Question 1

How do I build a business case to fund an always-on online community?

Accepted Answer

Building a business case for an always-on online community means quantifying its value in terms of faster, cheaper insights and better decisions. Start by highlighting how a dedicated community can replace or streamline many one-off studies — leading to cost savings over time — and provide instant access to customer feedback whenever stakeholders have questions. Use concrete examples or pilot data: for instance, show that the community could cut down concept testing time from weeks to days, or that continuous engagement helped another brand spot a market shift early. Include an ROI estimate in your proposal (e.g. how many traditional surveys or focus groups the community will offset annually) and mention qualitative benefits like closer customer relationships and more informed innovation. By framing the community as an asset that accelerates insights and reduces research spend long-term, you create a compelling, evidence-backed argument for funding.

Question 2

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 3

When is oversampling diverse groups the right choice?

Accepted Answer

Oversampling diverse or minority groups is the right choice when you need statistically reliable insights about those segments that would be underrepresented in a standard sample. If a particular demographic makes up only a small slice of the general population but is important to your research question - for example, a specific ethnic community's view on a product, or a niche customer segment - a normal sample might yield too few respondents from that group to analyze. By deliberately sampling more of them than their population proportion, you ensure you have enough data to understand their perspectives with confidence. This is especially crucial in studies aiming for inclusive insights or equity (like public health or advertising tests where different cultural responses may vary). The trade-off is that the overall sample will need weighting later to reflect true population proportions, but the benefit is clear: you don't miss important subgroup differences simply due to low base sizes.

Question 4

What exposure count ensures reliable attention and recall reads?

Accepted Answer

In advertising research, exposing participants to a stimulus a few times (rather than just once) tends to yield more stable attention and recall measures. Often, two to three exposures in a testing environment strikes a good balance: one exposure might not imprint enough for reliable recall, while too many (say 5+) can create artificial familiarity. A moderate number of exposures also better mimics real-world ad frequency - people usually see a campaign several times. In practice, campaigns often aim for roughly 5-6 impressions per person to maximize recall without causing fatigue_x000D_, but in a research setting even 2-3 exposures can significantly improve the signal. Essentially, a modest frequency ensures that attention metrics (like eyes-on-screen time) and memory metrics are measured under conditions closer to real life, improving the reliability of your read without overexposing respondents.

Question 5

Are hard-to-reach populations also less willing to participate in research?

Accepted Answer

Hard-to-reach groups are not inherently less willing to participate in research - they often join readily when approached on their terms. Often, the issue is logistical or about trust: these populations may be geographically remote, have limited access, or feel wary due to past experiences, so many traditional recruitment efforts miss them. If researchers use culturally sensitive outreach, appropriate channels (for example, community leaders or niche social platforms), and meaningful incentives, response rates can improve markedly. For instance, rural residents deemed "hard to reach" responded enthusiastically when mobile surveys and local advocates made participation convenient and trustworthy. The key is meeting people where they are and making the process respectful - once barriers like communication gaps or mistrust are removed, willingness is often surprisingly high.

Qic Research, LLC

Why choose Us

Features and attributes

What is Qic Research, LLC?

Recognition

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

How do I build a business case to fund an always-on online community?

What can go wrong when running an ethnographic study?

When is oversampling diverse groups the right choice?

What exposure count ensures reliable attention and recall reads?

Are hard-to-reach populations also less willing to participate in research?