CEO Monthly Reflection | October 2024 | Giving the Researcher the Keys to the Quality Car
Blog | October 14, 2024
By Terence McCarron
Our industry loves debating fraud prevention techniques. Commonly, parties engage in these debates with little data, but lots of opinions. Researchers may have gotten a little too vocal sounding the alarm bells out of frustration with their sample vendors. Meanwhile, sample firms push back on most independent fraud prevention techniques by leveraging “tech-talk” to sow confusion.
This combo validates the status quo while increasing the “fear factor” around the topic.
Since OpinionRoute’s inception, I was often called in to referee disputes between MR firms and their sample vendors when fraud arose. Almost always, I found the researcher had successfully identified fraud.
Since I’m a root cause guy, I explored the fraud tech scene to answer a simple question- why was this missed?. What I discovered was a surprise. The dominant tech at the time, purchased by almost every sample house, had a control lever called “threshold score” that allowed them to decide how much of the traffic would be blocked pre-survey. As I canvased the market, I saw a wild disparity of scores in practice. This was so egregious, that the biggest fraud tech was essentially useless in the industry. It was nothing more than a security blanket and marketing cover for sample firms who subscribed to it.
For years I saw this play out. I quickly realized that you can’t have fraud mechanisms controlled by the suppliers. Clients should be able to verify the quality on their own terms. They should be able to drive their own data quality strategy.
Why?
There is a big difference in motivations between buyers and sellers of sample when it comes to fraud prevention. Researchers ONLY focus on quality of the data, while sample firms have more complex considerations. Vendors walk a tightrope of quality and volume every day. They gladly accept the volume play to manage costs.
In 2018, we began a series of major investments in a Data Quality system that would make sense to the researcher. It fits into the usual project flow, while marrying researcher expertise, actual transparency, and technical prowess.
Last week, we announced the launch of our latest jewel- the QC Flow. This gives Researchers an AI-copilot for Data Cleaning in a way not previously seen in MRX. Here are some highlights:
- Survey Tool agnostic
- Transparent evaluation summary right on the screen
- Smart Tools for rapid decision making
- Researchers make every decision.
- Consistency across team member reviews.
We believe a research firm shouldn’t need to form a committee to audit new data quality tech. They shouldn’t have to play detective to get clean data because vendors hide what’s happening behind the scenes.
We are in a new world where the issue of Data Quality demands transparency and empowerment of the user. It’s also an absolute necessity that Researchers don’t drain profits by spending major hours on every project agonizing over quality decisions.
Let’s debate less and sell more Insights.
With our holistic data quality suite available through the Navigator, OpinionRoute has delivered what was not previously “allowed” for researchers in a major way. We can’t wait to show you!