Question 1

When should brand tracking and pre-testing share norms and learnings?

Accepted Answer

Your brand tracking and ad pre-testing programs should share insights whenever possible — especially when they measure similar metrics. A prime time to sync up is after a campaign: compare pre-test predictions (say, an ad's expected lift in awareness or purchase intent) with what the brand tracking shows post-launch. If an ad pre-tested great on intent but tracking shows no sales uptick, that gap is a learning opportunity to refine your pre-test model. Also, align norms: use tracking data (like average ad awareness in your category) to contextualize pre-test scores, so "above norm" in the pre-test really means it's likely to beat benchmarks in market. Essentially, pre-testing can flag what to watch in tracking, and tracking confirms which pre-test findings held true. This feedback loop — reviewed after major campaigns or on a regular cadence — helps you continually improve both your predictive pre-testing and your ongoing tracking accuracy.

Question 2

How can loyalty research capture younger consumers' shifting brand expectations?

Accepted Answer

Loyalty research can capture younger consumers' shifting brand expectations by focusing on the new factors that drive their loyalty, such as authenticity, shared values, and unique experiences. Traditional surveys about points and discounts might miss what matters to Gen Z and younger millennials, so studies should also ask how things like a brand's social responsibility, personalization, or community involvement affect their willingness to stay loyal. For example, you might measure emotional connection or the importance of a brand aligning with their values, not just satisfaction scores. Methods like qualitative interviews or social media listening can uncover emerging expectations--like the desire for more two-way engagement or instant rewards--that would help loyalty programs evolve. By broadening loyalty research beyond old-school rewards metrics, you capture what really makes younger consumers stick with or switch away from a brand.

Question 3

Is color-coding the key to making CX dashboards understandable and actionable?

Accepted Answer

Color-coding is a great visual aid in CX dashboards, but on its own it isn't enough to guarantee understanding and actionability. Using colors (red, yellow, green) to signal performance is helpful for scanning, yet if the dashboard relies solely on color with little context or explanation, users might misinterpret what needs attention. To make a dashboard truly effective, pair color cues with clear labels, trend indicators, or alerts that tell the user why a metric is colored red and how to investigate further. Also consider accessibility: ensure patterns or icons accompany colors so color-blind users aren't left out. In essence, color-coding should complement a well-structured, annotated dashboard; it's a key piece of the puzzle, but the real clarity comes from providing context and guidance alongside those traffic-light colors.

Question 4

How do I prove ROI from investing in foresight programs?

Accepted Answer

Proving ROI from a foresight (futures) program means linking its insights to tangible business outcomes — opportunities seized or risks mitigated — and putting a dollar value on them. Often the payoff is indirect and long-term, so gather case examples: for instance, if foresight research flagged an emerging trend that led your company to develop a new product line, attribute the revenue or market share gains from that product to the foresight insight. Likewise, if scenario planning prepared the firm for a geopolitical shift or supply chain disruption, estimate the losses avoided by being ahead of the curve. Quantify what you can: additional profit from innovations, cost savings from avoided pitfalls, or faster strategic pivots that the program enabled. You can also note adoption indicators (like how often executives reference foresight in strategy meetings) as qualitative evidence. By translating foresight-driven decisions into revenue protected or earned, you create a credible ROI narrative that resonates with leadership.

Question 5

What privacy risks are salient when recording in private spaces?

Accepted Answer

Recording research sessions in private spaces (like participants' homes) raises significant privacy risks, from accidentally capturing sensitive personal details to requiring strict data protection measures. One issue is that a recording may inadvertently include other people who haven't consented (family members or roommates) or reveal private information in the background (documents, photos, conversations). Participants themselves might not realize how much of their private life is being captured, so clear communication and consent about what will be recorded is crucial. Data security is another major concern: footage from inside someone's home is highly sensitive, so it must be stored and transmitted securely (using encryption, restricted access) to prevent any leaks or breaches. Compliance with privacy laws and ethical guidelines (like obtaining IRB-approved consent) is essential — consent forms should outline exactly how the recording will be used and when it will be destroyed. Ultimately, researchers must mitigate these privacy risks by getting explicit, informed consent, possibly anonymizing or blurring identifying details in the recordings, and rigorously safeguarding the data at every step.

Angela Momney Consulting

What is Angela Momney Consulting?

Angela Momney Consulting Services and Expertise