Abstract
Keywords
There is an emerging interest in the history of market research in the United Kingdom, as seen by the creation of the Archive of Market and Social Research (AMSR—www.amsr.org.uk). Although the archive is at an early stage, its rapid development highlights how little focus there has been on analyzing the history of the sector. With the exception of historical reflection associated with anniversaries, such as Ian Blythe’s (2005) book written for the 50th anniversary of the Market Research Society (MRS), there has been limited interest in systematically exploring the past.
Although professional associations or large companies often establish formal archives, the ASMR is a rare case in seeking to represent a whole sector. That it is grown so quickly through the efforts of a voluntary team is also notable. However, for an archive to be of value it must not just exist but be used. In this viewpoint, we explore the question of why practicing market researchers and managers should care about the history of market research.
An immediate answer may be that they need not. Answering the question of why anyone should be interested in what happened long ago is one that historians are frequently called to address (Corfield, 2008). In a sector that is so often at the cutting edge of new technologies and is designed to observe the latest social and economic trends, the pursuit of the historical narrative could be seen as not just irrelevant but also a potentially harmful distraction from the pursuit of the future, the view that: “A fast-changing world leaves little time for nostalgia and irrelevant details—or, worse, strategies for winning the last war” (Seaman & Smith, 2012).
A recent article in the Journal of Marketing provides a riposte to this argument by suggesting that the speed of recent advances in research techniques leaves researchers “prone to a feel a sense of discovery.” The article argues that by not understanding what has come before practitioners lack historical context and can be left feeling that they are the pioneers who “invented” market research techniques resulting in constant reinvention of the wheel.
At this point, we confess that this “recent” article was published nearly 70 years ago (Lockley, 1950) and referred to advances in techniques made in market research practice since the 1850s. Thus, the paradox, even when discussing the need to stop reinventing the wheel, we risk reinventing the wheel.
Historical study of market research is not new. It is true that, from a historical perspective, market research does not have the profile and public awareness of sectors such as retail, where nostalgia, physical presence, and awareness among the public magnify the message. Yet, the nature of market and social research means that there are few key decisions within the economic and social life of the United Kingdom in which market and social researchers haven’t played a part.
There is an extensive literature on the development of surveys through the 19th century, chronicling the increasing professionalization of research in the United States and Germany. However, when looking at the UK market research sector, we probably know more about market research before 1940 than we do of what happened during the key post-war decades when the foundations of the contemporary industry were laid.
For academic researchers, the case for an interest in market research lies in the extent of its embeddedness into economic, political, social, and commercial life. But why should understanding the history of market research be relevant for managers? Although the sector may claim to be “the business of evidence,” does it sufficiently take into account the evidence present in its own work? We offer three specific ways in which an understanding of business history, and more specifically the history of research, can assist research practice.
First, history provides context and recognizes that “the present moment is always part of an unfolding long term, which needs to be understood” (Corfield, 2008). Without context there is the risk of researchers believing the problems they face are unique. Yet the history of research is a story of responding to new technologies, challenges with non-response and sampling, persuading managers to act on research insights, and the ongoing need to deliver projects within restricted budgets.
Second, at a time when many research activities are at risk of being commoditized history can provide people with a sense of identity. “A shared history is a large part of what binds individuals into a community . . . [and] also helps people understand what is happening around them” (Seaman & Smith, 2012). A shared understanding of history can also create a shared sense of values and an understanding of what research means.
Finally, we would suggest that the historical method could be seen as an effective tool through which common market research problems can be addressed. As the late Harvard Professor Thomas McCraw puts it, history is a way of thinking—a way of searching for patterns and trying to see if such patterns recur from one situation to another. It helps us think about the parameters of what’s possible, what the boundaries of likely action or possible success are. It is a search for pattern.
Are we so convinced that aspects of consumer behavior are so “in the moment” that it is not possible to learn anything from the past?
For all these reasons, we argue for the recognition of market research history as a topic of significance. After all, it is the policies, procedures, and practices of this professional group which, to a great extent, determine the success (or failure) of companies’ commercial activity. Certainly, there will be many different opinions as to what the study of market research history ought to achieve. Different aspects of the market research profession may have a historical dimension, such as processes and practices used by market research companies over time, the development of professional identity, training and education, standards, regulations, and changes in the research “product/service.” More developmental work is needed for a greater understanding of the history of market research, and, without doubt, there is a need for recognition of the study of market research history as a useful endeavor. We hope that this viewpoint has taken a step in that direction.
