qualitative research

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

If decisions are emotional, why do we still ask rational questions?

A small paradox at the heart of customer research – and what it reveals about how people really make decisions

Over the past few decades, behavioral economics and behavioral science have shown something most researchers recognize immediately: people don’t fully understand the true drivers of their decisions.

Yet in customer research, we often design our questions as if rational explanations will reveal the answer. Ask someone why they chose a particular product and the response usually sounds perfectly logical: “Price.” “Features.” “Convenience.” “A good deal.”

Those explanations aren’t necessarily wrong. But they’re rarely the whole story. I remember an interview years ago with a woman who told me she would never switch car brands. When I asked why, she talked about reliability, resale value, and service quality. It sounded like a textbook rational decision.

Then, almost as an afterthought, she added: “It was the first car I bought after my divorce. It made me feel like I could start over.”

In that moment the decision made sense – not because of the features, but because of what the purchase meant to her. She wasn’t really buying transportation. She was buying a sense of independence and renewal.

Moments like that happen constantly in qualitative research. Participants explain their choices in rational terms, yet the emotional driver of the decision emerges indirectly – in stories, metaphors, or moments that seem almost incidental.

The interesting question isn’t why decisions are emotional. Behavioral science has demonstrated that repeatedly. The more interesting question is why people so often describe those decisions in rational language.

Part of the answer, I’ve come to believe, is cultural. In the United States especially, people feel a strong pressure to present themselves as confident, rational, and self-directed. Decisions are expected to look intentional and logical, even when the deeper motivations are emotional. So when we ask people why they chose something, the answer we hear is often the explanation that feels most acceptable to say out loud.

Over years of research interviews, I began to notice that participants were often answering a different question than the one I had asked.

This dynamic doesn’t just affect research interviews. It shapes how insights get interpreted inside organizations. When customer explanations sound rational, teams often focus on functional improvements – better features, lower prices, more convenience. But if the real driver of the decision is emotional or cultural, those improvements may miss what actually matters to customers.

When we ask, “Why did you choose this?” the answer might really be responding to a deeper, unspoken question such as:

  • Will this make me feel competent?
  • Does this reflect the kind of person I want to be?
  • Will people like me choose this too?

Those hidden questions often explain far more about a decision than the rational explanation that appears on the surface.

Seeing that pattern repeatedly led me to write a short book I’ve just finished: The American Customer: The Hidden Forces That Shape Choice.

The book explores how cultural stories – about independence, reinvention, belonging, and possibility – shape the way American customers interpret their decisions and explain them to others. It also introduces a few practical lenses I’ve found useful for decoding motivations that participants don’t always articulate directly.

The book will be published in late March, 2026. I’m especially interested in whether the ideas resonate with your own experience in research or marketing. If you have thoughts, questions, or reactions, I’d love to hear them. Contact me at info at bureauwest.com.

Posted on by Jay Zaltzman

“We’re in the business of influencing other people”

When insight fails, it’s rarely because the research was wrong. More often, it’s because the insight never quite fit how decisions actually get made inside the organization.

That reality came through clearly in my recent From Insight to Impact video interview with Jinghuan Liu Tervalon, a senior marketing and insights leader with deep experience across CPG, food and beverage, and omnichannel retail. Her perspective offered a useful reminder: the value of research and the value of the research partner are tightly intertwined.

  • For Jinghuan, truly valuable research is first and foremost actionable – but not in the abstract sense the word is often used. In practice, that means explicitly tying insights to growth strategy and translating high-level ambition into concrete business terms. Growing penetration, for example, only becomes actionable when it’s reframed as a specific number of households, regions, or behaviors the organization can rally around.
  • She also pointed out that executives are often presented with research that’s difficult to decipher – dense conclusions, large volumes of data, or findings that stop short of clear direction. When that happens, even strong insight can lose momentum. Actionability depends not only on what the research says, but on whether senior stakeholders can quickly grasp what it means for the business and what to do next. Translation and clarity, not just rigor, are what keep insight moving.

This emphasis on clarity connects directly to how Jinghuan thinks about the role of research partners. She spoke enthusiastically about partners who proactively schedule pre-meetings to understand strategy, stakeholders, and success criteria. “I absolutely love the pre-meetings,” she said, noting that skipping that step often leads to disappointment later – even when the research itself is sound.

