Happy MR Podcast Podcast Series

Ep. 242 – Anne Brown on Respondent Incentive Inequality and its Impact on Your Research

My guest today is Anne Brown, CEO of Gazelle Global Research Services. Established in 1993, Gazelle Global Research Services is a global sampling, field management, and data collection logistics firm. Anne Brown has also started and, recently, sold G3 Translate. 

Find Anne Online:

LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/anne-brown 

Website: www.gazelleglobal.com

Find Jamin Online:

Email: jamin@happymr.com 

LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/jaminbrazil

Twitter: www.twitter.com/jaminbrazil 

Find Us Online: 

Twitter: www.twitter.com/happymrxp 

LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/happymarketresearch 

Facebook: www.facebook.com/happymrxp 

Website: www.happymr.com 

This Episode’s Sponsor: 

This episode is brought to you by G3 Translate. The G3 Translate team offers unparalleled expertise in foreign language translations for market researchers and insight professionals across the globe. Not only do they speak hundreds of languages, they are fluent in market research. For more information, please visit them at G3Translate.com.


On episode 242, I’m interviewing Anne Brown, CEO of Gazelle Global Research Services, but first a word from our sponsor.


This episode is brought to you by G3 Translate. The G3 Translate team offers unparalleled expertise in foreign language translations for market researchers and insight professionals across the globe. Not only do they speak hundreds of languages, they are fluent in, probably the most difficult one, market research. For more information, please visit them at G3Translate.com.


Hi, I’m Jamin Brazil, and you’re listening to the Happy Market Research Podcast. My guest today is Anne Brown, CEO of Gazelle Global Research Services. Established in 1993, Gazelle Global Research Services is a global sampling, field management and data collection logistics company. Anne Brown has also started and recently sold G3 Translate. Anne, thanks for being on the Happy Market Research Podcast today.


Thanks for having me, Jamin.


I want to rewind the clock a little bit and start with this context of your parents. Maybe you could tell us a little bit about your parents, your background and how that’s informed your career.


It’s interesting. My dad was a truck driver. He delivered paper in New York City many years ago. My mom worked in a doctor’s office. But the interesting part about that, as it relates to me today, is that my mother loved to travel and she would always have my dad have a trip arranged for us each year where my poor dad, who drove for a living, would have to drive us somewhere. So I think it was a busman’s holiday for my poor dad. So I think that my love of traveling and my wanderlust personality comes from that time where my mom liked to go places and my poor dad had to drive all week and then on the weekends or on vacation there he was driving some more. So I think that’s really how I got be so interested in the international space, which is really my favorite part of the work that we do, has always been and still is today.


So, New York native, how old were you when you first visited another country?


I think I was maybe 18.


So not part of the childhood experience. Where’d you wind up going?


Well, no, no, no, that’s not true. Actually, when I was 10, we went to Canada. And we interestingly enough… Yeah, I forgot about that. Interestingly enough, we went to Quebec City, and I just went back a couple of weeks ago, and it was really interesting. I had this thought that the Basilica there was actually in the town, but it’s not in the city. It’s further out. But it was really a great experience. So yes, I do, I guess.


So, 10 and then 18. Was that like a kind of this is international-scoped work is really exciting. So how did you wind up in market research?


It was a fluke really. My love of travel really was always there, and I thought that a great career for me would be to work for the airlines. So I applied. I decided I would be a stewardess to start out, but people were restricted by age, and I wasn’t quite old enough. So I took a job until I was old enough at a company that did market research called the Brand Rating Index. They did media research many years ago. That’s how it started, quite by accident.


I want to talk a little bit about a subject that you and I have had off the air. This goes back to the CEO summit in Florida, I think it was this last year where, and I can’t remember how, but we were talking a little bit about our representative spouses and your husband was one of the original rough riders.


Freedom riders, freedom riders.


Freedom riders. Excuse me.


Yeah, in the 60s.


Rough riders, not the same. Yeah, yeah. Definitely not.


So, he was a freedom rider, and it’s interesting that very few people really know the history of the civil rights movement and the things that went on. John Lewis, esteemed member of Congress, was also a freedom rider. And not a lot of people really know about it. He was. Unfortunately, he had a stroke a couple of years ago, but he’s getting better, and he still speaks to young people about social justice and things like that. He has a lifelong friend that he met when they did the freedom rides: a young, wonderful guy, wonderful man, who runs a 501C charity here in New York. They very often speak together, and they both are on the speaking board for Facing History.


