Market Research Use of Secondary

Market Research

Use of Secondary Research

In evaluating the use of secondary research in both the article Interpersonal influence and consumer innovativeness (Clark, Goldsmith 2006) and from Economist (2007), a Magic Potion?; Wellness drinks both show varying degrees of effective use of secondary research to support hypotheses and key points of the research.

Beginning with the article which discusses the influences of interpersonal influences on consumer innovativeness (Clark, Goldsmith 2006), the authors have posited three hypotheses in an attempt to measure how social, media, peer expectations and behavior, and perceptions of referent groups' preferences influence the purchasing and product use attitudes, behavior and first adoption of products by the class of consumers considered innovators. The authors argue that those consumers who are innovators or early adopters are less constrained by social comparison cues, including how their purchases define themselves. Instead, the authors contend that across all measurement instruments mentioned in the article including the multi-item scale to measure consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence (SUSCEP) and the use of the 13-item Attention to Social Comparison Information (ATSCI), innovators tend to score relatively low on these measures of social comparison and instead show high levels of autonomy both in attitudes and decision making behavior.

The authors (Clark, Goldsmith 2006) also define the concept of role-relaxed consumers who are more concerned with the utilitarian aspects of the product than in its relative referent value in defining who they are. The authors propose that those who score high on innovation through the use of their multi-item role relaxed consumer (RCC) metric the greater the level of innovativeness or early adoption on the part of consumers (Clark, Goldsmith 2006).

Use of secondary data throughout the article Interpersonal influence and consumer innovativeness centers on validating the foundational aspects of the article and also supporting the need for primary research to further either validate or refute the three hypotheses that form the foundation of the primary research of the article. The authors rely extensively on secondary research to further refine their research design to center on the specific aspects of how innovativeness as a trait in consumers influences early adopter behavior. From the accumulated research of forty-four cited articles the authors (Clark, Goldsmith 2006) also infer that the level of innovativeness of an early adopter has a significant influence on other purchasers due to the former groups' credibility and superior knowledge. The secondary research of the article does support this finding, yet does not discuss how the enthusiastic support for new products delivers the next phase in consumer adoption as Geoffrey Moore does in his often-quoted book, Crossing the Chasm (Davidson, Leavy, 2007). Both Moore and other researchers (Easingwood, Moxey, Capleton, 2006) contend that any manufacturer or service provider must first create a very loyal and concentrated set of innovators to fuel the launch of the next generation of customers into the product lifecycle. This is certainly the foundation of Crossing the Chasm and has direct implications on the need of companies to manage the innovator learning and development process (Easingwood, Moxey, Capleton, 2006). When this dynamic is considered as part of the innovator's role as a catalyst for building an entirely new market, the secondary data included in the article authored by Clark and Goldsmith illustrates that first there is substantial validation of how innovators are created. Yet there is a lack of data specifically on the role of innovators on the product lifecycle, and further, how the research design that is comprised of respondents from undergraduate students can be extrapolated to a broader population of customers. As there is no single product or service defined yet the concept of innovators being recognized and credible experts is proven, yet their longitudinal effects on sales is not. This is arguably the more critical question and associated set of hypotheses to be responded to from a practically standpoint. Manufacturers and service providers both are more concerned about the long-term effects of their strategies at driving up lifetime customer value through a concerted set of strategies including the influencing and growth of innovators and early adopters. While the research for this specific article is excellently captured and provides a solid foundation for is a first phase of research, a longitudinal study that takes into account more factors and a more diverse respondent base that would include multiple research audiences is crucial if the body of knowledge in this area is to grow (Hirunyawipada, Paswan, 2006).

With regard to the second article, a Magic Potion?; Wellness drinks from the Economist (2007), the lack of secondary research is so glaring as to make the claims of weight reduction from drinking the new beverage unbelievable. The entire article could have been two sentences, with the first announcing the drink and the second, that the research had not been released. Further, the investment and financial analyst quoted says he does not like the taste, yet is that relevant? It seems as if the data included in the article is to pump up the Coca-Cola stock price and little else. Secondary data as to the size of the market, Coke's relative market share and the fact that Coke is having trouble with the Centre for Science in the Public Interest all underscores how a lack of secondary data can seriously undermine the credibility of any message or article. For Coke, the right strategy would have been to release the actual data and then let the consumers make their own decisions. Yet the approach of not responding to critics and having an institution that has the mission of protecting th4e consumers' interest demand results makes a global company which should be seen with professionalism be viewed as amateurish. The lack of secondary data in the second article undermines its credibility.