Question 1

What practices improve validity in early-stage concept screening?

Accepted Answer

Early-stage concept screening is most valid when the test mirrors real decision-making and minimizes bias. Effective practices include recruiting a representative target audience and providing enough context-like a visual mock-up or realistic use scenario-so respondents truly grasp each concept. For example, if you're testing a new service concept, have participants imagine using it in a real situation rather than just reading a description, so their feedback is more authentic. It's also crucial to avoid leading language and to randomize the order of concept presentations to each person to prevent bias. Some teams even mix in a benchmark concept with known appeal to calibrate results, ensuring that early feedback reliably flags which new ideas ultimately have real potential for future development.

Question 2

How are mixed-mode designs evolving in response to declining phone survey?

Accepted Answer

As phone survey response rates decline, mixed-mode designs now rely on online and text as the primary channels while using phone calls more selectively. Researchers often begin with a web survey link or SMS invitation because people are far more likely to respond digitally than answer an unknown call. The phone hasn't disappearedâ€"it's used as a follow-up for those who don't respond online (for instance, some older adults who still prefer a call). Mixed-mode strategies also increasingly give respondents a choice: a survey invite might let people pick between an online survey or calling in to complete it, so everyone can use their preferred method. This flexibility tends to boost participation. On the backend, improved integration and weighting ensure that data from different modes aligns, maintaining quality. In short, phone surveys have become just one part of a broader toolkit: we reach most respondents via online/text for efficiency, and use phone outreach in a targeted way to cover the gaps, adapting to modern communication preferences.

Question 3

When should UX findings calibrate A/B testing or product analytics?

Accepted Answer

UX (user experience) research findings should be used to calibrate A/B tests and product analytics both at the planning stage and when interpreting surprising results. Early on, before running an A/B test, UX insights help define what to test and which metrics truly reflect user success. For example, if user research reveals a particular feature is confusing, you might design test variants that address that issue and track a metric like task completion rate (not just clicks) as the measure of success. Later, when analyzing outcomes, if product analytics show unexpected behavior-say a supposedly "better" variant underperforms-UX findings can explain the why. In short, use UX insights to shape experiment hypotheses and metrics upfront, and to interpret the numbers afterward whenever the data alone isn't telling the whole story.

Question 4

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 5

Which concept screening KPIs best predict in-market performance?

Accepted Answer

Metrics like strong purchase intent (especially the top-box "definitely would buy" response) and high uniqueness or relevance scores in concept screening tend to be the best predictors of how a product will perform in-market. When a concept's survey results show a large share of respondents saying they are very likely to buy, that's usually a positive signal for trial. But purchase intent alone isn't foolproofâ€"so researchers also look at whether the concept is seen as unique and if it addresses a real need (i.e. relevance). In practice, concepts that go on to succeed typically score well on a combination of KPIs: a top-tier purchase intent percentage coupled with high ratings for appeal and differentiation. For example, a concept that not only generates a strong "would buy" score but also stands out as novel and solves a clear customer pain point is much more likely to translate into solid in-market performance. No single metric guarantees success, but those key indicators together provide the best gauge of a concept's potential.

Sago New Jersey

Why choose Us

Features and attributes

What is Sago New Jersey?

Research Facility

Research Facility Details

Facility Rooms

Research Software and Platform Details

Market Research Products

QualBoard®

QualMeeting®

Methodify

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

What practices improve validity in early-stage concept screening?

How are mixed-mode designs evolving in response to declining phone survey?

When should UX findings calibrate A/B testing or product analytics?

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

Which concept screening KPIs best predict in-market performance?