Let’s do more simplistic and poorly constructed surveys to help marketers make major decisions. Who, aside from Google, could possibly think this is a good idea?

I wouldn’t worry about privacy. I would worry about reliability, validity and good direction. Remember the classic question developed by the non-researcher … Is it true you stopped beating your wife?

No Virginia, not everybody can construct a question, much less a questionnaire, that will extract the information you need for the decision you are about to make. Google’s new service could increase product failures at an even more staggering rate. And the proliferation of short surveys can further reduce respondent cooperation for well crafted initiatives.

I don’t really see an upside, except for Google’s new-found revenue stream.

A variety of new mechanisms for market research have emerged as a result of consumer online browsing and social media. They will likely fill an important role as casual surveys with the benefits of low cost and convenience.

However, they are subject to the numerous sources of error inherent in such casually designed surveys. One only has to look at American Idol or other reality shows to see both the potential and risk of such “research.”

For serious decisions, we need to do serious research that passes the standards of validity and reliability. It remains to be seen if Google can prove itself to meet those needs.

The merit is that will be the revenue stream for Google.

I can see directional values gained from Google consumer surveys when compared to a complete lack of research, but the concept itself is flawed.

First of all, this is a clever offering by Google to help content publishers monetize their content without pay walls. Let’s not forget that is the core business that Google is in. “Give your content away, and let us put ads around it to monetize it for you.” Secondly, I don’t buy into the comments that market research should be left in the hands of the chosen few, and not made available to the unwashed masses (as some of the early commenters seem to imply). That’s the tired argument that comes out every time technology democratizes a business practice. Cheap printing presses, video production, and access to the internet haven’t ruined society, and nor will extra voice of the customer tools. Does anyone think the sole-proprietor of a retail store shouldn’t ask his customers opinions without hiring a “market research specialist” to interpret the answers for him? Should he not extend those conversations to his potential customers? This new offering from Google simple adds one more tool to the growing universe of self-service voice-of-the-customer tools.… Read more »

Fulfillment companies have the best handle on consumer databases. If one is willing to pay the money a list of individuals willing to complete a survey can easily be squired. Depending on what you want to know or what you would like the findings to be these prices will vary. A better plan is live test marketing. This adds the work requirement but eliminates vast amounts of error.

I think that as long as you keep the survey short, Google surveys can be a great tool to capture consumer sentiment.

Google has access to a very large consumer panel and could can provide more accurate results.

Great idea for Google; good for some research applications; mixed bag for consumers. No, you wouldn’t do a conjoint study here, but this could work well for some quick opinion gathering, (e.g., which logo/look do you like better?) or to validate results of your ‘serious research’ such as a conjoint study (e.g., intent to purchase Version A, or Version B). Brands/retailers should be able to understand the sampling frame and cell size limitations. Any research, including ‘serious’ research, can be misinterpreted or misused. One has only to recall New Coke, which passed taste tests with flying colors only to be roundly rejected in-market as a product devoid of the emotional cues that people fondly associated with Coca-Cola, to understand that ‘serious’ research can easily be misdirected and measure the wrong things. For consumers, pop-up surveys could be mildly to seriously annoying depending on mood and search situation. If I’m doing a search under a severe time constraint and a pop-up survey won’t let me see the page I’m seeking unless I first answer the short… Read more »

Surveys, online or offline, need to be simple, quick, and useful — to both consumers and the marketer. As a market research firm that pioneered many of the leading innovations in online surveys, we believe a more in-depth analysis is appropriate and beneficial. However, the Google model of capturing insights with one or two simple questions offers significant value to marketers. Their pricing model is very inexpensive at this point. Phrased properly and then trended over time, one well-phrased question can prove to be enormously valuable. For example: “Do you plan to buy a car/truck in the next 6 months?” If you had the answer to that simple question, how would it impact your marketing, merchandising, operations, financial, floor planning, lending plans, etc? Don’t overlook this model. It is disruptive in nature. But, marketers are going to learn from it. Online surveys take out the enormous “interviewer bias,” eliminate time-consuming telephone and diary survey versions that frustrate consumers, and deliver results in a more cost-efficient manner.

What a fundamentally…um…I’m searching for a more diplomatic word…but…”stupid idea” is the only thing that captures it. Another example of how far removed Google is from the real world.

So, if we pester consumers with tiny questions and only hear back from those who choose to respond, we’re able to find the deep learning necessary to drive billions of dollars of business?

Google is full of dumb ideas. Glad their search revenue is doing well, because they don’t seem to be able to make money any other way.

It’s a clever idea. While surveys have been internet-ized in many ways (delivery by e-mail, collection on a web site, viewing and tabulating in web consoles, and distribution and promotion of results by the web and its online kin), the one area where surveying is still difficult and archaic is in recruiting subjects. Google touches a whole lot of people and in principle can address that problem very neatly.

I don’t expect it to be a massive business for Google, but at the company seeks to continue its growth and diversify from its extreme revenue dependence on paid search, the company should focus on finding new ideas that are viable, defensible, and appropriate to Google’s strengths. Here is one.