I’ve been doing a little bit of research as I’ve had my own startup going, and the MIT released some research from the cognitive intelligence study. And they found that racially diverse teams outperform non-diverse teams by over 35%. And we hear a lot about the data and diversity, etc. Can you talk to us a little bit about, especially in context of your culture, how has that played out practically? How are you seeing the benefits manifest?


I think that today my husband gets concerned that a lot of the things that they fought for in the 60s that they are slipping back and losing some ground today. ‘Cause Gazelle is a woman-owned company. So, we have a diversity classification and I’ve been working just for a long time. I have a very, very, very strong admiration for WIRe. And so, I’ve just been promoting that and thinking about women in the business. It’s just amazing to me that today of the Fortune 500, I think there are about 24 female CEOs in the Fortune 500. If you look at the landscape of African Americans in the Fortune 500, I think there’s less than a handful, maybe three, four, something like that. And we hear this that diverse boards, diverse teams… The teams are so much richer. The content and the productivity is so much richer. But I don’t really see that in real life that it’s happening. It’s better than it used to be, but I just think that it’s still a difficult time. I think that there’s a lot of smoke about bringing women onto boards and I think that that’s really gotten much better. In the Fortune 500, I think there is about 145 companies that have boards that are 40% diverse, 40% or more percent diverse, but I think that’s a little bit of a smoke screen. So get some diversity on the board and then we won’t have to have diversity at the highest levels of the corporation. I just think that we need to be doing more. There’s a lot more to be done. I mean we’ve come a ways, but I think we just have a lot more to do. A lot further to go.


Yeah, I was having a dinner conversation. It was a group of us in the market research space, and it was a table full of guys. I can’t remember how many people. It was around 10 to 12 and two women. One of them is Anne Beall. The ladies actually got in this—I thought it was so interesting—debate, civil, of course, debate on “Should you actively promote diversity over qualification?” And I thought that was super interesting that they were having that conversation. Anne’s point of view, Anne Beall, excuse me, her point of view, which I actually strongly agree with, is that you will be better off if you prioritize based on the diversity as opposed to the qualification. Now, I’m not suggesting that you can just hire anybody to fill a seat and I’m not suggesting you do it for diversity sake. What I’ve found to be very interesting, especially in the context of starting a new venture where there’s only me plus three, it is really easy to surround yourself with people like you. But if you can get that alternative point of view then and have the humility to be truthful about it like, “You know, well kid, I disagree with that but now I understand why and that’s a really good point.” Then, all of a sudden, it can open up a much greater opportunity for you inside of the market: whether it’s just, “Gosh I didn’t see that,” which has happened more than a couple times and in the last couple of months for me or them being able to connect with other groups. So, increasing the overall market accessibility piece I think is interesting too. So, anyway, I agree that with your thesis that there’s a lot of work still to be done.

I feel like in our industry though, we are making strides. To your point, we’re not there yet, but like WIRe when it started, when Kristin started WIRe back in the Decipher days, I remember we had like a $60,000 loss our first year ‘cause we couldn’t get any sponsorships. You know what I mean? And now it’s definitely improved from a… I don’t know what the books look like now. And it’s not like… It’s a nonprofit for crying out loud. But the point is that it is definitely a trending… You see it every…


Yeah, it’s so exciting.


So it feels like the conversations are elevating, but to your point, the feet on the ground need to also accelerate.


I think that the point that you made earlier about, it’s so easy to pick someone who’s like you, when you’re interviewing people. I think that’s the thing that happens. People are so comfortable with people who are like themselves. So, you’re sitting down in a… You’re having a conversation with someone in an interview or you meet someone. It’s so easy. And I think that’s part of what goes on; it’s just a feeling of comfort that you have with someone who’s like yourself. So think about boards; think about the highest levels of corporations. And you see that so often the people resemble one another because they feel like it will be easier to communicate with them and have like thoughts and I don’t know, make decisions easier, I guess. I don’t know.


