Question 1

Will busy stakeholders turn to microlearning over workshops for upskilling?

Accepted Answer

Yes. Time-crunched stakeholders are gravitating toward microlearning (short, on-demand lessons) rather than setting aside hours for traditional workshops. Bite-sized modules fit more naturally into a busy schedule — for instance, a manager can watch a 5-10 minute tutorial during a commute or between meetings, instead of trying to attend a half-day training session. This doesn't completely replace workshops (complex or collaborative skills might still need a deeper dive), but for many upskilling needs, microlearning is simply more practical. It offers just-in-time knowledge: stakeholders can pick and choose topics they need in the moment, which increases engagement because the learning feels immediately relevant. Companies are finding that providing a library of quick e-learning videos or interactive snippets gets higher uptake among executives than pushing formal training events. So while workshops still have a place, the trend is toward microlearning as the go-to for continuous development when people are pressed for time.

Question 2

What cultural differences most affect path-to-purchase insights?

Accepted Answer

Key cultural differences that affect path-to-purchase insights include decision-making dynamics, trust in information sources, and local shopping norms. For example, in some cultures (often in parts of Asia and the Middle East) major purchase decisions are a collective family affair, whereas in many Western contexts individuals decide independently — this influences how marketers approach messaging and whom they consider the decision-maker. Trust is another factor: one country's consumers might rely heavily on word-of-mouth and peer reviews, while another market's shoppers put more stock in expert endorsements or official brand information. Local buying norms also play a role; for instance, some cultures expect to negotiate prices or value a personal relationship with the seller, which lengthens the research phase compared to a quick, transaction-focused culture. Even preferred channels differ (mobile app-centric shopping vs. in-store browsing). Taking these cultural nuances into account during customer journey research ensures the insights truly reflect how different markets move toward a purchase.

Question 3

Does a higher NPS always indicate higher loyalty or future growth?

Accepted Answer

A high Net Promoter Score (NPS) often signals strong customer sentiment, but it isn't a guarantee of loyalty or growth by itself. Context matters: a company could have a sky-high NPS yet see flat growth if the market is saturated or a competitor lures customers away with better deals. Likewise, NPS measures willingness to recommend, which doesn't always translate into behavior — someone might give you a 9 or 10 but still switch to a rival if a cheaper option appears. Think of NPS as a positive indicator, not a promise. It's wise to cross-check a high NPS with actual behavior metrics like repeat purchase rate, retention/churn, and revenue trends. If those metrics are rising alongside NPS, you're likely building real loyalty and growth. But if NPS is high and the hard numbers aren't moving, it flags that something else (pricing, competition, product issues) might be holding back growth. In sum, a higher NPS is encouraging but should always be validated against what customers are actually doing.

Question 4

How should we queue parallel tests without cross-contaminating respondent pools?

Accepted Answer

When running multiple research tests in parallel, you need to isolate their participants to prevent any overlap or influence between them. The best practice is to use completely separate sample groups: designate one pool of respondents for Test A and a different pool for Test B, and don't let them mix. If you're sourcing from a panel, this can be done by randomizing and splitting the panel or by using panel software settings that ensure once someone enters one survey, they're not eligible for others during that period. You can also stagger the timing slightly - for instance, launch Test A and wait until those invites are accepted before launching Test B to a different group, ensuring nobody accidentally joins both. The key is planning recruitment so that each test's invite list is unique. By doing that (and perhaps including a question at the start of each survey to screen out anyone who might've snuck into the other test), you avoid cross-contamination of respondents and keep the data pure for each experiment.

Question 5

When should we auto-ingest studies versus require curator review?

Accepted Answer

Auto-ingesting studies into a repository is great for speed and scale, but you should require curator review in situations where quality or context is critical. Routine research reports or standardized survey results can often be ingested automatically with AI-generated tags and summaries to save time. However, if a study is high-stakes (like a complex strategic study) or in an inconsistent format, a human curator should review it to ensure key insights aren't lost or misclassified_x000D_. Also, any external or third-party research might need a quality check for relevance. In essence, use auto-ingestion as the default for well-structured, repetitive data sources where errors are low-risk, and switch to curator oversight for nuanced, important studies or whenever the automated system flags uncertainty. This hybrid approach maintains efficiency without sacrificing accuracy in your research library.

Vertemis

What is Vertemis?

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

Will busy stakeholders turn to microlearning over workshops for upskilling?

What cultural differences most affect path-to-purchase insights?

Does a higher NPS always indicate higher loyalty or future growth?

How should we queue parallel tests without cross-contaminating respondent pools?

When should we auto-ingest studies versus require curator review?