Question 1

What cultural differences shape how DEI is measured globally?

Accepted Answer

Global DEI measurement is shaped by cultural context — what diversity means and what data you can collect differ widely by region, affecting your approach. In some countries, asking about race, ethnicity, or other personal attributes in surveys is culturally sensitive or even illegal, so companies must use proxies or focus on factors like nationality, skills, or tenure instead. Similarly, the openness of employees to discuss topics such as disability or sexual orientation varies: a high score on inclusion in one culture might revolve around gender balance, whereas in another it might be about harmony and equal opportunity without singling out groups. Because of these differences, a DEI metric that works in the US (like detailed representation percentages) might need tweaking elsewhere — often global organizations design flexible frameworks that set broad DEI goals but allow local input on how to measure progress in a culturally appropriate way.

Question 2

When is ethnographic research essential for understanding device use?

Accepted Answer

Ethnographic research is essential when you need to see how people use a device in their real-world context and uncover behaviors they can't easily self-report. Directly observing users in their natural environment reveals subtleties like workarounds, environmental influences, and unspoken frustrations that surveys or lab tests might miss. For instance, watching how family members share a smart home device or how a professional uses a tablet on the go can surface practical issues and cultural nuances that wouldn't emerge from questionnaires alone. Ethnography is especially critical for complex or novel devices where context drives usage patterns, ensuring the research captures genuine interactions and not just intended use cases. When exploring mobile or IoT (Internet of Things) device adoption, this approach often exposes how convenience, social setting, or physical environment shape usage — insights key for user-centric design and marketing.

Question 3

Do AI shelf simulations complement or compete with packaging mock-up tests?

Accepted Answer

AI-driven shelf simulations are best used as a complement to physical packaging mock-up tests, not an outright replacement. Virtual shelf tests (using VR or AI to model store shelves) let you experiment quickly and cheaply with package designs and placements, identifying promising options early. They can generate heatmaps of what catches the eye or simulate how a new box would look among competitors. However, these simulations can't replicate everything - factors like package texture, real lighting, and shoppers' tactile interaction only come out in a physical mock-up test. So the smart approach is to use simulations to narrow down concepts or flag obvious issues, then confirm those findings with in-person shelf tests. This way, you benefit from both speed and realism, balancing innovation with validation.

Question 4

How can I demonstrate ROI from path-to-purchase studies to retail partners?

Accepted Answer

To show return on investment (ROI) from a path-to-purchase study to your retail partners, link the study's insights to specific, measurable improvements in their stores or sales metrics. Start by implementing one or two key recommendations from the research in a pilot (for instance, changing a product placement or tweaking an in-store promotion based on the study's findings) at a subset of stores or for a certain period. Then track the results: did those stores see a lift in conversion rates, higher basket sizes, or faster customer throughput compared to stores that didn't make the change? If the data shows a clear uptick - say a 10% sales increase in a category after re-merchandising according to the study - you can confidently attribute that gain to the research and calculate the dollar impact. Presenting that kind of before-and-after evidence (ideally as a simple case study) makes a compelling argument to retail partners: it demonstrates that insights from the study drove tangible benefits, far outweighing the cost of doing the research.

Question 5

When should we auto-ingest studies versus require curator review?

Accepted Answer

Auto-ingesting studies into a repository is great for speed and scale, but you should require curator review in situations where quality or context is critical. Routine research reports or standardized survey results can often be ingested automatically with AI-generated tags and summaries to save time. However, if a study is high-stakes (like a complex strategic study) or in an inconsistent format, a human curator should review it to ensure key insights aren't lost or misclassified_x000D_. Also, any external or third-party research might need a quality check for relevance. In essence, use auto-ingestion as the default for well-structured, repetitive data sources where errors are low-risk, and switch to curator oversight for nuanced, important studies or whenever the automated system flags uncertainty. This hybrid approach maintains efficiency without sacrificing accuracy in your research library.

Behaviorally

Why choose Us

Features and attributes

What is Behaviorally?

Services and Expertise

Published on Greenbook

Turning Data into Decisions: A Day in the Life of an Insights Leader

Reimagining Pack Design Testing with myBehaviorally: Packaging Deserves a System Built for Decision Precision

A Package Deal: unPACKING Why Design is Mission Critical for Brand Success

Client Projects and Success Stories

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

What cultural differences shape how DEI is measured globally?

When is ethnographic research essential for understanding device use?

Do AI shelf simulations complement or compete with packaging mock-up tests?

How can I demonstrate ROI from path-to-purchase studies to retail partners?

When should we auto-ingest studies versus require curator review?