At the end of the 1980s and start of the 1990syouth marketing was on the rise. Marketers were in search of new segments and target groups to conquer and to them the young consumer was a rather easy target. If only you shouted hard enough through specific youth media like MTV that you ought to use brand X to be a cool hipster or sexy chick, your success was guaranteed. Commercial media were relatively new, global brands were by definition cool and young people loved to submerge in consumerism. Buying stuffmade them feel independent and grown-up. And yuppie culture endorsed the glamorous appeal ofbrands that dictated how to dress, behave, walkand talk. Today, twenty years later, things have dramatically changed. This new youth generation, called Generation Y or Millennials,has been bombarded with commercial messages from their birth. They have learnedto filter out all those loud marketing messages and their parents empowered them to have an opinion of their own and never merely believe.

Good insights will lead to the discovery of something that is not yet obvious. They should be recognizable and real and must allow us to translate them into actionable business opportunities. Researchers are considered as experts in insight generation. But is the researcher still the right and only person suited to get the job done in? Can they see and interpret everything? In this paper (this is a summary of a paper we presented at Esomar congress 2011), we challenge this premise by introducing the principle of crowd interpretation: the analysis of research data by a group of research participants in order to obtain richer interpretation of data that lead to insights.

Great companies understand the importance ofconsumer insights when it comes to outperformingcompetition. Engagement in learning and keepingknowledge up-to-date through a constant searchfor new insights, engagement in getting close toconsumers and immersed in their daily lives toinspire and understand their reality and the driversof consumer value, has proven to be one of themost critical corporate competencies.

Research panels are under a lot of pressure: for far too long we have treated panels as ordinary databases. As a result, response rates to traditional surveys are in decline and it becomes harder to motivate people to participate in research projects. As researchers, we have to look into alternatives that still allow us to learn about the attitudes and behavior of consumers. Thanks to the rise of social media, a whole new stream of consumer information became available and our industry is embracing it as the new Walhalla. By using methods like 'social media nethnography' in which online conversations and stories are observed, researchers learn from online sources of textual and visual information that are freely available (Verhaeghe, Van den Berge, Schillewaert, 2009). Instead of asking new input from research participants, existing information is recycled. Because consumers are free to talk about whatever they like, social media nethnography does not only provide answers on research questions one already had but it also gives answers to questions you they did not ask and answers without asking questions.

Every year, companies spend over 32 billion U.S. dollars on market research worldwide. More than 95% of this money is spent on some form of traditional research, based on interviewing (Esomar 2009). Undoubtedly, such research is valuable. But do we really listen to the market in such a culture of interviewing? Are we capturing spontaneous thoughts and feelings if we move people through rigid research processes of surveys and focus groups? The issue with traditional research methods is that we always rely on consumers' recall of behavior, that the granularity and context may be too abstract and time pressure too great (Hayward 2009). Several forms of interviewing bias may arise, even when we thoughtfully set up a survey. Researchers frame the questions from their own perspective and may omit certain topics which consumers find important. The mere act of interrogating people, along with the social nature of the interview, has the potential to influence the information we obtain. Furthermore, people are often unreliable witnesses of their own experiences and emotions (Kearon and Earls 2009). Needs may be latent (and thus not consciously available), and in these situations individuals are often unable to express their true desires and feelings. Examples from the launch of new products are countless. A few examples include the PC, the mobile phone, and the Internet. In sum, these characteristics of interview-based research may hinder marketing researchers from finding the 'golden nuggets' they are looking for.

Over the past years, stimulated by the rise of social media, 'conversational marketing' techniques have gained tremendous importance. Lots of books and white papers were published on the topic and a large number of companies have rolled-out a program to observe, feed and manage the offline and online conversations that are taking place about their products and brands. We may call it a paradigm shift in the way we think about marketing in general and marketing communications in specific: it is the end of advertising as we know it. The empowered consumer has taken over the power to market a product or brand partly. Smart companies listen to what people say about them and try to take action based upon it (Van Belleghem, 2010). They try to unlock the power of their brand fans or so called 'super promoters' (Vogelaar, 2009). Those fans will spread the word about a brand or product with enthusiasm and passion.

Every year, companies spend over 25 billion dollars on market research worldwide. Companies organize focus groups, surveys, and interviews in order to better understand consumers. Without a doubt, such research is valuable. However, the question must be asked: do we really listen enough to our customers? Do we not influence them by asking questions? In many studies, market researchers ask "respondents‟ to answer questions for which all options are predefined (Comley, 2006). Even if research participants can answer openly (e.g. in qualitative research or through open questions), they seldom get the chance to start the dialogue and to make the conversation themselves.