Question 1

What challenges are salient when coordinating tracker studies across countries?

Accepted Answer

Coordinating tracker studies across countries involves challenges in consistency, translation, and data comparability. You need a standardized methodology that still respects local nuances — survey questions must be translated and culturally adapted so they mean the same thing everywhere, which is harder than it sounds. Keeping sampling and fieldwork consistent is another hurdle: different countries have different holiday schedules, response habits, and available research panels, which can throw off timing or representativeness if not managed. Data from each country may have varying response styles (for example, some cultures avoid extreme ratings, while others use the top of the scale), so comparing metrics directly can be misleading unless you calibrate for these differences. There's also the logistical side: coordinating teams across time zones, ensuring all follow privacy regulations, and merging the results into one cohesive report. In short, global trackers require tight central coordination plus flexibility to handle local variations without compromising the core trend insights.

Question 2

What are potential pitfalls when adapting a U&A study across regions?

Accepted Answer

Adapting a Usage & Attitude study internationally can introduce several pitfalls. Straight translation of surveys is a big one: concepts that work in one language may not have an equivalent meaning elsewhere (for example, researchers found Russian has multiple words for "fresh," so a question about a "fresh" product got misinterpreted_x000D_
ama.org_x000D_
, and even a common phrase like "thank you" isn't used the same way in some cultures_x000D_). Cultural differences in response style are another issue - one country's respondents might all choose neutral or positive answers due to cultural norms, skewing comparisons. Additionally, differing market realities mean certain questions could be irrelevant in some regions (e.g., asking about a product usage that's uncommon or taboo locally). Logistical factors matter too: survey length tolerances and the preferred mode of data collection can vary widely. To avoid these pitfalls, involve native researchers in questionnaire adaptation, localize examples and scales, and be ready to adjust your analysis to account for each region's cultural context and data quirks.

Question 3

Will supply volatility change priorities in B2B spec decisions?

Accepted Answer

Yes - recent supply volatility is forcing B2B companies to rethink their spec priorities, putting more weight on supplier reliability and flexibility rather than just cost or performance alone. Where previously price and technical specs might have dominated decisions, now factors like lead time, supply chain resilience, and the ability to source materials from multiple suppliers have moved to the forefront. For example, a manufacturer might choose a component that's slightly less advanced or a bit pricier if it comes from a supplier with a proven stable supply and shorter delivery times, in order to avoid production stoppages. Companies are also building more flexibility into their specs — choosing materials or designs that can be supplied by several vendors instead of a single source — and considering inventory strategies (like keeping safety stock) as part of the decision. In short, supply instability has elevated reliability, supplier diversity, and risk mitigation as key criteria in B2B specification decisions, often outweighing a narrow focus on lowest cost or cutting-edge performance.

Question 4

How should we test ESG preference capture without biasing choices?

Accepted Answer

You should test ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) preferences in a way that hides the "right" answer and forces real trade-offs, so people's choices aren't swayed by wanting to look virtuous. One effective approach is to embed ESG factors into a choice experiment or conjoint analysis: for example, present products or investments with varying attributes (price, quality, an ESG feature) and see which options people pick. This way, instead of asking directly "How important is sustainability to you?" (which can bias people to say it's important), you observe whether they actually choose a greener option when it costs more or has some trade-off. Also, keep wording neutral and specific — mention concrete attributes like "made with recycled materials" rather than emotionally charged labels like "eco-friendly," so respondents aren't led by the phrasing. By designing the study around implicit or indirect choices, you capture how much ESG truly matters in decision-making without tipping off respondents to the answer that sounds good.

Question 5

When should MMM reconcile with platform conversion-lift studies?

Accepted Answer

You should reconcile your MMM with platform conversion-lift studies whenever you have credible lift data for a channel — especially if the MMM's findings differ from what those experiments show. Platform lift studies (like Facebook's or Google's conversion lift tests) provide hard evidence of incremental impact. So, for example, if your MMM says social media contributed X%, but a well-run Facebook lift test shows a different contribution, that's a flag to align the two. Typically, this reconciliation happens during MMM updates or recalibrations: you feed the lift results into the modeling process as calibration points or constraints. In practice, many firms do this annually or quarterly. After big campaigns, if a platform provided lift metrics (say, YouTube showed a 10% sales lift from ads), you'd use that to tweak your MMM so it doesn't over- or under-credit YouTube going forward. In short, whenever high-quality lift studies are available, use them to sanity-check and refine your mix model. It ensures your MMM stays anchored in experimental reality, improving its accuracy and the trust stakeholders place in its guidance.

Renaissance Research & Consulting, Inc.

Why choose Us

What is Renaissance Research & Consulting, Inc.?

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

What challenges are salient when coordinating tracker studies across countries?

What are potential pitfalls when adapting a U&A study across regions?

Will supply volatility change priorities in B2B spec decisions?

How should we test ESG preference capture without biasing choices?

When should MMM reconcile with platform conversion-lift studies?