Sixty-five percent of professionals in the U.S. reported receiving more than one job offer before accepting their current role, according to a global survey conducted in January and February 2012 by London recruitment consultancy Robert Walters. Thirty-five percent of U.S. respondents received one job offer before deciding to proceed with their current role; 40 percent received two offers; 14 percent received three different offers; and 11 percent were offered four or more positions prior to accepting their last position.

If you’re curious about how the job market is in the research industry, Quirk’s third-annual salary survey of corporate researchers includes feedback from researchers who are currently unemployed, asking what they see as the greatest obstacles to finding new employment. The survey data will be shared in the magazine, on quirks.com, on our blogs and leaked via Twitter @QuirksMR. We think some of our readers might be surprised by the results!

“Your customers will notice that your products seem interchangeable with those of your competitors – and they will pressure you for lower prices,” says Adams, president of Advanced Industrial Marketing and author of New Product Blueprinting: The Handbook for B2B Organic Growth. “This will lead to profit declines. So what should you plan for as you go over the company’s budget? Should you cheerfully tell your boss to expect more profit declines? No. To make the most of 2012, you’ll have to reduce costs. Where will you cut? Unfortunately, it will probably have to be in long-term areas like R&D or marketing.”

If any of this is ringing true, your company is firmly strapped into what Adams calls the commodity death spiral. It’s a business-busting decline that begins with companies creating me-too products that lead to budget cuts that mean they’ll have even less new product development capability, especially for high-impact new products. “The farther you spiral down, the smaller your business will get,” says Adams. “You’ll have less profits and even fewer options. Sure, your business might survive, but if it does, it will be on life-support – where it is no longer relevant.”

If the thought of the commodity death spiral has you panicking, don’t. Adams offers solutions that will help you behave and think differently when it comes to new product development.

Take ownership of your future. There are many forces pulling your products toward commoditization: competitors trying to imitate your products; purchasing agents trying to standardize your products; new technologies trying to make your products obsolete; the list could go on and on. Resist them, says Adams. Bolster your resolve to forge ahead with a true innovation strategy. “If you want to move away from commodity toward specialty products, the sobering truth is you will get no help from the outside,” he says. “Forces pulling a supplier toward ‘specialty’ come from the supplier, or they don’t come at all.”

Measure your progress. Is your business moving down the commodity death spiral or reversing direction? Tracking your new product vitality index can provide insight, notes Adams. This is the percentage of your total sales from new products (typically introduced in the last three to five years). “But don’t forget a simpler metric: average selling price,” he adds. “This is how customers ‘vote’ on the value your products deliver relative to the next-best alternatives. You can fire out new products at Gatling gun speed but if this metric keeps dropping, you’re moving toward the big ‘C.’”

Change your time horizon. In a Harvard Business Review article decades ago, Richard Vancil complained that long-term product development expenses are buried within short-term operating plans, allowing shortsighted business leaders to “raid” funds needed for their future. This problem still exists, says Adams. “To combat it, consider putting all your budget dollars in either a short-term bucket or a long-term bucket. And make sure someone is watching the long-term bucket.”

Work on high-impact, high-innovation products. Some companies play it safe and work on only low-risk, me-too and incremental new products. But in the commodity death spiral, this strategy is the beginning of the end. Those who sacrifice innovation on the altar of safety end up losing both. “While each me-too and incremental project may have low risks, a business built only on low-risk projects is actually at great risk,” says Adams. “So make sure your new product portfolio has a healthy proportion of high-impact new products – products that will deliver significant value to your customers.”

Get out more. It will help you minimize risk. While it’s risky to incrementalize, it’s also dangerous to invest in “great-hope” projects: high-stakes gambles with lower odds than management realizes. These kinds of projects pull in lots of manpower, funding and management attention. But after two or three years, they often end with a whimper, typically from a fatal flaw that should have been discovered much earlier.

So if there’s too much risk with both me-too and great-hope projects, what’s the answer? “I believe we need to ‘get out more.’ We need to spend much more time in our customers’ world to reduce our commercial risk. And we need to reduce our technical risk through open innovation by uncovering and introducing technologies from outside our companies.”

Directly engage your customers. In the 2007 edition of its Global Innovation 1000 study, Booz Allen Hamilton found that companies that directly engage customers in their innovation processes had profit growth three times faster than those using “indirect customer insight.”

Adams explains how direct engagement increases as you move through six important levels:

Level 1: Our conference room – deciding what customers want around your conference room table.

Level 2: Ask our experts – polling your sales force, tech service and others to determine customer needs.

Level 3: Customer survey – using surveys and polls to ask customers what they want.

