Things move fast, especially now. With social media, 24-hour news cycles, rapidly advancing technological innovations, and the constant stream of notifications and updates, brands are being prompted to not only adapt, but to anticipate what’s coming around the corner at a rate that can feel difficult or even impossible to keep up with.
Traditional research methods like surveys and focus groups were designed to serve brands that existed in a different world than the one we live in now. That world moved a bit slower, but things weren’t that different — brands have always faced more or less the same challenges, but now they’re magnified, sped up and happen on a global scale.
In order to keep up, your research needs to be agile enough to do the same. Meeting consumers where they are (on socials) is essential to gleaning accurate insights quickly, without compromising on quality. Traditional research can take months, even years. Survey results need to be gathered over time, then need to be analyzed, turned over to strategists and marketers to ideate a campaign, which needs to go through approvals processes, only to be released into a conversation that’s already been changed. Learnings from traditional research may still reflect modern concerns and wants, but they’re getting deployed after they’re rendered irrelevant by the pace of modern culture. In the wild testing is designed to reflect what really resonates with consumers now, as well as what they’re waiting for next.
We’re going to take a closer look at exactly where and why traditional research falls behind, how it can end up costing you more in the long run, and what to do to bring your approach into the 21st century.
A major problem with traditional research methods, which rely on stated intent, is that they won't capture the preferences that consumers don’t know they have.
This is especially true when it comes to establishing trust, because consumers don’t know what they don’t know.
For example, modern consumers expect more than ever before from brands when it comes to social responsibility and sustainability. But what does that really look like? How does a brand that wants to communicate those kinds of commitments show up in the market? Traditional research can only go as far as the consumer is able to go. Stated intent around such topics like brand ethics is often rife with social desirability and confirmation bias.
Using our example, consumers who say they care about things like sustainability and social responsibility might not have the awareness or understanding of what cuts through skepticism, an especially prevalent concern amongst modern consumers, and establishes real trust that a brand is doing the things they claim they are.
The same consumer who claims to be “always skeptical” around brands that claim a certain level of social responsibility might not be skeptical at all when presented with visual or statistical evidence of a brand standing by their commitments.
The outdoor apparel and equipment brand Patagonia is well-known for taking their commitments to the environment and climate research very seriously. Their social content features the brand and its products just as much as the groups and movements that they support. By not just claiming association, but fully immersing their image in the context of what they say they’re about, Patagonia has become a gold-standard example of what it means to be a sustainable brand that operates in service of something bigger than itself.
Of course, not every brand needs to run a social responsibility campaign like Patagonia’s, which was sold into a charitable trust to fund climate research in 2022. Every brand is different, and having a full picture of what establishes trust between your brand and the modern consumer is necessary to establish effective messaging around claims of any kind.
When relying on traditional research methods, you’re relying on your consumer’s level of self-awareness, and the extent to which they’re willing and able to be honest about their spending habits. Depending on what you’re selling, this isn’t such a simple request.
As we’ve previously mentioned here and in our blog series, biases play a huge role in our ability to accurately self-report. For example, when asking questions about what people are willing to spend on things for themselves versus things for their children or pets, you’re less likely to get a fully honest answer. Whether it’s because of the brand asking, because the respondent is embarrassed of their truth, or because they’re hoping to cash in on an incentive, or some other reason, the root of the issue is the outdated nature of the research.
In a recent say-do gap experiment, we explored the discrepancy around self-identifying as someone who cooks at home versus the lived reality, which is that 40% of people would rather order out than make something at home.
Consumers had no idea they were part of in the wild testing or that their responses via click-through rate were being recorded, which means biases that could’ve influenced their responses weren’t present the way they would be with traditional methods like surveys or focus groups.
Traditional research methods aren’t able to capture what happens or what resonates with consumers when nobody is watching. More importantly, it’s not able to measure what moves the needle in a world that’s constantly in flux. With so many messages coming at consumers from every angle, it’s no longer viable to rely on guesswork and bi-annual vibe-checks.
In the wild research goes where the action is, where consumers are, airing out their thoughts and opinions unburdened by the pressures or manufactured reality of a formal survey or focus group setting. Real-world testing moves at the same rate as your consumer, with flexibility and recommendations that reflect what matters now, not last quarter.