It’s even down to like nomenclature, right? So this whole premise of like attracts like is actually something I really agree with where people that are similar attract each other and I’m not suggesting that’s like bad, but it goes to the point that we have to be very intentional about our hiring practices and our staff, especially at the executive level. And your point about we, as an industry, actually not at the executive level, but the rest of the rungs, we have a fair number of females. I don’t know exactly what the percentages are, but I haven’t seen that statistic. But it feels like it’s a lot to me, not like overwhelming, but there’s still representation there as opposed to African American, for example, which is almost zero at least at the conferences that I attend. And then it becomes a question of like, “How do we facilitate that? Like how do we pull in and support this missing piece inside of our ecosystem?” Have you thought about that? Like is there a solution or, not a silver bullet, but is there some action that we could start employing?


I’m wondering about what happens at the level of education. For instance, the University of Georgia has a market research school, and I’m just wondering the appeal… I’m just wondering how we can promote our industry, make it more appealing to people starting out. I think perhaps there is a lack of understanding of our industry, but I also think that today there are a lot of exciting things happening in our industry so that we can attract people from all kinds of cultures. There’s a lot of innovation. There’s a lot of technology, a lot of innovation, a lot of exciting things that are happening. When you go to IIeX, for instance… I was there in Texas earlier this year. I just thought it was really, really interesting to see all of the different… so much new technology, so much innovation on exhibit there. And I think that if we could attract young people at the time they’re in school, I think we can get a better handle on this.


Well, and you have. I’ll give a shout out to James at Pilot.ly. I don’t know if you know him or are familiar with Pilot.ly. It’s Pilot dot L Y. He’s got a video platform and solution. It’s actually pretty cool. I met him for the very first time at IIeX. And he’s African American and I’m like, “Oh my gosh, this is so exciting. It’s so exciting,” right? So you are getting some level of interest, but I think you’re right. We have to solve this problem upstream and whether it’s Georgia or Michigan State. But even down to how can we help and effect change inside at the high school level to help inform people of these opportunities and our industry, which is, honestly, it’s a trending industry now, but nobody knows what market research is still from a mass perspective.


No. It’s a tiny industry; it’s small. And people don’t understand what we do. If you try to tell someone what you do, it’s “What? Are you the people that bother me on the phone?”


Yeah, my mom still is like, “Stop bothering me.”


I think that we need to do better at promoting our industry. So young people… If you think about all of that… This is another thing that I think this is the craziest week that we’ve had in terms of the M&A in our industry. But if you pay attention to what’s going on it, there’s a lot of money being poured into our space. So I just think that there’s a future here for young people. We need to somehow attract them in a better way.


I completely agree with that. Anyways, we could talk about that ad nauseum. I have some ideas on like at a high school level. But I think you’re right: The tactic needs to be pushed inside of the colleges and then let the colleges who are doing the recruiting help out, obviously, at the connecting into the high school side. But that’s probably better saved for different show. I want to shift gears a little bit and talk about market research. So you’ve been in the industry a while.


Yeah. It’s our 25th year. We celebrate our 25th anniversary. So, can you imagine?


And so, your 25th year. So, I forget what year you started G3 Translate. That was 2004?


We started in 2006.


  1. Then you recently sold it. Congratulations.


Yeah, thanks. Yeah, it was very exciting and a wonderful thing for the team and for the company as well because of some of the things that we’ve talked about like the great opportunity that the team has being a part of the TransPerfect Corporation: the technology, the size, the technology, the room for growth. It’s just going to be a wonderful thing for the team. So it’s a very exciting time for them.


Yeah, that’s great. I mean you are seeing a lot more technology-enabled translations; so, I think to that end it’s going to be great. I do want to give a shout out to G3. You guys have been a huge partner of the Happy Market Research Podcast by doing the transcripts of now 173 shows.




Yeah. So that’s a lot of words.


Yeah. Shout out to John and Nancy, who makes this happen all these years, that built this business from the ground up from one where they were in one office when they started one little room. And that we share a floor here and just a great shout out to them for the magnificent work that they’ve done all these years and for putting themselves in a position where they were attractive. So it’s a good thing. It’s all good.


Yeah, that’s great. That’s great news. I assume they’re both staying with the company.


They are. Mm-mm.


That’s good. That’s good. Industry kind of vets. So, I’m glad. Nancy, I see her everywhere. So funny.


Yeah. So it’s going to be good for all of them.


