Careers Feature: Getting in the Grads

Aside from paying the kind of huge sums management consultancies pay, how do we entice bright graduates into the profession? It's a tough question - but we're used to answering tough questions, and surely we know some of the answers already, says Nick Thomas, continuing our features to celebrate job ad no.100,000.

It seems research providers have at least done something of late to raise salaries for entrants to the profession. As reported on Friday, entry level UK salaries have seen an increase of c.20 percent over ten years - or more particularly c.20 percent in the seven years to 2008. Let's assume that we are getting there, where salaries are concerned, or at least let's say that recent rises have left us in the position where, if we can communicate the other good things about a career in research, a sufficient number will not be put off by the money. Then we can concentrate on the other aspects.

What are the selling points of research as a career? Variety seems to be one of them, according to Bill Maynard of RP Cushing, one of the UK's specialist MR recruiters: 'many graduates have conducted some sort of research as part of their studies and realise how varied and interesting it can be and do chose such a career path. As an industry we should not be afraid to boast about how interesting and varied the sector can be'. Certainly the prospect of getting an overview not of one but of many different sectors was a key factor in getting me to apply for my first research job. The variety of work - techniques and activities as well as sectors - makes research intellectually stimulating. It would be wrong to suggest that there's 'never a dull moment', although if we believe job ads some such positions do exist - but there is plenty of interest too, especially where execs are involved in full service projects from start to finish and get to discuss business issues with clients, design projects accordingly, and see their findings and recommendations having an effect. The latter is not universal, but neither is it all that rare nowadays (see below).

Glamour is not the first word that springs to mind, and for example it would be wrong to say that most research jobs offer lots of international travel: nevertheless most researchers do get out and meet people from an early stage, many work with high profile brands and household name client companies, and there are an increasing number of MR roles in trendy sectors such as gaming, media/entertainment, mobile technology, luxury goods and leisure. The music and movie industries make more and more use of MR and analytics, with trackers looking at movie audiences worldwide and pre-testing panels and communities increasingly influential in the actual content of films and even songs.

Job security is an interesting one. As discussed last week, we're not perhaps recession-proof but we do seem to be relatively recession-resistant. Should mainstream MR employment falter, there are boom sectors within research and analytics, to jobs in which traditional MR skills are at worst transferable, and at best (see earlier features) highly relevant and arguably crucial. In times when other sectors are perceived as struggling generally or as 'legacy' or twilight industries (for example print media, parts of high street retailing or large tracts of manufacturing), research and analytical skills are a relatively good bet.

Underlying all these however is I think one vital question, that of job satisfaction, of achievement. If I become a market researcher, what will I contribute to whom - what will I be able to sit back and say I've actually done? Whereas we undoubtedly need to stress all the other aspects mentioned above, the one that might prove the hardest sell is this.

Not that I think people already in the profession have nearly as big a problem with this as they used to. The percentage of reports that end up propping up a table in a client's office has declined rapidly - one really positive effect of the squeeze on budgets and the need for marketers and clients to explain where every penny goes. We know that generally we're useful, involved and influential - but I think public perception of this needs changing a great deal.

Reasons differ according to where in the world you are. In the UK, the influence of researchers on government has been seen in a largely negative light in the last fifteen years - over-dependence on focus groups and so on. The US meanwhile has big issues now with privacy, which can have specific operational effects, as with the struggle to exempt MR incentives from physician payment bans; or do more insidious damage to respondent co-operation or - in the current case - to enthusiasm for a career. In Australia, high profile government spending on MR has had similar effects to the UK, 'though more recently; while in parts of Asia, perceptions of MR can be closely tied to those of capitalism or 'the West' generally, not necessarily a bad thing in these relatively upbeat economies.

I'm not suggesting another PR campaign to tell people how MR is a force for good - I don't know if I can stand that. I think we need to be low-key but ceaselessly active, if that makes sense - below the line, not evangelical as such but enthusiastic about what we do, and confident. There are cleverer ways to enthuse people than placing full page ads sponsored by industry associations - and we have some expert lateral thinkers among us. For starters maybe we need editorial not advertorial, a few more high-profile public figures giving interviews and some coverage in documentaries and maybe in fiction - a Mad Men equivalent wouldn't hurt...

More than this general uplift, however, we need to target the right places, with the right messages, when it comes to graduates, and we need to do it consistently. 'The Research sector is not good at attracting bright young minds into the profession', says Clive Warren of recruitment consultants CSA Recruitment. As an industry, we are far too complacent and expect a constant stream of intelligent graduates to somehow find a career in Research'. Sinead Hasson of rival firm Hasson Associates, agrees and suggests: 'greater clarity of what a career in insight is would help. A better word of mouth campaign in careers libraries' - she suggests taking an industry road show to 'all the key universities', with 'passionate speakers who can explain what it's all about.'

If this happens once in a generation it's better than nothing, but the key is to do it every year. Yes even in time of recession or downturn - it's a little depressing how recruitment of grads dropped almost to nothing in 2009. 'There is a current shortage of people with 2 to 3 years' experience because no-one really recruited grads in 2009 and the effects of that are having quite a big impact' says Hasson. This will have a knock-on effect for years to come, as Warren notes: 'There will be a resulting dip in talent at RE, SRE, RM and AD level: research organisations were just not taking in grads to turn them into research talent in sufficient numbers to cope with the demand [which will grow] when the economic revival is more tangible and broadly believed.'

Yes, it's hard to think longer-term when the chips are down - but it's not impossible. In the pharmaceutical industry they have no choice, because the development cycle for major new drugs is so long that there's a high probability an economic downturn of some sort will occur in the middle of one, but also that the economy will be booming again by the time the drug is on the market - as a result, in a competitive sector, it would be suicidal to suspend investment in times of hardship. Perhaps because we don't have so much spare cash - I admit! - but also perhaps because the need is not so obvious in our sector, we appear to have taken a short-term view and now there is likely to be an acute shortage of talent in the junior roles of our profession.

...as opposed to the normal, almost-acute shortage.

When it comes to retaining talent, there is disagreement about whether or not the profession does a good job. To some, it's remarkable how many stay in research - perhaps considering the incentive to leave that SRE salary levels constitute - and this is evidence of a commitment to and an appreciation of the work itself, and perhaps of the other people in it. On the whole, researchers are an intelligent and a well-meaning lot, and I know of at least a few people who have left for better-paid professions only to return saying they couldn't get on with their new colleagues. Other commentators feel that more could be done to engender loyalty in those in whose training we have invested time and money. It's a complex subject and honestly a separate one from bringing in the new recruits, so we'll go into it in more detail in a separate item sometime soon - if you have a view, please get in touch.

One last thought on graduate recruitment. We estimate there are anything up to half a million people working in MR worldwide, so if (including the leavers) the average MR career lasts say 20 years = 5,000 working days, that would mean someone becomes a market researcher about every 15 mins - an encouraging thought. Mind you, perhaps I shouldn't bandy such calculations about: if I don't get a mailbag full of quibbles from statisticians, I'm bound at some stage to have a grumpy advertiser wave it in my face during a contract renegotiation and say 'Where the bloody hell are they all then?'

Nick Thomas

The last of the current features - on threats and opportunities for the profession - will appear tomorrow or Monday. If you've missed any of the others, there's now a home page for them here. If you have any comments on these or any other feature on MrWeb, please email us any time.

All articles 2006-23 written and edited by Mel Crowther and/or Nick Thomas, 2024- by Nick Thomas, unless otherwise stated.