Question 1

When does SMS outreach outperform door-to-door canvassing?

Accepted Answer

SMS (text message) outreach outperforms door-to-door canvassing when you need to reach a large, dispersed, or tech-savvy audience quickly and cost-effectively. Texting is ideal for brief surveys, reminders, or campaign messages that can be delivered to thousands of people within minutes. For example, a city-wide feedback survey via SMS might yield responses in hours, whereas canvassing the same number of households could take days. It's also far less labor-intensive and cheaper than deploying staff in the field, and it often achieves higher response rates among younger or urban demographics who prefer mobile communication. SMS avoids logistical hurdles — there's no need to catch someone at home — and is safer and more practical when physical visits are difficult (for instance, during a pandemic or in remote areas). While door-to-door can build personal trust in some tight-knit communities, for sheer speed, scale, and convenience, SMS tends to be the more effective outreach method.

Question 2

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.

Question 3

Will retirement decumulation needs change our advice research priorities?

Accepted Answer

Yes — growing retirement decumulation needs are shifting advice research priorities toward understanding how retirees draw down their savings. Historically, financial research focused on accumulation (how to invest and save for retirement), but as more clients enter retirement, firms are now prioritizing studies on sustainable withdrawal strategies and post-retirement behaviors. This means examining how retirees actually spend their money, manage longevity risk, and make decisions about things like downsizing or healthcare expenses. For example, research might explore whether retirees prefer a steady income stream from annuities or more flexible drawdown plans, and what guidance helps prevent them from outliving their assets. Insights on decumulation help advisors tailor their advice and develop new tools (like withdrawal calculators or managed payout funds). In short, an aging client base is refocusing research on delivering advice that supports clients through the spend-down phase of retirement, not just the build-up.

Question 4

What's the cleanest way to test banking kiosk versus teller journeys?

Accepted Answer

The cleanest way to compare a bank's self-service kiosk experience with a human teller experience is to run a controlled test where customers are randomly assigned to each option for the same task. For instance, you might have a group of customers perform a common transaction — like depositing a check or opening an account — one group using the kiosk and a similar group working with a teller. By measuring outcomes such as transaction time, error rates, and customer satisfaction immediately afterward, you isolate the differences attributable to the channel. Random assignment is key here: it ensures that any differences in results (say, kiosk users finished two minutes faster on average, or teller users felt more reassured) are due to the method of service, not because one group had inherently easier cases or more tech-savvy individuals. This A/B test style approach provides clear, unbiased evidence of how kiosks stack up against tellers for key banking journeys.

Question 5

Can AI unify cross-channel data without over-attributing impact?

Accepted Answer

Yes, AI can unify cross-channel marketing data into a holistic view that fairly attributes impact, but it needs careful design to avoid over-crediting any one channel. Advanced AI-driven attribution models (for example, using machine learning or Shapley value-based algorithms) can ingest data from all touchpoints — social, email, search, offline — and assign proportional credit to each. The key is training the model on accurate conversion data and setting constraints or validation checks so it doesn't blindly favor the last click or the most frequent channel. When implemented correctly, the AI recognizes how channels work together (say, a social ad that assists a later search click) and distributes credit accordingly. Properly calibrated, an AI attribution system avoids the common pitfall of giving too much weight to easily trackable channels and instead provides a balanced read on what drives conversions.

Fieldwork Boston

Why choose Us

What is Fieldwork Boston?

Research Facility

Research Facility Details

Facility Rooms

Services and Expertise

Published on Greenbook

5 Considerations for Human Factors Testing

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

When does SMS outreach outperform door-to-door canvassing?

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

Will retirement decumulation needs change our advice research priorities?

What's the cleanest way to test banking kiosk versus teller journeys?

Can AI unify cross-channel data without over-attributing impact?