Question 1

How can we reduce halo bias when testing closely related brands?

Accepted Answer

Reducing halo bias when testing closely related brands starts by isolating each brand's evaluation as much as possible. One approach is monadic testing: have respondents assess only one brand at a time rather than comparing multiple sibling brands in one go. That way, their feelings about Brand A won't spill over and inflate perceptions of Brand B. If you need to cover multiple brands in a single session, rotate the order for different participants so no brand consistently benefits from being first or suffers from being last. It also helps to blind brand identities during the evaluation of product features — letting people react to the features or concepts without knowing the brand upfront — so strong loyalty to one name doesn't automatically boost everything associated with it. Finally, use specific attribute questions instead of only overall impressions; this makes respondents consider each brand on its own merits detail by detail. By using these techniques (separate or rotated exposure, masking brand cues, and focused questioning), you can cut down halo effects and get a clearer read on each brand's true strengths and weaknesses.

Question 2

How do we neutralize pro-innovation bias in early concept reviews?

Accepted Answer

You can counteract pro-innovation bias by deliberately injecting some healthy skepticism and diverse perspectives into your concept review process. First, make sure your review questions or discussion guide include tough prompts about potential drawbacks - ask testers "What concerns would you have about this idea?" or "In what situations would this not work well?" rather than only focusing on what's exciting. Also involve a variety of reviewers: not just the tech enthusiasts or team that developed the idea, but also some end-users or stakeholders known to be more cautious or critical. They'll offer a balancing viewpoint. Another technique is assigning someone the role of devil's advocate in internal reviews, whose job is to challenge assumptions and point out real-world constraints or past failures of similar innovations. By structuring early concept reviews to explicitly surface negatives and by mixing in less hype-prone voices, you neutralize the natural tendency to overvalue an innovation, leading to more honest feedback.

Question 3

When should we pivot, persevere, or park early propositions?

Accepted Answer

Deciding whether to pivot, persevere, or park an early proposition hinges on what early evidence reveals about its viability. If initial market feedback shows your concept's core assumption is flawed but suggests a promising alternative direction, that's a signal to pivot rather than persist on the wrong path. If you're seeing positive traction and data confirming your hypothesis, it makes sense to persevere and double down on development. However, if repeated tests and customer feedback show no real demand or insurmountable issues with the proposition, it's wise to park (pause or stop) the idea to avoid wasting resources. Setting clear decision criteria upfront (like minimum customer uptake or engagement targets) helps a team avoid pivoting too early or persevering for too long despite warning signs.

Question 4

How can loyalty research capture younger consumers' shifting brand expectations?

Accepted Answer

Loyalty research can capture younger consumers' shifting brand expectations by focusing on the new factors that drive their loyalty, such as authenticity, shared values, and unique experiences. Traditional surveys about points and discounts might miss what matters to Gen Z and younger millennials, so studies should also ask how things like a brand's social responsibility, personalization, or community involvement affect their willingness to stay loyal. For example, you might measure emotional connection or the importance of a brand aligning with their values, not just satisfaction scores. Methods like qualitative interviews or social media listening can uncover emerging expectations--like the desire for more two-way engagement or instant rewards--that would help loyalty programs evolve. By broadening loyalty research beyond old-school rewards metrics, you capture what really makes younger consumers stick with or switch away from a brand.

Question 5

When should packaging research be paired with path-to-purchase studies?

Accepted Answer

Pair packaging research with path-to-purchase studies when you need to understand how a product's package influences shoppers in context. If you're launching a new packaging design or trying to gauge its shelf impact, it's often beneficial to embed that test within a broader shopper journey study. For example, you might track a customer from the moment they enter a store (or browse online) to the point of decision, while also testing if the new package catches their eye or communicates effectively at the shelf. This combined approach is useful when packaging is a key variable in conversion: it shows whether an attractive design actually helps move consumers from consideration to purchase. In short, whenever packaging could be a deciding factor in the shopping process (especially for new products or rebrands), integrating it with a path-to-purchase analysis ensures you measure its real-world impact, not just its standalone appeal.

Veylinx

Why choose Us

What is Veylinx?

Services and Expertise

Published on Greenbook

Inflation Reveals the Need for Better Insights

Skin In The Game: Revealing The Honest Truth

Defining ‘Value’ to Understand What Makes People Tick

Client Projects and Success Stories

Research Resources

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

How can we reduce halo bias when testing closely related brands?

How do we neutralize pro-innovation bias in early concept reviews?

When should we pivot, persevere, or park early propositions?

How can loyalty research capture younger consumers' shifting brand expectations?

When should packaging research be paired with path-to-purchase studies?