Cet article présente le protocole du mur d’images en ligne (ou MIEL), afin d’évaluer – grâce à un exemple – ses apports méthodologiques et analyser son efficacité comme technique de recherche marketing. Nous exposons les fondements théoriques et épistémologiques de cette méthode mixte, puis les principes de sa mise au point et les possibilités d’analyse offertes. Nous montrons que ce dispositif hybride permet de mêler les intérêts d’un protocole interprétatif qui intègre images et textes, tout en générant – à grande échelle – des données riches et de bonne qualité, exploitables statistiquement. Il apparait que le MIEL est bien adapté à l’analyse des composantes expérientielles et émotionnelles de la consommation.
AlbertNMerunkaDValette-FlorenceP (2008) When consumers love their brands: exploring the concept and its dimensions. Journal of Business Research61: 1062–1075.
2.
AndreaniJCConchonF (2005) Fiabilité et validité des enquêtes qualitatives: un état de l’art en marketing. Revue Française du Marketing201: 5–21.
3.
AvenierMJGavard-PerretML (2012) Inscrire son projet de recherche dans un cadre épistémologique. In: Gavard-PerretMLGottelandDHaonCJolibertA (éd.) Méthodologie de la recherche en sciences de gestion. Réussir son mémoire ou sa thèse. 2ème édition. Paris: Pearson Education, 11–62.
4.
BahlSMilneGR (2006) Mixed methods in interpretive research: an application to the study of the self concept. In: BelkRW (éd.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing. Northampton: Elgar, 198–218.
5.
BaptisteABelisleCPéchenartJMVacheretC (1991) Photolangage. Une méthode pour communiquer en groupe par la photo. Paris: les Editions Organisation.
6.
BlascovichJLoomisJBeallACSwinthKRHoytCLBailensonJN (2002) Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychological Inquiry13(2): 103–124.
BoddyC (2005) Projective techniques in market research: valueless subjectivity or insightful reality? A look at the evidence for the usefulness, reliability and validity of projective techniques in market research. International Journal of Market Research47(3): 239–254.
9.
BouzidiW (2011) L’interactivité et la performance des enquêtes Internet: le cas d’une recherche expérimentation. Thèse de doctorat: Université de Savoie, France.
10.
BradburnN (1977) Respondent burden. In: Health Survey Research Methods: Actes de la 2ème Biennial Conference 79–3207. Washington: PHS Publication, 49–53.
11.
CameronRMolina-AzorinJF (2011) The acceptance of mixed methods in business and management research. International Journal of Organizational Analysis19(3): 256–271.
12.
CarùACovaB (2006) Expériences de marque: comment favoriser l’immersion du consommateur?Décisions Marketing41: 43–52.
13.
CsikszentmihalyiM (2000) The costs and benefits of consuming. Journal of Consumer Research27(2): 267–272.
14.
DenzinNK (1978) Sociological Methods: a sourcebook. 2ème édition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
15.
DerbaixCPhamMT (1989) Pour un développement des mesures de l’affectif en marketing: synthèse des prérequis. Recherche et Applications en Marketing4(4): 71–87.
16.
DeutskensEDe RuyterKWetzelsMOosterveldP (2004) Response rate and response quality of internet-based surveys: An experimental study. Marketing Letters15(1): 21–36.
17.
DionD (2007) Les apports de l’anthropologie visuelle à l’étude des comportements de consommation. Recherche et Applications en Marketing22(1): 61–78.
18.
Downes-Le GuinTBakerRMechlingJRuyleE (2012) Myths and realities of respondent engagement in online surveys. International Journal of Market Research54(5): 613–633.
19.
FrickerSGalesicMTourangeauRYanT (2005) An experimental comparison of web and telephone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly69: 370–392.
20.
GanassaliSMoscarolaJ (2004) Protocoles d’enquête et efficacité des sondages par Internet. Décisions Marketing33: 63–75.
21.
GanassaliS (2008) The influence of the design of Web survey questionnaires on the quality of responses. Survey Research Methods2(1): 21–32.
22.
GrovesRM (1989) Survey Errors and Survey Costs. New York: John Wiley.
23.
HarperD (2002) Talking about pictures: a case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies17(1): 13–26.
24.
HarrisonRLReillyTM (2011) Mixed methods designs in marketing research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal14(1): 7–26.
25.
HealeyBMac PhersonTKuijtenB (2005) An empirical evaluation of three web survey design principles. Marketing Bulletin16: 1–9.
26.
HelferJPKalikaM (1988) La cohérence interne dans les enquêtes par interviews. Recherche et Applications en Marketing3(1): 1–14.
27.
HerzMFDiamantopoulosA (2013) Country-specific associations made by consumers: a dual-coding theory perspective. Journal of International Marketing21(3): 95–121.
