Question 1

Does political polarization tend to overwhelm message tests in polling?

Accepted Answer

In highly polarized environments, partisanship often overpowers the content of message tests in polls, making it hard to isolate a message's true effect. When respondents have strong political identities, they tend to filter any message through their partisan lens - liking or disliking it largely based on whether it aligns with their side. For example, a campaign ad or policy proposal will get high approval from one party's supporters and automatic pushback from the other side almost regardless of its details. This means the test results reflect existing polarization more than the persuasive merit of the message itself. Researchers sometimes try to counter this by anonymizing the source of a message or segmenting the audience by affiliation, but even then, deeply ingrained biases often swamp subtle differences in how a message is framed.

Question 2

What are the trade-offs when choosing between social media recruiting and panels?

Accepted Answer

Deciding between social media recruiting and using research panels comes down to a balance of reach versus reliability. Social media campaigns can quickly tap into a broad or very specific audience - you might find unique respondents through targeted ads that no panel has - but the trade-off is you'll spend more effort validating respondents and cleaning data since those recruits aren't pre-vetted. Panels offer a ready pool of known participants, giving you faster, more consistent results with less screening, yet they have their own trade-offs: panelists can be overly experienced (sometimes giving more conditioned answers) and panels might miss folks who never join these platforms. In short, social recruiting gives you diversity and fresh voices, at the cost of more QC work, while panels give you convenience and quality assurance, at the risk of a less spontaneous sample. The best choice hinges on your project's needs - if you require a hard-to-reach or very diverse group, social media may deliver better, whereas if you need dependable data quickly from a defined audience, panels could be more efficient.

Question 3

How do we increase stakeholder engagement with trackers?

Accepted Answer

The best way to increase stakeholder engagement with trackers is to ensure the tracking study delivers accessible, relevant insights tailored to their needs. Present data through interactive dashboards or concise, story-driven reports that highlight key trends and their business implications, ensuring busy stakeholders see immediate value. For example, you might set up automated alerts or AI-driven highlights when important metrics shift, drawing attention to changes that require action. Also involve stakeholders early — let them help define which KPIs the tracker monitors or invite them to periodic review sessions — so they feel ownership of the process. Ultimately, engagement rises when the tracker isn't just numbers on a slide but a decision-making tool that directly supports their goals in their day-to-day work effectively.

Question 4

How should we prevent score-chasing and survey-begging behaviors?

Accepted Answer

Preventing score-chasing and "survey begging" (urging customers to give high scores) starts with shifting your organization's mindset from chasing ratings to genuinely improving experiences. You want employees to see feedback as a tool for learning, not just a number to hit. One effective approach is to stop tying individual rewards so tightly to metrics like NPS or satisfaction scores--instead, reward teams for improvements over time or positive customer comments, which encourages them to focus on service rather than pleading for a 10/10. It also helps to educate staff and managers on why honest feedback is important, so they understand that a slightly lower score with useful criticism is more valuable than an artificially inflated score. From a process standpoint, keep surveys anonymous and assure customers their responses won't hurt the person who served them; this reduces the chance that employees will try to intervene. By aligning incentives with actual customer care and making it safe to receive constructive feedback, you create an environment where high scores are achieved through genuine effort, not arm-twisting.

Question 5

What are the challenges for research with professionals in regulated industries?

Accepted Answer

Research with professionals in heavily regulated industries comes with unique hurdles like access barriers, compliance constraints, and heightened confidentiality requirements. For example, recruiting participants such as doctors, financial advisors, or legal experts can be difficult — they have limited time and often need managerial or legal approval (and NDAs) to take part in a study. Researchers also must craft questions carefully to avoid sensitive or off-limits topics (for instance, healthcare studies must steer clear of patient-identifiable information), ensuring professionals don't feel they're violating any regulations by responding. Moreover, these professionals can be guarded about sharing data or candid opinions due to compliance fears or reputational risk if information leaks. To navigate these challenges, research teams typically coordinate with compliance departments, provide clear confidentiality assurances, and use appropriate incentives that respect industry ethics, so that busy experts are willing and able to contribute meaningful insights.

Ricci Telephone Research, Inc.

What is Ricci Telephone Research, Inc.?

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

Does political polarization tend to overwhelm message tests in polling?

What are the trade-offs when choosing between social media recruiting and panels?

How do we increase stakeholder engagement with trackers?

How should we prevent score-chasing and survey-begging behaviors?

What are the challenges for research with professionals in regulated industries?