What research you do and what weight you give to the findings has much to do with the nature of the intermediaries, says Sanders, whose firm carries out research for Orange and Microsoft among others. ‘In IT a PC dealer who sells PCs and packaged software to many small and medium businesses is unlikely to have much insight into the products he sells or his customers’ needs. He or she is likely to be focused on going out and doing deals. A software developer, on the other hand, will know the product inside out and may have a lot of customer insight. If we were doing a project for Microsoft, we would give a developer’s opinions and views 100 times more weighting than those of a PC dealer.’

He adds: ‘Often, how much co-operation you get comes down to how far your interests, and theirs, are perceived to be the same. Again, developers who are using Microsoft as their platform are likely to have the same interests as Microsoft. A box-shifting reseller may feel more antagonistic.’

Getting co-operation from intermediaries can be a problem.  Many get several requests a month. Jinty Weldon at HI says that it is probably best to reveal who commissioned the research, although perhaps not at the start of the interview. ‘In my experience, intermediaries really don’t like it if you won’t reveal who is behind the survey.’

Much then hangs on how the research will be used internally. Dent argues that research can play a big role in change management by showing everyone incontrovertible proof that change is necessary.

He warns:  ‘You can use research findings  to show why change is necessary. But if you do this it is important to cover an entire geography. Research conducted solely in the US and UK won’t convince a German or a Frenchman.’

“If your salary is tied to what the channel thinks of you, then it is much more likely that the research will be used.”

Perhaps the ideal situation has been reached at Norwich Union, where Payget says that account managers’ views and perceptions of what the channel thinks are fed back into the research, which is then read, and acted upon, by the staff in the field.  But very few suppliers have reached the stage where research findings are fed back in this symbiotic way.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the research professionals both in-house and in the agencies reckon that it is essential to use a third party to carry out this research.  Anderson at INSEAD says:  ‘Intermediaries are much more likely to open up to independent third parties.’

She adds:  ‘It is also difficult for suppliers to be objective if they are doing the research themselves. Typically, I find that one or two noisy, articulate dissenters will capture suppliers’ attention. They find it hard to listen to the quieter voices, who might well be in the majority.’

“We would give a developer’s opinions and views 100 times more weighting than a PC dealer”

Yet when a supplier commissions such research it places enormous trust in the hands of a third party.  Research companies are only as good as their individual researchers, and what you get depends to a great extent on what you pay. Research companies are all too aware that projects are often awarded almost purely on price, and cut their cloth accordingly. 

If you commission research it behoves you to find out who will actually be conducting the work. Out-of-work actors may be perfect for mass telephone surveys.

But they won’t ask the same questions as senior consultants, who are experts on an industry and can thus probe deeply.  Equally, management consultants with little or no formal market-research experience, or who think they know most of the answers at the start of the project, can also fail you.

It is, therefore, worth interviewing the researchers in advance, and sitting in on the first day or two of the research process.  Yet few suppliers are prepared to make such an investment in time, much less to employ the internal experts who can ensure quality.