SAMRA responds to open letter

Your open letter published on the MARFA website and Bizcommunity refers. The executive of SAMRA welcomes positive debate and idea sharing since we believe it strengthens our industry. However, I do find the public statement about SAMRA's alleged lack of interest quite surprising since disinterest in cash flow problems and breach of contract by clients is not and has never been the SAMRA policy.

At the same time, our objectives as a professional industry body and our Code of Conduct do not imply that SAMRA can prescribe fees or payment policies to suppliers or research users. The public challenge is especially concerning coming from a SAMRA Honorary member.

We share your concern about cash flow and your point of view regarding the generally accepted industry practice of requiring an upfront payment of 50% or 60% as part of payment terms in contracts with clients.

If you were unsure of our view on this, I would have preferred that you contact us first to allow us to issue a statement in this regard (ie to exercise our right of reply). If you followed my declared vision at our most recent AGM and our July 2011 Strategic Planning document you would find that SAMRA is indeed extremely concerned about several challenges that the industry faces, including cash flow problems, amongst many similar issues.

In point 2 you raise a very valid point around breach of contract on payment terms. If more clients, and indeed research suppliers who subcontract to other researchers, become SAMRA members we would be in a position to formally act against these members based on unprofessional conduct.

In the case of non-member research users we have no recourse other than industry-lobbied initiatives by suppliers. I also refer you to Article 1 of our Code of Conduct that require SAMRA members not to act in a way which could bring discredit on the profession or lead to a loss of public confidence in it. The Article thus addresses the systematic failure to pay interviewers and sub-contractors money that is legitimately owed to them. This Article makes the behaviour you refer to a clear breach of the Code. Therefore, where SAMRA (or ESOMAR) members transgress, there is recourse via the SAMRA (or ESOMAR) complaints procedure.

Your interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act is, unfortunately, technically not correct since it covers individual consumers and not companies that would fall under the Companies Act. Regarding advising on and assisting with recourse, I would like to extend an invitation to you to suggest how we could assist. SAMRA will then submit a formal request for further investigation and involve the relevant portfolios in this as well.

With regards to the Qualitative Special Interest Group (QSIG) you might have seen the notice that the chair (Marna Kircher) recently resigned due to her husband relocating overseas. Elna Smit has been elected as new Chair for QSIG. I will forward your letter and my reply to her as well.

Similarly I will forward this to Grant Lindhorst as Chair of RUF for comment .

Kind regards

Adré Schreuder (Prof)
SAR (SAMRA Accredited Researcher)
CHAIR: 2011/2012