Question 1

What evidence links in-product telemetry to willingness-to-pay survey metrics?

Accepted Answer

Companies are finding a clear link between in-product telemetry (how people actually use the product) and willingness-to-pay survey results. For example, users who heavily engage with a product's features often report a higher willingness to pay, while those with light usage tend to have lower price expectations - showing that usage intensity correlates with perceived value. Several analyses that match individual usage data with survey responses confirm this pattern, providing evidence that real behavior aligns with what customers say about paying. By combining these insights, firms can price more confidently: if both telemetry and surveys indicate a segment finds high value (high usage, high stated WTP), the business can justify premium pricing, whereas a mismatch - say high usage but low stated WTP - alerts them to dig deeper (maybe the product is essential but budget constraints exist). Overall, using telemetry and WTP data together gives a more nuanced, evidence-backed foundation for pricing decisions than relying on either alone.

Question 2

Is messaging free of category jargon more persuasive to category experts?

Accepted Answer

Surprisingly, yes — messaging that avoids heavy industry jargon often proves more persuasive even when speaking to category experts, because it forces a focus on clear value and insight. While experts are familiar with technical terms, they're also busy and bombarded with buzzwords; a straightforward message that quickly communicates a novel finding or benefit can stand out as refreshingly direct. Overloading a pitch with jargon can backfire, either by coming across as fluff or by obscuring the real point. That said, using a few precise industry terms can signal you know your stuff, but it's best to weave them in only where they add clarity or credibility, not just to sound sophisticated. In practice, even domain experts appreciate when you respect their time with clear, concrete language — it shows confidence in your content and lets them evaluate the substance without wading through hype.

Question 3

How is social commerce reshaping shopper research priorities?

Accepted Answer

The explosion of social commerce is reshaping shopper research priorities by putting much more focus on how social media content, influencers, and peer interactions drive purchase decisions, rather than just the traditional retail or e-commerce journey. For example, research teams are now examining how consumers discover and buy products directly through platforms like Instagram, TikTok, or Pinterest - studying the impact of influencer endorsements, shoppable posts, and user-generated reviews on conversion rates. Instead of just analyzing shelf placement or website UX, researchers are prioritizing questions like: what social content triggers impulse buys, how do comments and likes (social proof) build trust, and where in a scrolling feed a casual user decides to click "buy." New methodologies like social listening and influencer campaign analysis have become important tools, as organizations seek to understand the fast-evolving path to purchase that often starts and ends within social networks. In short, shopper research now extends into social feeds and communities, recognizing that the context and conversations on those platforms are central to modern buying behavior.

Question 4

How can AI summarize support calls without inflating risk or errors?

Accepted Answer

Artificial intelligence (AI) can summarize support calls effectively if it's deployed with safeguards to avoid added risks or errors. Typically, a call gets transcribed via speech-to-text, then an AI model condenses the conversation into a brief recap of the issue and resolution. To keep it accurate, the AI needs training on real support call data and clear instructions not to fabricate details; many companies also have a human quickly review the AI's summary, especially for important or sensitive calls. Protecting privacy is another priority: good systems automatically redact or omit personal identifiers (names, account numbers, etc.) in the summary so nothing confidential is exposed. By encrypting call data and restricting who can see the AI outputs, organizations further reduce risk. In the end, AI-based call summaries work best as a helper tool under supervision: it dramatically cuts down documentation time while humans and privacy checks ensure the notes stay accurate and compliant.

Question 5

When should we add qual to explain borderline concept screening scores?

Accepted Answer

Any time a concept's quantitative test scores come back inconclusive or borderline, it's wise to add qualitative research to learn the reasons behind the lukewarm reception. Borderline scores — ideas that test in the gray area between clearly good or clearly poor — often mean some people saw potential while others had reservations. Follow-up interviews or focus groups with participants can reveal exactly what was confusing, unappealing, or missing in the concept. Maybe the value proposition wasn't clear, or a particular feature excited some users but turned off others; qualitative discussions help pinpoint those issues. Bringing in qual at this stage allows the team to decide whether the concept can be tweaked and improved or if the lukewarm score is a sign of a deeper flaw. In short, whenever numbers alone leave you on the fence about a concept, qualitative context will illuminate the path forward.

Norstat

Why choose Us

Features and attributes

What is Norstat ?

Services and Expertise

Published on Greenbook

Esomar 3D and the Fourth Digital Dimension

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

What evidence links in-product telemetry to willingness-to-pay survey metrics?

Is messaging free of category jargon more persuasive to category experts?

How is social commerce reshaping shopper research priorities?

How can AI summarize support calls without inflating risk or errors?

When should we add qual to explain borderline concept screening scores?