Essential Questions for Insightful Concept Testing

At ACUPOLL, we’re often asked a range of questions about the nuances of concept testing and brand positioning. From why certain tests seem to fall flat to the challenges of balancing uniqueness with appeal, these inquiries reflect the complex decisions marketers face daily.

In this post, we’ll address some of the questions we hear, offering insights and strategies that have helped us guide leading brands to success.

Why do positioning tests often end up with fairly flat results across concepts?

This is a question we get asked frequently, and it’s a great one. Positioning tests can sometimes feel underwhelming because by the time respondents evaluate a brand's core benefits—along with the price—most have already formed an opinion. The added "topspin" from marketing positioning refines their interest, but it doesn't usually create dramatic shifts unless there’s a significant increase in perceived benefits. That’s why our approach goes beyond looking at the overall positioning as a "whole piece of cloth."

We use a series of techniques to evaluate and optimize the individual "threads," helping brands find their strongest, most optimized directions. This approach has guided brands like McDonald’s and LensCrafters, among others, to discover revolutionary positioning strategies. We always encourage clients to push the envelope and consider truly different or even radical positioning ideas. How does your experience compare?

Why isn’t competition included in concept tests?

Many firms assume consumers are familiar enough with category options to evaluate your concept as they would in-store. But this isn't always the case, especially in categories with infrequent purchases or many first-time buyers. In these cases, we often familiarize respondents with the competitive context before they rate a concept, which mirrors real-life shopping behavior more accurately.

Additionally, instead of paying a lot more to fully test competitive concepts, we can supplement concept tests by evaluating your core idea against 8-10 competitors using our validated Impulse measure, which has been shown to be twice as predictive as Purchase Intent. This approach not only provides more accurate data but also offers compelling insights to share with management and retailers. How do you incorporate competition in your concept tests?

Why do so many people say they “definitely will buy” a product in concept testing but don’t actually buy it?

This is a criticism that has come up over the years, and it’s often misguided. The main reason the percentage of respondents who say they "definitely will buy" (DWB) is higher than actual in-market trials is that concept testing gives your product 100% of the consumer’s attention. In the real world, products never have 100% distribution, and marketing plans rarely achieve 100% awareness. Additionally, concepts often contain more communication points than can be effectively delivered through marketing, and, sometimes, advertising doesn’t translate the concept well.

Despite these challenges, higher-performing ideas in concept tests consistently perform better in-market once adjusted for distribution and awareness. This reinforces the value of concept testing while reminding teams to stay realistic about what can be fully communicated in the market. Does this resonate with your experience?

I can create ideas that are appealing but not unique, and I can create crazier ideas that stand out as unique but aren’t appealing; but how can I achieve both?

This is a challenge we hear about frequently, and it’s a common dilemma for innovators. The key lies in understanding the psychology of schemas—cognitive models we form to simplify our mental processing. These schemas define the prototypical aspects of product categories, like how mouthwash is packaged, tastes, and is used, and for what benefits. Uniqueness comes from disrupting these schemas. For instance, Plax stood out because it was used before brushing, and Listerine PocketPaks gained attention as a solid form of mouthwash that could be used on the go.

To drive uniqueness, catalog the schemas in your category and think about how you can disrupt each one, ideally in a way that enhances the product's benefits, like Milk Bar’s Cornflake Chocolate Chip Marshmallow Cookies. Sometimes focusing on a specific segment, or removing an element to highlight a particular benefit—like Ikea’s elimination of salespeople to reinforce its value—can also drive both uniqueness and appeal. What strategies have you found effective in achieving this balance?

How can testing concept elements lead to more powerful concepts?

Concepts are the sum of their parts, and each element can be optimized to enhance the overall impact. Clients often have multiple ways to articulate a benefit but end up testing only a few concepts, making decisions without fully understanding consumer preferences. By testing more iterations of each element—whether via screening elements on Impulse measures, conjoint, or other techniques—you increase your chances of finding the best combination.

This approach has delivered significant success, as seen in our work with P&G, where optimized concepts outperformed internally developed concepts by up to 30% in BASES forecasts. While this approach might add another research step, it’s often worth it, especially when working on positioning or innovations with multiple possible articulations that might otherwise require testing a lot more concepts. Have you tried this approach, and what have you discovered?

Concepts vs. packcepts vs. adcepts—what should I test?

