Monday, December 30, 2013

Asia’s evolving food demand presents opportunities in Australia. @


Australia’s clean-green image and safety record with better-for-you products puts agribusinesses in the perfect position to cater for Asia’s evolving food demand. Agribusiness View looks at the benefits to the Australian agricultural industry.
There are strong opportunities for Australian agribusinesses as key Asian markets are increasingly demanding high quality, safe and healthy food.
This was one of the headline insights from the Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) recent report, A Healthy Future for All? Improving food quality for Asia, which was sponsored by NAB.
While previous forecasts have focused on population growth and export quantity, General Manager of NAB Agribusiness Khan Horne says the EIU report showed Australian agribusinesses need to look beyond simply volume and respond to the evolving market. “The increasing demand for safe and reliable food in Asia is creating further opportunities for the Australian agriculture sector,” Mr Horne said.
“A growing consumer interest in health and wellness is being reflected in increased demand for better-for-you products. Australia’s clean-green image and safety record mean our reputation in this space is very strong.
“This is more good news for Australian producers who are looking at ways of supplying both base commodities and value-added products to Asia.”

Going overseas

The report also notes larger food companies in China are increasingly looking abroad to meet future demand for safe, high quality food. This saw outbound mergers and acquisitions activity in the food and beverage sector increase 117 percent last year.
NAB has found local companies are also increasingly teaming up with reputable foreign players to address quality control and brand credibility to meet this demand.
A recent NAB Agribusiness survey of more than 5,000 agribusinesses Australia-wide found 21 percent have international dealings. The majority of these businesses (64 percent) have dealings with Asia.
The fishing and aquaculture sector is most engaged, with 37 percent of businesses dealing with Asian markets. This is followed by horticulture at 25 percent, cropping at 11 percent and livestock at 10 percent.
Over the next five years, the proportion of agribusinesses with dealings in Asia is expected to jump from 13 to 18 percent.
“This is an exciting time for Australian producers and agribusiness. Listening and responding to market signals, particularly around the growing demand for high quality produce, is vital to ensure we make the most of opportunities,” Mr Horne said.
“To support Australian agribusinesses looking to take advantage of the evolving market, we’ve appointed Roger Gaudion in the newly created role of Head of Agribusiness, Asia Desk.
“Roger will be assisting our agribusiness customers to source opportunities in Asia as well as facilitating investment in Australian agribusinesses.”

EIU report key findings for agribusiness

  • Demand for safe and nutritious food will rise drastically across Asia in the next five years. Consumer spending is predicted to rise from US $2.8 trillion in 2012 to US $3.7 trillion.
  • China’s larger food companies are increasingly looking abroad to meet future demand for safe, high-quality food at home.
  • Demand for products perceived to be healthier is growing as obesity continues to rise.
  • Global food companies have a large role to play in improving food safety, yet in some markets they are discouraged from investing.
  • Market demand for safe food will be a major driver of corporate activity in the near future.
  • Rapidly growing cross-border trade in food and livestock is making monitoring of food quality difficult.
  • Food companies will need to make investments to maintain the integrity of supply chains, notably in China
  • A regional regulatory regime will be difficult to create based on Europe’s experience.
  • Food companies selling processed food in the region are coming under growing public pressure to be more proactive in tackling the issue of obesity, as governments explore both public health campaigns and regulatory mechanisms to tackle the problem.

