Philip Kleinman: Liz, let me begin by asking you this. Many people found it odd that you decided to quit Taylor Nelson, which you had built up, at the very moment when it broke through into the top division. You did not even keep a seat on the board as a non-executive director. Why did you do that, and have you any regrets?

Elizabeth Nelson: I stayed for another six months to ensure a smooth handover. I had been appointed chairman of the UK Ecolabelling Board earlier in 1992 and found the grappling with civil servants in the UK and Europe and with politicians like John Gummer fascinating and challenging. Ecolabelling could only catch hold if one informed the public and changed attitudes.
So for only the second time in my life I could have a hand in public policy making. (The first was doing research for the Central office of Information.) About the same time Iain Vallance asked me to become involved in the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, first as a trustee. Soon after the new trust ran into trouble, they lost their chief executive, and I thought to myself - perhaps arrogantly - ‘I can do that job’.
Why did I not stay on as a member of the board as a non-executive director? Frankly because I was intrigued by change management and being at the forefront of policy development. And being a non-executive director at Taylor Nelson would have been like becoming a backbencher.
Do I have any regrets? Not at all, if I think of the opportunities that opened up for me. I do very much regret, however, that there were not more women at the top of the large market research agencies. I think it was the Daily Telegraph that commented on my leaving TN that when women at the top of businesses in various sectors left to do other things, they were not replaced by other women.

PK: And what is it that has tempted you back into the research business?

EN: The attraction is the Online Research Agency. Joining it allows me to help Nick Rosen develop something quite new, with opportunities for an innovative management style, innovative thinking and management structure to meet the needs of Internet users.
Many nurses have moved into management, some to become directors, even chief executives of large hospitals. When asked ‘Why did you leave nursing? most answer ‘I did not, I am a still a nurse who has become a manager.’ Likewise I have never stopped being a researcher.
However, I believe that research is undervalued and underused. If you were to ask the NHS regional chief about my three years in the NHS, he would answer that I have been a thorn in their side since I arrived asking why there are no senior marketing people at the top level of the NHS? Why aren’t public needs and attitudes involved in policy making? Winston Fletcher and I wrote a piece along these lines that was sent to all MPs.

PK: For most of the past decade you’ve been an observer of, rather than a participant in, the research scene. What are the changes you’ve particularly noticed? Have there been any improvements?

EN: What market researchers have got right is quality standards, thanks to accredited courses for those in market research planning and administration and, above all, in fieldwork.

PK: And what do you see as the downside?

EN: What have market researchers got wrong? They have failed to gain the esteem that their professionalism suggests they deserve. I attribute this to believing that managing a market research organisation is a science - that to be efficient one must separate the creative thinking from the management. This has led to the disastrous separation of collecting data from interpreting that data for policy-makers and to the separation of qualitative and quantitative research.

PK: Why disastrous?

EN: If you want evidence that the gap between data and consultancy has been damaging to market research, I can give many examples. Drawing on my own experience, the most recent is the nationwide ‘Quality of Life’ survey among all National Health Service staff. It was carried out by the University of Sussex Institute of Employment Studies.
Almost one million questionnaires were sent out. Fact number one: the response rate was under 30% because no one had thought of publicising beforehand how the data might be used. Fact number two: the data are now available but have been almost totally overlooked in the much heralded NHS Plan. This plan, which has had tremendous effects already on salaries, the role of nurses and GPs and equity issues of health provision, mentions the survey only once. That is when it says that the survey might help to show that catering facilities for staff are important.
Yet the survey, if imaginatively used, could suggest measures to stem the loss of staff, could help with recruitment and could indicate the immediate concerns of staff at local level. Because the Government and local NHS trusts have had little exposure to the advantages of using survey data to develop and implement policy, they reinvent the wheel over and over again. The same thing is true of many businesses

PK: What a fascinating – and horrifying – story! How can one prevent that kind of waste of money and effort?

EN: The future of research must lie in the creative use of results - with increasing emphasis on output rather than on processes. To survive and grow the research industry MUST provide consultancy. The caveat is that it must make clear to clients when one is a strict data-collector and when one is interpreting and creatively demonstrating how the data can be used to develop and implement strategy.

PK: Do you know of any research agencies at present trying to follow that path?

EN: Not consultancy at the highest level of business, though of course in the political arena there are several talking directly to the policy makers.

PK: How does an agency called in by the research manager of a big client company get itself used as a consultant when that manager really wants only a data-collector at the lowest possible price and when he or she has no clout within the client company anyway? Is this not frequently the way things work?

EN: In my experience the approach must be at Board level. You are right in suggesting that researchers in industry sometimes do not have the clout. I am certain however that there are more and more large global organisations where researchers have been properly acknowledged.

PK: One trend, often remarked upon, is the seemingly unstoppable consolidation of agencies into bigger and bigger international groups. Is that to be applauded or deplored? And what bearing does it have on the problems you’ve just talked about?

EN: This is a good move as the research industry has become more international in outlook. Larger, merged companies should allow researchers more opportunities to gain the necessary training to become consultants. But isn’t it ironic that smaller research companies now come closer to offering consultancy?

.

PK: Another trend, which has caused much anguish, is the rapid decline in response rates. Have you any views on how to deal with that?

EN: So much public policy research depends upon informing the citizen/consumer before one can obtain ‘relevant’ answers, that is relevant to consumer needs. Long questionnaires are not the answer either to improving response rates or to informing the consumer. The answer in the public policy area is citizens’ panels and juries. I believe the same could be true in business-to-business and business-to-consumer research.

PK: You’ve chosen to come back into the industry, as you said, to work with Online Research Agency. It’s a small, new outfit. Tell me more about it, and what you’re going to do for it?

EN: Online Research Agency specialises in research on all aspects of Internet usage. It is developing the necessary software tools to manage the high-quality international panels that will be key to many of its projects. The need to specialise is something Taylor Nelson learned early on - in TN's case at the time we specialised in markets, not methods. That need has not changed.
I am intrigued by the juxtaposition of quality data and the ability to interpret those data for better, more effective use of the Internet. In effect the company will move, with my participation, towards research-based consultancy. This will demand new forms of structure and style.
Amongst our competitors are consultancy firms offering either their unscientific and process-driven analysis or their own ad hoc research, often using panels where the sample sizes are small or where coverage is limited. In the past researchers have too often been beaten to the post by large consultancy firms who are prepared to put greater emphasis on how to use data than on adequate methods of collection.
Online has the advantage over, say, KMPG. In a recent article that consultancy reported pessimistic attitudes about the future of dotcom companies. The findings were based on a small business panel covering only the UK. Online Research Agency has a far larger panel which is not limited to the UK but covers most of Europe. I look forward to using our own background research to explain why the attitudes reported by KPMG are too pessimistic and how they might be altered.