This is another frequent question, and the answer depends on your objectives. Here are three guiding principles:

1. The length of stimuli should match the amount of information your marketing plan can communicate. If you don’t have meaningful ad dollars, consider using a packcept.

2. The closer to the market execution, the more predictive the test is.

3. Decide if you’re trying to nail the strategy or the execution.

Historically, most CPG companies tested concepts in ordinary language to determine strategy, allowing their agency to develop execution within certain guardrails. However, some companies now prefer adcepts to minimize the risk of an executional twist from the agency. While this might align better with the launch, it can undermine the ability to get a "clean read" on the strategy. It’s a tough call that depends on your objectives, agency strengths, and marketing development process. Which approach do you prefer?

These are just a few of the important questions we encounter, and we hope our responses provide some clarity. If you have more questions, feel free to reach out—we’re always happy to dive into these discussions!

Revolutionizing How We Evaluate Consumer Decision-Making

Systems 1 and 2: Not Either/Or, But Both

Plenty has been written about advances in cognitive science around System 1 thinking (fast, automatic, and emotional) and System 2 thinking (slow, deliberate, and rational). Since Daniel Kahneman published his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, popular industry lore has claimed that 95% of consumer decisions are made by non-conscious System 1 thought. (This assertion is misleading; the portion of non-conscious thinking can't even be measured, as we've written about this 95% fallacy.)

Therefore, in developing your brand strategy and marketing programs, it is critical to understand how consumers make decisions and choices using both System 1 and System 2 thinking. Each contributes to purchase decisions to a varying degree, depending on context and other factors. Moreover, with today's short-form communications, such as banner ads, in-store communications, or social media, you get only 6 seconds or 7 words to grab consumers' attention.

And yet, traditional market research tools focus exclusively on rational measures to the point that the emotional, impulsive reactions are nearly ignored, while some System 1 tools neglect thoughtful System 2 reactions. Because consumers use both System 1 and 2 thinking, it is unlikely that research evaluating only their rational assessment OR focusing entirely on implicit/emotional reactions will yield complete results and insight to make the best brand strategy and messaging choices possible.

A Groundbreaking Solution

ACUPOLL's SPARK MCR® (Multi-Cognition Research®) is a one-of-a-kind tool designed to tackle the challenges of evaluating consumer decisions by incorporating both System 1 Impulse (unconscious) and System 2 Reflection (conscious) thought processes. SPARK MCR® provides a comprehensive tool-set that considers both the emotional and rational aspects of consumer decision-making.

Measuring both System 1 and 2 thinking is important because it more accurately captures how the brain works: how messages capture people's attention and interest quickly with System 1 thinking and then drive choice when System 2's conscious thought kicks in, such as when consumers are comparing products or their usual product is out-of-stock. Today, you need to find the best message for when you have little time to grab attention and must hook people impulsively in their System 1 thinking stage.

That means screening short forms of early-stage ideas, e.g., headline only or headline + package, in the Impulse or System 1 portion of research, and then proceeding to more complete descriptions or concepts as needed. When developing new brand positionings or messaging, we often find clients can learn more by screening a wide range of benefit and reason-to-believe sound bites to find what best grabs attention and connects on both System 1 and 2 levels, rather than (or prior to) testing full-text concepts that can perform very similarly when compared as a whole piece of cloth.

Focusing on capturing emotional reactions alongside rational responses uncovers insights that traditional methods overlook, and reveals the subtle yet impactful differences that can truly resonate with consumers, even in brief interactions lasting mere seconds.

Spark MCR® is particularly effective for tasks like screening positioning messages, claims, and seed/early-stage ideas, where traditional methods fail to capture System 1 reactions. Moreover, it enables more detailed analysis by optimizing components such as phrases or one-line ideas across multiple vectors. SPARK utilizes proprietary visual scales for eliciting more Impulsive responses, which were optimized in six phases of quantitative validation, including more than 40,000 participant responses. These scales are preferred by participants nearly 2:1 over traditional 5-point scale responses for accurately capturing their natural or intuitive “gut” reaction.

SPARK MCR® was co-developed by ACUPOLL with P&G's former top cognitive scientist, who led their new methodology development. ACUPOLL conducted multiple validation studies to prove the effectiveness of SPARK MCR® against traditional methods:

• In one validation study, SPARK MCR® predicted trial and sales for 18 new nutritional bar/snack products across n=800 consumers, with an accuracy of R2 = 0.67.

