We are in the Age of Efficiency. People are being asked to do more with less, increasing outputs while needs and workloads remain demanding as ever. In the world of market research, the rise of AI tools is occurring at a time that seems to address a real need, but adoption of AI continues to be in its infancy. Why haven’t these tools, which seem to be so timely, skyrocketed and overtaken more traditional methods of research?

I think it’s partially explained by AI’s over-emphasis on outcomes and minimization of the importance of understanding questions of “how?” and “why?”. This has been a hard shift for researchers to make.

Let me explain with some background… An increasing amount of the content humans consume is AI-generated. Algorithms honed to our interests easily feed us a microcast of matching content. Machine-borne insight begets machine-created messaging. And as the cycle increases in efficiency, those messages become more direct and effective at grabbing attention and spurring quick decisions. We’re moving faster while thinking less intensely.
   

This poses a great problem for client-side researchers who are tasked with providing strategic guidance to the line of business. Researchers must be confident in research inputs to provide convincing direction to their stakeholders, but all parties are time-starved and primed to reject detail-intensive outputs. Storytelling as a reporting style has been great at promoting confidence and understanding, but in this Age of Efficiency we have less patience and ability to go deep.

We’ve arrived at a rock and a hard place. We’re conditioned for speed but uncomfortable lacking depth of understanding. So, how do we solve this conundrum of too-busy-to-dive versus too-important-to-risk?

On the consulting/supplier-side, our POV is that knowing the client and feeling the gravity of a business objective is the best guardrail for tailoring our reporting. This is why we ask questions during project kickoff meetings to understand the intended use of our insights, and it’s why we value facetime with client stakeholders to develop communication personas that inform the tone of our deliverables. We also find value in designing research that allows clients to gain lived experiences by observing fieldwork, or snippets of it, so our insight statements feel like second-nature from the start.

On the client-side, I believe one important key to success is positioning the research organization as a trustworthy source of truth so high-level, low-detail reports can feel comfortably actionable. Without this internal partnership, client-side researchers face an unsustainable expectation of delivering fresh, unexpected insights without showing the detail behind the surprise. A bonus challenge is that these time-starved researchers must have infinitely deep understanding of insights to constantly defend their reports. The double bonus challenge is that client-side researchers are known to change positions regularly, and so much can be lost when the sole source of depth lies in an individual’s mind rather than in documentation.

As a whole, I think people should extend their willingness and ability to delve into detail and resist sliding into mental malaise. I was recently inspired to institute a once-weekly digital sabbath to detach from screens and exercise my mind. I end these reflective days by reading detail-heavy stories to train my patience and appreciation for depth of understanding.

I think if we all strive for improvement we can end up in a more comfortable place. But we won’t get there by luck – it’s going to require thought and intentionality.

Justin Sutton

CO-FOUNDER
CATAPULT INSIGHTS