Maybe it was the way you buried your face in your hands when we said, “Party of ten.”

Or maybe it was when we had to ask you for chips and salsa that other tables had, and you sort of groaned before begrudgingly conceding that okay, you guessed we could have some.

Or maybe it was finding one of your hairs in our chips.

Or perhaps it was when your co-workers auctioned-off our food, forgot a few items, and messed up some entrées, because, as you later explained, you were “sitting out back, taking a break.”

It could also have been our need to request silverware so that we could eat, the way you disappeared during long stretches of the meal, or the general lack of attention we received in a restaurant otherwise empty.

Whatever the cause, I felt like you didn’t care about our comfort at all.

But then I got your check with the sweet hand-written note wishing me a great day and thanking me for coming in.

And so I lingered behind my group to talk with you, and I realized that you didn’t hate us at all.

You had started your shift at 7am, and we walked in at 1:30 with a daunting group of ten. You were tired, ready to go home, and eager to enjoy the holiday weekend.

And after talking with you, I truly believe that you sincerely, genuinely hoped we enjoyed our meal at your restaurant, and that you really wanted it to be an enjoyable experience for us.

But I have to ask: Other than your heart being in the right place, what did you do to make our stay enjoyable?

* * * * * * *

And once again, I’m reminded of why feedback is so crucial.

You never realized how unwelcomed we felt because of your poor body language, ungracious behavior, and inept apologies.

You had no idea how frustrated we were, being neglected at some moments and poorly serviced at others.

And you have no idea that I’m writing this in complete sympathy, because your employer is clearly not investing in any sort of mystery shopping or customer feedback program to give you the tools you need to improve.

So you remain unaware of your flaws and ignorant of the negative perceptions you create.  

I’ll probably never visit El Patron again. But I hope this gets to you somehow.

Because you’re a sweet kid who wants to give good service, but hasn’t received the resources and feedback to provide it just yet. 

For a nation that doesn’t typically include “survey design” and “statistical analysis” in our education curriculum, we sure are a survey-happy society.

News organizations, in particular, delight in spreading findings on how many people feel this way or that.

But I worry that we’ve become too aware of opinion research and its use in popular culture, and that opinion researchers are exploiting it.

For instance, a new survey from Newsweek finds that 14% of Republican s (+/- 6.8) believe that it’s “Definitely True” that President Obama sympathizes with “Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world.”

Another 38% of Republicans say that it is “Probably True.”

Specifically, the question read:

• “Some people have alleged that Barack Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world. From what you know about Obama, what is your opinion of these allegations?”

Clearly, these are highly, highly partisan times, and some Americans disagree vehemently with President Obama’s political philosophy.

But to truly believe he is sympathetic about instituting Islamic Law in the U.S.?

I’m skeptical.

First, I suspect we’re seeing a halo effect in which a person’s overall dislike of something influences every question about that subject. And on highly emotional and controversial topics, this phenomenon is even stronger.

I imagine that the numbers would have been similar if Newsweek had asked Republicans:

• Does President Obama have tentacles?
• Did President Obama turn tail at the Alamo?
• Is President Obama the “man in black” from Lost?

Further, I suspect that people are becoming too media savvy to always be candid on opinion surveys.

With the ubiquity of survey results appearing in the news, I believe that more people understand the connection between survey results and the news cycle, and how surveys can come to frame debates and influence popular opinion.

So I can’t help but wonder how many Republicans heard this question and thought: “Hey, if enough Republicans state belief in this idea, maybe it will get on the news and will help further my personal political goals.”

Twenty years ago, I never would have espoused such a belief.

But in our media savvy culture and highly partisan times, I think it’s a factor at play in political opinion research.

And I also wonder how much opinion researchers know this and exploit it.

So my question for Newsweek is this- did your interviewers follow-up on this question?

Did they probe for the sincerity of this belief and attempt to discover if respondents were expressing general resentment of the president, or even attempting to game the system?

A Rebirth of Push Polling?

Push polling is a scurrilous practice in which partisans posing as opinion researchers ask highly skewed questions, such as, “Can you vote for Candidate XYZ even knowing that he’s committed to enslaving our children?” in order to influence public opinion.

They are easy to identify, and typically have no currency in serious thought.

But I’m worried that there’s a new breed of push polling in which news organizations ask intentionally ambiguous and volatile questions in order to generate sensational headlines.

So what’s the goal of the research…to generate valid opinion data, or to sell more magazines?

I hope the answer is the former, and that we aren’t simply baiting people with strong opinions to make outlandish statements in order to generate a buzz.  

* * * * * * *

Postscript: I’ve noticed that a few on the left have slightly misinterpreted the wording of the question and used some hyperbole in reporting on this survey.

For instance, Eric Kleefeld of TalkingPointsMemo.com described the results this way: “…a majority of Republicans suspect that President Obama wants to impose Islamic law, also known as Sharia, throughout the world…”

Just for clarification, that’s not actually what the question asks, as “sympathizes with” is different from “wants to impose.”

So it’s possible for a respondent to believe that the president sympathizes with fundamentalists, but doesn’t actually want to impose Islamic Law.

I’m nitpicking, but when things are already this sensational, maybe we should nitpick more.

It happened again yesterday; a prospective client cited how much they value an “outside perspective” to explain their hiring of independent research companies.

The “outside perspective” desire is very common, and comes in many metaphors:

• “We’re too much in the weeds/bubble/soup”
• “We can’t see the forest from the trees”
• “Focus groups make our butts look big”

Anyway, the point is that many companies feel that there is something to be gained from bringing in 3^rd-parties, believing that they provide an objective, outside perspective.

Now, on the behalf of research companies, let me say: “Hallelujah!!!!”

[Sidebar: Which reminds me, Diane Hagglund recently asserted that Do-It-Yourself customer research is a viable option for companies in some situations. After un-friending her and deleting her from our x-mas card list, I replied –see bottom of her post– and expanded a bit on the exceptions she outlines.]

But the other side of the coin is this: the same clients that want an “outside perspective” also state a desire to find a partner in their research endeavors.

And why not? Who wouldn’t rather work with a company that you admire and trust?

But that creates the researcher paradox: Our clients want a best friend who will evaluate them like a total stranger.

They are inviting us inside their bubble because we are on the outside of it.

As the working relationship deepens, what’s a researcher to do?

* * * * * * *

Clearly, I’m over-simplifying the situation.

As a research company learns more about a client’s culture, history, priorities, capabilities, weaknesses, and aspirations, I believe it can better match its research to the client’s needs.

At the same time, there are some pitfalls to avoid lest we find ourselves looking out from the client’s bubble ourselves.

And over-simplification or not, it’s a useful exercise for researchers to ponder how to stay outside after they’ve been invited in.