• Another study measured the impact of 18 Pinterest ads/posts on engagement and e-commerce sales. We ran 2 cells: one used SPARK's Impulse metric and other measures, and the other used traditional 5-point scale metrics (Purchase Intent, Uniqueness, and Relevance). Results showed that SPARK MCR® measures were twice as predictive as Purchase Intent in delivering e-commerce sales from an audience of 1,300 Pinterest users.

View fullsize

SPARK MCR® represents a paradigm shift in understanding consumer decision-making. By embracing the complexity of human cognition and exploring both System 1 and 2 processes, our tool empowers marketers to craft strategies and messages that truly resonate with their target audiences. In a time where attention spans are shrinking and competition is fierce, SPARK MCR® is the key to unlocking meaningful consumer connections and driving business success.

Tap into how both System 1 and System 2 thinking can work for your next project! Contact ACUPOLL to learn more about SPARK MCR®.

Going to Quirk’s–Chicago in March? Let's talk! Come see us present with T-Mobile, Fueling the T-Mobile Uncarrier Growth Story with System 1 Research, and Visit ACUPOLL in Booth 606!

Breaking the Mold: The Power of Uniting Qual and Quant

Learning needs don’t divide themselves cleanly into Qual vs. Quant, so why does your research plan?

Traditional market research methods can sometimes miss meeting the evolving demands of today’s fast-paced decision-making environments. Additionally, the division between qualitative and quantitative phases of research may not accommodate complex learning needs that don’t fit neatly into either category. With revolutionary advances in methodology and technology, researchers now have better options to consider.

One of the primary issues plaguing marketers is the limitations of both qualitative and quantitative techniques alone for “mission critical” decisions, such as launching a major product initiative or a powerful new marketing campaign – or even airing an ad during the Super Bowl! With smaller sample sizes and non-standardized questioning, qualitative findings lack the consistent control to inform high-stakes decisions confidently. Qualitative sessions can also be time-consuming, and require a lot of time to be invested in gathering basic information – brand usage, shopping behaviors, problems experienced, etc. – at the expense of digging into valuable insights.

Qualitative research, like focus groups, also suffers from the limitation that only a few people answer any one question. Finally, qualitative feedback is inherently difficult to aggregate, with participants talking about whatever strikes them, leaving clients without a clear perspective on what happened – or with all listeners having a different perspective.

Yet, while providing more robust findings, quantitative research takes too long, provides one-shot learning instead of iterative discovery, and can fail to capture the nuanced “whys” behind consumer behavior.

Enter ACUPOLL LIVE ONLINE™ hybrid qual + quant sessions: a dynamic approach that addresses the challenges researchers face by delivering insights in a fraction of the time. Combining qualitative and quantitative in online group sessions bridges these gaps by leveraging the strengths of both approaches. These studies typically include two or more sessions of 30 to 100 participants, lasting 60–90 minutes, well beyond what can be captured with quality in online surveys, allowing for in-depth exploration of consumer perceptions while maintaining a controlled environment.

We capture basic information like brand usage, brand equity, or attitude agreement quantitatively in seconds, freeing up time for deeper discussion. Using an online platform, participants engage simultaneously and anonymously, unlike in a purely qualitative setting, providing diverse perspectives. Furthermore, using ACUPOLL’s AI-based Predictive Qualitative™ approach, we immediately quantify the qualitative themes in seconds.

We then ask participants to rate their agreement with the themes, eliminating ambiguity, identifying what is truly important, and ensuring stakeholders are aligned with the conclusions.

Hybrid qual + quant research is especially valuable for two use cases:

1. Iterative stimuli optimization with greater confidence than ordinary qual provides (e.g. product ideas, concepts, or ad campaigns)

2. Immersion in a new category, audience, or issue, where the capacity and efficiency of qual+quant provides a tremendous amount of qual and quant insight, quickly

Researchers must choose a platform to use carefully because there is no industry-wide definition for “hybrid” methodologies. The key question is whether the platform is truly hybrid. Some companies offer online qualitative session supplemented with simplistic polls; others make use of quantitative platforms merely to select a subset of participants for follow-up focus groups. Ensure that the company you choose for your project uses a methodology and tech platform that truly allows you to get the most synergy of qual and quant combined in one approach, to be able to see critical insights in real-time and probe on them ‘on the fly,’ and to quantify key qualitative learnings for greater confidence.

