<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>International Journal of Market Research</title>
<link>http://www.ijmr.com/</link>
<description>The International Journal of Market Research (IJMR) is the world's primary source of cutting-edge thinking and ideas about market and social research.</description>
<copyright>World Advertising Research Center Ltd 2009</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 September 2007 12:50:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
<generator>World Advertising Research Center</generator>
<editor>Editor@warc.com</editor>
<webmaster>webmaster@warc.com</webmaster>
<ttl>5</ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Editorial]]></title>
<link>http://www.IJMR.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89296</link>
<author>Peter Mouncey</author>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<pubDate>1 May 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Viewpoint - Semiotics: a winning formula?]]></title>
<link>http://www.IJMR.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89297</link>
<author>Chris Arning</author>
<description><![CDATA[The article discusses semiotics and argues that it is widely misunderstood by researchers, because it lacks a convincing means of assuring quality and guarantees of consistent performance. Industry standards need to be created for semiotics. In the short term this could be done by creating a benchmarking system: a &#8216;semiotic value index, or SVI for short: &#8216;Semiotic' because it attempts to measure units of symbolic investment; &#8216;value' because it would quantify this figure; &#8216;index' both because this has resonances of a reference system and gives the means to compare and contrast brands and track them over time. Successful examples of this approach in other areas are reviewed.  A process for achieving SVI is proposed: a committee of practitioners to decide criteria and how to gather them, next a step-by-step formulaic calculation. The Interbrand model of brand valuation shows how this could work in practice.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 May 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Response to Viewpoint - &#8216;The faddish breakouts of ethnography']]></title>
<link>http://www.IJMR.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89298</link>
<author>Humphrey Taylor</author>
<description><![CDATA[The market research industry is full of `fads', ideas that have disappeared because they did not work very well. Somebody should write a history of such fads over the past 30 years.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 May 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Fads in market research: a reality or just a distortion of remembered history due to telescoping and salience effects? -  A reply to Humphrey Taylor]]></title>
<link>http://www.IJMR.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89299</link>
<author>Clive Boddy</author>
<description><![CDATA[This article responds to Humphrey Taylor's suggestion 89298 that a history of market research fads should be written. The author has reviewed journal titles over the past 24 years and found that there were fewer fads than expected. Main themes have been: improving data collection methods, improving market research in practice, international research. `Faddish' themes have been mainly ethnography and semiotics.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 May 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[FORUM - Word of mouse - An assessment of electronic word-of-mouth research]]></title>
<link>http://www.IJMR.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89300</link>
<author>Michael Breazeale</author>
<description><![CDATA[Word-of-mouth WOM communication has received a great deal of attention from marketing academics and practitioners alike. Widespread use of the internet for shopping, information gathering and entertainment purposes has changed not only the ways that WOM can be studied and manipulated but also the very nature of the phenomenon. Published research into electronic WOM eWOM first appeared in the top-level marketing journals only about ten years ago. Since that time, there has been a great deal of research but no synthesis of the knowledge that would allow one to draw conclusions regarding the evolving nature of WOM and to extend the theory applied to this topic. This paper will address that gap, applying the paradigm funnel technique and will suggest some future research directions.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 May 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Gear model of advertising - Modelling human response to advertising stimuli]]></title>
<link>http://www.IJMR.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89301</link>
<author>Michael F. Cramphorn and Denny Meyer</author>
<description><![CDATA[One of the goals when add+impact&#174; a+i&#174;was founded in 1991 was to develop a database that could be used to add to the general understanding of how people respond to advertising. Recent applications were the Integrative model and a comparison of response tendencies to advertising between men and women. However, a crucial aspect of the advertising process &#8211; how to account for the nature and contribution of creativity to the &#8216;watchability' of advertising &#8211; has not been satisfactorily explained. This paper presents a breakthrough in understanding how people respond to advertising, and shows that it is possible to predict, with a very great degree of confidence, how well a given ad will achieve the ultimate objective of all advertising: to increase the &#8216;purchase intent' towards the advertised brand, immediately after exposure and before there has been time for other intervening events to dilute or otherwise alter that immediate effect. It also enables a clear understanding of how that response came to be.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 May 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Training the next generation of market researchers]]></title>