So (1) thank you for the support, but (2) congratulations on the exit. But you know, with the amount of time that you’ve been in the industry, what is your favorite or what project are you most proud of?


My favorite part of the business that we do is definitely the international work. It started in the mid-nineties when we actually worked… It was a very, very interesting time. We worked in Brazil for several years. We had a small office there and then we did a very, very, very large project over the years that we were there. We ended up doing an audit in Brazil for a beverage company. We started it; we ramped it up; and we gave it back to them. So, we were doing, when it was in its hay day, we did 9,000 interviews on foot counting 400 SKUs by hand. So it was a very exciting time. No email, no email, no click and off goes the file.


It was fax machine. It’s all about fax machine and a ticker, right?


Yeah. It was crazy. So, and that gave us just the feeling that there really isn’t anything that we can’t do in terms of international field work. We’ve worked almost everywhere: China, Japan, Thailand, Philippines, all of Europe, Africa, Argentina, Venezuela.


What is one of the biggest challenges that faces companies when you’re thinking about doing work internationally or research specifically internationally?


I think the biggest hurdle is… We as Americans tend to think that because we do something one way, that’s the way it’s done. So I think one of the hurdles is that you just have to listen to what the culture is in the place that you’re working and understand that it might not be exactly the way you think it’s done here. It might be done in a different way, and you’re going to ask questions perhaps in a slightly different way. Just being open to the fact that you’re in a culture that’s different from yours and embracing that culture because that’s what we do. So I think that’s the biggest hurdle that companies… And then, it’s just experience, understanding the bidding process, making sure that you have multiple bids, that kind of thing. Just to make sure that people understand what it is that you’re asking for.


Would you say that’s one of the harder projects that you’ve ever done?


Yes. I would say that.


As you fast forward to it in a digital context, obviously, a lot of things are automated now. You’re not hand-logging SKUs, but are you seeing the technology improvements that are happening inside of the industry? So, I’m not talking about email, but like whether (I don’t want to actually name specific brands, but you get the point) these research-enabling platforms… Are you seeing them adding a lot of value to the work that you are doing as a logistics company?


Sure. I think that it’s…


You can name brands, by the way. I just didn’t want to.


Oh. OK, the platforms that we use now are amazing. It’s wonderful to come from a time when I started in the industry. I’m old Yank. I started at Yankelovich. So, when I was at Yankelovich, everything was on IBM cards at the time.


Yeah, punch cards.


Yeah, it’s wonderful to just… When I started, if you didn’t have a banner for a table, you wouldn’t be running that job for a couple of days because there was no… You had to wait for a messenger to deliver it and the messenger had to deliver it back. So it was just a crazy time. But now technology has just made everything easier, and things can happen quicker. It’s wonderful.


What are you seeing if you look forward? Are there specific technologies, if any, that you’re like, “Gosh, you know, that’s going to be…” That could be interesting to the work that you’re doing at Gazelle Global. Or, obviously, blockchain is something that we talked about moments ago. Are you seeing any pending technology improvements that are happening? Or are you thinking it’s just going to continue to be incremental in improvements?


I don’t know. I think we’re going to continue to have improvements. I think that some of the video… The ability to put video into respondents’ data is very exciting today. So I think that that’s all going to continue. When we talked about blockchain, I think that or I wish that we paid respondents better for what they give us. That’s something that I think about from time to time. Online interviewing has just really… I just wish we respected the respondent a little bit more. You look at the difference between a qual respondent and a quant respondent. It’s just they’re not really compensated in a way that I think is fair. So I wish we were able to change that in some way.


It is interesting the value exchange that happens, and I think that’s part of the equation that we’re forgetting about as we treat a quant respondent as commodity versus qualitative. When you’re doing an in-depth interview or focus group or whatever, it’s hard to fraudulently…. You could do it, but it’s not easy. Whereas on a survey, if I’m getting paid 25 cents and it’s going to take me 18 minutes or whatever it is, a dollar, right? It’s a lot. To your point, I don’t feel that obligation to deliver like I would if I’m doing some sort of qualitative exercise that I was compensating me for the 18 minutes, whether it was $3 to $5.


We’ve made it just a button business. I don’t know. That disturbs me. It’s one of the things that disturbs me is that we don’t really compensate respondents properly for their time. And I think it’s part of the reason why we have this whole industry of cheaters that has arisen because set something up that’s just not really fair.