A practical approach can make the farm a safer place

Farming is one of the more dangerous occupations in Australia. Twenty five percent of all work-related deaths occur on farms yet farms account for just 10 percent of workplaces.
“Things are getting better”, says John Temperley, Executive Officer of Farmsafe Australia. “For example, fatalities have fallen from an average of 150 a year between 1989 and 1992 to fewer than 60 last year. But we still have a long way to go.”
Farmers are keen to do all they can to promote safety procedures, though some aren’t sure where to start. Farmsafe Australia is committed to helping them over this hurdle by developing resources and promoting strategies that are both practical and easy to apply.
“One of our most successful programs was promoting tractor safety,” says Temperley. “We had evidence that farmers were dying from tractor rollovers so we asked state governments to subsidise the retro fitment of rollover protection structures (ROPS) on older tractors that didn’t have cabins. Since the program was introduced, the number of deaths from tractor rollovers has fallen from a peak of 35 to seven last year.”
Another major concern was the number of young children who were drowning or being run over by farm vehicles or machinery. “We now recommend that all farmers create a safe play area for children,” says Temperley. “This way, if the supervising adults are distracted, the toddlers can’t wander into danger. 20 percent of farm deaths are children, some of them toddlers and young children.”
At the other end of the spectrum, farmers over the age of 55 are four times more likely to be injured than younger adults. “As we age we become less agile, our eyesight and hearing might fail and we’re more likely to make mistakes,” says Temperley. “This is something older farmers need to make allowances for. Also, as many older farmers retire from, say, mixed farming or a grain business to a smaller block with cattle, there’s an increase in livestock-related injuries in this age group.”
A continuing concern is the number of deaths and injuries caused by quad bikes. “Since 1989, we’ve seen an increase in the average number of fatalities a year from one to 19, mostly as a result of rollovers,” says Temperley. “We recommend that farmers fit a crush protection device on all of their quad bikes and that riders always wear a helmet. As children account for 20 percent of the deaths, we also strongly advise that no-one under the age of 16 is allowed to ride a quad bike of any size, even those designed for children.”

