ISBN 0-324-00293-9
Case Teaching Package
A case teaching package is available for these cases. It includes strategies for case presentation, key concepts, solutions to the assignment questions in the cases, and suggestions for the most effective ways to work these cases into your course.
Length
This case is
34 pages in length and the case teaching package is
18 pages.
Abstract
This case study chronicles a marketing research project completed for the High Museum of Art over a period of eighteen months, beginning in December, 1993. Three professors from the Goizueta Business School of Emory University, Dave Mandell, John Houghton and Jennifer Smith were consultants for the project. They began the project by conducting preliminary discussions with Anne Baker and Ann Wilson of the High Museum of Art. As a result of these initial meetings, the three consultants agreed to develop a pilot questionnaire to survey a sample of High Museum members. This pilot was intended to be the first step of a larger study that would eventually provide a comprehensive portrait of membership behavior at the High. To refine the questionnaire, the consultants conducted several meetings with the client and a series of three focus groups. The consultants then sent the instrument to 1,043 members of the target audience. Three hundred and seven questionnaires were returned, and the consultants prepared a report based on their analysis of the data from the pilot survey. After presenting this report to the client, the consultants were informed that approval from the High Museum Board of Directors would be needed to authorize additional funds to continue the project. The consultants then made a second presentation to the Board of Directors, and the Board opted to terminate the study.
Linkages to Textbooks or Journal Articles/Fit Within a Course
This case study provides a framework for guiding a class through the entire process of conducting a marketing research project. However, instructors can also use specific parts of the case sequence to teach aspects of marketing research such as problem definition, questionnaire construction, and data collection and analysis. These cases may be taught in any one of three marketing courses: as part of the regular marketing research course, an intensive on marketing research taught in executive programs or as part of the marketing research module of a non-profit marketing or services marketing course.
This case sequence can be used in lieu of a class project where students actually collect and analyze data. In the case writer's experience, the most time consuming (and perhaps the least beneficial) steps in conducting a real-life study within the time constraints of a semester, are the data collection and data entry aspects. From the professors' perspective, the costs of project procurement and coordination semester after semester are also rather high. Through one case experience, students can learn the roles played by both clients and agencies in the real world. They learn how to define a problem, construct a questionnaire, critique a questionnaire developed by others, do their own data analysis and again compare it with the analysis done by the consultants and finally learn the interpersonal and human aspects of the marketing research process.
The fact that High Museum aborted the project prematurely can be used to place special emphasis on the interaction between the content of a marketing research project and the considerations raised by the interpersonal dynamics of the client/consultant relationship. At specific stages in the case that we discuss below, readers can be asked to role-play in a discussion between the High representatives and the Emory professors.
The five sections of the case roughly correspond to the following aspects: (A) Problem Definition and Research Design, (B) Developing a Research Instrument, (C) Data Collection and Analysis, (D) Presentation, and (E) Reflection. Instructors who intend to use all parts of the case should remember that in order for the learning experience to be useful and interesting, the different parts of the case should be handed out in a sequential manner, and the timing should also correspond to the respective theory sessions that will be covered in class. That is, Case B (questionnaire design) should be given to the students only after Case A (problem definition) has been dealt with, and so on. Case (E) can be handed out and discussed in class on the same day that Case (D) is discussed. Otherwise, students are typically given about 2 weeks each to prepare Case (A), (B), and (D), and 4 weeks for Case (C). As a whole, therefore, the case can be used to cover a whole quarter and about 10 weeks of a semester.
Study Questions
Case A
- Should Anne Baker conduct marketing research in this situation?
- What is the problem facing the High Museum?
- What are some of the specific questions that a marketing research study should try to address?
- Outline the research design for this study. Should visitors and members be surveyed through the same instrument? Why or why not?
- Based on the problem definition provided in the B case, develop a questionnaire that you feel is ready to be mailed to the members of the High Museum. In designing the questionnaire, feel free to use any information on membership provided in the A case.
- We read in the case that the newly recruited manager for membership, Roanne Katcher, sat in on the third focus group as part of the audience. In general, should clients sit in as part of the audience in focus groups conducted by agencies? What are the pros and cons? How should the process be managed so as to avert the situation described in the case?
- Based on the problem definition provided in the B case and the questionnaire that your group developed, critique the questionnaire that was mailed to the members. In other words, what are its strengths and weaknesses? Is it going to provide all the information that is relevant for solving the problem? Which parts, if any, do you feel are redundant?
- If you were in Anne Baker's position, would you have allowed the professors to mail this questionnaire or would you have had the professors redo the questionnaire? Support your decision with appropriate reasoning.
- In the C case, Roanne Katcher and Jennifer Smith seem to present alternative views on some aspects of questionnaire design. Whose viewpoint do you endorse and why? How should these alternative viewpoints be reconciled? Be sure to include in your discussion a specific reference to the issues in question (i.e., education level and negatively-worded Likert scale items).
- Describe your interpretation of how the sample of 1,043 members were chosen. What, if any, are the advantages of using this procedure over simple random sampling in this context?
- On the basis of the questionnaire enclosed in the C case, prepare a table that shows the type of scale (i.e., nominal, ordinal, interval or ratio) that each question represents. (The four scale types can be the rows of the table and in the next column, note all the questions that fall into that scale type).
- What are the results of the pilot study trying to tell Anne Baker? Based on the problem definition provided in the B case and your own data analysis efforts in the C case, what other relevant information do you think the professors could have gleaned from the data?
- Do you agree with the marketing implications that the professors presented? Why or why not? Based on your understanding of the data, are there any additional implications/recommendations that you would present to the museum management?
- Should Anne Baker argue to continue this project (i.e., fund the larger study)? Justify your answer with appropriate reasoning.
The downloadable file for this case is in Microsoft® Word 97 for Windows®.
If you do not have Microsoft Word, you can download the free Microsoft® Word Viewer 97 right here: For Windows 3.x For Windows 95
©1996 South-Western College Publishing, All Rights Reserved webmaster@swcollege.com