Basic Marketing Research, 8th Edition solutions manual and test bank by Tom J. Brown | Tracy A. Suter | Gilbert A. Churchill

Basic Marketing Research, 8th Edition solutions manual and test bank by Tom J. Brown | Tracy A. Suter | Gilbert A. Churchill

Chapter 2 – The Research Process and Ethical Concerns

I. Learning Objectives:

Upon completing this chapter, the student should be able to:

1. Outline the marketing research process.

There are four general stages in the marketing research process:

a. Problem definition

b. Data collection

Data sources include:

1. Existing data from internal sources

2. Existing data from external sources

3. Primary (i.e., new) data from individuals

c. Data analysis

d. Information reporting

2. Describe the general approaches to marketing research.

There are two general approaches to marketing research:

a. The collection of data to address specific problems (e.g., the flashlight analogy, a great deal of light is directed at a specific point)

b. The development of decision support systems that provide marketing intelligence on an ongoing basis (e.g., the candle analogy, a steady glow of light that illuminates broadly, not at any particular point)

3. Cite the most critical error in marketing research.

Total error is more critical than any error, regardless of size, that might occur at any given stage.

4. Highlight the main difference between the utility, justice, and rights approaches to ethical reasoning.

§ Utility approach – focuses on society as the unit of analysis and stresses the consequences of an act on all those directly or indirectly affects. If benefits > costs, the act is ethical; if benefits < costs, the act is unethical.

§ Justice approach – focuses on the equitably distributed costs and benefits. If societal consensus is fair distribution, the act is ethical.

§ Rights approach – focuses on the individual as the unit of analysis and stresses the consequences of an act on a person’s basic rights. An act is unethical if an individual’s basic rights are violated.

5. Describe types of research that should be avoided.

§ Unethical research – examples include sugging and advocacy research

§ Research to support a decision that has already been made

§ Research for which adequate resources are unavailable

§ Research in which costs > benefits

II. Chapter Outline:

A. The Marketing Research Process

Exhibit 2.1: The Marketing Research Process

Exhibit 2.2: Questions Typically Addressed at the Various Stages of the Research Process

1. Problem Definition (Chapters 3 and 4)

Manager’s Focus

2. Data Collection: Existing Data (Chapters 5 through 7)

3. Data Collection: Primary Data (Chapters 8 through 15)

4. Data Analysis (Chapters 16 through 18)

5. Information Reporting (Chapters 19 and 20)

6. The Goal: Minimize Total Error

B. Marketing Research Ethics

Exhibit 2.3: Questionable Ethical Decision Making in Marketing Research

Research Window 2.1: The Code of Marketing Research Standards (Marketing Research Association, Inc.)

C. Three Methods of Ethical Reasoning

Exhibit 2.4: Applying the Ethical Frameworks in Practice

Exhibit 2.5: An Analytical Approach to Ethical Problems

Exhibit 2.6: Practical Guidelines for Ethical Analysis

D. Research to Avoid

Manager’s Focus

Manager’s Focus

E. Summary

F. Key Terms

G. Review Questions

H. Discussion Questions, Problems, and Projects

III. Answers to Discussion Questions, Problems and Projects:

1. The primary advantage of using the research process lies in the structure that it imposes on research projects. Consideration of each step in the process at the beginning of the project focuses attention on the project as a whole and eliminates the "scatter‑shot" approach to designing and completing a project.

Use of the process model will tend to eliminate unnecessary work (e.g., the collection of primary data when adequate secondary sources exist) and illuminate necessary considerations such as tailoring the data‑collection instrument and sampling procedure to the anticipated method of statistical analysis.

The structured process provides a valuable framework for evaluating the effect of each phase of the project on the total error associated with the completed project.

2. In this situation we find that data are being gathered unsystematically and inaccurately. The following points should be raised.

· The questionnaires were distributed on short flights when in fact the company's target market consisted of passengers on long flights since business people are more likely to work on longer flights than shorter ones.

· The survey was done prior to the Christmas vacation. As a result, this sample would include a number of vacationers and fewer business people, which is undesirable when the latter comprise the target segment.