A push button industry. That’s super interesting framework. Tia Maurer, and I have referenced her talk at MRMW in Cincinnati earlier this year a couple of times already on the show. And I’ll probably continue to do so. I thought it was one of the more insightful, and she’s a group scientist at Procter & Gamble, a senior group scientist. So kind of a big deal. And her framework is this is actually the biggest problem that is facing us right now because the quality of sample is the tail that wags the dog of insights. So, even though it’s a small proportion of the budget, it’s not the part of the budget that we should be skimping on. And I think to your point about what is the equitable amount of compensation is actually a good starting place for respondent. In qualitative, we HAVE to do that, right? You can’t get somebody to give you 30 minutes of their time unless there is something in it for them that is material: Starbucks cards or what. You know what I’m saying? Like something. But quantitative seems to think it’s OK to offer a lot less. I’m not picking on the industry per se, but I am agreeing with you that I do think it is a material problem.


I think it is. If you’re doing work in the mall, people get a better incentive than they do if they… That’s quant. We’ve just set something up that’s… I just think it begs problems. It was better when we didn’t pay people so little.


Do you think there’s a role for in-mall intercepts, kind of a resurgent opportunity there?


No, because while everybody says that they want to, as you said, the tail wagging the dog. But when it comes down to buying, they just want the lowest price. So price is what determines king. Yeah, it is. And so, no matter what you say about having… We talk a good game, but really when it comes down to it, price is what matters.


The GRIT Report was interesting in the last… I don’t know if you had a chance to peruse it, but it’s basically the three-legged stool that we’ve all grown up with, which is better, faster, cheaper. So you still see tremendous pressure as it relates with cost. And so, then I think you kind of reduce it down to your point on where is the cost efficiency actually gained and just because it can be gained there, should it? “Is it good for the research?” is really the question that we need to be asking as an industry. And I, honestly, think that brands are at a spot now where if there was transparency on the quality differences, they’d be willing to… Like if there was a Yelp at a respondent-level equivalent, that would be something that a brand… “I’m going to go with a five-star as opposed to the two-star respondents.” Something like that could be relatively disruptive and help justify ‘cause right now it’s just met with words and you have some data, but it’s still abstract as it relates with the cost.


That’s a good idea. I think we all have a concern about the quality of the data that we provide. We go through hoops here now looking at open ends now when they come in; you just have to. It’s because we’ve gotten this… I don’t know. We’re talking this to death here, but yeah.


Yeah, we are. But you’re right; it’s an issue. So, with the other side of the coin or brand: market research, as you’ve already pointed out, is a getting huge… is at an inflection point right now with respect to the amount of attention it’s getting from private equity and brands—SAP’s acquisition in the space. And I’m sure there are going to be other brands, whether it’s Salesforce or Adobe or others, that are going to be entering in as well. What is the role of insights in a modern brand and how has that changed in the last five years?


I’m not so sure that I’m the one to ask about this. I’m just still reeling from the goings-on this week, you know, that, you know


So, in context this week, yeah, this week, what did we have? Dynata.


We have the Dynata, Reuters saying that Dynata might be up for sale for 3 billion, with a B. A few weeks ago, a few months ago, years ago, a couple of years ago, we had the Qualtrics 8 billion, with a B.


That was September of last year.


We had Kantar being sold, 60% of Kantar being sold for, who knows what, a huge amount of money. And then we have the notice that the Schlesinger family has taken on private equity. So, this was a little bit to my point earlier that there’s so much money coming into our space now that we should be attracting more young people into this industry because it seems to be a very vital, exciting place to be in right now.


The reality is that the customer… The brands are finally aware that the customer’s in charge. And so, to that end, putting the customer in the middle of the conversations is probably the most important initiative that any company is going to do. Long gone are the days of sort of build this big product in a waterfall format and not talk to any customers. Now it’s AB-tested to death, incorporate customer interviews every step of the way, consumer insight, consumer insight, consumer insight. I’ve heard a couple of different people frame it as one of the KPIs companies use to decide if it is a good product or a bad product is how many times do we reference the customer voice through the process. So like that is a real KPI that some organizations are using So it’s definitely…


I actually heard a talk about that. I think it was a clothing brand. I think it might’ve been Gap, but anyway, it was really interesting about how that the entire way through their process of doing some rebranding and changing the bit of their image, they had the customer there the whole time. It was just everything was at the customer and what the customers were thinking and how they felt. And yeah.


