Question 1

What practices improve reliability in price elasticity studies?

Accepted Answer

To improve reliability in price elasticity studies, design the research to mimic real-world buying conditions and force realistic trade-offs. Use scenarios that simulate actual purchase environments: for instance, show products alongside competitors or within a budget, so respondents react as they would while shopping. Advanced techniques like choice-based conjoint or simulated purchase experiments yield more stable data than simply asking "Would you buy at $X?" because they capture true trade-offs, especially if you randomize price presentations to avoid order bias. Finally, whenever possible, cross-validate survey findings with real sales or past data to ensure the elasticity estimates align with actual behavior. By grounding the study in realism and validating the output, you'll get price elasticity insights you can trust for decision-making.

Question 2

How should we recruit IT buyers by role, influence, and budget control?

Accepted Answer

Recruiting IT buyers effectively means targeting the right mix of roles and clearly screening for their influence level and budget authority in purchasing decisions. Begin by defining the segments: you likely need senior decision-makers (like CIOs or IT directors) who hold budget control, as well as key influencers (such as IT managers, architects, or tech leads) who research and recommend solutions even if they don't sign the check. When sourcing candidates (via LinkedIn, industry panels, or B2B communities), use screeners that ask about their role in the last major IT purchase — did they approve the budget, evaluate vendors, or just provide input? — and the typical size of spend they oversee. By verifying both their job title and their practical influence on buying decisions, you ensure your sample includes true IT buyers and gatekeepers, yielding insights that reflect how B2B tech purchases actually happen.

Question 3

Which innovation risks matter most to executives: speed, cost, or fit?

Accepted Answer

Executives tend to worry most about strategic or market fit when weighing innovation risks — if an idea doesn't address a real customer need or align with company strategy, speed and cost won't save it. All three factors (speed, cost, and fit) matter, but fit often comes first. Leaders want to ensure the innovation is the right thing to pursue; if that's shaky, the project is high risk no matter how fast or affordable it is. Speed is typically the next concern. In fast-moving markets, a slow rollout can mean missing the opportunity or losing first-mover advantage, so delays are a big worry. Cost is certainly watched as well — executives have budgets to manage — but they might tolerate overruns if the strategic payoff is clear and timing is right. In short, fit is usually the make-or-break factor (building the right thing), followed by speed (launching at the right time), then cost (staying within a sensible budget). If the innovation isn't a good fit, hitting deadlines or budgets won't matter in the end.

Question 4

How should we harmonize concept tests across global markets?

Accepted Answer

Harmonize concept tests globally by standardizing core methodology and metrics while allowing for local cultural and language adaptations. Use a consistent survey structure and key performance indicators (KPIs) across all regions — every market should measure the same things like purchase intent, appeal, and brand fit on comparable scales. At the same time, translate or transcreate stimuli so they resonate locally without changing the concept's essence. For example, a tagline with humor or idioms should be rewritten by native experts to convey the same idea in each language. Coordinate through a central team or playbook to ensure each country follows the same sampling criteria and testing protocol. This balance of global consistency with local relevance means the results can be fairly compared and genuinely reflect each market's consumer sentiment, rather than artifacts of translation or different rating habits.

Question 5

How should we set UX task success thresholds for go or no-go?

Accepted Answer

Set clear user experience (UX) task success criteria by deciding what minimum success rate or performance level is acceptable for users on key tasks - this threshold becomes your go/no-go benchmark. For example, you might require that 85% or more of test users can complete a critical task (say, checking out or creating an account) without assistance within a set time limit for the design to be a "go." The exact threshold should reflect the task's importance: mission-critical actions may need 95%+ success rates and near-zero critical errors, whereas a minor task might pass with 80%. It helps to look at prior usability studies or industry guidelines to inform these numbers. By defining quantitative targets upfront (completion rate, average time, error count), teams have an objective basis to decide if the UX meets the bar or if it's a no-go pending further improvements.

Outset

Why choose Us

Features and attributes

What is Outset?

Outset Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

What practices improve reliability in price elasticity studies?

How should we recruit IT buyers by role, influence, and budget control?

Which innovation risks matter most to executives: speed, cost, or fit?

How should we harmonize concept tests across global markets?

How should we set UX task success thresholds for go or no-go?