5 practical steps to a safer farm

  1. Have a safety plan in place that identifies potential hazards and take specific actions to fix them.
  2. Always be on the look‐out for new hazards and remove them as quickly as possible.
  3. Set clear safety procedures for risky work.
  4. Make sure everyone that works on the farm understands and uses your safety procedures.
  5. Have an emergency plan in place in case of any incidents.
To find out more about farm safety and to access free resources to help you get started with a farm safety 
It's one of the most widely reviled federal programs. So why is Congress fighting to save farm subsidies?
Most farmers are wealthier than the average American, with a household income of $87,289 in 2011 — 29 percent higher than the $67,677 average for all U.S. households
Most farmers are wealthier than the average American, with a household income of $87,289 in 2011 — 29 percent higher than the $67,677 average for all U.S. households Mark Wilson/Getty Images
W
hy is the farm bill so controversial?
Critics contend that the subsidies it hands out are wasteful, illogical, and counterproductive — a welfare program for millionaires and giant agribusinesses. Over the last decade, the farm bill has cost taxpayers more than $168 billion. In theory, the program uses loans, price supports, and payments to protect family farmers from the fickle fluctuations of weather, price, and economic conditions, so that their businesses remain stable and Americans are ensured a steady supply of affordable food. In practice, the program keeps food prices high, costing consumers billions, while funneling most of its aid to giant agribusinesses and wealthy farmers. About 75 percent of total subsidies go to the biggest 10 percent of farming companies, including Riceland Foods Inc., Pilgrims Pride Corp., and Archer Daniels Midland. Among the "farmers" who get federal subsidies are Bruce Springsteen (who leases land to an organic farmer), Jon Bon Jovi (who owns bee colonies), former President Jimmy Carter, and billionaire media mogul Ted Turner. "The typical farmer has literally millions of dollars of wealth," said Dan Sumner, an agricultural economist at the University of California, Davis.
What about the average farmer?
He's doing pretty well too. Despite droughts and high temperatures, farmers have enjoyed record crop-production levels and prices, as well as double-digit increases to the value of their land for the third year in a row in 2013. In fact, most farmers are wealthier than the average American, with a household income of $87,289 in 2011 — 29 percent higher than the $67,677 average for all U.S. households. And yet many still get taxpayer dollars to protect their incomes. In fact, the farm bill pays some farmers not to grow crops — in order to avoid oversupply that would drive food prices down for the rest of us. "Only an evil genius could have dreamed this up," said Scott Faber, vice president for governmental affairs at the Environmental Working Group.
How did the program start?
Subsidies originated during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl catastrophe of the 1930s, when there was a genuine fear that the nation's agricultural sector was on the brink of collapse. At that time, about a quarter of the country's population lived in rural areas, and tens of thousands of American families found themselves literally in danger of "losing the farm." So President Roosevelt pushed through the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which pegged crop prices to their historic highs and introduced the policy of paying farmers not to produce. It was supposed to be a "temporary solution to deal with an emergency," as Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace put it. But in 1949 the Agricultural Act was made permanent, and — more than six decades later — a version of that same legislation still exists today.
Why not reform the program?
Congress tried that in 1996, with the Freedom to Farm Act, which removed price supports and grain management in an attempt to let the free market dictate prices. That reform didn't last long. As commodity prices fell and farmers began to complain, lawmakers caved in and introduced several new programs that continue today. They include the much-criticized "direct payments" to farmers — checks written regardless of market conditions or the farmer's crop yields — and the controversial crop insurance program, which critics say has encouraged widespread fraud. In that program, taxpayers pick up 62 percent of any farmer's insurance premiums and help fund payouts if a claim for crop damage is made.
Why not kill subsidies altogether? 
Politics. The farm lobby has immense power in Washington, thanks to its generous contributions to congressional campaigns and political parties, and to the large number of legislators from farm states — most of them Republican. Democrats have also traditionally supported the farm bill because it contains food stamp funding. This year, that partnership broke down, when House Republicans passed a version of the farm bill that strips the legislation of its food stamp provisions for the first time since 1973. President Obama responded by threatening to veto any legislation that doesn't include food stamp funding. At the moment, the situation is at a stalemate.
What's likely to happen?
A deal will probably get cut that will keep farm subsidies fairly intact. The House version of the bill, in fact, contains some of the most generous farm spending in history: While ending direct payments, the legislation channels $8.9 billion into an expanded crop insurance program, which already ballooned from $1.5 billion in 2002 to $7.4 billion by 2011. In the House bill, moreover, the farm subsidies that used to expire every five years are made permanent. "It's hard to understand how anyone in the House who calls himself a conservative could support this, but many did," said Chris Chocola, president of the free-market-oriented Club for Growth. "They're locking in historically high commodity prices at taxpayer expense."
New York City's 'farmers'
New Yorkers wouldn't know it, but they live in a city of farmers. Over the last decade, the farm bill has paid out millions of dollars in subsidies to more than 1,500 city residents — 374 on the plush Upper East Side alone. They aren't receiving payments for farms in the city, but for property they own elsewhere. Recipients include Mark F. Rockefeller, a fourth-generation heir of the famous family who was paid $342,634 to not farm from 2001 to 2011, so that his land in Idaho could return to its natural state. Other top New York farmers include a managing director at Wells Fargo bank, and a neurologist in Queens. "Payments are going to people in Manhattan who simply have invested in farmland and are about as far away from farmers as one could imagine," said Craig Cox, senior vice president for agriculture and natural resources at the Environmental Working Group. "That should really make people wonder what on earth has happened to the farm program."

