Why Market Researchers Quit, and Lawyers Don’t Watching an episode of an american legal show, I caught this sequence where the young associates are bitching about how they to do the hard work, come up with bright ideas to win cases, but the partners walk away with the spoils of victory. It brought back memories of my grave-yard shift crib sessions with colleagues back in my IMRB days. Obvious parallels – long hours of grunt-work, insane deadline pressures and the client-boss syndicate’s unreasonable demands. No wonder I felt in sympathy with the young turks planning a revolt! The dramatic resolution with the best among the young associates getting promoted to partners?made me feel good and, got me thinking. Would I have left the research industry in quest of greener pastures if I had been presented a path to partnership by any agency? Would I have considered re-entering the industry if a partnership was on offer? Is it even fair to draw a parallel between lawyers (or CAs) and Market Researchers? If yes, why has no research agency thought of creating such an organization? My answers to the first two questions being “no and “yes” respectively, I turned my attention to the third. There are some interesting parallels here. Like young Lawyers and CAs, Market Researchers go through a rigorous period of apprenticeship to learn the real-world application of their knowledge; hence low entry-level salaries; all three demand white-collar talent with professional qualifications; and, all three require hard intellectual labour. The only difference is that while Law and Accountancy have created an industry structure that allows the apprentice to grow into a master organically (Associate – Manager – Partner) and therefore, progressively retain a larger share of fruits of their intellectual efforts, Market Research has got stuck in the agency frame-work where the apprentice is stuck with linear increments, meaningless designation changes and limited growth prospects. In fact, the only difference between Law and Market Research is that the associate in a research firm knows exactly what the client pays and exactly what gets delivered (since he works on the quotation and the final presentation for every project). Every first year research executive knows what percentage of his year’s billing he takes home as salary – this to my mind, is a unique feature of the Market Research industry. No wonder the industry labours with 30% attrition! So, why has no research agency thought of a structure that mirrors Law or Accountancy firms? My best guess - the industry in India was born as an adjunct offering of the big advertising agencies and borrowed all its structures and policies; all latter off-shoots that make up the market research industry today were too busy scrapping for and delivering projects and never got around to thinking their organization structure de novo. I just think it would have been an experiment worth trying … #marketresearch #PartnersNotEmployees
Ritesh Ghosal the Partnership model is only one factor. The MR industry has many more serious issues. It needs to rethink its overall working. 1. At MART we never undertake research assignments unless we are also assigned the responsibility of developing and piloting strategy. In the current client-MR agency relationship, research is done by an outsider without having any insider knowledge. The insider Brand and marketing teams have little firsthand understanding of the consumer. 2. We insist/encourage client executives to accompany our field teams. This ensures ownership by the client and they cannot challenge our findings later because their members experienced everything firsthand. 3. Every night after dinner, the client and MART teams sit together to discuss and decide if any change to the approach and methodology is warranted. 4. The work culture of the organisation determines the motivation level of team members and therefore the quality of research. In its present avatar the MR industry does not seem to have a great future. I am awaiting your call to explain issues in greater detail.
Interesting. There is more to why researchers quit – its not just the low salary, poor increments you know...The absence of any help to the researchers, the poor support systems...basically the researcher has to do everything-managing the client, ensuring billing and payments apart from running the projects' operations...its just EXHAUSTING.
I get the basic concept of clear career paths and the ability to share in the success of the firm, but I don't think one could compare lawyers and researchers. First, lawyers are a 'profession', members of bar associations that govern entry points and exams, ethics and conduct quite closely. You definitely need specific qualifications to be a lawyer. That's not true of research. Second, qualified lawyers are very highly paid! Perhaps I am referring to non-India conditions but they're up there with bankers and PE types.
Ritesh Ghosal totally agree. In a people driven business like ours talent must grow basis talent and contribution. I think consulting firms are another good parallel. At www.elevateinsights.in we hope to build a partnership firm! Natasha Kumar
Ritesh Ghosal there is a successful case study in the middle east which copies the partner approach you are mentioning...started by Anand Nigam ...4sights....... most people are partners and the agency is doing very well...could well be the largest agency in the Middle East soon....
Ritesh.. It’s a great idea but risky. I think only someone with the mindset of a start-up can do it! I am game if you are ...
Never too late to try, Ritesh!! Incidentally kool illustration
Interesting! I like the eloquence
B2B Sales | Sales Leader | Commercial Leader| Business Leader | Author | Insights Professional |
2 年I think there are a few dissimilarities which also one needs to ponder on... Lawyers cannot switch between different types of laws... if I am a patent lawyer , I cannot do criminal law suddenly.. this would require more studying and maybe a specialisation.... That limits my career options in a way and hence the barrier to switch is higher in case of law ( not necessarily only the structure)... In the case of research, a researcher doing finance can do FMCG... it's not rocket science.. moreover there are multiple options.. Even with the proposed structure, I might limit switching but there would be other reasons like research salaries overall being low even at higher levels too... I think what's needed is salary correction and for that research needs to revamp the way it is viewed in marketing context