Generalizations are great, aren't they? It is so easy to lump people, issues, opinions or just about anything else in to a category and be done with it. It takes little time. Minimal thought. And, one typically won’t "upset any apple carts", slay any dragons, shift a paradigm or disappoint a boss by espousing generalizations.

As it applies to research, the generalization More Is Better appliesin spades!

Wasn't it interesting to note in the recently released report conducted by the International Newspaper Marketing Association (INMA) how small research budgets are (of marketing... of total revenues...) and how other industries devote significantly more. Whether the research objective is to support the advertising department, newsroom, circulation team or your internet efforts wouldn’t it make sense to add a question or increase the sample size in the occasionally conducted research? Absolutely!

The minimum sample size for an under 25,000 circulation newspaper for the ABC Reader Profile Certification is 400. Let me emphasize the word "minimum". Time and time again we complete studies sampling the minimum and our client asks questions or hopes to make a decision, yet the conclusions are based upon too small a subset of the data to be statistically reliable.

The message – when in doubt, err on the side of a larger sample.

The same is true regarding the number of questions. Rarely (never?) is a newspaper research engagement (especially strategic efforts) fielded without teeth gnashing and difficult prioritizing of the questionnaire in a way that leaves several questions or issues completely unaddressed.

It is understandable and necessary that budgets and planning limitations play a role determining length and sample size, but again, when in doubt, MORE is better. S-t-r-e-t-c-h. Work with your research partner to find a way to leverage the fact you are already in the field. Perhaps you should set up a "recontact" possibility, even if you don't use it?! The "start up" costs are already in place, so build upon those. Don’t find yourself regretting what HAD NOT been done when a slightly larger investment would have provided a solution.

While "more" is the subject, why not think about the frequency in which research is conducted? What is right?

From an advertising standpoint, competition will often drive this decision. If other media in a major markets are regularly investing in research (syndicated or proprietary) your frequency should mirror, at the least, the competition.

But, what about strategic engagements – how often is enough?

Point #1: Relying on the instincts of 30 years of newspapering is NOT (repeat not) an adequate foundation for decisions regarding the future. One only has to look at the readership habits of younger demographics to know the same old way ain’t gonna cut it.

If that loveable, but curmudgeonly editor pushes back against research investments, or worse, following research recommendations, now is the time to find something else for her or him to do.

Point #2: The hyperbolic "internet changes everything" claims might not be completely true, yet this evolving medium requires us to recognize a new distribution channel (which is VERY good!) we’ll have to fill; and, it gives our reading customer a myriad of additional options for gathering news and information. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist – or, even a researcher – to know our content must fulfill reader needs or newpapers’ will be fated to irrelevance.

Belden Associates has completed nine waves of our Sales and Site survey to better understand web site use, and we still regularly see growth in the 7 – 10% range each month. If that doesn’t suggest a need to periodically (no less than once a year!) talk to web site user’s to ask about preferences, other media uses, purchase intent, and behavior that motivates web use, what would?

If our newspapers were growing readers so significantly, I feel certain we’d be fielding print research at a far more rapid clip.

Point #3: To think the mainstream daily can continue to be all things to almost all readers and advertisers is hubris at its’ worst. Granted, newspapers occupy a unique position in our society. We are more than a manufactured product and DO have duties and responsibilities beyond packaging and distributing local news and information.

However, we can’t escape the fact that from a marketing standpoint our readers and advertisers ARE consumers who have choices. We’re selfish in our desire to see the choice consumers make is FOR a newspaper and their related products.

Other providers of products and services eventually extend their line. The "new and improved" thingamajig or the Vanilla Coke or the 5 variations on a theme of car insurance or wireless service or whatever. Products evolve to meet the needs of changing customers. Period. Newspapers must do so, too!

I can still recall when Sony introduced 365 variations of the WalkMan in one year. One year. The basic portable sound system was just that; but look, function, design, niche, price point, battery length, color, weight, and just about everything else was tinkered with to meet myriad customer demands. That’s a mindset we’ll eventually find newspapers adopting.

In other words, MORE applies when it comes to how often one should field strategic research. A better understanding of the wants, desires, fluctuating tastes, behaviors and interests of our customer can only serve us well.

To paraphrase an old advertising tag line, "If you are not presently contemplating research, do so!" We’ll be here to help you find a good partner when the time is right.