Farm subsidies: A welfare program for agribusiness

It's one of the most widely reviled federal programs. So why is Congress fighting to save farm subsidies?
Most farmers are wealthier than the average American, with a household income of $87,289 in 2011 — 29 percent higher than the $67,677 average for all U.S. households
Most farmers are wealthier than the average American, with a household income of $87,289 in 2011 — 29 percent higher than the $67,677 average for all U.S. households Mark Wilson/Getty Images
W
hy is the farm bill so controversial?
Critics contend that the subsidies it hands out are wasteful, illogical, and counterproductive — a welfare program for millionaires and giant agribusinesses. Over the last decade, the farm bill has cost taxpayers more than $168 billion. In theory, the program uses loans, price supports, and payments to protect family farmers from the fickle fluctuations of weather, price, and economic conditions, so that their businesses remain stable and Americans are ensured a steady supply of affordable food. In practice, the program keeps food prices high, costing consumers billions, while funneling most of its aid to giant agribusinesses and wealthy farmers. About 75 percent of total subsidies go to the biggest 10 percent of farming companies, including Riceland Foods Inc., Pilgrims Pride Corp., and Archer Daniels Midland. Among the "farmers" who get federal subsidies are Bruce Springsteen (who leases land to an organic farmer), Jon Bon Jovi (who owns bee colonies), former President Jimmy Carter, and billionaire media mogul Ted Turner. "The typical farmer has literally millions of dollars of wealth," said Dan Sumner, an agricultural economist at the University of California, Davis.
What about the average farmer?
He's doing pretty well too. Despite droughts and high temperatures, farmers have enjoyed record crop-production levels and prices, as well as double-digit increases to the value of their land for the third year in a row in 2013. In fact, most farmers are wealthier than the average American, with a household income of $87,289 in 2011 — 29 percent higher than the $67,677 average for all U.S. households. And yet many still get taxpayer dollars to protect their incomes. In fact, the farm bill pays some farmers not to grow crops — in order to avoid oversupply that would drive food prices down for the rest of us. "Only an evil genius could have dreamed this up," said Scott Faber, vice president for governmental affairs at the Environmental Working Group.
How did the program start?
Subsidies originated during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl catastrophe of the 1930s, when there was a genuine fear that the nation's agricultural sector was on the brink of collapse. At that time, about a quarter of the country's population lived in rural areas, and tens of thousands of American families found themselves literally in danger of "losing the farm." So President Roosevelt pushed through the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which pegged crop prices to their historic highs and introduced the policy of paying farmers not to produce. It was supposed to be a "temporary solution to deal with an emergency," as Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace put it. But in 1949 the Agricultural Act was made permanent, and — more than six decades later — a version of that same legislation still exists today.
Why not reform the program?
Congress tried that in 1996, with the Freedom to Farm Act, which removed price supports and grain management in an attempt to let the free market dictate prices. That reform didn't last long. As commodity prices fell and farmers began to complain, lawmakers caved in and introduced several new programs that continue today. They include the much-criticized "direct payments" to farmers — checks written regardless of market conditions or the farmer's crop yields — and the controversial crop insurance program, which critics say has encouraged widespread fraud. In that program, taxpayers pick up 62 percent of any farmer's insurance premiums and help fund payouts if a claim for crop damage is made.
Why not kill subsidies altogether? 
Politics. The farm lobby has immense power in Washington, thanks to its generous contributions to congressional campaigns and political parties, and to the large number of legislators from farm states — most of them Republican. Democrats have also traditionally supported the farm bill because it contains food stamp funding. This year, that partnership broke down, when House Republicans passed a version of the farm bill that strips the legislation of its food stamp provisions for the first time since 1973. President Obama responded by threatening to veto any legislation that doesn't include food stamp funding. At the moment, the situation is at a stalemate.
What's likely to happen?
A deal will probably get cut that will keep farm subsidies fairly intact. The House version of the bill, in fact, contains some of the most generous farm spending in history: While ending direct payments, the legislation channels $8.9 billion into an expanded crop insurance program, which already ballooned from $1.5 billion in 2002 to $7.4 billion by 2011. In the House bill, moreover, the farm subsidies that used to expire every five years are made permanent. "It's hard to understand how anyone in the House who calls himself a conservative could support this, but many did," said Chris Chocola, president of the free-market-oriented Club for Growth. "They're locking in historically high commodity prices at taxpayer expense."
New York City's 'farmers'
New Yorkers wouldn't know it, but they live in a city of farmers. Over the last decade, the farm bill has paid out millions of dollars in subsidies to more than 1,500 city residents — 374 on the plush Upper East Side alone. They aren't receiving payments for farms in the city, but for property they own elsewhere. Recipients include Mark F. Rockefeller, a fourth-generation heir of the famous family who was paid $342,634 to not farm from 2001 to 2011, so that his land in Idaho could return to its natural state. Other top New York farmers include a managing director at Wells Fargo bank, and a neurologist in Queens. "Payments are going to people in Manhattan who simply have invested in farmland and are about as far away from farmers as one could imagine," said Craig Cox, senior vice president for agriculture and natural resources at the Environmental Working Group. "That should really make people wonder what on earth has happened to the farm program."

