Question 1

When should I run IDIs after a survey to explain unexpected results?

Accepted Answer

You should schedule in-depth interviews (IDIs) whenever a survey yields puzzling or unexpected findings that need more context and explanation. This typically means right after analyzing the survey results-while the data is still fresh-to probe into the why behind the numbers. For example, if a particular segment of respondents gave an unusual answer pattern or a key metric moved opposite to expectations, follow-up IDIs with some of those participants can clarify their reasoning or reveal hidden factors. It's best not to wait; conducting interviews soon after ensures people still recall their survey responses and that insights can feed into decisions promptly. In short, plan IDIs as the next step whenever the survey alone doesn't tell the full story of your findings.

Question 2

Does more data always lead to better foresight in research decisions?

Accepted Answer

Having more data can improve foresight up to a point, but it doesn't automatically guarantee better decisions. Beyond a certain volume, extra data may just introduce noise and complexity, especially if much of it isn't relevant or high-quality. For example, feeding years of old customer data into an analysis could dilute insight if consumer behavior has fundamentally changed since then. In fact, relying on sheer quantity can give a false sense of confidence-teams might see patterns that are coincidental or chase metrics that don't matter. In practice, having the right data and solid analysis is more important. A curated dataset that's representative and timely, combined with sound analytical models, often yields clearer insights than a hoard of unfiltered information. Ultimately, context and clarity matter more than sheer volume of data for predictive accuracy.

Question 3

When should global trackers allow market-specific modules or timing?

Accepted Answer

Global tracking studies should allow market-specific modules or timing when a country's unique conditions or events warrant it, but without undermining the core questionnaire's consistency. For instance, if one market has a cultural event, regulatory change, or competitor dynamic not seen elsewhere, adding a local question module can capture that insight while the global metrics remain standard. Timing adjustments make sense when local seasonality or market cycles differ — say a major shopping festival shifts when you should field the tracker in that country. The key is to accommodate genuine local nuances (cultural, economic, competitive) in the tracker design while still maintaining a common set of metrics for cross-market comparison. In practice, a limited number of tailored questions or an off-cycle fielding is used only where the extra local insight outweighs the loss of direct comparability.

Question 4

How are loyalty programs adapting to subscription models in CPG?

Accepted Answer

Consumer packaged goods (CPG) brands are evolving their loyalty programs to complement subscription models by focusing on continuous engagement and exclusive perks for subscribers. Rather than just rewarding one-off purchases with points, companies are incentivizing the ongoing relationship — for example, subscribers might earn loyalty benefits like bonus products every few months, special discounts, or early access to new flavors and products as long as their subscription stays active. Brands also use data from these subscriptions to personalize the experience: if the program knows you get a monthly snack box, it might tailor recommendations or add freebies that fit your taste profile, enhancing loyalty through a personal touch. This shift recognizes that with subscriptions, loyalty is about retention and lifetime value, so programs are adapting from transactional rewards to making the customer feel like a member of an exclusive club that grows more rewarding the longer they stick around.

Question 5

How do we steer stakeholders away from defaulting to generic promise language?

Accepted Answer

To shift stakeholders away from using generic promise language, present evidence and examples that specific, insight-driven messaging works better. Start by showing how boilerplate claims ("high quality," "great value") fail to differentiate--perhaps via customer feedback or testing results where generic statements fell flat. Then provide concrete alternatives drawn from research: for instance, a message that highlights a precise benefit or even uses customers' own words. An A/B test or concept test can be persuasive: when stakeholders see that a specific promise (grounded in actual customer needs) outperforms a vague one, they'll be more willing to change. Frame this shift as enhancing effectiveness rather than just wordsmithing--position the move to specific language as a way to better resonate with the target audience and drive real results.

Christophe Gervasi - Marketing et Opinion

What is Christophe Gervasi - Marketing et Opinion?

Christophe Gervasi - Marketing et Opinion Services and Expertise