No abstract

This paper advances the debate concerning the future of market research by presenting nine new rules to guide thought and action in a period of transition. These become the market researcher's manifesto for change. First, they describe the new marketplace emerging as we shift from a productiondriven to a consumption-led economy. In response, marketers have shifted their focus of activity from completing transactions to building relationships. This context then provides the background for discussion about the role of the market researcher.

In his editorial, Peter Mouncey discusses the challenges in engaging practitioners and academics to write papers for journals and introduces the topics for IJMR issue 51,6 2009.

Addressing a key challenge facing market(ing) research: Realigning the academic and practitioner communities The first paper in this issue by Nunan and Di Domenico explores the gap between how market(ing) research is taught in business schools in the United Kingdom and how the practitioner world of market research is evolving, arguing for a change in the curriculum and a new name for the sector that reflects the trend from surveys to big data. Below, I add my own thoughts on this vitally important topic.

As Editor, I am frequently asked about how the peer review process works, and what constitutes a 'best practice' submission to IJMR. I've therefore devoted this Editorial to covering these issues. THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS One of my first tasks as Editor in Chief was to implement a new peer review process that ensured that all submissions (apart from Viewpoints), from whatever source, were subject to two 'blind' reviews. My job is to initially read a submission (usually within 48 hours of it hitting my inbox), decide whether to reject it, ask the author(s) to make initial amendments, seek a second initial view from another member of the Executive Board or select two referees for immediate peer review. Within a further two to three days it should be on its way. 'BEST PRACTICE' PAPERS So what makes a good paper? First, an author needs to ensure that they have read fully the 1 of 5

In his editorial, Peter Mouncey discusses the challenges in engaging practitioners and academics to write papers for journals and introduces the topics for IJMR issue 51,6 2009. The full article is only available to IJMR subscribers.

A book review of The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives, Leonard Mlodinow, Allen Lane, 2008

Welcome to our Special Issue focusing on "The challenges of accurately measuring public opinion." This is a very important topic, especially, in the wake of the British Polling Council/Market Research Society (BPC/MRS) inquiry into the performance of the UK polls in predicting a win in 2015 for the Conservative Party and other occasions where pollsters have been accused of misreporting the public's mood, as in the earlier Scottish referendum on independence and the 2016 Presidential Election in the United States. Such accusations also raise the question of pollsters' responsibility to society if they are misinforming stakeholders in the election process. The defense that they are recording views at a certain point in time, predicting turnout is increasingly difficult, and these findings are subject to some level of error (however, this might be measured!) rather than providing an accurate prediction of future behavior becomes a weak argument, where pollsters methodologies are found to be flawed as in 2015. However, all this has been covered in depth in my previous Editorials. Opinion polling has always fascinated me, especially, as it is a rare example where commercially commissioned research projects come under the spotlight and transparency about methodology is a prerequisite. It is also important because the results of the polls can be openly compared with the actual result of the outcome it is supposedly attempting to predict. By virtue of this publicity, research companies that undertake polling are also the "brands" in the research sector the public are most aware of. Overall, this all contributes to the high level of social responsibility that falls on the shoulders of pollsters. As I write this Editorial, Kantar has just published an international review of polls conducted in 2017, showing that pollsters enjoyed a much more successful year in terms of accurate predictions (https://www.research-live.com/article/news/pollsters-called-correct-results-in-2017/id/5032402). This is obviously good news after all the bad press, but there is no doubt that the changing political landscape in many countries in recent years makes polling increasingly difficult. However, as the review underlines, all polls are subject to some margin of error, in whatever way "error" might be calculated. But, as Peterson argues in his paper in this issue, "error" is a multidimensional construct in survey design. We simply cannot ever deliver the absolute degree of precision in forecasting voting intentions that pundits would ideally like, so there may well be disagreement in some quarters