I mean it’s a good time for us as an industry, not only because, selfishly, people are paying attention, but we are by nature empathetic and, therefore, I believe we are the right people to help organizations learn empathy and employ that in their decision-making process.


We are that. We talk about it; we ask questions; we’re constantly probing; we’re looking for insights. That’s what we do for living.


What is the biggest issue that’s facing market researchers today?


I think we’ve talked about it. I think the biggest issue is the quality of the product that we provide. I think that everybody’s talking about it. It’s up there for everybody to talk about, and everybody is talking about it: the issue of sample. And I think that we really have to be on our guard to be sure that we’re providing the best quality because it’s what we’ve always been trying to do. It’s just now a matter of staying ahead of the curve of people who have the ability to scam the system.


So, I’ve been selling sample my whole career or buying it, one of those two. And when I started Decipher, of course, customers wanted me to procure sample for them. So I did that. And then I subsequently wound up with this really nice… Sample companies liked me. How’s that? One of the big competitors I had was a company called e-Rewards, which differentiated themselves in those days based on the sourcing of their panelists and incentive structure as well. That company has now turned into Dynata. They would sell their sample to my customers for as much as a five X on top of what I was trying to charge. Like they were that much more expensive, and this was before the $3 and $4 CPIs. And I was really frustrated because my customers were buying it. In other words, they were paying the premium or material premium over what I was charging because of the quality narrative.

I hear what you’re saying and I agree that… I’ve heard it literally from every guest I’ve talked to on this subject, but I just have to believe that that… I’ve seen it play out once, and I don’t think it was a fluke. I think they actually proved that the market had some willingness to pay more for a higher quality if the story could be adequately built around that. And I think that’s part of the missing equation right now is I haven’t really heard, and I’m sure it exists, but I just haven’t really heard that story told in a way that really resonates, resonates, obviously, with me. I don’t know. Do you remember the days of the e-Rewards?


I do, yeah.


Yes. Right. So, they’re really expensive.


Sample was expensive, but I just felt like it was worth it. I felt like we should be paying, just what I said earlier. I think we should be paying people a fair price for their time, whatever that is. Is it a Starbucks card? It certainly should be more than a quarter. I mean, really! I just think that it’s a crazy thing. Granted it’s not an hour-long interview or a 90-minute interview that you might have for a qual situation. But quant’s not just five minutes or ten minutes; it’s a lot longer than that. Segmentation studies have been put online. They are still online, and they’re long. People are asked to spend 20 minutes, 30 minutes, 40 minutes. By the time they get 20 minutes done, you’re complaining that they’re straightlining. Well, they’re tired, and what are you going to give them for that? I just think that we should change it. I don’t think it’s going to be changed, but I think that things would be better if it was changed.


All right. My last question: What is your motto?


I don’t really have a motto, but the one that I think is the best for all of us is “Stay calm and carry on,” the Queen’s motto. I think that’s the best one. The thing that I think that should be the “motto” of all of our companies is “trustworthiness.” I think that’s the biggest thing. People have to trust you. You can’t have a business today; you can’t run a business unless your clients trust you. That’s the whole thing. You have to provide trust. People have to be honest. I think honesty and trustworthiness are the… That’s what makes up a company today that people are going to be willing to give their business to.


So, my guest today has been Anne Brown, CEO of Gazelle Global Research Services. Anne, thank you so much for being on a Happy Market Resource Podcast.


Hey, thanks, Jamin for having me.


And thank you for all the support, Anne, that you’ve given us, Nancy and John as well, of course, through the year now. We’re almost coming up on our one year for having market research podcasts. We really appreciate it.


Great. I’m glad that they were there for you.


Everyone else, please take the time to screen capture, share this episode. I really appreciate you taking the time to listen to it. It means the world to me, and your reviews actually make a big difference in other insight pros being able to find content like this. Hope you have a wonderful rest of day.


This episode is brought to you by G3 Translate. The G3 Translate team offers unparalleled expertise in foreign language translations for market researchers and insight professionals across the globe. Not only do they speak hundreds of languages, they are fluent in, probably the most difficult one, market research. For more information, please visit them at G3Translate.com.