Question 1

Will supply volatility change priorities in B2B spec decisions?

Accepted Answer

Yes - recent supply volatility is forcing B2B companies to rethink their spec priorities, putting more weight on supplier reliability and flexibility rather than just cost or performance alone. Where previously price and technical specs might have dominated decisions, now factors like lead time, supply chain resilience, and the ability to source materials from multiple suppliers have moved to the forefront. For example, a manufacturer might choose a component that's slightly less advanced or a bit pricier if it comes from a supplier with a proven stable supply and shorter delivery times, in order to avoid production stoppages. Companies are also building more flexibility into their specs — choosing materials or designs that can be supplied by several vendors instead of a single source — and considering inventory strategies (like keeping safety stock) as part of the decision. In short, supply instability has elevated reliability, supplier diversity, and risk mitigation as key criteria in B2B specification decisions, often outweighing a narrow focus on lowest cost or cutting-edge performance.

Question 2

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 foolproof — 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.

Question 3

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 disappeared — 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 4

When does a strong product concept fail to achieve marketplace success?

Accepted Answer

A product concept that seems strong can fail in the marketplace if execution and market conditions don't support it, revealing that a great idea on paper isn't enough on its own. For example, a concept might test extremely well with consumers, but if the actual product is poorly executed (say, quality issues or missing key features) or priced too high, customers will not buy in. Market factors can also derail it — weak distribution, lack of marketing support, or a competitor releasing a similar offering can sap a strong concept's momentum. Sometimes the research environment doesn't capture real-world behavior: people may love an idea in a survey but then stick with what they know when it comes time to purchase. In essence, even the best concept needs proper execution, timing, and market fit; if those elements falter, it can still fall short of marketplace success.

Question 5

What practices ensure competitive intelligence avoids confirmation bias?

Accepted Answer

To ensure competitive intelligence isn't skewed by confirmation bias, teams need to actively seek out information that challenges their assumptions and use structured analysis practices. One key habit is to consult multiple diverse sources of data on competitors, rather than just the outlets that confirm your existing beliefs. Analysts should also play the devil's advocate with their findings — for example, if initial intel suggests a competitor's strategy is failing, they purposely look for evidence of success or alternative explanations to balance the view. Using formal frameworks (like SWOT analyses or scenario planning) imposes a discipline of examining both positive and negative indicators objectively. Finally, having peers review intelligence reports can catch one-sided interpretations. By building in these checks, competitive intelligence efforts avoid simply confirming biases and instead reveal a more accurate picture of the market.

Vital Findings

Why choose Us

What is Vital Findings?

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

Will supply volatility change priorities in B2B spec decisions?

Which concept screening KPIs best predict in-market performance?

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

When does a strong product concept fail to achieve marketplace success?

What practices ensure competitive intelligence avoids confirmation bias?