marketresearch

When good research changes nothing

The problem isn’t always the insight. It’s what the insight runs into once it’s shared.

Sometimes market research does exactly what it’s supposed to do. The findings are clear, the pattern is real… and yet the client’s decision still doesn’t reflect what was learned.

Most of us have seen this happen. And when it does, it’s easy to blame the usual things: Maybe the story wasn’t compelling enough. Maybe stakeholders interpreted it differently. Maybe the recommendations weren’t sharp enough.

But thinking back on certain projects, I’ve started to notice a pattern.

  • In one study, I was asked to conduct qualitative research using a discussion guide built by pulling questions directly from a survey. Participants struggled, not because they had nothing to say, but because the questions didn’t match how they actually think about the topic.
  • In another, a new product concept resonated with customers, but the advertising had already been developed. None of the directions really worked, yet the team still had to pick one. What came out of the process wasn’t a strong decision so much as the “least bad” choice.
  • And in another project, participants kept raising the same issue on their own. It clearly mattered to them. But it was also something the organization wasn’t prepared to deal with. The finding made the room uncomfortable, and that discomfort told its own story.

On the surface, these are very different situations. But they point to the same thing. By the time the findings are presented, a surprising amount has already been decided. The research has been framed a certain way. The questions have been narrowed. Sometimes there are topics no one wants to touch. And sometimes, more quietly, there are things the organization just isn’t ready to hear.

One way I’ve started to think about it is that insights don’t just land in organizations – they run into things.

Sometimes what they run into is a decision that’s already been made. Sometimes it’s an investment that’s too far along to revisit. And sometimes it’s something the organization isn’t ready to hear. In that context, the question becomes not just “is this insight right?” but “what is this insight going to run into?”

I’ve found it can be useful to think about that ahead of time. What existing decisions, assumptions, or constraints might this challenge? Because that often shapes whether the insight has any real chance of being used.

It has also changed how I think about the goal of the work. Early on, I probably would have said the goal is to get the insight exactly right. Over time, I’ve come to think the goal is to make the insight usable.

And in some cases, that means using the insight to open a conversation rather than close one. Especially when it touches on something sensitive, presenting it as something to explore can create more movement than presenting it as a final answer.

Some client-side researchers see value in bringing in an outside consultant for this reason. It’s not just about a fresh perspective. An external voice can say things that are harder to say internally, which can create space for the insight to be heard. (Or, at times, take the heat for it!)

None of this guarantees that the insight will be used. But it does improve the odds. Because the real question isn’t just whether we found something important. It’s whether the work was set up in a way that gave that insight any real chance to matter. Let’s discuss the best way to make your insights land most effectively. Contact me at info at bureauwest.com.

Posted on by Jay Zaltzman

Customers don’t always want delight

I recently completed a post-booking survey for Expedia. One of the questions asked whether I felt “amazed” or “delighted” by the experience.

I paused. Not because the experience was bad – it wasn’t. It worked exactly as intended. I found a hotel, compared prices, booked it quickly, and moved on with my life.

But that was the point. I wasn’t hoping to be amazed. I wasn’t seeking delight. I was in task mode. I just wanted the process to work efficiently. That question felt off not because it was poorly worded, but because it revealed a deeper misunderstanding about how people actually experience value.

Many digital platforms – travel booking sites, airline apps, banking portals, insurance dashboards – are not emotional destinations. They are functional systems. Their primary job is to reduce effort, reduce uncertainty, and reduce time. When those systems work well, the dominant emotion isn’t delight. It’s relief. And relief is rarely measured.

Instead, many companies reach for aspirational language – delight, wow, magic – and then build surveys to validate those ideas. The problem is that when you ask emotional questions of a functional task, you don’t get insight. You get noise. Worse, you risk steering teams toward the wrong priorities: polishing moments that don’t matter while overlooking friction that does.

There’s a subtle but important difference between no emotion and no emotional work required. In many everyday buying contexts, people don’t want to be engaged – they want to be done. That’s not a failure of brand ambition; it’s an expression of buyer reality.

This is something I see repeatedly in my research. Emotion still matters, but it’s not always where companies expect it to show up. Often, the strongest positive signal isn’t excitement or delight, but quiet confidence that the system will do what it promises without getting in the way.

Sometimes, the best experience is the one you barely notice.

This pattern – and others like it – is a core theme in my upcoming book, Mind of the American Buyer, which looks at how people actually make decisions in the real world, rather than how brands imagine they do.

Curious where your customers are actually seeking delight – and where they just want things to work? You can reach me at info at bureauwest.com if you’d like to discuss the best way to understand that difference.

Posted on by Jay Zaltzman

Making research worth the investment

Most companies don’t ignore research on purpose. They invest in it with the hope that it will sharpen strategy and reduce uncertainty. Yet too often, research ends up as a report that sits on a shelf, while teams return to old habits or gut feel.

  • Back in the early 2000s, even a giant like Procter & Gamble was struggling with research not delivering the business results they expected. Their flagship Tide brand was a household name, but innovation success rates were low: only about 15% of new initiatives were meeting profit and revenue targets.

