Question 1

Are path-to-purchase studies relevant outside of brick-and-mortar retail?

Accepted Answer

Absolutely--path-to-purchase studies are just as relevant in e-commerce and service industries as they are in brick-and-mortar retail. Any time customers go through a decision journey (from initial awareness to evaluation to decision and purchase), mapping that path yields useful insights. In online contexts, a path-to-purchase study might track how a consumer moves from seeing a digital ad, to reading reviews, to comparing options on a website, and finally to checkout. Even for B2B or non-retail services, understanding the sequence of touchpoints (such as referrals, white papers or demos, and sales calls) is crucial. The principles remain the same: identify where customers get information, what influences them, and any friction points before purchase. So while the specific touchpoints differ, studying the purchase journey is universally valuable for tailoring marketing and removing barriers to conversion.

Question 2

What safeguards handle right-to-left scripts and accessibility needs?

Accepted Answer

To accommodate right-to-left (RTL) scripts and ensure accessibility, you need both technical and design safeguards in place. First, any interface or survey should support bidirectional text rendering - meaning it can correctly display languages like Arabic or Hebrew (with text alignment and layout mirroring as needed) without breaking the design. This often involves using Unicode-compliant fonts and testing that UI elements flip appropriately (for example, navigation arrows or progress bars should reverse direction in RTL mode). On the accessibility side, follow standards like WCAG: ensure screen reader compatibility by providing proper HTML structure and alternative text for images, and use high-contrast color schemes and scalable fonts for those with visual impairments. It's also important to allow keyboard-only navigation and consider captions or transcripts for audio/video content. In practice, "safeguards" mean building the product to be flexible - detecting when an RTL language is used and automatically adjusting the layout - and routinely testing with assistive technologies to catch any usability issues before launch.

Question 3

How are shorter innovation cycles changing the way concept tests are run?

Accepted Answer

Shorter innovation cycles are making concept tests faster, more iterative, and tightly integrated into the development process instead of one-off checkpoints. In the past, you might run a big concept test study over several weeks to vet an idea before development. Now, with agile or lean practices, teams often test concepts in mini-bursts - often using quick online surveys or prototype tests to get feedback in days instead of weeks. This means concept testing is becoming more continuous: a team might A/B test multiple new concepts in small batches or deploy a minimal prototype to a subset of users to gauge interest, rather than betting everything on one polished concept. Teams also leverage automated analysis to speed up processing of feedback. The trade-off is each mini-test is less exhaustive, but the steady, frequent testing means learnings accumulate and guide adjustments continuously. In essence, concept testing has shifted from a slow, heavy upfront filter to a series of quick experiments that evolve ideas on the fly, matching the tempo of shorter product innovation cycles.

Question 4

Do AI shelf simulations complement or compete with packaging mock-up tests?

Accepted Answer

AI-driven shelf simulations are best used as a complement to physical packaging mock-up tests, not an outright replacement. Virtual shelf tests (using VR or AI to model store shelves) let you experiment quickly and cheaply with package designs and placements, identifying promising options early. They can generate heatmaps of what catches the eye or simulate how a new box would look among competitors. However, these simulations can't replicate everything - factors like package texture, real lighting, and shoppers' tactile interaction only come out in a physical mock-up test. So the smart approach is to use simulations to narrow down concepts or flag obvious issues, then confirm those findings with in-person shelf tests. This way, you benefit from both speed and realism, balancing innovation with validation.

Question 5

How can we quantify the impact of usability defects on support costs and churn?

Accepted Answer

Quantifying the impact of usability defects starts with linking those design problems to support volume and user retention metrics. For example, track how many helpdesk tickets or calls are directly caused by a confusing interface step or error-prone feature, then calculate the cost of handling those interactions (in staff time or support dollars). On the churn side, analyze user behavior data to see if people who encounter a particular usability issue are more likely to drop off or cancel; if a design flaw correlates with higher churn, you can estimate the revenue loss attributable to it. Another approach is to compare metrics before and after fixing the issue: if support contacts decrease and retention or usage improves post-fix, that change quantifies how much the defect was hurting you. By translating each usability pain point into extra support hours or lost customers, you assign a tangible cost to poor design.

IDI Market Research

What is IDI Market Research?

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

Are path-to-purchase studies relevant outside of brick-and-mortar retail?

What safeguards handle right-to-left scripts and accessibility needs?

How are shorter innovation cycles changing the way concept tests are run?

Do AI shelf simulations complement or compete with packaging mock-up tests?

How can we quantify the impact of usability defects on support costs and churn?