So, how was it for you?

For the veteran of many ESOMAR Congresses, this one had much to offer.

It was seamlessly organized and executed. The technology worked; things ran to time; the logistics of transferring large numbers of people to and from the excellent entertainment were flawless.

Congratulations to the whole ESOMAR team, working in a conference and exhibition space that cannot have been easy to handle.

But what about the content? There were five great keynotes, among which, perhaps, film-maker Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck stood out. But all of them had interesting and inspiring things to say that could provide new perspectives on how we work.

Then there were the papers. The standard of presentation was as consistently high as I’ve seen at ESOMAR.

Yes, there were one or two exceptions, none of them major that I saw, but whatever is wrong with the relationship between researchers and clients, the quality of presentation should not be a factor (or do we keep our best for the big public shows? Perhaps!).

Up until the final morning, there was much to value, but little to inspire. We are, perhaps, drawing breath and re-visiting established techniques and practices.

Yes, there were a lot of well-told stories, especially case histories, but few obviously ground-breaking new methods or insights.

There were, of course, exceptions. Who would expect GfK (of all the large research agencies) to train its graduate intake by turning them loose on Second Life? Who could fail to compare Iraqi researchers with the SAS as they literally risked life and limb to get the survey out?

There were a range of interesting approaches to the highly-fashionable issues of accessing and measuring emotions ... but it all seemed just slightly familiar.

Then the final morning let us loose onto the wider shores of new technology, and the recognition that things really are changing out there, even if they didn’t seem to have been in the research world over the two previous days.

It was clear from walking around the exhibition area of the Congress that the online space is where it’s all happening, at least in terms of commercial activity within the industry.

It’s equally clear that, as internet users near the two billion mark worldwide, and that mobile phone use accelerates further than that, the interface between research and technology becomes ever more crucial.

The final morning gave us a range of information, insights and challenges that opened our eyes to some of the things our geek friends have been telling us for some time now.

This is, definitely, new frontier territory, and, as Ray Poynter assured us, the rate of change continues to accelerate.

The big question is how, exactly, it will be best to get on board the bandwagon before it roars off into cyberspace. 

Which, I guess, is where Tariq Krim comes in. The vibe from Netvibes is the one several of the morning’s papers – and indeed others through the Congress – picked up on.

We are not in control. It’s the people out there – call them consumers, call them respondents, but they are real, quirky people to whom we have to relate, increasingly, on their terms.

And yes, Mark Earls’s award-winning paper may have reiterated his thesis that we are social animals, but we all think we’re individuals, and we like to be treated as such.