Question 1

How should we capture total cost, not price, in choice tasks?

Accepted Answer

In choice-based exercises, present the total cost of each option--not just the sticker price--to ensure respondents weigh realistic trade-offs. This means incorporating all relevant expenses into the choice scenario, such as maintenance, subscription fees, or usage costs over time, rather than a single upfront price. For example, if comparing service plans, you might display the full annual cost of each plan (monthly fee times twelve, plus any extras) so participants consider what they'll actually spend. Emphasizing cumulative cost avoids a common pitfall: options that look cheap initially but end up more expensive in the long run. By capturing total cost of ownership in the task design, you get more accurate insights into true price sensitivity and value perceptions.

Question 2

When should e-commerce insights be integrated with offline shopper studies?

Accepted Answer

You should integrate e-commerce insights with offline shopper studies as soon as you suspect that online and in-store behaviors are influencing each other in the customer journey. For instance, if shoppers often research online but purchase in a physical store (or vice versa), combining findings will show how digital touchpoints drive store decisions and how in-store experiences feed back into online reviews or repeat purchases. Merging the data is also critical when evaluating marketing or merchandising changes: an online promotion might be boosting store foot traffic, so only an integrated analysis would catch the full impact. In short, whenever a question arises that can't be fully answered by looking at e-commerce or brick-and-mortar data in isolation, that's the time to bring the two together to get holistic insights.

Question 3

What cultural differences complicate change programs across countries?

Accepted Answer

Cultural differences can significantly complicate corporate change programs when rolling them out globally, because management styles and employee expectations vary by country. For example, a change initiative that encourages open feedback might flourish in a low power-distance culture but stall in a high power-distance one where employees are reluctant to question leadership openly. Communication norms differ too: direct, candid messaging might be valued in one culture and seen as rude or alarming in another that prefers a more indirect approach. Even attitudes toward uncertainty and risk (part of national culture) affect how people respond to new initiatives--some may embrace innovation, while others fear it. Successful international change programs recognize these differences and adapt their approach for each culture, often involving local leaders to interpret and tailor the message and methods, avoiding a one-size-fits-all rollout that could backfire.

Question 4

When are eye-tracking studies most valuable in in-store environments?

Accepted Answer

Eye-tracking is most valuable in-store when visual attention is directly linked to the outcome you care about - usually in contexts like shelf layout optimization, packaging design, or point-of-sale signage. For example, if you're concerned that a new product or promotion isn't being noticed on the shelf, an eye-tracking study can confirm exactly what shoppers see (and ignore) as they scan the display. It's particularly useful before major in-store changes: if you're about to reset a category or introduce new packaging, eye-tracking can validate whether your key items and messages catch the eye in the few seconds shoppers spend in front of that section. Essentially, use it when you need hard evidence of visibility: Are shoppers actually looking at the end-cap display? Do they read that shelf tag or promotional sign? Because eye-tracking requires special hardware and setup, it delivers the best value when those specific questions of "What draws attention?" will inform a big decision (like layout revisions or packaging tweaks). That's when the investment in eye-tracking is justified by the clarity it provides.

Question 5

When is a virtual shelf test preferable to an in-store pilot?

Accepted Answer

A virtual shelf test is preferable to an in-store pilot when you need to test quickly, cost-effectively, or in an early concept phase without the logistics of a physical store setup. In a virtual shelf simulation, you can expose consumers to different packaging, pricing, or shelf layouts digitally and get feedback within days. This approach makes sense before a real store trial because you can iterate through multiple concepts fast and identify the most promising ones. It's also useful if an in-store test is impractical — say, due to timing (avoiding key retail seasons) or not wanting to tip off competitors. By using virtual testing to narrow options and gather initial consumer reactions, you save time and money and only move the best concepts to an in-store pilot for final validation.

Gabay Research Philippines Inc.

What is Gabay Research Philippines Inc.?

Services and Expertise