Question 1

What practices ensure adaptive survey algorithms don't introduce bias?

Accepted Answer

Adaptive survey algorithms (which adjust questions in real-time based on responses) must be carefully designed to avoid bias. One practice is extensive pre-testing: before rolling out, test the algorithm on diverse respondent groups to see if it inadvertently leads certain people toward different outcomes. Another safeguard is to set rules that maintain some randomness or neutrality — for instance, not always asking a leading follow-up just because of one answer_x000D_. If the adaptation uses AI, ensure the training data is balanced so it doesn't favor a particular demographic's context. It's also good to monitor results continuously: if you spot that one subgroup consistently gets routed through a survey path that yields different results, investigate for bias. In summary, preventing bias in adaptive surveys involves careful algorithmic design, representative testing, and ongoing review to ensure fairness.

Question 2

How is qual-at-scale changing stakeholder expectations for turnaround and depth?

Accepted Answer

Qualitative research at scale is raising the bar on both speed and substance, so stakeholders now expect quick turnarounds without sacrificing insight depth. With tech-enabled qual (like large online communities or AI-driven text analysis), what once took weeks can yield findings in days, and clients have noticed. They increasingly assume they can get rich, qualitative feedback almost in real time, similar to quantitative results. This means a product manager might expect key themes and quotes from hundreds of interviews just a few days after fielding. At the same time, stakeholders still want depth — nuanced insights, emotional context, and illustrative stories — not just cursory stats. To meet these expectations, researchers are using tools that rapidly analyze open-ends or video responses to surface patterns, then layering human analysis to provide context and meaning. In short, qual-at-scale has taught stakeholders that you can have both speed and storytelling, and they're beginning to demand it as the norm for qualitative projects.

Question 3

When are projective techniques the best choice in research decisions?

Accepted Answer

Projective techniques are the best choice when you need to uncover emotions or motivations that people can't articulate through direct questioning. They shine in situations where respondents might be unwilling or unable to share their true opinions — for instance, unspoken anxieties in financial decisions or aspirational feelings toward a luxury brand. By having participants project feelings onto metaphors, imagery, or hypothetical scenarios (like describing a brand as an animal or color), these methods reveal subconscious attitudes that traditional surveys might miss. The trade-off is that results are interpretive and require skilled analysis, but when the goal is rich insight into the "why" behind consumer behavior, projective exercises offer a uniquely powerful window into consumer psychology and decision drivers.

Question 4

How do I prove ROI from brand loyalty research to finance teams?

Accepted Answer

Tie the outcomes of your brand loyalty research directly to financial metrics that matter to finance. To prove return on investment (ROI), show how insights from the research led to actions that increased revenue or reduced costs. For example, if the research identified a way to boost customer retention by 5%, translate that into dollars saved by preventing churn (and compare it to the cost of acquiring new customers). Likewise, connect improved loyalty scores or Net Promoter Score (NPS) to higher lifetime value: you might demonstrate that customers with higher loyalty metrics spend more over time, and quantify that uplift. Present clear before-and-after comparisons or pilot results with monetary impact - this frames the loyalty research as an investment that delivers tangible financial returns, not just a nice-to-have study.

Question 5

When is it appropriate to conduct a longer-than-average survey?

Accepted Answer

It's appropriate to field a longer-than-average survey only when the target audience is highly motivated or specialized enough to handle the extra length. For instance, B2B professionals or enthusiasts on a niche topic might willingly spend 30+ minutes on a survey if they find the subject matter relevant and engaging. In such cases, it's critical to communicate the time commitment up front and ensure the survey is well-structured - perhaps broken into clear sections with progress indicators - to keep people engaged. A longer survey should earn its length: every question must serve a purpose and ideally provide value or insight to the respondent as well. Often researchers will offer a strong incentive or the promise of seeing the study results, as appreciation for the respondent's time. In summary, go long only when you have the right audience and design to support it.

Eris Strategy

Why choose Us

What is Eris Strategy?

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

What practices ensure adaptive survey algorithms don't introduce bias?

How is qual-at-scale changing stakeholder expectations for turnaround and depth?

When are projective techniques the best choice in research decisions?

How do I prove ROI from brand loyalty research to finance teams?

When is it appropriate to conduct a longer-than-average survey?