Internet economy gives rise to real-time research

Editor’s note: Daniel Greenberg is vice president of marketing and co-founder of Active Research, Inc., Burlingame, Calif.
Traditional market research methods are rapidly becoming inadequate to meet research requirements for the Internet age. As marketers struggle to keep up with today’s fast-paced business climate, the need for insights into consumer shopping behavior is outpacing the value of traditional research methods. Marketers thus face great pressure to meet industry demand, while product lifecycles are rapidly shrinking in nearly every type of category. The lifespan of a digital camera, for instance, can be as short as six months, with 80 percent of its lifetime revenue achieved within the first two months.
The proliferation of e-commerce has led to intensified competition – particularly for manufacturers and retailers who require more timely research for gaining advantage over their rivals. For example, in 1999 there were three types of MP3 players. Just one year later, there are now more than 60. The Web has also created much more transparency for consumers, who can instantly access product and pricing information online. A more empowered buyer means less control for manufacturers and retailers. This increases competitive pressures unilaterally, placing pressure on profit margins.
Several other factors point to why traditional research methodologies are losing their effectiveness. Response rates are declining, as fewer people agree to participate in research. Those who do participate often do so for the financial incentive – potentially biasing the sample toward more price sensitive buyers. These people also tend to place a lower value on their time – potentially biasing the sample toward lower-income individuals. Unfortunately, the potential for sample bias is substantial. So in an attempt to get quick answers, researchers are increasingly relying on focus groups as a replacement for quantitative research. However, there is a problem when feedback from a few people is used as a proxy for an entire market. Would you want to place a multimillion-dollar decision based on the opinions of six consumers? Many firms do.
In spite of the times, research cannot compromise methodological and sampling integrity. Since time (or lack of) plays an ever-influential role both in research practices and response rates, there is a profound need for real-time research that provides clarity about the rapidly changing marketplace as it evolves. Great value lies in the ability to spot market trends, especially regarding consumer purchase behavior.
The Internet is dramatically enhancing the ability to collect real-time data, although research is one of the last marketing disciplines to undergo automation. In fact a new research category – Market Research Automation (MRA) – is evolving. MRA methodology leverages the Web at all research stages and can reduce traditional research cycles from months to minutes. Thus there are greater efficiencies and cost savings to conduct studies, while offering the benefit of a continuous online window into market trends or the consumer mindset.
MRA tools or services also close the loop between online buyers and sellers by acting as intelligent middlemen in the interactive world. In the process, they give marketing professionals decision support capabilities that are continuously delivered directly to the desktop. Research clients are therefore better equipped to understand what drives buyer purchase, including trade-offs individuals make when determining preferences for products based on brand, feature set and price. Other benefits of real-time research include enabling marketers to differentiate products and develop more precise messaging to multiple audiences, continuously tracking emerging and maturing trends, as well as forecasting product demand.
Since MRA uses the Internet for data collection, there is a concern that the Web population does not represent consumers in the real world. With more than half of U.S. households now owning PCs, the age, gender and educational profile of the Internet population is approaching that of the general public. For certain segments of the population, such as those who purchase DVD players, the online shopper profile is very similar to that of the offline consumer. Finally, with the generic Web user becoming more diverse and representative, an e-commerce study by Harris Interactive found that fully 90 percent of Web users are researching products and services online (June 1999).
These statistics point to an unprecedented opportunity for manufacturers, retailers and marketers to interact with real buyers directly at the point of shopping when they are most engaged. MRA services automate data collection by participating in the conversation between buyers and sellers. Data is collected passively with zero intrusion. Web-based self-service applications also provide a useful one-to-one service to respondents while using Internet profiling methods to capture needed information. MRA then employs data mining techniques to unlock the value from these digital interactions. Since information is gathered from respondents who are actively engaged in a Web site, observational data is clean and free of aspiration-based biases. Response rates to such Web-based data collection methods are also significantly higher than email-driven surveys or opt-in promotions. This process leads to larger sample sizes.
Currently, we’re seeing real-time research or MRA take on an expanding role to include product concept testing and forecasting such aspects as future sales and market share simulations. Because the Internet has spawned unique new market models such as business-to-business e-commerce and dynamic pricing, there are more vertical markets to serve than ever. In addition, MRA is being incorporated into everyday tactical decision making at many levels within a company – from marketing and manufacturing to logistics and procurement managers.
Manufacturers, retailers and marketers are now better equipped to use real-time research to forecast such areas as raw materials needed, the number of units to order and product sales. The growing Internet commerce market is not making market research obsolete, but rather, increasing opportunities for both quantitative and qualitative researchers. The key to providing continuous value to clients is to adopt solid and timely methodologies – the minimum requirement to meet today’s market demands in the new economy.