<link>http://www.IJMR.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89302</link>
<author>Mike Cooke and Phyllis Macfarlane</author>
<description><![CDATA[GfK NOP is seeking to develop excellence through the use of Web 2.0 tools on its graduate training programme. Our approach has been to build excellence by adopting a new organisational form known as the &#8216;community of practice' approach. This approach is emerging in companies that seek excellence as it promises to galvanise knowledge sharing, learning and change. It has led them into a world where the avatar has been conducting interviews in Second Life and they have been using social networks for research purposes. It is believed this approach will produce market researchers who are more attuned to client requirements of the future, and could possibly retain more talent within the industry, as it allows new entrants to see how they can contribute to the development of methods, techniques and products, and creates a better sense of belonging to the industry.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 May 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[A critical comparison of offline focus groups, online focus groups and e-Delphi]]></title>
<link>http://www.IJMR.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89303</link>
<author>Elisabeth Br amp;#252;ggen and Pieter Willems</author>
<description><![CDATA[The boom in online marketing research represents one of the fastest-growing segments of the research industry. Although the design and quality of online surveys has received widespread attention, little empirical research compares the effectiveness of online and offline qualitative research techniques. Therefore, this research compares offline focus groups, online focus groups and e-Delphi with respect to depth, breadth, efficiency, group dynamics, non-verbal impressions and attitudes of respondents. Results show that offline focus group results have the highest depth and breadth, and are most efficient, leading to high-quality outcomes. However, e-Delphi discussions provide very elaborate and relatively deep outcomes that give a good impression of respondents' feelings and attitudes. Results from online focus groups remain rather superficial, but experts value the spontaneous reactions and interactiveness, and consider online focus groups very efficient.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 May 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Seeing jazz - doing research]]></title>
<link>http://www.IJMR.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89304</link>
<author>Michael K. Mills</author>
<description><![CDATA[This paper uses the metaphor of jazz music-making to contribute to the growing literature concerning the need for a more holistic approach to research, and to suggest directions for research implementation. It suggests researchers can work towards an &#8216;effortless mastery' of their craft, and posits potential new forms of evaluation criteria useful in evaluating research and researcher quality.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 May 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Exploring the price efficiency within automotive markets - An application of data envelopment analysis]]></title>
<link>http://www.IJMR.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89305</link>
<author>Pingjun Jiang</author>
<description><![CDATA[Using a non-parametric data envelopment analysis DEA approach, this paper compares the price of each car model in a segment of the personal car market with the best possible price in view of the technology available given its particular combination of characteristics. In this approach, a car model is defined as price efficient if it offers customers the highest value per dollar spent for that set of characteristics. Likewise, a car model is inefficient if there is some other car model with a lower price having equivalent or higher quality, whereby a measure of the price efficiency is determined by the price reduction needed to make a car model efficient. The data set covers 141 different year 2002 car models. The vehicles that are listed by Edmunds.com as consumers' most wanted are compared with those at the top of our efficiency list. It is found that the majority of cars at the top of the list are also listed as most wanted by Edmunds.com. Evidently, consumers who usually make decisions based on price and quality information will naturally employ a heuristic such as &#8216;buy car models at the top of price efficiency list' if this list is made available to them.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 May 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Book reviews - Bad Science]]></title>
<link>http://www.IJMR.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89306</link>
<author>Ben Goldacre</author>
<description><![CDATA[A book review of Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, 2008, Fourth Estate.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 May 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Book reviews - Doing Conversation, Discourse and Document Analysis]]></title>
<link>http://www.IJMR.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89307</link>
<author>Tim Rapley</author>
<description><![CDATA[A book review about Doing Conversation, Discourse and Document Analysis by Tim Rapley, 2007, Sage Publications.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 May 2009</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