What makes her perspective especially valuable is how candid she was about the internal dynamics surrounding qualitative research. Like many insights leaders, she regularly encounters skepticism: “that’s not representative,” or “that’s just one person.” At the same time, she sees how qualitative work uniquely brings consumers’ lives, motivations, and tensions to life in ways numbers alone cannot.

This is where the role of the qualitative research partner becomes inseparable from the value of the research itself. Jinghuan doesn’t just want partners who deliver insight – she values partners who help her influence. Insights teams don’t own activation; marketing and sales do. Their job is to persuade others to trust and act on what the research reveals.

  • “We’re not in charge of marketing activation. We’re here to provide data and insights and recommendations. Fundamentally we’re in the business of influencing other people. So the soft skills are really, really critical.”

When qualitative partners help convey the value of qualitative insight internally, they’re not overstepping – they’re sharing a very real burden.

A good research partner needs marketing fluency, organizational awareness, and an understanding of how stakeholders prefer to receive and challenge information. Partners who can speak the language of growth, brand, and activation dramatically increase the odds that insight won’t end up admired once – and then quietly shelved.

The takeaway is deceptively simple: research creates impact not just because it’s insightful, but because it’s designed to be understood, trusted, and acted on inside the organization. And in that sense, “valuable research” and a “valuable research partner” are often one and the same.

Want research that will be understood, trusted, and acted on inside your organization? Contact me at info at bureauwest.com and let’s talk through the best approach.

Source: “From Insight to Impact: Interview with Jinghuan Liu Tervalon,” 12/23/25

Posted on by Jay Zaltzman

Even experts need help choosing

Experienced customers are often unsure how to choose; the opportunity for marketers is to guide them with clarity.

In a recent project about how tennis players choose tennis balls, one of the most striking findings wasn’t about durability or bounce. It was about confidence. Even experienced players – people who have played for years and know the sport inside-out – told us they don’t really know how to choose a tennis ball. They’re confident on the court, but not in front of the shelf.

  • What they do know is which balls the pros use. And that becomes the anchor for their own choices. If the top-tier “professional” ball feels too expensive, they often pick the next version from the same brand, assuming it must be similar enough. The nuances of felt type, bounce characteristics, or durability rarely play a central role. Instead, players rely on borrowed expertise.

Tennis is just the entry point to a larger phenomenon: expertise in using a product does not necessarily translate into expertise in choosing it.

This gap is wider today than ever. Shoppers face more information than they can reasonably absorb across the many domains of their lives. Every category has its own specs, rankings, reviews, and jargon. People simply don’t have the bandwidth to stay on top of all of it. So even experienced users – people who know the activity well – may feel underqualified when navigating the marketplace. In that context, relying on shortcuts becomes not just common but rational. Borrowing the judgments of pros, brands, or other trusted sources helps buyers reach a confident decision quickly.

  • We see this across categories. A skilled home cook might pick pots and pans based on what a celebrity chef endorses. A long-time runner may choose shoes because elite marathoners wear them. A serious hobby photographer often selects equipment based on a professional’s recommendation rather than the features that truly match their own needs.
  • This same dynamic shows up in B2B. Business buyers are experts in their fields but not necessarily in the specific products they’re evaluating. A manufacturing executive may know operations inside-out yet still defer to analysts, integrators, or the industry’s “market leaders” when selecting software or equipment. A procurement team may lean on vendor tiering or Gartner rankings because it feels safer than decoding dense technical sheets.

The broader insight: buyers often want reassurance more than mastery. In a world of overwhelming information, feeling confident matters more than knowing every detail.

For marketers, this insight creates several opportunities:

  • Make the choice architecture intuitive. Use naming, packaging, and product tiers that clearly signal who each option is for.
  • Provide simple heuristics. Offer clear starting points: “If you value X, start here.”
  • Translate expert logic into everyday language. Emphasize what each feature does for the customer.
  • Clarify your product ladder. Highlight step-up benefits and trade-offs.

The takeaway: Your customers don’t need to become experts. They need to feel they’re making a smart, safe choice – and they’ll gladly borrow your expertise if you offer it in a clear, human way.

Want to help your customers make the right choice? Email me at info at bureauwest.com.

Posted on by Jay Zaltzman