Medtech market research should not be easy

The objective of research should be conclusions, not data.

 

That is a fairly obvious point, but in the development and publication of medical technology market research, I see a startling number of information sources purporting to be research that are in fact nothing more than simplistic compilations of data, at best. It has become so common for publishers to just aggregate secondary sources and regurgitate them that users have often been conditioned to expect (and accept) these data dumps as "analysis". Some sources go so far as to plainly state that this is the de facto nature of their content.

 

The internet is a marvelous portal to sources and research starting points. It is also a horrendous dumping ground that even the best search engines and even Wolfram-Alpha’s have not been able to come close to ensuring relevance and significance. Yet, so much "research" appears to be little more than dipping a ladel blindly in, and scooping out, search "hits".

 

(Yes, this is a rambling critique that I am giving on competitive publishers. This is a place, this WordPress venue, where I may offer up my diary on the web, my web log, yes, my blog. It is my insights and opinion or even, like now, my place to vent.)

 

It is a competitive business, this medical technology market research. It takes little more than a laptop, a wireless network adapter and data plan to get into the business. I have seen some true fly-by-night businesses come and go. I have also patiently listened to the feedback from their disgruntled clients who found their market research conclusions "lacking".

 

It is an expensive business, to do right, where inside access to industry people, to industry trends, to intimate awareness of dynamics yielding insights comes at a premium. It is sometimes not obvious to the beleaguered medtech marketing/sales VP or other industry decision-maker who has a newly limited budget and faces a raft of well-crafted tables of contents to potentially useful reports. They sometimes therefore learn that a good table of contents does not warrant a good industry report.

 

At least 99% of the quality control in producing reports is done before a word of the report is typed. It is accomplished in the commissioning of a staff or independent author who is qualified in at least a dozen important criteria. It is accomplished in pressing the author to leverage his/her awareness and knowledge toward revealing reality-based trends, opportunities for existing or potential market participants, and impending challenges.

 

Report buyers have a real imperative now, with their limited budgets and increased demands for actionable information, to pre-qualify publishers. How long have they been in business? Who are the principals and what is their lineage? What does sample information say about the content?

 

Lastly, report buyers must recognize the need to not buy reports to confirm preconceived suspicions about the market, to find the report that just validates a biased perspective or back up an immutable business/marketing plan, but to LEARN. That is a challenge, but I can guarantee that the smart report customers are indeed ready to learn.

 

See our reports at http://mediligence.com/web-files/prod01.htm.

Posted via email from medmarket’s posterous

Leave a Reply