Question 1

When does connecting more data sources negatively impact insights work?

Accepted Answer

Adding more data sources to an analysis can actually hurt insights when those sources introduce conflicting definitions, poor-quality data, or overwhelming noise. For example, if a team merges customer information from a CRM system, social media analytics, and third-party research panels without proper alignment, each platform's differing categories and data quality can produce contradictory or confusing results rather than a clearer picture. Beyond a certain point, each extra source tends to offer diminishing returns - or even misinformation - especially if data sets aren't clean or contextually relevant, and it can slow down projects as teams spend more time reconciling information than uncovering insights, which is why effective insights work prioritizes high-quality, well-aligned data sources over simply maximizing quantity alone.

Question 2

How can trackers keep pace with categories disrupted by AI or other factors?

Accepted Answer

Trackers stay relevant in fast-changing categories (like those disrupted by AI or sudden trends) by building flexibility into their design and updating metrics frequently. This means maintaining a core set of KPIs for consistency but regularly refreshing the survey questions or data sources to include new consumer behaviors or product features that emerge. Many teams now use modular tracking studies, where a stable trendline is combined with rotating modules that deep-dive into timely topics (for instance, adding questions about AI-driven features if they become important). Additionally, increasing the cadence of reporting (say, moving from annual to quarterly updates) and incorporating external signals (social media buzz, search data) help the tracker reflect reality. In short, a tracker that's continually validated and tweaked to mirror current market conditions will keep pace with even disruptive changes.

Question 3

Does high volume of mentions always mean high brand relevance?

Accepted Answer

No, a high volume of brand mentions doesn't always equate to high brand relevance - it really depends on who's talking and why. Sometimes a spike in mentions comes from a viral joke or a controversy, which might boost visibility but not in ways that drive genuine interest or sales. A brand could be all over social media for a day, yet the conversation might be superficial or negative, contributing little to true relevance with its target customers. Conversely, a smaller volume of discussion in a focused community (like experts or loyal users) can mean a brand is deeply relevant in that niche, even if it's not trending broadly. That's why marketers look at sentiment and context of mentions, not just count - quality of engagement often matters more than quantity when assessing brand relevance.

Question 4

What limits apply to monitoring employee keystrokes, chat logs, or device usage?

Accepted Answer

There are strict legal and ethical limits on monitoring employee keystrokes, chat logs, or device usageâ€"employers generally must keep any monitoring work-related, transparent, and proportional. In many jurisdictions, employers are required to notify employees if their communications or computer activities are being tracked, and the practice must serve a legitimate business purpose. This means keystroke logging or reading chat messages should be limited to work systems and done only to the extent necessary (for instance, to protect data security or measure productivity), and it should avoid delving into personal, non-work content. Privacy laws (like GDPR and various state regulations) often treat activity logs as personal data, so companies need to handle that data carefully, minimize retention, and allow employees certain rights over it. Moreover, excessive or secret monitoring can erode trust and may violate labor rules that protect employees from undue surveillance. In short, any monitoring must be disclosed, legally justified, and narrowly focused on work-related matters to stay within common limits.

Question 5

How should we adapt pricing research for markets with cash economies?

Accepted Answer

Adapting pricing research for cash-dominant markets means mirroring how people actually handle money day to day. In cash economies, consumers think in terms of immediate out-of-pocket cost, so frame survey questions or experiments around scenarios like "Would you pay X in cash right now for this product?" rather than abstract pricing or long-term payment plans. Use price points that make sense locallyâ€"common round numbers or typical small purchase sizesâ€"because many shoppers operate within those practical limits (like only carrying a certain amount of cash). It also helps to gather qualitative insights by observing or interviewing shoppers: you might find they routinely bargain or save up over time for larger buys, which affects their price sensitivity. With that knowledge, you can adjust your research design to be realistic (for example, including a bargaining element in a hypothetical purchase scenario or using visuals of local currency for context). The goal is to align the research with everyday cash behaviors so that what people tell you about pricing matches what they'd actually do with money in hand.

Blix

Why choose Us

Features and attributes

What is Blix?

Research Software and Platform Details

Services and Expertise

Research Resources

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

When does connecting more data sources negatively impact insights work?

How can trackers keep pace with categories disrupted by AI or other factors?

Does high volume of mentions always mean high brand relevance?

What limits apply to monitoring employee keystrokes, chat logs, or device usage?

How should we adapt pricing research for markets with cash economies?