The benefits of telephone depth sessions

Editor’s note: Barbara Allan is CEO of Sunbelt Research, a Jupiter, Fla., research firm. She is a member of the Qualitative Research Consultants Association.
A client has just called, and wants to know how people with a high net-worth, excluding real estate, will react to a new product line.
What is your next move? You could start by booking a traditional focus group facility. Or, as more and more moderators are starting to do, book online groups in a virtual facility.
And let us not forget, smaller groups conducted in facilities, such as mini groups, triads, dyads, and one-on-ones. All are options open to any experienced moderator.
Now, let’s make the project a bit more interesting, by mentioning that none of the people your client wants to talk to live in the same area, and none are computer-savvy types eagerly awaiting an online research experience.
Under these circumstances you might consider calling the client back and saying you have decided to pass on the project. But wait, help is at hand, in the form of telephone depth sessions.
Telephone depth sessions combine the probing benefits of traditional focus groups with the confidentiality provided by one-on-one telephone interviews. Topics which may not be appropriate for an open forum discussion can easily be broached during telephone depth sessions.
Therefore, if you don’t mind missing a few crowded, never-on-time flights, staying up late conducting groups, and getting up early to catch a flight to the next city, telephone depth sessions may be an option for you. Naturally, there is a catch: You have to supply your own M&Ms.

Case study

A few months ago, a financial service organization came to us with a request. They asked us to conduct a study among respondents with assets, excluding real estate and business ownership, in excess of $3 million.
We certainly did not have to be told that these are not the kind of folks who are going to jump at the chance to gather around a table to share ideas on how to make their next million.
Compounding the problem was the fact that while these individuals lived in one market during the winter months, it was now July and most were scattered throughout the country at their summer homes.
The challenge therefore became more than how to successfully and as cost-effectively get results for the client (a daunting problem in and of itself). The problem was also how to recruit a group of individuals who under any circumstances might be considered difficult but, under the current conditions, appeared impossible to reach.
Our solution was telephone depth sessions, which fit the bill perfectly. We designed a project that met our client’s expectations, we did it quickly, and at a cost within the client’s budget.