· Placing the flight attendants in charge of 'x' number of questionnaires could lead to inadequate performance at their normal jobs. More important to the research is the possibility that employees might fill in the questionnaires themselves or force the questionnaires on the passengers in order to meet their quotas. In sum, the plan provides little in the way of sampling control as to which respondents receive questionnaires.

· Including information apart from the major issue of the seating arrangement detracts from the main issue. This could lead to respondent fatigue and inaccurate responses.

· Spending 20 minutes filling in a questionnaire on a flight lasting less than an hour may lead to incomplete and careless responses.

· The research was a one‑shot study and was not repeated.

All the above issues would result in the data being inaccurate and inadequate. A major decision of whether to renovate or not would be made on the basis of data that is inaccurately and unsystematically collected.

3. In this situation we find that data are being gathered unsystematically with significant concerns. The following points should be raised:

· July flights, vacation season, include business and pleasure/vacation travelers. As with the questionnaire example, this is undesirable when the business travelers comprise the target segment.

· On full flights it would be challenging for flight attendants to differentiate working passengers from non-working passengers

· All the activities being documented could be taking place during on flight but the observation form only allows for documenting one action at one point in time

· It would be helpful to create a systematic approach to collecting this observational data instead of limiting it to two weeks. The research was a one-shot study and was not repeated.

· Placing the flight attendants in change could lead to inadequate performance at their normal jobs.

All the above issues would result in the data being inaccurate and inadequate. A major decision of whether to renovate or not would be made on the basis of data that is inaccurately and unsystematically collected.

4. It is hard to anticipate the direction these interviews will take and what the students will report. A key purpose of the exercise is to help them realize that the firm's program strategy for marketing research addresses the issue of the types of studies that are to be done and for what purposes. The project strategy, on the other hand, addresses the issue of the design of the individual studies themselves. Thus, the description of the two selected studies should appear under the project strategy section of the report.

5. 1. Problem Definition (Should low income households be targeted by state lotteries?)

2. Data collection (Obvious or subtle coercion to insure participation.)

3. Data analysis (Misrepresent open-ended responses.)

4. Information reporting (Overstate conclusions.)

6. Making ethical decisions is a sometimes difficult, often subjective, process. As a result, the “correct” answer to this question may differ across students. For each scenario, we highlight some key issues that students should consider in applying the three methods of ethical reasoning.

a. Utility Approach: The cost of a wrong decision that might result from a too-small sample potentially would result in strong negative consequences for the firm, its employees, shareholders, customers, and so on, although the researcher doesn’t believe that the issue being studied is all that important. On the other hand, if the director of research is interpreting the situation correctly, the decision might save the jobs of one or more research staff members. On balance, we see this is an unethical decision under the utility approach.

Justice Approach: If the director proceeds to cut sample size in half and “hide” it from other managers, are the benefits and costs distributed fairly? Based on the previous discussion, this certainly doesn’t seem to be the case, so the action most likely would be judged unethical under the justice approach.

Rights Approach: It certainly seems as though decision makers’ right to be informed is being violated if the researchers hide the fact that sample size has been cut in half, which would make the decision unethical under the rights approach.

b. The action taken by the worker in this situation seems to be unethical under any model applied, unless saving his job or those of others in the department is of such critical importance to society that it outweighs any potential negative consequences, and we don’t see how that could be the case. Instead, it most likely would be grounds for termination.

c. Utility Approach: The cost to society of this action concerns removing respondents’ ability to know to whom they are responding. For most researchers, this cost pales in comparison with the benefits of getting closer to the “truth” by offsetting a tendency toward overly positive responses. Getting accurate responses allows managers to make better-informed decisions that should help both the firm and its customers. Overall, we believe that this is an ethical decision under the utility approach.

Justice Approach: Although the respondents appear to bear all of the costs (i.e., incomplete information about who is seeking information from them), they also stand to gain if the company acts upon the information provided, perhaps by taking steps to increase customer satisfaction, for example. The company clearly gains, without much cost, but we don’t see a great deal of unfairness in the distribution of costs and benefits, at least on the surface, likely making this an ethical decision under the justice model.

