In class, we talked about how good/accurate/effective market research, along with consumer behaviour are of great significance to companies. In the case of The Nielsen Company, a highly reputed market researching firm, it shows the degree to which various companies sizing from Coca-Cola to a small business reach and look into such firms and market research to better calculate the way in which their respective operations should take place.

Usefulness of market research to a company is determined by:

– the degree to which it reduces risk
– cost
– accuracy
– finally, the willingness to work/act on the data provided

The high, reputable position of The Nielsen Company, is judged so positively because it conducts and highlights the above points strongly when it performs research. In the case of consumer behaviour, there are 3 factors that need to be taken into account. They are cultural, social, and personal factors.

However, it is important to always keep in mind (this was particularly stressed upon in class) that while big/small companies like Coca-Cola and Yelp may find it useful to feed of the data that The Nielsen Company provides, it important to only look at it as an aid and as a guide, NOT as the decision itself. In other words, market research helps and guides with the decision making but does not replace it. So, market researching companies like The Nielsen Company, should only be looked at, from this perspective.

Images

“The Nielsen Company Logo.” The Social Media MGR. Web. 30 Nov 2010.

“Coca-Cola Logo.” 4-H Legacy. Web. 30 Nov 2010.

“Yelp Logo.” The Wall Street Journal. Web. 30 Nov 2010.

In class we had talked about, performance management and talking about how we can measurement. There was a lot of emphasis on what kinds of people would make good managers in the perspective of the company (this was in relation to a reading assigned prior to the class, called Power is the Great Motivator, by David C. McClelland and David H. Burnham, link). The idea talked about, also mentioned in the article, was that people who are really motivated by power tend to make really good managers. There was focus on the organizational structure in looking at how a company may judge the performance of its managers, looking at centralized vs. decentralized structure. Whether one type of structure is good or not depends on the company and the industry it’s in. In the case of Google, its organizational structure is extremely flexible in that there is as much upward communication as there is downward communication within the organizational body. This is because of Google’s innovative strategy. In other words, a company’s structure is strongly connected to its strategy, and since performance evaluation is also connected to the company structure, performance evaluation is also tied to the company’s strategy. So, in the case of Google, the basic strategic approach is that of innovation, being as innovative as possible. As result, this is seen in Google’s structure, where there is a lot of decentralization, where employees are allowed to design products and be as creative as possible (in fact this is how Gmail, Google Earth, Google Talk, and Google Maps). So, in the case of Google, which is fueled hugely by innovation, probably conducts performance evaluation based on how much innovation there are in the products and in its effectiveness/application in reality.

A more detailed highlight of Google’s innovative approach in its business can be seen in the video below, by Douglas Merrill, a former CIO (Chief Information Officer) and Vice President of Engineering at Google.

Article

“Power is the Great Motivator.” David C. McClelland and David H. Burnham. Harvard Business Review.
November 1, 1996. Online Print.

Video

“Innovation at Google” – Douglas Merrill – 8/1/07.” Google You Tube. Web. 30 Nov 2010.

Images

“Google Logo.” Iboro. Web. 30 Nov 2010.

“Gmail Logo.” Iboro. Web. 30 Nov 2010.

“Google Earth Logo.” Iboro. Web. 30 Nov 2010.

“Google Maps Logo.” Iboro. Web. 30 Nov 2010.