Interactive video distribution systems – Interactive opinion polling
Reexamination Certificate
1999-01-05
2002-04-30
Kostak, Victor R. (Department: 2611)
Interactive video distribution systems
Interactive opinion polling
C705S027200
Reexamination Certificate
active
06381744
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to the field of market research and data collection systems and devices.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART
For the past fifty years, the market research industry has seen a gradual refinement of traditional data gathering techniques and methodologies. Likewise, there has been a corresponding evolution and increased sophistication in the use of market and customer data by decision makers to test products, profile customers and identify new market opportunities.
Technological advancements have helped close the loop between head office decision makers and their front line operations. In the past, inventory and sales reports took days or even weeks to reach head office. Now, new technologies have increased accessibility and shortened the “data lag ” from weeks to hours. Examples of these technology-driven advancements can be found in almost all parts of the business organization ranging from financial control, hourly sales reports through to instantaneous inventory tracking.
One area where business has not seen a commensurate “technology shock ” is market research. Traditionally, people are surveyed obtain data that is then analysed for various purposes, such as market research, demographic data and other types of statistics.
Typically, a client wishing to obtain certain data will approach a research firm to undertake the survey, compile the data and provide a paper report of the results.
The most common method of obtaining such data is to supply employees of the research firm with questionnaires who personally, or by telephone, interview others, hereinafter referred to as “respondents”, to obtain the answers to the questions. The questionnaires are then sent back to the research firm, compiled and a resulting report is transmitted to the client.
This method has the disadvantage of being labour intensive and not providing results quickly enough. Typically, depending on the survey sample, i.e. the number of people sampled, and the number of questions, the turnaround time for the information is a minimum of four to five days. This involves time to code the survey, time to input the data, time to generate tabulations and to generate the paper report. Transit time must also be included in such a process. Furthermore, for on-site, in person interviews, graphic image prompting is limited in that it is awkward to present a respondent with one or more graphic images, and even more so when feedback is requested on a flyer or brochure. Language capability is also limited in the sense that should more than one language be required to perform the survey, each employee must be provided with an edition of the questionnaire in each language, and should preferably be at least conversant in all of the languages.
Reliance on telephone and in person interviewing naturally results in a structural time lag between collecting field data and conveying survey results to decision makers. Fifty years ago an overwhelming majority of research was based on telephone or inperson interviews. The same still holds true today.
In an era where business information is increasingly commoditized, the market research industry has embraced technology primarily to refine and not to revolutionize. For example, predictive dialling (where computers screen outbound calls for live pick-up) has increased the efficiency of telephone banks. However, alternatives to traditional telephone and in-person data collection have not taken root in the market research industry.
The result is a situation where decision makers can have instantaneous and real-time access to information across their whole operation, except for market research.
It is only within the last ten years or so that a nascent attempt to explore alternative automated data-gathering techniques emerged. The following is a brief review of the relevant prior art.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,345,345 to Cadotte et al. discloses an electronic terminal for collecting opinion data from customers of an organization as to the satisfaction with the services rendered. The terminal includes a keyboard that displays inquiries to a respondent with multiple-choice responses for each inquiry. Each response is associated with a key, so that the respondent presses the appropriate key in connection with the appropriate response. Each response is electronically recorded by a microprocessor controller, and the selection is visually displayed for the respondent. The responses are permanently recorded by the controller for subsequent analysis. Similar devices are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. RE 31,951 (Johnson et al.) and 5,091,877 (Itoh et al.) These devices are specifically designed to collect data electronically and transmit this data to a central memory.
A disadvantage of these devices is that they require specific programming in order to correlate the responses with the inquiries or questions. Each time the questions to a survey are modified, or a new survey created, these devices need to be reprogrammmed, which is time consuming, costly and requires the intervention of a person having expertise in programming such devices. Further, the devices mentioned above require the respondent to input the responses using the keyboard, which requires the respondent to have a substantial level of comfort with using a keyboard.
Another drawback with present surveying techniques is that the average respondent is reluctant to devote any of his or her time to complete a survey, whether by interview, completing a form or using electronic devices of the type mentioned above. In fact, many people consider it a nuisance when approached by a person conducting a survey. This is primarily due to the fact that would-be respondents fail to realize any personal gain from the otherwise time-consuming interruption of their lives. In light of this, it is believed that people would be more willing and accepting to be surveyed if there were some sort of incentive to entice the would-be respondent.
Shortfalls in the first round of automated data gathering devices resulted in two types of alternative devices being developed. The first group of alternatives, such as those described in U.S. Pat. Nos 5,361,200 (Webright et al.) and 4,355,372 (Johnson et al.) use keypads to collect real-time data. Keypad-based devices suffer from drawbacks ranging from limited language selection, incapacity to dispense coupons/incentives as well as the inability to accept open-ended responses. These devices therefore lack the flexibility required to accurately conduct on-site research in a retail setting.
The second type of alternative devices were developed for on-site research in a retail setting. Specific alternative devices include U.S. Pat. Nos 5,535,118 (Chumbley) and 5,237,157 (Kaplan). These devices, instead of relying on a keyboard or keypad for inputting a response, use a response card/punch card system. Even quasi-research devices such as the '157 patent targeted to the music industry, collect demographic information by means of a paper-based membership application which asks for this information.
For these devices which utilize paper, respondents receive a response/punch card with questions, mark their responses on the card and insert it into the device which optically scans or reads the responses. The '118 device, for example, then dispenses a coupon as an incentive after the response/punch card is inserted into the device.
These devices have not been accepted by the mainstream market research community because of a number of serious methodological problems and lack of flexibility which undermine the accuracy and integrity of the research data.
It is generally recognized in the market research community that a central cause of bias in survey results is the order in which the questions are asked. For example, if one were asking questions on two products X and Y, to avoid bias one should alternate the order so that one begins product X questions fifty percent of the time and product Y questions fifty percent of the time. The research industry commonly refers to this alternative order a
Nanos John J.
Nanos Nikita J.
Kostak Victor R.
SES Canada Research Inc.
LandOfFree
Automated survey kiosk does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Automated survey kiosk, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Automated survey kiosk will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2916524