and raise awareness of the rights of clients commissioning research.

Codes of Conduct

To begin, I’d like to clarify that there are many regulations and codes of conduct published by international associations interested in this industry — chief among them ESOMAR and the MRS. I’ve gone deep into these codes and found them very logical and practical at the same time, with some marginal cultural differences that can be tailored to fit any society’s culture.

Beware of research agencies deceiving you by saying in their proposal that they comply with the code of conduct of association X, or that they are an official member of association Y. Their claim of compliance and their membership do not at all mean they follow the guidance and recommendations of those bodies — except those whom God has spared. These global bodies have no regulatory role over these agencies (at least in the Middle East), and obtaining membership isn’t particularly difficult. However, some of these associations welcome reports of any breach of their professional codes of conduct from one of their members, and I urge everyone working in this industry to report violations so that proper action can be taken. I quote below from an ESOMAR book:

“Members of ESOMAR undertake to abide by the ICC/ESOMAR International Code, and can be disbarred from the society if they are found to be in infringement of any of its rules.” — ESOMAR Handbook of Market and Opinion Research, 4th Edition, p. 1110

I recently reached out to them to understand the reporting mechanism and what supporting documents need to be attached with any report. I may devote a separate article to this once I get their response, aiming to raise awareness of this dimension and stop certain agencies from claiming compliance with the codes and rules of these reputable associations.

Many of the codes of conduct published by these associations also concern respondents — the target segments interviewed. They address respondent rights: the freedom to participate in or decline any interview, the freedom to withdraw at any moment during the interview, the importance of disclosing the expected interview duration without giving misleading estimates, not pushing respondents to answer in a certain way, and above all respecting their privacy — starting from not using their contact information for purposes other than quality control, and ending with not recording their voice without permission. There are also specialized codes for conducting research in respondents’ homes, with children, with patients, and other categories that require a particular approach. The question that arises here: have field researchers in Saudi Arabia been trained on or shown these codes of conduct?

Quality

A high-quality agency should be characterized by integrity and transparency, should keep its promises, and should build mutual trust with the entities commissioning research from it. For example: I had a personal experience with one research agency. As the project was nearing completion, the project manager told me he had discovered a high percentage of fraud and cheating cases by field researchers. He told me this transparently and offered me either to extend the project to replace the tampered questionnaires, or to cancel the project without paying a single halala. How would you view this person if you were in my place? With this act — which harmed his own agency’s interest — he gave me a huge dose of trust, and I appreciated this transparency in indescribable ways.

To be fair: quality at marketing-research agencies in Saudi Arabia is tied more to people than to the agencies themselves. I mean: the person who will manage your project is the deciding factor in the level of quality you get. The variation among people working in this field here is wide. The primary reason behind low quality — starting with the global firms before the local ones — is capitalism and greed: maximizing profit with minimum available resources.

Quality can also mean the existence of high standards for controlling the quality of completed work, and this varies from agency to agency — some of it never goes beyond ink on paper. You may be shocked to find that work was delivered at very poor quality and that everyone at the agency, from the most junior to the most senior, knows this and turns a blind eye. Our experiences with multiple agencies — and what we hear from colleagues in the profession — give us a clearer picture of the agencies operating here, the trustworthiness of those running them, and their care (or lack of it) for delivering good or bad work.

Quality also means that if you take the research recommendations and apply the results, the impact and return on your investment in this research will be tangible and clear. If applying the results and recommendations leads to negative outcomes, that’s an indicator that the agency’s execution quality was poor — assuming the other factors related to deliverable quality (such as instrument design and sampling frame) were done professionally, since the problem could lie with either of those.

The level of service to clients commissioning research is one of the criteria affecting agency reputation and quality. Many agencies call the department where research project managers sit “Client Services” — but as usual, the levels vary widely. I’ve lived through several cases where the level of client service from local agencies was much better than from global ones. Unfortunately, some agencies here follow the approach of providing differentiated service levels based on the name of the commissioning party and its marketing-research budget. If the client has deep pockets, they fawn over them and try to please them by any means; if it’s a small client, they deliver service as if they’re doing them a favor by executing the research. I have two observations here.

Observation 1: With all due respect, anyone from any agency who asks about your annual marketing-research budget is lacking in professionalism. The question is very similar to asking about a salary — do you think being asked about your monthly salary by anyone is acceptable? Of course not.

