Question 1

How can we show how new positioning improves acquisition and retention?

Accepted Answer

Demonstrate that a new market positioning is improving acquisition and retention by linking it to measurable changes in customer metrics through tests or before-and-after analysis. One approach is to run an A/B test or pilot launch: introduce the new positioning (messaging, branding, value proposition) to one segment or region and compare the customer acquisition rate and retention (or churn) against a control group still using the old positioning. If an experiment isn't feasible, analyze trends over time - do you see higher sign-ups, increased conversion from leads to customers, or longer customer lifespans after the repositioning rollout compared to prior periods (adjusting for seasonality or other market changes)? You can also gather qualitative evidence, like customer surveys indicating better brand perception or reasons for purchase that align with the new messaging. By combining these data points - such as a boost in monthly new users and a drop in churn post-rebrand - you can show a cause-and-effect link between the new positioning and improved acquisition and retention.

Question 2

How are teams using observational methods to understand consumer use of AI?

Accepted Answer

Teams are using direct observation - both in-person ethnography and digital tracking - to understand how consumers actually use AI in their daily lives. For example, researchers have watched families use voice assistants in their homes, which reveals unspoken habits or frustrations. This kind of direct observation uncovers real behaviors - maybe noticing that people rely on a workaround or only use 10% of an AI tool's features - which would never come up through self-reported questionnaires. Another approach is to use user-recorded diaries or screen videos - for example, having people record their screen and narration while using a new AI app - to capture their step-by-step reactions. Watching real usage reveals pain points (confusion, mistrust) and unexpected benefits that surveys might miss. Those insights feed directly into refining the AI product.

Question 3

What are the caveats when using AI-generated stimuli instead of physical mocks?

Accepted Answer

Using AI-generated stimuli (like computer-generated product images or concept visuals) instead of physical mock-ups is fast and flexible, but it comes with important caveats. The lack of physical realism is a big one: a digital render can't convey texture, weight, or true scale, so consumer reactions might differ once they see or hold the real thing. There's also the risk of subtle inaccuracies or uncanny flaws in AI images that could distract or bias participants - say, a slightly off-putting fake hand on a virtual try-on picture. Additionally, people interact differently with a picture versus a prototype; something that looks great on screen may not ergonomically function in person. The takeaway is to use AI stimuli for early exploration or concept filtering, but validate key ideas later with tangible prototypes or physical mock-ups to ensure feedback is based on reality.

Question 4

When should I trust an AI model's recommendation versus asking for human review?

Accepted Answer

You should trust an AI model's recommendation for routine, low-risk decisions where the model has proven accuracy, and seek human review for high-stakes or ambiguous cases. For example, if the AI is flagging spam emails or recommending content and it consistently performs well, letting it operate autonomously can save time and reduce manual effort. But if the decision affects someone's well-being, carries legal or ethical implications, or the AI encounters a scenario outside its training (like a novel customer issue), it's better to have a human in the loop. A practical guideline is to use confidence thresholds: trust the AI when it's highly confident and the outcome is easily reversible, but require human oversight when the model's confidence is low or the ramifications of a mistake are serious. In short, rely on AI for efficiency in clear-cut situations and turn to human judgment whenever nuance, context, or potential risk is high.

Question 5

How do we steer stakeholders away from defaulting to generic promise language?

Accepted Answer

To shift stakeholders away from using generic promise language, present evidence and examples that specific, insight-driven messaging works better. Start by showing how boilerplate claims ("high quality," "great value") fail to differentiate--perhaps via customer feedback or testing results where generic statements fell flat. Then provide concrete alternatives drawn from research: for instance, a message that highlights a precise benefit or even uses customers' own words. An A/B test or concept test can be persuasive: when stakeholders see that a specific promise (grounded in actual customer needs) outperforms a vague one, they'll be more willing to change. Frame this shift as enhancing effectiveness rather than just wordsmithing--position the move to specific language as a way to better resonate with the target audience and drive real results.

Talisman Insights, LLC

What is Talisman Insights, LLC?

Services and Expertise