Question 1

When should U&A insights inform brand tracking studies?

Accepted Answer

Usage & Attitude (U&A) study findings should inform your brand tracker whenever they reveal shifts that aren't yet being monitored. In practice, this often means right after a U&A study uncovers new insights: for example, if the U&A shows that consumers now care deeply about a feature or value (say sustainability or a new usage occasion) that wasn't on the brand tracking survey, it's a cue to add a metric for it. Likewise, if U&A research identifies a new customer segment or a change in competitive dynamics, the brand tracker should be adjusted to include those elements--either in the questionnaire or in how you segment the data. A good rule of thumb is to review brand tracking metrics annually or whenever a fresh U&A is completed, to align the tracker with current consumer attitudes and behaviors. That way, your tracking study stays relevant and can explain shifts in brand KPIs using the up-to-date factors that actually drive those changes, as identified by U&A.

Question 2

What legal boundaries must CI respect in different regions?

Accepted Answer

Competitive Intelligence (CI) must operate within legal and ethical limits in each region, avoiding illicit methods of gathering data. For example, in the US and Europe, CI professionals cannot misrepresent themselves to obtain information or steal trade secrets-such actions violate laws like trade secret protection and anti-hacking statutes. Privacy regulations (like GDPR in Europe) also set boundaries: any personal data collected about competitors' employees or customers needs a lawful basis or consent. Many countries explicitly outlaw industrial espionage tactics (bribery, covert surveillance, etc.), even if gathering public information is permitted. Antitrust or competition laws further restrict sharing certain competitive information across companies, so CI cannot cross into collusion. In short, CI efforts should stick to publicly available or ethically obtained data and respect privacy, with practitioners following professional codes of conduct to navigate different legal environments.

Question 3

Are there ethical considerations when incentivizing professional participation?

Accepted Answer

Yes, when offering incentives to professionals for participating in research, there are important ethics to consider around undue influence and fairness. Professionals (like doctors, executives, or other experts) often expect an honorarium for their time, but if the amount is too generous it might sway their feedback or create a conflict of interest. Researchers need to ensure the incentive is reasonable — enough to acknowledge the person's expertise and effort but not so high that it feels like a bribe for positive answers. Transparency is also key: participants should be informed about who is conducting the study and free to decline or withdraw without any penalty. In practice, following market research ethics guidelines (for example, ESOMAR's code or Institutional Review Board standards) helps strike the right balance, so the study can gather honest insights without compromising the respondent's professional integrity.

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

Does competitive intelligence always mean spying on competitors?

Accepted Answer

No - competitive intelligence (CI) doesn't have to mean spying on competitors; it's typically done through ethical information gathering and analysis. CI professionals collect data from legal sources such as published reports, industry news, patents, social media, and even customers - no clandestine snooping required. The goal is to piece together insights on competitors' strategies or market trends without resorting to stealing trade secrets. For example, a company might analyze a rival's job postings to infer R&D direction, which is a far cry from any illicit activity. By sticking strictly to publicly available or permission-based sources, organizations gain actionable intelligence while maintaining ethics and compliance. In contrast, truly spying (hacking, bribes, or other illegal methods) is both unethical and unnecessary for solid competitive intelligence work.

ThinkEasy

What is ThinkEasy?

Research Software and Platform Details

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

When should U&A insights inform brand tracking studies?

What legal boundaries must CI respect in different regions?

Are there ethical considerations when incentivizing professional participation?

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

Does competitive intelligence always mean spying on competitors?