Question 1

What's a safe way to test sensitive claims without leading?

Accepted Answer

To test a sensitive claim in research without leading respondents, present the claim neutrally and use indirect questioning techniques that don't imply a "right" answer. For example, rather than asking something leading like "Don't you find this claim convincing?", you might show the claim in context (e.g., as part of a concept or ad) and then ask, "What's your reaction to this statement?" or "How does this claim make you feel?" These open-ended, non-judgmental prompts let people express concerns or skepticism freely. Using monadic testing - having participants evaluate the claim in isolation rather than comparing multiple claims at once - can also help avoid bias by keeping them focused. It's important to assure anonymity and emphasize that there are no wrong answers to encourage candor. By keeping wording neutral and questions open, you get honest feedback on sensitive claims without steering respondents.

Question 2

When should research ops run refreshers on sampling and bias?

Accepted Answer

Research operations should run refreshers on sampling and bias whenever there are signs the team might need a reminder or when methodologies change - common triggers include new team members coming on board, adopting a new sampling approach, or learning of issues in a recent project. For example, if a study's results raised questions due to a skewed sample or an unnoticed bias (say certain groups were underrepresented or the phrasing led respondents), it's a clear signal to hold a training session to reinforce proper sampling techniques and bias mitigation. Regular proactive refreshers (perhaps annually or at the kickoff of major studies) are also valuable, especially when introducing new tools or data sources. Any time the research process evolves - like bringing in a new panel provider, using AI-based recruitment, or trying a different survey methodology - research ops should revisit sampling and bias best practices with the team, ensuring everyone stays sharp and potential problems are caught early.

Question 3

How can we design dashboards that serve both executives and analysts?

Accepted Answer

Design dashboards with layered views to satisfy both executives and analysts by offering high-level insights at a glance and easy paths to detailed data when needed. Executives typically want a quick snapshot of key performance indicators (KPIs) and trends, so the dashboard's top level should use clear visuals (like summary charts or big number indicators) to highlight the metrics that matter most to leadership. At the same time, analysts require the ability to drill down into the numbers, filter data, and explore granular details. You can accommodate this by making each headline metric interactive — allowing a click-through to more detailed reports or by providing toggle switches between "overview" and "detailed" modes. For example, an executive might see overall sales this quarter versus last, while an analyst could dive into a specific region's weekly figures from that same dashboard. The key is simplicity on the surface with depth underneath: a clean, uncluttered executive view paired with accessible analytical tools and data behind it, often achieved through user role customization or progressive disclosure of information.

Question 4

What are the risks of DIY growth outpacing governance and quality gates?

Accepted Answer

If do-it-yourself research grows faster than your governance and quality controls, you risk bad data and inconsistent methods slipping into decisions. Without proper oversight, different teams might launch surveys or analyze data in conflicting ways - leading to unreliable results or one department acting on findings that aren't up to standard. There's also a compliance risk: for instance, a well-meaning employee might collect customer data via a DIY tool but violate privacy policies because no one vetted the process. Quality gates like methodological reviews, approval workflows, and data validation checks exist for a reason; when DIY usage outpaces these safeguards, errors and biases can scale up quickly across the organization. In short, the convenience of unfettered DIY can backfire, resulting in decision-makers losing trust in insights (or worse, making flawed choices), so it's crucial to extend governance practices as DIY capabilities expand.

Question 5

How do we prove the impact of CX fixes on churn, cost-to-serve, and revenue?

Accepted Answer

Use controlled experiments to directly link customer experience (CX) improvements to reductions in churn, lower cost-to-serve, and higher revenue. The most convincing proof comes from an A/B test or pilot: one set of customers gets the improved experience while a similar set does not, and you track differences in churn rates, support costs, and spending between the two groups. If running an experiment isn't feasible, a before-and-after analysis with robust controls (like comparing similar customer cohorts or regions) can also isolate the effect of the CX fix. In either case, quantify the impact--for example, show that churn dropped by a certain percentage and service expenses fell while revenue per customer rose following the change. Hard numbers tied to the timing of the fix turn a gut feeling about CX benefits into solid evidence for stakeholders.

Big Village

What is Big Village?

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

What's a safe way to test sensitive claims without leading?

When should research ops run refreshers on sampling and bias?

How can we design dashboards that serve both executives and analysts?

What are the risks of DIY growth outpacing governance and quality gates?

How do we prove the impact of CX fixes on churn, cost-to-serve, and revenue?