Level 4: Qualitative VOC interviews – sending interview teams to hear the voice of the customer.

Level 5: Quantitative VOC interviews – adding numerical feedback to drive out bias and wishful thinking.

Level 6: B2B VOC interviews – B2B-optimized methods to fully engage knowledgeable B2B customers. (Click here to learn more about B2B-optimized interviews.)

“No company has ever grown by copying its competition or by failing to innovate when its competition’s products began hitting a little too close to home,” says Adams. “Me-too products and incremental steps in new product development will always lead to commoditization. But you can avoid allowing your company to spiral into irrelevance. Once you understand the very real, very profitable benefits of changing the way you innovate, nothing will hold you back.”

A survey on spring cleaning conducted by Kelton Research, Los Angeles, on behalf of Dublin, Ohio, cleaning company Stanley Steemer found that nearly half of all Americans predict they will spend less than four hours total on this year’s spring cleaning, with nearly two in 10 Americans saying they will spend less than one hour or no time at all. In fact, 74 percent can name at least one less-than-enjoyable task they would rather do than this annual rite: 8 percent of these people would prefer 48 hours of sleep deprivation and an amazing 9 percent would even endure the physical pain of a root canal rather than do spring cleaning.

It surprised me that spring cleaning seems to be a thing of the past but what really caught my eye was the geographic breakdown of the survey findings! I thought for sure that those in colder climates would be the antsiest to start cleaning but it turns out that those in the South anticipate spending the most time cleaning (12.5 hours mean vs. 8.5 hours in the Northeast, 8.0 hours in the Midwest and 10.5 hours in the West). Those in the Midwest and West are most likely to spend less than one hour spring cleaning this year (14 percent in Midwest and 13 percent in West vs. 7 percent in Northeast and South, respectively).

However, there was one snippet in the survey results that spoke to my neat-freak heart: The younger Americans are, the more likely they are to clean to help eliminate stress. Eighteen-to-34-year-olds in particular are most likely to clean for this reason (34 percent vs. 23 percent among those ages 35+). Is it a “clean house, clear mind” mentality that motivates me after all?

I guess maybe this cheesehead stands alone in my spring cleaning enthusiasm but I have carpet cleaning scheduled with a local company (sorry, not Stanley Steemer!) for June 2^nd and I’m looking forward to it like it’s Christmas morning! How about you? Planning on doing any spring cleaning? Can you make sense of why Southerners are most likely to spend time cleaning?

Of course every business promotes its own services and attempts to stop competitors. However, the Google situation is unique because Google is taking money from its competitors by selling them advertisements and placing them in search engine listings. Although Google has been transparent with the types of businesses and products it owns or partners on, it still has a conflict of interest which remains the root cause of these types of allegations.

Within the media industry these types of conflicts of interest often exist, but I’m proud to say that for years Quirk’s has had policies in place to avoid them.

Our pledge to advertisers

No owner, board member or employee of Quirk’s is allowed to sit on the board or own any direct shares in a research company. Likewise we are prohibited from consulting or being employed by a research firm. We take it one step further and also never hire a research firm so as to not give the appearance of supporting one firm over another.

Our pledge to readers

Likewise, on the editorial side we never sell editorial space nor is the publishing of an article contingent on purchasing advertising. We choose content based on its merit alone. Anything else would undermine our credibility with our readers. And our readers, after all, are who we serve. Don’t get me wrong – we couldn’t do what we do without our valued advertisers. But, to draw an analogy from the world of television, you don’t write a TV show for the advertisers, you write it for the viewers. Our belief is that producing content across a range of media that delivers an engaged and devoted audience is the best way to serve our advertisers.

What is your pledge to customers?  And, are your vendors willing to make a pledge to you?

For research suppliers and corporate researchers alike, the mix of tools has changed with the introduction of social networks and new DIY and data-gathering solutions (e.g., mobile research, crowdsourcing, social media mining, etc.). New data sources are coming faster than ever before. And more than likely, over the past few years both suppliers and corporate researchers have seen increasing pressure to prove ROI at the same time as their budgets and staff have dwindled.

While some might see only gloom in all of this, I see great opportunity – if you are willing to embrace change and change yourself, that is. Mobile technology, neuromarketing, predictive markets and behavioral economics are just a few new options in the vast sea of tools available to researchers. Researchers should be swimming (or even drowning!) in data – which gives them a chance to become experts at sorting through and managing this data and providing real insights to clients, perhaps earning them that ever-elusive seat at the table.

