COMPREHENSIVE CRITICAL THINKING CASES CASE . AMERICAN IDOL

A Big Hit for Marketing Research?

This could be more of a challenge than we previously thought, Melissa Marcello told her business associateJulie Litzenberger.Afternoddinginagreement,Litzenbergerputdownher

cup of coffee at the Vienna, Virginia, Starbucks coffee shop near her firms headquarters.

Both Marcello and Litzenberger were far along their career paths as researchers in the winter of 2010 when they met at Starbucks. Marcello was CEO of research agency Pursuant, Inc. (www.pursuantresearch.com), and Litzenberger led the public relations division at marketing communi- cations agency Sage Communications

(www.sagecommunications. com). Both were based in the Washington, D.C., area.

Litzenberger took the last bite of her cinnamon scone before sipping her latte. She nodded again to Marcello

across the table for two before answering. Research studies that are the most successful in moving the needle are the studies where the research firm uses scientific and credible methods, poses the right questions, and provides the client company with the insights needed to sufficiently reduce risk in decision making, Litzenberger said. In short, improving decision making is what effective marketing research is about.

Over the years, Marcello and Litzenberger had witnessed prospective client companies voicing resistance to pursuing marketing research. Skeptics of professional marketing research sometimes would say that they already knew enough about customers to make decisions. Other times, skeptics would assail the sampling methods of studies in an attempt to dismiss the results. And in other instances, skeptics would merely claim that finding the answers to such questions about customers would be too expensive to obtain. In sum, professionally done marketing research was presented as being impractical.

Marcello and Litzenberger were attempting to overcome a challenge in client development. Specifically, they were attempting to obtain evidence to confront skeptics of professionally done marketing research without comprising the privacy of previous clients with whom they had worked. It was inappropriate for them to share the results of previous studies with anyone other than the clients who had contracted them for those studies.

While considering dozens of ideas over the past 3 weeks of project- development brainstorming sessions, Marcello and Litzenberger were now focused on one project for demonstrating the usefulness of marketing research to prospective clients. The research question was: What still needs to be known about the viewers and voters for contestants of the popular TV show American Idol?

American Idol (www.americanidol.com) is an annual televised singing competition, which began its first season in 2002. The program has always sought to discover the best young singer in the United States. Each year, a series of nationwide auditions are followed by a series of telecasts featuring the singers who advance to the next weeks show based on public voting. Throughout the shows history, three judges have critiqued the singing of surviving contestants each week, and good-guy Ryan Seacrest has hosted the show each year. Judges for the tenth season (2011) were Randy Jackson, Jennifer Lopez, and Steven Tyler.

American Idol experienced personnel and creative changes amid declining viewership in 2010. The 2010 season finale had approximately 24 million viewers watching Lee DeWyze and Crystal

Bowersox compared to the previous year, which had approximately 29 million viewers. Ratings for the Wednesday results show in 2010 slipped 14 percent in the all-important category of adults ages 18 to 49, who are most coveted by advertisers. Despite these issues, there was lack of third-party research to gain more insight into who the viewers actually were or their motivations for voting for American Idol contestants.

Are we kidding ourselves? Marcello challenged Litzenberger. Who would care about a study investigating American Idol viewers? How about the sponsors of the show? Litzenberger quickly countered. Pepsi Cola passed on sponsoring the show during its development, but Coca-Cola decided to take a risk and invested $10 million to become a sponsor in American Idols first season. Thats a lot of cola and that was a lot of risk to take in the

volatile world of broadcast television!

Youre right, Marcello said. I later read in USA Today that Kelly Clarkson might have been voted the first American Idol,

but Coke was the real winner. So maybe Pepsi was the real loser. Coke and Ford now spend tens of millions each year not only to be sponsors, but also to have tie-in promotions, such as you might find at www.cokemusic.com.

