Question 1

Do I have to trade off distinctiveness and comprehension in ad claims?

Accepted Answer

You don't have to trade off distinctiveness for comprehension in ad claims--great campaigns often manage to achieve both with clever wording and thorough testing. A highly creative slogan can grab attention, but if consumers don't fully "get it," it fails completely; early copy testing can flag problems if a novel tagline is too confusing. The goal is to strike a balance: an ad claim can be unique yet still clearly convey the product benefit or message. For example, a twist on a familiar phrase might stand out and remain understandable, and small tweaks in wording can often preserve originality while improving clarity. Ultimately, validating different versions with a target audience reveals whether a distinctive claim communicates effectively or needs simplification.

Question 2

What's a robust plan to test NPS cadence changes?

Accepted Answer

Treat NPS cadence changes as an experiment: design a test where you compare the current survey frequency to a new one on a subset of customers. For example, keep one customer group on the usual NPS schedule (say quarterly) while another group receives NPS surveys at the new cadence (say monthly). Track metrics like response rate, score stability, and any signs of survey fatigue in each group over multiple cycles. By randomizing customers and running the test for a few rounds, you can confidently see if more frequent surveys yield better insights or just irritate respondents. A robust plan also means having a clear success criterion (e.g., if monthly NPS significantly improves trend sensitivity without hurting responses), so you know whether to roll out the cadence change company-wide.

Question 3

What can go wrong when running an ethnographic study?

Accepted Answer

When running an ethnographic study, several things can go wrong, from participants altering their behavior under observation to researchers inadvertently biasing the findings or hitting practical and ethical snags in the field. For example, if people know they're being watched, they might act differently - cleaning up their routines or avoiding controversial behaviors - so the "natural" behaviors you observe aren't fully authentic. Researchers can also introduce bias: by asking leading questions or even just through their presence and reactions, they might influence how participants behave or how they themselves interpret what they see. There are also logistical pitfalls like selecting participants who aren't truly representative (skewing the insights), technical failures (missing key moments because a recorder died), or breaches of trust (not respecting privacy or cultural norms during observation). Any of these issues can derail an ethnography or cast doubt on the results, which is why careful planning, cultural sensitivity, and ongoing self-reflection by the researcher are critical to mitigate what can go awry.

Question 4

What evidence proves ad message clarity leads to lower acquisition costs?

Accepted Answer

Marketing teams have plenty of A/B test results and campaign data indicating that clearer ad messages lower customer acquisition costs. For example, when you test an ad with a straightforward, easy-to-grasp message against one that's vague or convoluted, the clear ad tends to attract more qualified clicks and conversions. That higher efficiency (people immediately get the offer and act on it) means you spend less per acquisition. Digital ad platforms reinforce this too: ads that resonate (often due to clarity and relevance) earn higher quality/relevance scores, which lowers the cost you pay per click or impression. Real-world case studies show things like a simplified ad headline boosting click-through rate and cutting cost-per-lead significantly. Essentially, clear messaging ensures you're pulling in the right audience and setting accurate expectations, which translates to better conversion rates and thus a lower cost to acquire each customer. So the proof comes from improved metrics whenever message clarity is optimized - higher response and conversion for the same spend equals a lower acquisition cost.

Question 5

What practices ensure conjoint surveys reflect real-world trade-offs?

Accepted Answer

To ensure a conjoint survey mimics real-world trade-offs, design it to mirror actual purchase decisions with realistic options and contexts. First, include only attributes that consumers truly consider in the category, and set their levels to plausible values (prices in a normal range, feature combinations that could actually exist). This way, respondents are weighing choices they might really face, not hypothetical extremes. Make the choice scenarios lifelike: if in reality buyers can opt out or delay purchase, include a "none of these" option to capture that behavior. Also, don't overload each task with too many options or attributes — complexity beyond what a person can digest in a store or online will lead to less realistic answers. Before full launch, pilot-test the conjoint or include holdout profiles to verify that the model can predict choices that match known preferences. By using true-to-market data and keeping the survey experience similar to a real shopping decision, you ensure the conjoint reveals trade-offs that hold up in the real world.

MSW Research

What is MSW Research?

Services and Expertise