Some of my hope for the future of our industry has been fueled by a reading of Leading Edge Marketing Research (Sage Publications), which does a great job addressing the skills and tools a researcher will need in the 21^st century. Chapter one, written by Ian Lewis and Simon Chadwick of Cambiar, and the epilogue, written by Robert Moran of StrategyOne US, are particularly effective in explaining the future role of the researcher.

There is no doubt that this transition will be fraught with challenges. Change is never easy. But I truly believe that researchers can and will have a more visible position in the future if they can adapt to the changing requirements of their job function. Instead of accepting that the industry is dead, we need to embrace and encourage the change that surrounds us.

As I gathered snacks for the two-hour Mad Med premier last Sunday night, my husband asked me if I wanted to record it for another night or perhaps watch something else for a while so that we could skip through commercials. I was appalled. No way was I going to wait an extra 30 minutes!

But, I understood his point. Nearly all of the TV we watch is recorded or on DVD. The convenience of time-shifted television and borrowing series box-sets from co-workers has spoiled us. Why bother with commercials if we don’t have to?

I got to thinking about it and I realized that as much as I hate commercials, I hate being behind the curve even more.

A study from iModerate Research Technologies, Denver, addressed the phenomenon of Social TV – the act of connecting with people via social networks while watching television – and the impact it has on our viewing. The study identified several different types of Social TV participants and as I read through the descriptions, I wondered if they’d based one in particular – The Girlfriend – on me. According to iModerate, “The Girlfriend is a 25-to-44-year-old female who mainly engages in Social TV while watching dramas and reality shows. She relates deeply to her favorite shows and looks forward to the girls’-night-out aspect of interacting with them through Social TV.”

As I was watching Mad Men I enjoyed checking my News Feed to see what my friends were saying about the Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce gang and texted furiously with girlfriends on the East Coast to figure out what exactly this beef between Megan and Joan is all about. But it didn’t stop once the show was over. The next day I anxiously awaited New York Magazine’s Vulture blog recap of the show and was thankful I didn’t have to avoid the spoilers on Yahoo!’s front page.

Social TV has become a huge part of my TV-watching experience and I thoroughly enjoy it. Through Social TV, something that can be a mind-numbing, solitary experience is shared with like-minded friends, all thanks to social media. There’s no way I could make it through two hours of The Bachelor(ette) on Monday nights if not for having my good friend in Savannah on Gchat with me.

For me, practicing Social TV turns TV into another way to connect with my girlfriends and be part of the discussion. I never thought my DVR dependency would subside but being in the loop and being able to talk about shows as they’re happening is far more important than saving 30 minutes of commercial time.

Do you take part in Social TV? What types of shows are you most likely to watch socially?

The Worthington, Ohio firm’s analysis of data from select fast-food restaurant customers found that McDonald’s patrons are the unhappiest with their health (24 percent unhappy/totally unhappy), with diners at Taco Bell (22.7 percent), Wendy’s (22.1 percent) and Burger King (21.5 percent) right on their heels. Customers of these restaurants tend to have a more negative opinion of their own physical condition versus the general population.

Unhappiness Index (among select fast-food customers)
(customers who are unhappy/very unhappy versus the general adult population)

McDonald’s: 112.24
Taco Bell: 106.03
Wendy’s: 103.46
Burger King: 100.76
KFC: 96.96
Subway: 90.52
Chick-fil-A: 73.69
Arby’s: 71.30

Source: BIGinsight Monthly Consumer Survey – FEB-12 (N = 8716, 2/1 – 2/8/12)

(McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Subway, Burger King, Taco Bell, Chick-fil-A, Arby’s and KFC customers were analyzed for this study. “Customers” are defined as those who eat most often at a given fast-food restaurant [an unaided, write-in response]. Respondents were asked: On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being “Totally Unhappy,” and 5 being “Totally Happy,” how would you rate your happiness level with your Health?)

Chick-fil-A diners report being the happiest with their health of those analyzed (58.9 percent happy/totally happy), followed by Subway and Arby’s customers at 57.1 percent and 56.6 percent, respectively. This is compared to over half of Americans (53.9 percent) who feel the same.

“Given that Chick-fil-A, Subway and Arby’s all offer menu items with a calorific punch, it’s apparent that Americans’ overall personal health perceptions aren’t specific to their fast-food chain of choice,” said Pam Goodfellow, consumer insights director, BIGinsight, in a press release. “We’ve found that it boils down to their health habits, including exercising regularly and watching fat and calorie intake.”

Subway patrons are the most likely to exercise on a regular basis (49.1 percent), while McDonald’s customers are the least likely of the group (34.8 percent). As a comparison, 34.3 percent of adults 18+ say they exercise regularly.

