A surfeit of surveys?

Vincent Golding of consultancy SmartSat has a letter in today’s Financial Times, defending research from attack.

In an earlier piece headlined ‘Surfeit of surveys obscures real insight’, Andrew Hill had taken aim at “specious and self-serving published surveys”, arguing that business leaders were being asked to fill in too many of them, which were often “more marketing than market research”.

According to Hill, the future lies in proprietary research with a focus on passive data collection, rather than irritating surveys designed to get publicity. He raises an eyebrow at supposedly scientific poll results, saying that “precision in market research is irrelevant. What companies need is early insight into whether a product or strategy is working”.

Golding begs to differ, saying that precision – or a lack of it – is at the heart of the matter. He bemoans surveys that “do not reflect reality with sufficient accuracy to be believable or meaningful” but says the real problem isn’t a surfeit of surveys, it’s “the abundant misuse of weak information by people who are poorly advised”.