Rights Approach: The respondents’ right to be informed has been violated in this scenario, which makes the action unethical under the rights approach.

d. Utility Approach: This scenario is a bit trickier than the others in some ways. Key benefits include the development of a better version of a toy that potentially could provide enjoyment to millions of children and greater revenues for the firm. In addition, this approach to research should provide better information about how kids really play with (or don’t play with) the new toy. The day care center also gains by getting new toys given to them by the researchers. On the negative side, however, it appears that the researcher is gathering information from children (and their caregivers) without knowledge or consent of parents and without full information (the toy is new and not available elsewhere and perhaps may not have been fully tested for safety). On balance, we are concerned about working with children without parental approval and see this action as unethical. Prior consent from parents, however, might change our opinion such that this might be considered ethical.

Justice Approach: The benefits are being shared by all participants in the situation, although the company probably has the most to gain (but is also taking the greater risk by funding research and development of products, marketing the toys, etc.). On the other hand, the children (and parents) seem to be bearing most of the societal costs (e.g., lack of knowledge, potential for product harm). To us, under the justice model this is probably unethical as the situation is presented in the scenario. Once again, parental consent might be enough to swing our judgment of the situation.

Rights Approach: As the right to be informed has been violated from the parents’ perspective, this action is unethical under the rights approach.

IV. Instruction Suggestions:

1. Emphasize the difference between existing data and new, primary data and point out that both have important roles in the modern marketplace.

2. Next turn to a discussion of the research process. Briefly review the process to:

a. Illustrate the structure of the course. Each instructor can point out the relative emphasis to be placed on each section.

b. Highlight the areas of additional study, which those students seeking to become marketing research specialists might pursue. This discussion can be tied directly to related courses in the curriculum.

c. Emphasize the key error in research‑‑total error. It is helpful here to point out that sampling error is one part of total error and that increasing sample size to reduce sampling error might actually increase total error. This helps to allay somewhat the tendency demonstrated by beginning researchers to argue that the key to most research problems is to increase sample size.

3. Illustrate the interrelationships of the stages. It is particularly helpful here to demonstrate how slight changes in research questions can lead to substantial changes in the research process. This can be accomplished by alternate phrasings of a research question such as, "Who buys condominiums?" versus "Why do people buy condominiums?" and tracing through the research that would be needed to answer each question. The differences in data collection, sampling, and field force procedures soon become obvious with class discussion.

2. Turn next to a discussion of marketing research ethics. While the issue of ethics in marketing research is best addressed over the course of the term rather than in a single period, it is useful to sensitize students early to the facts that the use of most marketing research techniques involves ethical issues and the decision as to what is morally right in a given situation is not always clear. One useful way to begin is to review the essential differences between the utility, justice, and rights perspectives. The ethical dilemmas (provided below) are useful in throwing the differences into bold relief.

The utilitarian perspective, with its focus on the greatest good for the greatest number, would suggest that both the sheriff and the CEO acted correctly. By acting the way they did, they saved the most people. The rights view, with its emphasis on fairness to the individual, would suggest that both men acted unethically. The dilemmas illustrate one of the fundamental problems with the utilitarian view—namely, that individuals or small groups can suffer major harm because their “large costs” are averaged with small gains to a large number of other people, with the result that the net benefit for the act is positive.

This is also a good time to point out that although the frameworks emphasize different perspectives by which the ethicality of some contemplated act can be evaluated, neither approach provides precise answers to ethical decisions. In a utilitarian analysis, for example, one still needs to quantify costs and benefits; in deontological reasoning, one needs to evaluate the seriousness of a right’s infringement.

Once students have a better understanding of the nature of the arguments under each framework, it is useful to challenge them further with a few moral research dilemmas they might encounter. Since the students will only have limited understanding of the techniques of marketing research and their advantages and disadvantages early in the term, it is useful to pick from the large set the ethical dilemmas students can most easily understand.

While the discussion of ethics now should alert students to the possibility that there are often moral issues when doing marketing research, they seem to develop a higher appreciation for ethical concerns in research if the topic is returned to periodically throughout the term. Consequently, it is recommended that instructors use at least some of the chapter ethical dilemmas when discussing the contents of a given chapter. Many of them generate some lively class discussion.