Exercise Regularly (among select fast-food customers)

Subway: 49.1%
Chick-fil-A: 46.0%
Arby’s: 43.2%
Taco Bell: 40.3%
Wendy’s: 40.2%
Burger King: 36.0%
KFC: 35.4%
McDonald’s: 34.8%

Source: BIGinsight Monthly Consumer Survey – FEB-12 (N = 8716, 2/1 – 2/8/12)

For more information check out the BIG Consumer Blog.

One-third (33 percent) of U. S. adults plan to watch at least one March Madness game this year, with men (48 percent) being significantly more likely to do so than women (20 percent). The stakes for betting on the tournament will be higher this year, as 31 percent of those who plan to bet money said they plan to bet more money than in years past. Overall, more than one-quarter (26 percent) of those who plan to watch said they plan to bet money on the tournament.

Those wagering on the tournament know that the odds of picking winners of so many games can be challenging. In fact, 43 percent of those who have bet on March Madness said they have never won any money and 62 percent said they have lost money. On the flip side, 22 percent said they have won between $1 and $50, while 17 percent said they have won $201 or more.

Those betting on March Madness will likely be watching the games closely, and many others will follow the action from the workplace. Of employed adults, nearly two-in-five (38 percent) said they plan to watch March Madness games at work, whether on their computer or on a TV in the break room. Others are willing to forgo work to watch the games. Nearly one-quarter (24 percent) said they would skip work to watch March Madness games, either using paid-time-off (13 percent) or if they knew they wouldn’t get caught (11 percent).

Not only do employed adults use their office hours to watch the games, they also spend time researching matchups while on the job. Forty-five percent said they have spent time researching March Madness matchups while at work. Twenty-one percent said they have spent more than two hours, 23 percent said they have spent between one and two hours.

This isn’t the first year March Madness will threaten productivity but there’s little talk of what employers are doing to thwart it. What is it about tournament time that makes not working at work seem acceptable? Have you filled out a bracket? Do you have money riding on the games? Will March Madness interfere with your work?

That said, I don’t think it’s any secret that maintaining pet wellness or an emergency trip to an after-hours vet can put a serious dent in rainy-day savings. Insurance for my dog runs $30 a month and one bout of feline ringworm cost about $500, not including the $250 I spent after the ringworm medication caused an ear infection. And in today’s economy, many Americans struggle to take care of their own medical expenses, let alone those of their four-legged friends.

A November 2011 survey of 1,200 dog and cat owners by Farmington, Conn., research company The Pert Group and Brakke Consulting, Dallas, found that veterinarians continue to be key influencers and a primary channel for pet products but consumers visited the vet almost 20 percent less in 2011 than they did in 2007 – if they went at all. At the same time, the Internet and pet superstores continue to gain share in several product categories due to lower costs, variety and convenience.

Although I still visit the vet as much or more than in the past, I admit that how I’ve grown to use the vet is evolving. I rely on my vet clinic’s expertise but the penny-pinching recessionista in me has changed what I do with the knowledge the vet imparts.

The vet said I need to protect my cat from scratching her sore ear. So I comparison-shopped for a cone of shame and ended up borrowing one from my sister instead of paying $20 for one of my own.

The vet said I need to use flea-and-tick prevention year-round now that I live in a wooded area. Instead of buying First Shield Trio flea-and-tick prevention from the vet for $15 a pop, I went online to research the active ingredients in different brands and bought a six-month supply of Frontline Plus for $11 per application (with a coupon, thankyouverymuch).

The vet recommended Benadryl to sedate my dog on long car rides. Why would I buy a bottle of Benadryl for $15 from the clinic when Walgreen’s sells its generic version for one-fifth the cost?

For those with pets, the vet will never become obsolete but with sites like 1-800-PetMeds and Wag.com, it seems foolish to pay retail at the vet counter. Has the recession changed your pet-related spending? Are vet visits down because of cost? Or are pet owners simply getting their information – and medications – elsewhere? Will the increased options for pet care impact the industry positively or negatively? What other industries/professions could end up educators instead of vendors?

Though the economy is showing signs of life, things are still not great for vast segments of the population and the amount of goodwill generated from a well-done, well-executed program like Panera’s could be tremendous.

Of course, any for-profit venture can’t survive by depending on the better angels of human nature, though Panera estimates that about 20 percent of patrons give more than the suggested donation, about 20 percent give less or nothing and about 60 percent leave the suggested amount.

But as part of a larger charitable or community-building undertaking, a model like Panera’s – one that preserves the dignity of the less-fortunate; burnishes the image of the brand doing the giving among all of the customers, not just those paying what they can afford; and also allows those who pay more than the suggested amount to nourish their souls along with their bodies – is definitely food for thought.