    P&G didn’t respond by simply commissioning more studies. They changed how they used research. They built what they called a “new-growth factory:” processes and teams designed not just to generate insights but to carry them through to product development, marketing, and strategy. They opened up to outside partners, created internal coaches to guide innovation projects, and developed toolkits to help different functions act on insights.

    The results were dramatic. Within about a decade, Tide’s revenues nearly doubled, helping its fabric and home-care division grow from roughly $12 billion to nearly $24 billion. In other words, they turned research into a driver of growth by investing in what happens after the data is collected.

Of course, not every company has the scale or resources of P&G. But the lesson applies far beyond consumer-goods giants: research produces the greatest returns when you budget for the “last mile,” when you tie findings to financial outcomes, and when you make insights easy for people across the company to use.

Here are three practices you can apply, no matter your company size:

  1. Budget for the “last mile”
    Most research budgets go toward data collection and analysis, with little left for embedding insights. That’s a missed opportunity. The last mile is where insights turn into action: facilitated workshops, action plans, internal roadshows, training sessions. Even setting aside 10% of your research budget for activation can make the difference between a report that sits on a shelf and insights that change strategy.

    Try this: For your next project, include a session where key stakeholders co-create an action plan from the findings. When people shape the plan themselves, they’re far more likely to follow through.
  2. Translate insights into financial implications
    Executives act when they see dollar signs. An insight like “customers are frustrated by onboarding” is interesting. But reframed as “if we reduce onboarding drop-off by 5%, we could gain $2 million in annual revenue,” it becomes actionable.

    Try this: For each major finding, sketch a quick “back-of-the-napkin” estimate of what acting on it could mean financially. It doesn’t have to be precise: directional numbers spark urgency and support.
  3. Design outputs for shareability
    The people who need to act on research often won’t read a 60-page report. But they will look at a one-page infographic, a short video, or a set of personas they can pin to their office wall. The more portable and shareable your insights are, the more they spread inside the organization.

    Try this: Ask yourself, “If someone only had 60 seconds with this finding, what would I want them to remember?” Build a summary or visual around that.

Research is an investment. But like P&G discovered, the return depends on how the findings are activated. Companies that budget for the last mile, tie insights to dollars, and make findings easy to share don’t just learn about their customers, they become more competitive.

Want to make sure your next research project leads to real impact? Let’s talk about how to get there. Contact me at info at bureauwest.com.

Posted on by Jay Zaltzman

How to avoid bias in research

One of the most important concerns we have as market researchers is how to minimize the influence researchers have on participants. We want to uncover participants’ real thoughts, feelings and motivations, but what if the researcher’s presence, or even the mere act of asking the question, has an impact on participants’ responses?

Experienced researchers have a variety of methods we use in qualitative research to reduce that impact and obtain the most accurate input possible. For example:

  • Setting the tone. The intro at the very beginning of the discussion is an important tool to minimize bias. The first thing I tell participants is “I’m an independent researcher. That means you can say good things or bad things and it won’t hurt my feelings either way. My job is to get people’s honest opinions.” (The late great Naomi Henderson advised against saying “there are no right or wrong answers,” since that brings up the idea of wrong answers. I agree!)
  • The intro is also the time to set the ground rules to avoid having one participant dominate the conversation, which can also introduce bias. I say “I want to hear from everyone and keep it even, so if you notice you’re going first a few times, I’m going to ask you to hold back and let someone else go first.” If a participant later starts to dominate the conversation, they can be reminded of this ground rule.
  • Neutral language. When our clients have questions, they tend to be unconsciously biased in favor of their product. For example, they may want to know how a certain feature has improved customers’ experience. Instead of asking questions like “how has this this feature improved your experience?” I prefer questions like “What impact, if any, did this feature have on your experience?”
  • One exception: when we want to make sure participants aren’t saying things to please us, we might play devil’s advocate to see how strongly they feel. For example, “Is that feature really that helpful? Someone was just saying in the last group that it made no difference to them. Were they wrong?” This gets participants to provide more detail about why they feel the way they feel.
  • Watching our own signals. The moderator can bias things without realizing by smiling or saying something like “great answer” to a participant. We really have to watch ourselves. I try to thank everyone for their input, say things like “that’s an interesting point” and “does anyone agree or disagree?” to make sure I appear neutral. And the first time someone disagrees with another participant, I’ll praise them and say something like “that’s what I was talking about earlier – we can feel free to disagree with each other in a friendly manner.”

While we can’t completely eliminate researcher influence, the above strategies can help a great deal. As third-party researchers, one benefit we bring to our clients is the fact that we come from the outside and are therefore more able to be neutral when conducting research. It’s important to approach research discussions with curiosity and empathy, rather than advance expectations about participants’ responses.

Let’s discuss how to elicit unbiased information from your customers and prospects. Email me at info at bureauwest.com.

Posted on by Jay Zaltzman