Question 1

How should we prevent score-chasing and survey-begging behaviors?

Accepted Answer

Preventing score-chasing and "survey begging" (urging customers to give high scores) starts with shifting your organization's mindset from chasing ratings to genuinely improving experiences. You want employees to see feedback as a tool for learning, not just a number to hit. One effective approach is to stop tying individual rewards so tightly to metrics like NPS or satisfaction scores--instead, reward teams for improvements over time or positive customer comments, which encourages them to focus on service rather than pleading for a 10/10. It also helps to educate staff and managers on why honest feedback is important, so they understand that a slightly lower score with useful criticism is more valuable than an artificially inflated score. From a process standpoint, keep surveys anonymous and assure customers their responses won't hurt the person who served them; this reduces the chance that employees will try to intervene. By aligning incentives with actual customer care and making it safe to receive constructive feedback, you create an environment where high scores are achieved through genuine effort, not arm-twisting.

Question 2

To assure alignment, what needs to happen after publishing a strategy deck?

Accepted Answer

Publishing a strategy deck is just the beginning--active follow-up is needed to align everyone around its content. After the deck is out, it's critical to host alignment sessions or workshops where stakeholders can clarify doubts, provide feedback, and translate the strategy into concrete actions for their teams. One common pitfall is assuming the document speaks for itself; without post-publication dialogue, different interpretations can linger or momentum can stall. For true alignment, follow up with interactive communications--like team-by-team briefings or Q&A sessions--to walk through the deck's implications and confirm each party's role. By confirming understanding and assigning next steps, you turn a static presentation into a shared roadmap that guides execution.

Question 3

What safeguards avoid unsubstantiated or high-risk claims in tests?

Accepted Answer

To avoid unsubstantiated or high-risk claims in testing, build in strict vetting and evidence checks before such claims ever reach participants. Any claim used in a concept or ad test should be backed by data or clearly labeled as a hypothesis. Teams often involve legal or regulatory experts early to flag wording that overpromises or implies guarantees that aren't proven. Another safeguard is realistic phrasing - for instance, saying a product "may help improve X" rather than "will cure X" unless the latter is definitively supported. By pre-screening all statements for proof and using conservative language, you prevent exposing respondents (and the company) to misleading or high-liability information during research. It ensures you get valid feedback on claims that can actually be delivered.

Question 4

When do enterprise buyers prefer in-depth interviews to surveys?

Accepted Answer

Enterprise buyers typically prefer in-depth interviews over surveys when they need to explore complex decisions or nuanced feedback in detail. For example, if a company is evaluating a high-stakes B2B solution or an intricate service offering, buyers often opt for one-on-one interviews so they can discuss context, requirements, and concerns in depth — things a multiple-choice survey might gloss over. Interviews allow for probing follow-up questions and storytelling, which helps uncover the 'why' behind responses and surface insights that would be lost in a checkbox format. In essence, whenever the topic is complicated, sensitive, or variable across organizations (such as understanding internal decision dynamics or specialized needs), enterprise stakeholders lean toward qualitative interviews to get richer insight, using surveys mainly when they need quick, quantifiable input at scale.

Question 5

How do we know if learning value justifies prototype costs at each stage?

Accepted Answer

We determine if a prototype's learning value justifies its cost by evaluating the decision impact of that prototype at each development stage. In practice, this means asking what critical uncertainty or design question the prototype will resolve and comparing that value to the prototype's expense. For example, an early-stage low-fidelity prototype might be inexpensive but provide vital feedback on the concept direction — if it prevents the team from pursuing a flawed path, its value far outweighs the small cost. Conversely, a later-stage high-fidelity prototype is much more expensive, so you'd only justify it if it addresses a high-stakes issue (like fine-tuning user experience before production or securing stakeholder buy-in for launch). At each stage, weigh the cost of building the prototype against the potential cost of not learning those insights (like rework or a failed launch). If the knowledge gained significantly reduces risk or improves outcomes, the prototype is worth the cost; if not, it can be skipped; by checking this cost-benefit at each stage gate, teams ensure they only invest in prototypes when the insight clearly merits it.

Lamppost Insights, LLC

Why choose Us

Features and attributes

What is Lamppost Insights, LLC?

Recognition

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

How should we prevent score-chasing and survey-begging behaviors?

To assure alignment, what needs to happen after publishing a strategy deck?

What safeguards avoid unsubstantiated or high-risk claims in tests?

When do enterprise buyers prefer in-depth interviews to surveys?

How do we know if learning value justifies prototype costs at each stage?