Interpreting data? Read "Man"!

When you mention "data", you may often think of daunting words such as "numbers", "graphs", "models", "equations", and so on. In fact, the real meaning of "data" is to hide behind those "people".

In marketing, the market is the root of demand, demand from people. Therefore, we should not on the number and number, the algorithm and algorithm, should be concerned with the end of the "people", http://www.aliyun.com/zixun/aggregation/10242.html "> Market research is even more so."

Some may say, "People" can not be said, sometimes lying, sometimes biased, true or false. But isn't there a simpler idea? We ourselves are "people". As a market researcher, it is not necessary to completely peel off the concept of "people", with a seemingly objective stance, as a trap beast.

This time, perhaps some people will question, if joins more own idea, your research still objective?

Yes, as a market researcher, we must look at the facts objectively and present the facts. But what is the truth, if you always isolate yourself on the other side, I am afraid that this so-called fact is just a cloud of mystery.

Here, I must emphasize that the importance of facts is precisely to see the facts, we must "have the means" in some cases, we see ourselves as the same side of the "people", in some cases, to separate themselves from the other side of the bystanders.

This "method" is what this article is trying to sum up.

1. Do not have any ideas before the user expresses any opinion, or is not clear about the user's point of view.

We may as well be vulgar to liken themselves to "worm", the owner has no idea, even if you are in the belly of worms, it is impossible to know what.
So we need an open-ended questionnaire to tempt our owners to try to speak their minds, even if only a little. This is called the qualitative phase.

2. Take the user's text feedback, try to read this "person", not these "words".

When the questionnaires are recycled, we "see" the owners write them down in words. There are two questions:
First, the number of open questionnaires, means that the host a lot of different tastes;
Second, the use of words may be based on the different backgrounds or personalities of the main person (written differently), and because of their own background, we "see" the way with the owners of the way of expression is also different (see the difference), the result will inevitably lead to the lack of information transmission (the most vivid analogy is, relay gestures game, The results are often ironic).

At this time, we as the same side of the "people" can appear.
Looking at the words left on the scaled, imagine what the "you" are trying to say? This time seems to be able to read something. But it must be said that at this time "you" can only be the person behind the words, and should not have any of your ego influence judgment.

As a simple example, two players say that your game is too costly. Please take a good look at their grades, their roles, their income/careers, and so on, you may find one is intermediate, one is advanced, one is a meat shield, one is a magician, one is a student, the other is a blue collar.

We try to substitute, what kind of situation will you face in this game if you are a mid-level meat shield? Because the rules of the game, you often with the senior player PK, the result is PK often lose (frustration feeling too strong), in the final analysis because your role is only intermediate, then will think "if I practice to advanced, not afraid with senior player PK." "At the end of the day, spending money on a regular level is never going to catch up with a senior, and then there's a questionnaire, and you don't hesitate to say," This game is too expensive.

Another role, if you are a senior magician, because you rank high, attack strong, many people group you make a copy, copy for you is very simple, but the mobile phone side of the page is always complex and huge, one night down, traffic used in half. On the third night, when your teammates shout at you, you have to use the package flow to join the alliance. Two weeks later, on the day of the month found that the amount of money spent on the excess of 100 in the flow, when you received a questionnaire, you are outraged to say "the game is too much cost."

The above example is to illustrate that when you read the person behind the text, you will find that the former "money-consuming" root is likely to be a lack of performance, the latter's "money-wasting" source is likely to be the network response of the page, the two may not be the same story.

3. Listen to the user's words, rather than talk to him, understand him.

One may be careful to see that I have used the word "probable" to conclude that this generation is just "guessing" and that you have no proof that the hypothesis is right.

Yes, I do not remember which famous person said "bold hypothesis, careful verification." If the preceding is how to use "substituting" to boldly assume, then how to use "substituting" to carefully verify.

With some rough ideas, as market researcher, the heart is full of excitement and curiosity, no one more than we want to know their own assumptions or ideas, in the end right. This time, must pay attention to, put away our excitement and curiosity. This preconceived emotion can be a hindrance to discovering the facts.

Front only text contact, next may wish to personally and user dialogue, the form is diverse, telephone, interview, field Test and so on. With the near-harsh chain of inquiry (there are skills, the price of inquiry must not be annoying users), let users dig themselves thoroughly, this process may be painful and difficult, so your "generation" becomes very important. Only let the user feel, as the same side of the "person" you exist, he will be willing to do digging his own hard work.

Case sharing: On the desktop there are several different brands, the same size of the same material bottles.

Ask a stay-at-home full-time mom to choose one of the two selected, and say why. Two alternative bottles are: High-end brand PP material, general brand glass material. Finally she chose the general brand glass material. She told us that PP material is not good for children, and that they are full-time mothers, can take care of glass materials, glass more secure.
After a few links, we add the content "in order to thank you, we send you an extra gift, please pick one to take away." As a result, she chose the high-end brand PP material.
At this point, you try to take the role of a stay-at-home mother in Low-and middle-income families, and you seem to be more able to read her behavior, and this high-end brand may still be trustworthy, and the source may not be material, but in price.

With this idea, ask her "Send people?" or BB? I'll give you a package, BB may be better with a handle. ”
Then she told me, "Thank you, then help me add a handle, high-end brand is fastidious Ah, I also give BB to try." "(the expression is relaxed and joyful)
"Have tried if good, can return to patronize Oh!" ”
She blinked a little hard eyes, raised the corners of the mouth "Oh, good, we first try ~ ~ ~". Speaking of which, you know.
(In other words, sincerely suggest that market researchers might as well cultivate a psychological projection of facial movements)

4. Instead of looking at each number individually, it's better to string it up and read it out and read out a "person".

From the breadth of open questionnaires to the depth of dialogue with users, we have been piecing together and supplementary materials, "substituting" in addition to help us to read "people", but also to help us to describe the possible problems, can be popularly understood as "ready to table dishes." The food can not be on the end, the material is not ultimately made this dish, but also continue to "carefully verify."

Come to the quantitative questionnaire stage, organize your materials and send them to the user to decide what they want. After the user feedback back, we entered the data cleaning, analysis, interpretation phase.

Here's an explanation.

Before us is a bunch of numbers, a bunch of charts, and our task is not to tell you what this number is, but what the numbers represent.

The first thing to do is to gather the relevant numbers of each of their hypotheses to see if they can be strung into chains (commonly known as "evidence Chains"), if they can, well, hypothetically. If not, study the hypothetical loophole and perhaps find a new conclusion.

The second thing is, the user perspective of such as the behavior of the path, attitude trajectory, the requirements of the process chain related to the number of links to see whether the complete description of the "human" image. If you can, well, another conclusion emerged, if not, check the contradictions or gaps in where, you may find that the user classification method is not correct, another subdivision of the dimension may be more effective.

For a simple example, you have a user's preference for skin elements, colors, styles, and themes, in tandem, and with a suitable subdivision dimension, it can be found that different ages of users, social immersion experience, and overall style preferences are also different. By analogy, you will find that social immersion experiences may be projected in more other areas of preference.

One may ask, it seems that there is no "substituting". In fact, in the two things you do, there is already "substituting". The organization evidence chain, the sketch image person these two pieces of work, needs to read the choice to be able to understand the ratio as well as fills the option the person, can do well.

(This article is from the Tencent CDC blog: http://cdc.tencent.com/?p=6306)