Question 1

When should agent interviews hand off to human moderators?

Accepted Answer

Agent-led interviews (using a chatbot or other AI system) should hand off to a human moderator whenever the conversation needs deeper understanding, empathy, or complex probing that the AI can't handle. An AI (Artificial Intelligence) agent is great for asking routine, scripted questions and gathering basic information, but as soon as a participant gives an unexpected or nuanced answer, shows confusion, or raises a sensitive topic, it's a cue for a human to step in. For example, if the interviewee expresses strong emotions or veers off the script with a novel idea, a human moderator can pick up on those cues, ask insightful follow-ups, and build rapport in a way an automated agent cannot. In short, use AI to efficiently cover the basics or initial screening, but transfer to a human interviewer whenever the interaction demands judgment, creativity, or personal connection.

Question 2

What are the subtle cost drivers of running high-quality focus groups?

Accepted Answer

Beyond the obvious costs of venue rental and participant incentives, high-quality focus groups have several subtle cost drivers. Recruiting specialized or high-caliber participants can significantly raise costs because you might need professional recruiters or higher incentives for niche audiences. A skilled moderator is worth the investment but commands a higher fee, and their preparation time to customize discussion guides or materials is another hidden cost. Don't forget post-session expenses: transcribing recordings, translating if sessions are multilingual, and the analyst's time to thoroughly interpret and report the findings all add up. Even logistics like shipping product samples or creating polished stimulus materials can drive up the budget. In short, the pursuit of quality in focus groups comes with extra costs at every stage — from targeted recruitment to detailed analysis.

Question 3

What are the caveats for conducting digital ethnography across multiple regions?

Accepted Answer

Conducting digital ethnography across multiple regions comes with important caveats around culture, language, technology, and privacy. Behaviors observed online can have different meanings in different cultures, so you can't assume an insight from one region translates directly to another without local context. It's crucial to employ native-language moderators or translators and be mindful of colloquialisms and social norms — otherwise you risk misinterpreting participant feedback or missing nuances. Technically, you also have to adapt to varying levels of internet access and popular digital platforms: the apps or tools that work well for digital diaries in one country might not be widely used in another. Finally, consider legal and ethical differences, such as data privacy regulations (for example, Europe's GDPR vs other regions) and differing comfort levels with being recorded or observed. In short, a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work; successful multi-region digital ethnography requires tailoring your methods to each locale's cultural and technical landscape.

Question 4

How do location-triggered mobile surveys provide uniquely actionable insights?

Accepted Answer

Location-triggered mobile surveys (sent when a person is at or leaves a specific place) deliver extremely actionable insights because they capture feedback in context. By pinging someone's smartphone the moment they exit a store, attend an event, or visit a location, you get their impressions while the experience is fresh. This immediacy means responses are tied to specific details - for example, a customer might mention "the checkout line in the downtown store was too slow" or "the display in aisle 3 was really eye-catching" because the memory is recent. Such pinpointed input tells you exactly where and what the issue or success was, so you can act on it (fix that slow checkout in that particular store, or replicate the good display elsewhere). In contrast, traditional surveys often come much later and yield more generic feedback; location-triggered surveys give you real-time, place-specific insights that map directly to operational improvements.

Question 5

Where does virtual simulation beat survey data for early sizing and trade-offs?

Accepted Answer

Virtual simulations can outperform surveys for early market sizing and trade-off analysis when you need to observe realistic behavior rather than rely on stated intentions. In a simulation — like a VR store or a driving simulator for a new car concept — participants actually navigate choices, which can uncover preferences and pain points that a survey might miss. For example, instead of asking customers which product placement they prefer (which can be abstract), a virtual shopping simulation shows what they really notice or ignore, yielding more reliable data on potential sales and trade-offs. Simulations are particularly useful when the scenario is complex or hard to imagine, because they elicit natural decision-making and immediate reactions. They do require more resources than a simple survey, so you reserve simulations for cases where that richer behavioral insight is worth the effort — typically early concept testing or when precise trade-off data is critical.

BoltChatAI

Features and attributes

What is BoltChatAI?

Reviews

Research Software and Platform Details

Services and Expertise

Published on Greenbook

Why UX Testing Belongs in Qualitative Research

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

When should agent interviews hand off to human moderators?

What are the subtle cost drivers of running high-quality focus groups?

What are the caveats for conducting digital ethnography across multiple regions?

How do location-triggered mobile surveys provide uniquely actionable insights?

Where does virtual simulation beat survey data for early sizing and trade-offs?