Observation 2: The scarcity mindset and senior researchers’ unwillingness to teach new employees. What does this have to do with quality and service? Let me give a personal example. When I first entered this industry, God tested me with a direct manager who held this mindset and didn’t like to teach me anything — as if teaching me would mean I’d steal his place overnight. But the problem isn’t here. The problem is how these agencies tolerate inexperienced, green researchers managing projects for big-name companies. This happened to me before I’d completed 6 months at the first research firm where I started: they handed me two projects to manage for a global car company and another project for a large local dairy company, and in short — in those two projects I made a complete mess. The error here is letting your employees learn at your clients’ expense rather than teaching them and then letting them manage projects professionally.

Professional Ethics

Among the ethics of the profession is that agencies stand by the promises they give to the client and don’t inflate expectations. Two quick examples.

Example 1: I received a proposal not long ago in which the agency stated that they had a field-researcher army of 1,000 people. They were lying — if we gathered all the field researchers in the Kingdom currently working as cooperating contractors, they wouldn’t add up to that number.

Example 2: keeping promises. Research agencies know that two of the most influential criteria for winning a project are project cost and execution timeline. For execution time, some agencies set an unrealistic timeline (very short) to play this card and win the project. When they start execution, you find them delaying beyond the agreed timeline in indescribable ways. At that point, applying penalties won’t help if the information needed for a critical decision is late.

Among the ethics of the profession is that you, as a researcher, voice your professional opinion to the commissioning party rather than literally executing their requests. Unfortunately, some agencies here follow the second approach: they take the commissioning party’s instructions and execute them as-is, even if they’re wrong. This calamity also applies to several other industries like advertising and social media. As an example: if a client requests marketing research and the methodology they propose is wrong or doesn’t help achieve the research objectives, the agency should explain the downsides of the proposed methodology, propose an alternative methodology, and explain why they chose it.

In my latest book — Managing Marketing Research on the Client Side — I expanded on several topics related to this article. It’s worth quoting a portion related to professional ethics. You’ll find it below.

There is no professional oath for researchers as there is for lawyers, accountants, doctors, or pharmacists — but I’d like there to be one. I’ll suggest the text below myself, and I’ll also mention some ethics that every researcher working in any company should commit to.

A Marketing Researcher’s Oath

I swear by Almighty God to carry out the company’s research with complete integrity, to do everything I can to serve it, to preserve its secrets even after my resignation, to respect international standards for marketing research and abide by their guidelines, and to practice the profession in a manner consistent with labor laws.

A Code of Ethics

I’ve dedicated this code to researchers working on the client side, though many points apply to both.

a. Toward the marketing-research industry

The researcher must not engage in any conduct that damages the industry’s reputation or diminishes its standing.

b. Toward the company the researcher works for

Preserve the company’s secrets even after resignation and after joining other companies.
Choose vendors based on competence, not on preference or personal acquaintance.
Verify the quality of the research and that its execution follows the standards stipulated internationally.
Do not tamper with study results to harm or benefit any party — that is betrayal of trust and forgery.

c. Toward the client — the party commissioning the research

Give the client the opportunity to verify some of the completed work or to directly supervise it.
Help the client read the results and use them properly.
Do not share study results with anyone except the people concerned; do not leak them internally under any circumstances.

d. Toward the research agencies

Do not accept any gifts from anyone — including meal invitations.
Make sure all dues are paid for work that has been completed.
Do not speak ill of any agency or anyone working there; limit your dealings with them to whether or not you choose to work with them.
Do not freeze payment of research vendors’ dues to extract additional requests that were not agreed upon in advance.

e. Toward respondents (interview participants), or “the researched,” as they are also called

Confirm the matter of confidentiality with respondents — disclosure is not permitted per industry standards.
State the expected and required duration of the interview before it begins.
Preserve the confidentiality of respondents’ identities and don’t link their results to their identities without consent.
Make sure the interview contains nothing that could insult or hurt the respondent’s feelings.
Do not exploit the interview for purposes other than research — for instance, to try to sell or market any product.
The respondent has complete freedom to participate or not, and the right to discontinue the interview at any time they wish.

Closing

I ask God to benefit you with what I’ve written, and to motivate service providers to be more careful in delivering their work professionally, and to motivate research commissioners to be aware of their rights and demand them.

← Articles MOC