Question 1

What kinds of expertise are professionals willing to share with researchers?

Accepted Answer

Most professionals are willing to share broad expertise and industry knowledge with researchers, especially when questions respect boundaries around confidential information. They'll often discuss general best practices, emerging trends, and challenges in their field, as well as personal experiences that led to insights. For instance, a tech manager might explain how they approach a common problem or evaluate solutions, without revealing their company's proprietary strategy. Professionals also tend to share opinions on what works or doesn't in the market and unmet needs they observe. The key is trust: if researchers clearly state the purpose and ensure anonymity or confidentiality, experts usually open up about their know-how and lessons learned. Avoid pressing for trade secrets, and you'll find most are eager to contribute their perspective to support the research.

Question 2

What's the cleanest way to test banking kiosk versus teller journeys?

Accepted Answer

The cleanest way to compare a bank's self-service kiosk experience with a human teller experience is to run a controlled test where customers are randomly assigned to each option for the same task. For instance, you might have a group of customers perform a common transaction — like depositing a check or opening an account — one group using the kiosk and a similar group working with a teller. By measuring outcomes such as transaction time, error rates, and customer satisfaction immediately afterward, you isolate the differences attributable to the channel. Random assignment is key here: it ensures that any differences in results (say, kiosk users finished two minutes faster on average, or teller users felt more reassured) are due to the method of service, not because one group had inherently easier cases or more tech-savvy individuals. This A/B test style approach provides clear, unbiased evidence of how kiosks stack up against tellers for key banking journeys.

Question 3

How do price-trial offers affect activation, churn, and support costs?

Accepted Answer

Introductory price trials (like a free month or a $1 starter deal) tend to boost initial activation but can also lead to higher post-trial churn and increased support workload. On the upside, a cheap trial lowers the barrier to entry, so you'll see a surge in sign-ups--activation jumps because it's easy for customers to say yes to a low-risk try. The trade-off comes after the trial: many of those users may not stick around once the full price kicks in, so churn often spikes at the end of the trial period as bargain-seekers cancel or those unconvinced drop off. That dynamic makes it crucial to demonstrate value during the trial, aiming to convert as many trial users into loyal customers as possible before they hit the paywall. Support costs can rise too: an influx of new users brings more onboarding questions, and when the trial ends, expect a wave of cancellation requests or billing inquiries that customer support must handle. Companies try to soften these effects by providing robust self-service resources and proactive customer success check-ins throughout the trial period.

Question 4

When is win-loss analysis the most valuable CI tool?

Accepted Answer

Win-loss analysis tends to be most valuable as a competitive intelligence tool in complex B2B markets or high-value sales scenarios where understanding decision drivers is crucial. It really shines after major deals or a series of pitches - especially if your win rate has changed or a new competitor is in the mix. That's when digging into why you won or lost gives insights you can act on immediately (e.g., adjusting pricing strategy or messaging). It's also extremely useful during strategy planning or product development cycles: insights from recent wins/losses can validate whether your value proposition is landing or if certain features are missing the mark. In short, when the stakes per deal are high and the reasons aren't obvious from just looking at data, win-loss interviews provide nuance and context that other CI methods can't. It becomes the most valuable when you need to directly hear from buyers what competitors did better or worse - typically around times of market shift, new product launches, or any period where you want to sharpen your competitive edge based on real-world feedback.

Question 5

When is scenario planning critical to strategic decision-making?

Accepted Answer

Scenario planning becomes critical when a company faces high uncertainty about the future. If your strategic decisions involve long time horizons or volatile factors (like emerging technologies, regulatory changes, or geopolitical shifts), scenario planning is the tool that prepares you for multiple eventualities. Rather than betting on one forecast, teams develop a few plausible scenarios (best-case, worst-case, etc.) and strategize responses for each. This is especially important in situations like entering a new market or during global economic instability — essentially whenever the stakes are high and the path ahead isn't clear. By stress-testing decisions against different scenarios, leaders gain flexibility. In summary, when the environment is uncertain or rapidly changing, scenario planning is critical to ensure your strategic choices are robust under various future conditions.

B2B International

Why choose Us

What is B2B International?

Services and Expertise

Research Resources

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

What kinds of expertise are professionals willing to share with researchers?

What's the cleanest way to test banking kiosk versus teller journeys?

How do price-trial offers affect activation, churn, and support costs?

When is win-loss analysis the most valuable CI tool?

When is scenario planning critical to strategic decision-making?