28.
HeisleyDLevyJ (1991) Autodriving: a photoelicitation technique. Journal of Consumer Research18(3): 257–272.
29.
HolbrookMBBatraR (1987) Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer responses to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research14(3): 404–420.
30.
JanssonA (2002) The mediatization of consumption: towards an analytical framework of image culture. Journal of Consumer Culture2(1): 5–31.
31.
JickD (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly24: 602–611.
32.
KollerMSinitsaE (2009) Mixed methods in online research – Conceptualisation and future research agenda. In: Actes de la General Online Research, Université de Vienne, Autriche, 6–8Avril2009, GOR.
33.
KrantzJHWilliamsJE (2010) Using graphics, photographs and dynamic media. In: GoslingSDJohnsonJA (éd.) Online Behavioral Research. Washington: American Psychological Association, 45–61.
34.
LaurentGKapfererJN (1986) Les profils d’implication. Recherche et Applications en Marketing1(1): 41–57.
35.
LincolnYSGubaEG (2000) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (éd.) The handbook of qualitative research. 2ème édition. Londres: SAGE, 163–188.
36.
MacKensieSBPodsakoffPM (2012) Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing88(4): 542–555.
37.
MartinMCOkleshen PetersCL (2005) Exploring adolescent girls’ identification of beauty types though consumer collages. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management9: 391–406.
38.
Molina-AzorinJF (2011) The use and added value of mixed methods in management research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research5: 7–24.
39.
MossholderKWSettoonRPHarrisSGArmenakisAA (1995) Measuring emotion in open-ended survey responses: an application of textual data analysis. Journal of Management21: 335–355.
40.
NeuhoferBBuhalisDLadkinA (2014) A typology of technology-enhanced tourism experiences. International Journal of Tourism Research16: 340–350.
41.
OnwuegbuzieAJTeddlieC (2003) A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In: TashakkoriATeddlieC (éd.) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 351–383.
42.
PaivioA (1971) Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
43.
PawleJDelfaudD (2014) How does your cappuccino feel?Research World44: 50–52.
44.
PellemansP (1999) Recherche qualitative en marketing: perspective psychoscopique. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université
45.
PinkS (2011) Digital visual anthropology: Potential and challenges. In: BanksMRubyJ (éd.) Made to be Seen: Perspectives on the History of Visual Anthropology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 209–233.
46.
PulestonJ (2011) Online research: game on! A look at how gaming techniques can transform your online research. Actes de la 6ème ASC International Conference, Université de Bristol, Royaume-Uni, 22–23 Septembre 2011, 20–50. Berkley: ASC.
47.
Rodriguez-SantosCGanassaliSCasarinFLaaksonenPKaufmannHR (2013) Consumption Culture in Europe: Insight into the Beverage Industry. Hershey: IGI Global.
48.
RogelbergSGStantonJM (2007) Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods10: 195–209.
49.
RosnowRLRosenthalR (1976) The volunteer subject revisited. Australian Journal of Psychology28(2): 97–108.
50.
RossiterJRPercyL (1980) Attitude change through visual imagery in advertising. Journal of Advertising9: 10–16.
51.
SchmittBH (1999) Experiential Marketing: How to get customers to sense, feel, think, act, relate. New York: The Free Press.
52.
SchonlauMFrickerRDJElliotMN (2002) Conducting Research Surveys via e-mail and the Web. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
53.
StanczakG (2007) Visual Research Methods: Image, society, and representation. Los Angeles: SAGE.
54.
TashakkoriATeddlieC (2010) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. 2ème édition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
55.
VernetteE (2007) Une nouvelle méthode pour interpréter le sens d’une expérience de consommation: l’Album On Line (AOL). In: Actes de la 12ème Journée de Recherche en Marketing de Bourgogne. Université de Bourgogne, 8–9Novembre2007, Dijon: CERMAB-LEG (Actes CD-ROM).
56.
VicentePReisE (2010) Using questionnaire design to fight nonresponse bias in Web surveys. Social Science Computer Review28: 251–267.
57.
YoonJKDesmetPMAPohlmeyerAE (2013) Embodied typology of positive emotions: the development of a tool to facilitate emotional granularity in design. In: Actes du 5ème International Congress of International Association of Societies of Design Research, Shibaura Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japon, 26–30 Août 2013, IASDR.
58.
ZaltmanGCoulterRH (1995) Seeing the voice of the customer: metaphor-based advertising research. Journal of Advertising Research35(4): 35–51.
59.
ZaltmanG (1997) Rethinking marketing research: putting people back in. Journal of Marketing Research34: 424–437.
60.
ZarantonelloLLuomalaH (2011) Dear Mr Chocolate: constructing a typology of contextualized chocolate consumption experiences through qualitative diary research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal14(1): 55–82.