575

But just how durable is the shows concept? Litzenberger asked after finishing her latte. What if we find that voters are mostly preteen girls? What if we find that adults dont vote for the contestants or adults dont have confidence in the judges opinions?

The news media should find such answers more delicious than that slice of pumpkin bread I am spying in that glass case over there by the cash register, Marcello said. Journalists will almost always cover what they regard as relevant and quantifiable trends in popular culture.

Litzenberger leaned forward. So how do you propose that we do such a study?

Weve devoted hours to this question at my firm for better than a week. Heres our best thinking on it as of today, Marcello said. We could place about six questions on Opinion Research Corporations CARAVAN (www.opinionresearch.com) national omnibus telephone survey to find out more about who, among adults 18 or older living in the United States, watched and voted in the 2011 season of American Idol. Such an omnibus survey could be done by telephone during 3 days in late April 2011.

OK, but what about sampling? Litzenberger said. You know we might get attacked on this. It could be really expensive, too. Can we afford it?

If we do it this way, we can afford it, Marcello said. It will run about $1,000 per question. Well have the Opinion Research Corporation ask our questions along with those of other sponsoring companies to a randomly selected national sample of 1,045 adults comprised about evenly of men and women. With a total sample size of more than 1,000, we will be able to say with 95-percent certainty that the results would be accurate to within 3.0 percent. This exceeds acceptable standardsfora surveyaboutmediapreferences.

So if only 10 percent of our sample reported voting for American Idol contestants, we would be able to say with 95- percent confidence that the actual percentage of the adult population who voted was somewhere between 7 and 13 percent? Litzenberger asked.

Youve got it, Marcello affirmed. Of course, it could be a lower or a much higher percentage. Nobody really knows now. Anybody who says otherwise is merely speculating.

Silence now overcame these two researchers as they reflected on the future courses of action they could take. They could drop the whole idea of demonstrating the usefulness of marketing research. They could pursue this American Idol study. If so, what questions should be asked to respondents and why? Should they could continue to consider other ideas for such a study and pursue it later. What should they do? Why?

Critical Thinking Questions

1.Marcello and Litzenberger felt it was important to conduct this study because . (State the relevant background information used to justify their work.)

2.The main purpose of Marcello and Litzenbergers study was .

(State as accurately as possible the purpose for doing the study.) 3.The key questions Marcello and Litzenberger are addressing are

.

(Identify the key questions in the minds of the cases protagonists.)

4.The methods used to answer their key questions were . (Describe the general approach used and include details that assist in evaluating the quality of the results; for example, sample size, etc.)

5.The most important information in this article is . (Identify the facts, observations, and/or data Marcello and Litzenberger are using to support their conclusions. Be quantitative.)

6.The results can be put into context by comparing them to . (Place the quantitative results into an easily understood context by expressing as percentages or by comparing them to an intuitively understood valuefor example, twice the size of a football field.)

7.The main inferences/conclusions in this article are . (Identify the key conclusions the case protagonists present in the article.)

8.If we take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are .

(What consequences are likely to follow if people take Marcello and Litzenbergers reasoning seriously?)

Technical Questions

Chapter 1

9.What steps of the six-step marketing research process are evident in this case?

10.What is the role of marketing research in marketing decision making suggested by this case?

Chapter 2

11. Define the management-decision problem confronting Melissa Marcello and Julie Litzenberger and a corresponding marketing research problem and show the linkages between the two.

Chapter 3

12.IfMarcelloandLitzenbergerdecidetoconductthisstudy,what researchdesignshouldtheyadopt?Relatethe different phases of the research design to specific aspects of the marketing research problem.

Chapters 4 and 5

13. What kind of secondary and syndicated data would be helpful in addressing the questions raised by Marcello and and Litzenberger? What is the role played by such data?

Chapter 6

14. Discuss the role of qualitative research in gaining a better understanding of why people view American Idol.

Chapter 7

15. Is the telephone survey the most appropriate method in this case? If not, which survey method would you recommend?