Hello there. Now, let's shift gears and discuss some pros and cons of both secondary and internal research. While these kinds of research have a lot to offer, there are pitfalls or weaknesses to consider. After this lesson, you'll be able to recognize these pros and cons for both types of research and apply these considerations while working with a client for a more comprehensive market analysis. So let's start with secondary research. There are many pros and cons of secondary research. Individuals in the organizations choose to incorporate secondary research into their market research and plans for many reasons. These may include seeking to see the picture, problem or situation from a different angle, typically from a big picture perspective. They choose to use secondary research also because it is usually less costly and quick, especially in this digital age. Secondary research can also provide the researcher or organization with a wider net that may yield new information. While secondary research can have great value in broadening the researcher or organization's perspective, it does come with potential flaws, short comings, or weaknesses. Some of the problems with secondary research include the quality of information, the time frame of the information, and lack of connection to the original business problem. There are differences in secondary research and as a result the quality differs. Factors such as how the research was done, who did it, when they did it, and how they did it, can greatly impact the overall quality. Any secondary research was probably done with a specific purpose in mind. It could have been done recently, or years earlier. As a result, this research needs to be assessed as to whether it could be helpful. And if so, how it might help or guide the researcher in preparing a plan or contributing to final results. Like secondary research, internal research can be helpful and potentially harmful. Internal research that the organization has can help better understand the situation, history or processes. However, it may also reinforce problems of the past with a dismissive attitude that says we've tried that before. Internal research also has the potential to bias, limit or constrain newer approaches or inhibit research efforts. However, the benefits often outweigh the weaknesses or limitations. That's why it's important to weigh the pros and cons. There are two reasons why individuals or organizations would incorporate internal and secondary research into the planning process. First, it elevates the quality and thinking of the anticipated research. Secondly, it positions the market research professional as being proactive and a knowledgeable business consultant. Internal and secondary research expands your vision. You can have relationships where people bring business problems to you. And you could work within the context and formulate a plan that potentially could work out just fine. However, the more information you bring into the process where they give you information, you gather information, the more expand your thinking. From a methodology and information standpoint, you have more tools designed to solve the business problem. Somebody could say, open up this can of beans and just give you a knife. That's okay, you could open up the can of beans with the knife. However, a can opener would be best. The more effective tools you have, the better you'll be able to accomplish this task at hand effectively. Internal and secondary research provides effective tools for you to address business questions and problems. More information equals more options. It allows you to look at things from a different angle. This enlarged vision should make the process even easier and more insightful, and should result in having less chance of error. So that's how it elevates the quality of your thinking. Let me address how the initial phase of a project allows the market researcher or analyst to demonstrate being proactive and knowledgeable. You probably won't see this in any textbook. At many times, a potential client will come to you with the problem. At least it's what they assume is the problem. Their attitude is, we need to solve this problem, I don't care about anything else, just solve the problem for me. It is a researcher's responsibility to understand the marketplace and not just solve the problem based on what the client told them. At that point, you're limited by inputs the client has given you. Maybe they've asked you to do a customer satisfaction survey. You could just deliver what they assumed will take care of the problem or you could do something proactive by looking at multiple sources of data or better information, by looking at a big picture and trying to reduce risk and by gathering more information, so you can make a better decision. When you're proactive you become more knowledgeable. You might discover insights and solve problems the client didn't realize it had. In my career, I've met a lot of researchers who put everything in the same box. That's the way they've been taught and that's the way they're going to do it in a certain way. However, our world changed so much that I think it's to a researcher and a client's benefit to always be able to challenge initial assumptions and look at things through a new lens. I have to keep challenging myself today, in terms of today's market, new impacts and new things in society. The field of market research is expanding rapidly, there are pros and cons of doing this through internal and secondary research. However, exploring the market fully during the initiation phase and doing the extra work provided provides value your client needs. As a professional in this field, I encourage those I mentioned to do more than the minimum and aim to answer the business question and solve the real business problem, even if your research has to uncover the real problem before solving it.
