Explaining complexity in research: Talking to key stakeholders

Being a market researcher sometimes entails explaining complex research outputs to first-time clients who then have to retell the insights to internal stakeholders. However, for behavioral researchers, clarifying complex results to puzzled clients who are new to implicit research is a part of the day-to-day work. We compiled useful advice, Do’s, and Don’ts to help corporate researchers make sense of the thrilling world of implicit insights. This is the first part of a two-part conversation between 4 Insights directors and managers at EyeSee.

As we previously wrote, getting contradicting Behavioral and Conventional KPIs is not a bad thing – sometimes complexity helps us better understand the bigger picture and go deeper into analyzing the tested material. But what are some of the ways EyeSee’s experienced Insights professionals simplify communication with clients and help them navigate behavioral results with curiosity, ease, and confidence? We asked, and they delivered.

Key message + framing set the tone for the conversation

Marija Smudja: One of the most important things to keep in mind is that for end-clients, such as CMOs and CEOs, how a particular KPI was measured or obtained (or if those showed contradicting results) is often not a top priority. What matters more is what the results mean for their business. The presentations/reports that make their way to the end-users and decision-makers are not longer than 15 slides / 10-minute presentations. Regardless of whether the ad was not visible enough (implicit insight) or if the ad wasn’t clear enough (a survey insight suggesting they should invest additional funds in modifying the creative solution) – they are interested in WHICH DECISION they should make (e.g., increase the number of touchpoints, or design a new creative solution), and not HOW a KPI was measured. For us, that means we need to be able to translate data into concrete steps they can undertake in business.

The way you frame the results when presenting them to the stakeholders will most certainly set the tone for the conversation that follows. Focus on one key message you want to relay and try to frame everything else accordingly. Also, try to understand that the stakeholders are often in difficult situations and faced with making big decisions that can make a huge impact on the company – for the better or worse.

Making peace between implicit and explicit KPIs

Mila Milosavljevic: Yes, I agree. It often happens that our implicit and explicit measurements don’t line up. In such cases, we tend to place a slightly bigger emphasis on behavioral results. There was a time in market research when declarative data was at the center of researchers’ focus. Today, we are much more aware of the advantages of behavioral info and what’s more – this type of data is more accessible to us thanks to different methodologies we use (such as eye-tracking, facial coding). Behavioral data is immune to the inevitable shortcomings of human memory and biased opinions. It allows us to explore how, when, and what consumers do, very often in real-time. This doesn’t mean that info coming directly from respondents should be disregarded.

On the contrary, our approach is unique precisely because of the combination of these two types of indicators. The next-level quality of any analysis comes from integrating them, in an effort to understand the whole consumer. The results that are apparently contradicting can, in fact, be complementary.

We strive to make our final interpretation a cohesive entity – one that lends itself to storytelling. This is one of our DO’s – always present clients with a complete, actionable story.

One of our DON’Ts is communicating fragmented KPIs (both implicit and explicit) and letting the client make peace between and unify separate points of data.

An additional step is our support for the client while they are getting ready to relay the story further to the stakeholders – we try to clarify precisely why these contradictions are okay and provide useful and easy explanations for such scenarios. We create additional reports that are streamlined and adjusted specifically for the broader audience.

Tackling complexity with key stakeholders

Marija Smudja: Speaking of storytelling, there are several ways you can help it. People are usually aversive to what they are not familiar with. In business, that is even more so, because the consequences of decisions based off on new or different data can be risky. That’s why, when we need to explain the value of methodologies that are not widely used, we try to define everything through familiar concepts. In the case of explicit vs. implicit measurements, I wouldn’t separate ideas and concepts to behavioral vs. traditional, because it doesn’t really matter – in essence, they should both measure the same thing – the performance of a given advertisement/package design/e-commerce page, and are just evaluating it from different angles. I would describe implicit/behavioral measurements as the base – if we were to compare it to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, these would be the basic needs such as safety, food, and water – a set of standard criteria that all material (regardless whether it is an ad/pack design/digital content) should be able to satisfy. That is, any tested content should get noticed in its surroundings and trigger a reaction, i.e., perform well on implicit measurements. Only when we have this foundation, we can build upon it and see if the ad is clear/relevant/fun. Excellent performance on implicit tests is a standard, minimum requirement that must be fulfilled to further develop or evaluate the material. I would tell the stakeholders that if you only rely on surveys and assessing explicit data is like trying to work on your self-actualization while you are hungry and don’t have a shelter. So I would use well-known concepts like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to metaphorically explain the relationship between these methods that don’t exclude each other.

What might create resistance when introducing new, let alone contradictory KPIs, is the fact that most clients already have standard ways of measuring performance. That’s why I would never suggest a 180 change from the current measurements (e.g., survey) to entirely new modes (e.g., behavioral), but instead behavioral in parallel with the traditional, as its complementary method. This way, we ensure clients can keep both the KPIs that are already a part of their business, and still open doors to innovation in research.

Marija Smudja, Advertising Insights Director, EyeSee

Mila Milosavljevic, Senior Insights Manager, Digital, EyeSee