Where they work well

Telephone depth sessions should be considered whenever a project calls for qualitative research among a small targeted audience, who either because of their profession, location, or lifestyle are extremely difficult to bring together for a two-hour discussion group.
The types of respondents we have successfully completed telephone depth sessions among include: high net-worth individuals, seasonal residents, corporate executives, physicians, attorneys, community leaders, and salespeople.
Recruiting telephone depth sessions can be done in a variety of ways. We have found that two methods work particularly well. The first is modeled after the recruiting procedure used for traditional focus groups. A professional recruiter contacts potential respondents via phone, screens them to ensure they meet the qualification criteria, and invites them to participate in the research. Naturally, we know that if we are calling physicians, lawyers, or corporate executives our first contact will not be the person themselves, but their assistant. We are prepared with a succinct explanation and a request for a fax number. We find faxing information to the assistant’s attention is very helpful in finally being able to reach the person we want.
The second method requires more set-up time than the first, but has proven to be very successful.
Step one - Be sure you have an up-to-date mailing address for the people you want to interview.
Step two – Prepare a letter to send to potential respondents by either first-class regular mail or express mail. Depending on whether or not this is a blind study, the letter should be prepared on your letterhead or the client’s.
You are by no means limited to just a letter. The objective is to represent your client and the project as quality entities, and of course, to interest potential respondents in participating in the research. This is a great time to put your creative talents to work. A well-done contact piece appeals to their ego and whets their interest in the project.
Step three – Send the mailings out in waves of 50. You may not need to contact everyone on the list. Therefore, sending the correspondence in batches saves you both time and money.

How it works

In the mailing piece, potential respondents are given a toll-free number to call if they are interested in participating. When we have several depth telephone projects going on at the same time it can be confusing to identify the caller with the correct project. We have solved that minor internal problem by giving callers an alpha-related “code” name. For example, if the client is the ABC financial institution the caller may be told to ask for Abigail.
Like traditional focus groups, respondents are screened to ensure they qualify. However, unlike traditional groups, depth telephone session respondents can choose the day and time to be interviewed. This can range, and has, from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m., and if necessary Monday through Sunday (though we must admit, we do like to adhere to a Monday-Friday schedule).
To participate, respondents don’t have to fight traffic jams or struggle through inclement weather. They can be interviewed from anyplace they choose, their office, their home, even the golf course.
Telephone depth sessions almost always start on time, and have an excellent show rate. Respondents receive a confirmation letter indicating when to expect our call, and are almost always awaiting our contact.
Most projects include 15 to 20 respondents who are interviewed during a five- to 10-day period.

The sessions

The discussion guide used for a telephone depth session is the same in terms of content and structure as one used for a traditional group. However, there is a difference: Since there is only one respondent, the interview typically requires 45 to 50 minutes to complete.
In cases where the discussion concerns a household decision, it is acceptable, and very helpful to include both spouses in the conversation. Gone is the question, “How would you spouse react to this idea?” With depth sessions, both members of the household can join in, which makes for a lively conversation and a greater understanding of household purchasing decisions.
Naturally, you will need equipment. First and perhaps foremost is a comfortable chair for the moderator. You will need an audio recorder, audio tapes and, of course, your discussion guide and respondent profile.
Prior to starting the interview, respondents are asked for permission to tape-record the interview. Just as with traditional groups, it is very important that respondents fully understand how the research will be conducted and how the discussion will be used. As with any research, it is critical that respondents’ privacy be fully protected.
In the very rare instance when a respondent will not allow you to tape record the session (which has happened once or twice in about 200 sessions) your only option is to put yourself on speakerphone, turn on your computer, and start typing.
Some clients like to modify the discussion guide following the first couple of interviews. Therefore, we recommend overnighting a copy of the tape to them after the first session is completed. This ensures that you are able to make any necessary discussion guide modifications before you have completed many interviews.
Obviously, clients cannot view these sessions, but they can and most certainly do listen to the tapes in their cars while traveling. For this reason, we send out copies of the tapes as the sessions are completed.

Incentives

Incentives are a standard part of qualitative research projects, and depth telephone sessions are no exception to this policy. When the respondents are high net-worth individuals and corporate executives, we generally offer an incentive of $150 for 50 minutes or give them an opportunity to make a donation to a charity of their choice. Many take the second option. For projects where the client is identified, clients frequently ask us to send respondents a personal gift as an additional way of saying thank-you.

Valuable addition

Obviously, depth telephone sessions are not meant to replace other qualitative methods. But they do allow you to obtain rich and insightful information from audiences that are unlikely to participate in other qualitative methods and they are another valuable addition to the marketing research toolbox.