Four Subtle Sins in Marketing Research

Abstract

T ODAY'S marketing manager finds himself faced with a growing accumulation of research data that he must read, interpret, and translate into policies and programs. This information is provided by a variety of sources, including the firm's own marketing intelligence group, independent marketing research and consulting firms, advertising agencies, trade associations, and a wide range of research studies reported in the professional literature. The usefulness of this information is often diminished because of poor communication between researchers and managers. At least two factors contribute to this situation. First, there is the problem of semantics. Terms such as significant, correlation, variance, and random have statistical meanings that vary from their vernacular usage. A second factor is carelessness. Data seldom, if ever, speak for themselves; they have to be interpreted. The purpose of this article is to present a clear, basic treatment of four common sources of misunderstanding in conducting and interpreting marketing research studies:

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 33 citations exist upstream.