Question 1

How should we test ESG preference capture without biasing choices?

Accepted Answer

You should test ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) preferences in a way that hides the "right" answer and forces real trade-offs, so people's choices aren't swayed by wanting to look virtuous. One effective approach is to embed ESG factors into a choice experiment or conjoint analysis: for example, present products or investments with varying attributes (price, quality, an ESG feature) and see which options people pick. This way, instead of asking directly "How important is sustainability to you?" (which can bias people to say it's important), you observe whether they actually choose a greener option when it costs more or has some trade-off. Also, keep wording neutral and specific — mention concrete attributes like "made with recycled materials" rather than emotionally charged labels like "eco-friendly," so respondents aren't led by the phrasing. By designing the study around implicit or indirect choices, you capture how much ESG truly matters in decision-making without tipping off respondents to the answer that sounds good.

Question 2

When should facial coding complement survey-reported emotion or verbatims?

Accepted Answer

Use facial coding in addition to surveys when you need to capture genuine emotional reactions that people might not fully express in words or might even be unaware of. Survey-reported emotion (or what someone writes in an open-ended verbatim) can be limited by self-awareness and honesty--people may not articulate everything they feel, or they may downplay negative reactions. Facial coding technology analyzes micro-expressions and subtle cues on a respondent's face (often via video) to gauge their real-time emotional response to stimuli like an ad, a product, or messaging. For example, if you're testing a new commercial, participants might say they found it interesting, but facial coding could reveal moments of confusion or surprise that the survey feedback didn't mention. It's especially useful in situations where gut reactions matter, such as entertainment, packaging design, or any experience meant to evoke emotion. The facial data can validate or enrich what people report by showing whether their expressions align with their stated feelings. In short, bring in facial coding when understanding subconscious or split-second emotional responses would improve your insights--often as a complement to verbatim comments and rating scales to give a fuller picture of how your audience truly reacts.

Question 3

Can AI pricing models outperform traditional conjoint in predicting purchase?

Accepted Answer

AI-driven pricing models can sometimes predict actual purchase behavior better than a traditional conjoint study, especially when they have rich real-world data to learn from. Conjoint analysis relies on what people say they'd choose in a hypothetical scenario, which isn't always how they behave when it comes time to buy. An AI model can analyze large amounts of actual sales data and customer behavior, picking up nuanced patterns (like how demand shifts with time of day, or how different customer segments respond to price changes) that a conjoint might miss. In areas like e-commerce or retail with dynamic pricing, such AI models can continuously adjust and often outperform the more static conjoint-based predictions. However, AI models need that data history. For a new product with no sales track record, conjoint is still very useful to estimate price sensitivity. In practice, these approaches can complement each other: conjoint might guide initial pricing, and then AI refines it once the product is in market. So under the right conditions, AI pricing tools can outdo conjoint in accuracy, but both have their place.

Question 4

When should neuro validate conflicting survey or attention findings?

Accepted Answer

Neuroscience-based measures (like EEG, biometrics, or facial coding) are most useful when your traditional metrics conflict and you need a tiebreaker on what's truly resonating. If a survey says customers love an ad but attention data (like eye-tracking) shows they barely noticed it - or vice versa - that's a prime moment to bring in "neuro" validation. These methods can capture subconscious reactions and genuine emotional engagement to see which finding reflects reality. For example, EEG readings might reveal an ad stirred excitement in the brain even if survey respondents downplayed it, or conversely that an ad people said they liked didn't actually trigger engagement. Because neuro studies are more involved and costly, save them for high-stakes decisions with mixed signals (such as a major campaign where self-reports and behavior diverge). In those cases, validating with neuro insights can reveal hidden reactions and give you confidence about which data to trust.

Question 5

What cultural differences most affect path-to-purchase research across markets?

Accepted Answer

Cultural norms fundamentally shape how consumers move from awareness to purchase, so the biggest factors are differences in decision-making style and social influences. For example, in more collectivist cultures, buying decisions tend to involve family or community input, whereas individualistic cultures prioritize personal research and preferences_x000D_. These variations affect the path-to-purchase: one market may rely heavily on word-of-mouth or family recommendations, while another leans on individual online research and direct brand messaging. Other cultural dimensions play a role too — attitudes toward risk, trust in advertising, or the importance of price vs. brand prestige all vary by country, altering which touchpoints matter most on the purchase journey. Tailoring your path-to-purchase research to these cultural habits ensures you capture what truly drives decisions in each market.

Curion

Features and attributes

What is Curion?

Services and Expertise

Published on Greenbook

Nostalgias Impact on Consumer Likes and Dislikes

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

How should we test ESG preference capture without biasing choices?

When should facial coding complement survey-reported emotion or verbatims?

Can AI pricing models outperform traditional conjoint in predicting purchase?

When should neuro validate conflicting survey or attention findings?

What cultural differences most affect path-to-purchase research across markets?