Question 1

When is ethnographic research essential for understanding device use?

Accepted Answer

Ethnographic research is essential when you need to see how people use a device in their real-world context and uncover behaviors they can't easily self-report. Directly observing users in their natural environment reveals subtleties like workarounds, environmental influences, and unspoken frustrations that surveys or lab tests might miss. For instance, watching how family members share a smart home device or how a professional uses a tablet on the go can surface practical issues and cultural nuances that wouldn't emerge from questionnaires alone. Ethnography is especially critical for complex or novel devices where context drives usage patterns, ensuring the research captures genuine interactions and not just intended use cases. When exploring mobile or IoT (Internet of Things) device adoption, this approach often exposes how convenience, social setting, or physical environment shape usage — insights key for user-centric design and marketing.

Question 2

How do we detect synthetic or bot respondents in fast public opinion polls?

Accepted Answer

To catch synthetic or bot respondents in rapid polls, deploy both technical gatekeepers and data checks for telltale patterns. On the front end, use CAPTCHAs or bot-detection tools to prevent automated programs from entering the survey at all. Then, monitor response behavior: bots often blaze through a survey in seconds, so flag super-fast completion times. They might also reuse IP addresses, have identical device fingerprints, or fill open-ends with gibberish or generic text. Include a few attention-check or logic questions (e.g., "select strongly agree for this statement") to see if respondents are actually paying attention — bots will often fail these. Advanced polling platforms even apply machine learning to identify anomalous answer patterns that suggest non-human activity. By combining these measures (time stamps, consistency checks, and trick questions), you can quickly detect and filter out fake respondents, keeping your public opinion poll data clean despite the fast fielding.

Question 3

Does more visual attention always increase persuasion or likelihood to buy?

Accepted Answer

Just because an ad or design grabs more visual attention doesn't automatically mean it's more persuasive or more likely to drive a purchase. Attention is only the first step - people need to notice an ad before it can work, but what really matters is what they take away from it. For example, a flashy or provocative visual might catch someone's eye, yet if the message is unclear or unconvincing, the viewer won't be moved to buy. In some cases, overly attention-grabbing elements can even backfire by distracting from the product or creating a negative impression. The upshot: you need compelling content and relevant messaging behind the attention. When an ad balances eye-catching design with a clear value proposition and trust-building information, then the attention it earns is more likely to translate into persuasion and sales.

Question 4

How do we know if learning value justifies prototype costs at each stage?

Accepted Answer

We determine if a prototype's learning value justifies its cost by evaluating the decision impact of that prototype at each development stage. In practice, this means asking what critical uncertainty or design question the prototype will resolve and comparing that value to the prototype's expense. For example, an early-stage low-fidelity prototype might be inexpensive but provide vital feedback on the concept direction — if it prevents the team from pursuing a flawed path, its value far outweighs the small cost. Conversely, a later-stage high-fidelity prototype is much more expensive, so you'd only justify it if it addresses a high-stakes issue (like fine-tuning user experience before production or securing stakeholder buy-in for launch). At each stage, weigh the cost of building the prototype against the potential cost of not learning those insights (like rework or a failed launch). If the knowledge gained significantly reduces risk or improves outcomes, the prototype is worth the cost; if not, it can be skipped; by checking this cost-benefit at each stage gate, teams ensure they only invest in prototypes when the insight clearly merits it.

Question 5

Does a high SUS score guarantee conversion or adoption improvements?

Accepted Answer

A high System Usability Scale (SUS) score indicates users find the product easy to use, but it doesn't guarantee higher conversion rates or adoption on its own. Usability is just one factor in a product's success — albeit an important one. A product might score well on SUS (meaning people had a smooth experience in testing) yet still struggle to win users if, for example, it lacks a compelling value proposition, is priced too high, or isn't marketed effectively. Conversely, some products with only average usability still gain huge adoption because they offer unique must-have features or benefits. That said, a high SUS is generally a good sign as it removes friction: users are less likely to drop out due to frustration. Think of SUS as one dimension: it improves the odds of conversion and satisfaction, but you also need desirability, demand, and good marketing for conversion and growth. In practice, treat a strong SUS score as necessary but not sufficient — use it alongside metrics like conversion funnel drop-off, retention rates, or NPS to get a full picture of likely adoption.

Sago Chicago

Why choose Us

What is Sago Chicago?

Reviews

Research Facility

Research Facility Details

Facility Rooms

Market Research Products

Sim Center

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

When is ethnographic research essential for understanding device use?

How do we detect synthetic or bot respondents in fast public opinion polls?

Does more visual attention always increase persuasion or likelihood to buy?

How do we know if learning value justifies prototype costs at each stage?

Does a high SUS score guarantee conversion or adoption improvements?