Hybrid sessions combine the best elements of qualitative and quantitative research to provide a transformative, groundbreaking evolution in market research. Clients of this approach benefit from more profound insights, streamlined processes, faster results, and enhanced team alignment. At a time when agility and accuracy are paramount, hybrid sessions revolutionize how we understand and engage with consumers and stay ahead in today’s rapidly changing markets.

ACUPOLL pioneered hybrid qual+quant for the industry 30+ years ago and has led thousands of sessions since then. Contact us to learn more about our unique advantages and case studies.

And if you’re able to attend The Quirk’s Event in Chicago, visit us at Booth 606, and come see our presentation with our client, T-Mobile’s Magenta Status Program, Inspired by the Revolutionary Qual + Quant Sessions – including a Live Demo with AI Technology!

Inflation Insights for Action – '23 versus '22

Inflation is attacking every industry, and organizations are looking for leadership and insight on how to respond.

Our most recent free ACUPULSE™ report compares consumer thoughts, feelings, and behaviors today versus Spring 2022, to answer questions such as:

• How are different age groups changing their shopping priorities?

• Are any consumers buying more across certain categories than last year?

• Beyond lower prices, what kinds of things will motivate consumers to purchase new products?

Click here to download the free report, and be sure to check out the offers at the end of the deck to get even more data customized to your sector, category, or brand.

5 Success Stories Leveraging Multi-Cognition Research

Research can help you identify your best ideas, yet the choice of research methodology can make or break your initiative. Failing to understand the strengths of each idea rationally AND emotionally can mean overlooking the most powerful idea, or even chasing the wrong one. 

SPARK Multi-Cognition Research® goes beyond the thoughtful “System 2” reasoning of traditional idea screening to also capture consumers’ “System 1” Impulse and Emotion – which are critical drivers of success in today’s noisy, hyper-competitive marketplace.

Here are 5 great examples of how our methodology has helped clients succeed:

• Leading OTC Health Care Company (Innovation) – Evaluated 144 seed ideas (headline, package, a few bullets) across 9 studies for their market-leading brand and 6 other brands, resulting in 20 new product launches

• Top 3 Telecom Company (Messaging) – Evaluated 126 ad messages, performance claims, value messages and offers across 7 studies, fueling multiple campaigns, including their 2023 Super Bowl ad

• Top 15 Fast Food Restaurant (Positioning) – Screened 37 positioning statements across 14 strategic territories to identify the top 2-3 sound bites – positioning benefits and RTBs – that most attract competitive users and elevate the brand’s Value perception

• Leading Lifestyle Food Brand (Packaging) – Evaluated 30 messages in 5 areas to find the most appealing and unique language for upgrading the positioning and on-pack claims, resulting in new designs with significantly increased purchase intent, uniqueness, taste, and equity communication

• Top Jewelry Retailers (Design/Style) – Screened 250 new jewelry designs, licenses, and product “stories” across 14 studies to determine the most powerful images and language to introduce across several retail chains

Connect with us to learn more about how Spark MCR® can help solve your challenge!

Factors in System 1 (Emotional/Impulsive) vs. System 2 (Rational/Conscious) Decision-Making

Key Conclusions

These are based on 2018 ACUPOLL research and ChatGPT AI, which draw similar conclusions; dialogue excerpt shown below

• Both non-conscious ”System 1” impulse/emotion and “System 2” rational/conscious thought play a critical role in decision-making

• ChatGPT identified 6 scenarios when we tend to rely more on rational System 2 thinking:

1. When decisions are more complex and we need to analyze/apply reason

2. When we’re less familiar with a situation or decision and can’t act on auto-pilot (e.g. habit) or intuition

3. When we’re less time-pressured and stakes are high (which allows System 2 conscious thought opportunity and motive to engage)

4. When emotions are more moderate (or, we’d add, in categories that are inherently more logical, like choosing a product for specific symptoms or a food based on ingredient/nutritional facts, not image-driven categories like fashion or fine fragrance)

5. When decisions involve personal goals or values, which cause our conscious mind to input more into decisions

6. When cognitive load is low and you have mental energy available to think through options

• ACUPOLL previously identified two additional factors that determine when conscious/thoughtful decisions occur more often:

  • When we’re deciding by ourselves and not in a social context where we feel judged (e.g. when people are drinking alcohol with others, System 1 emotions increase their influence on brand choices)

  • When situational context favors System 2 (e.g. no distractions, no pressure from salespeople or promotional nudges, a manageable number of choices, easy comparisons, a thoughtful/browsing shopping experience rather than a grab-and-go trip, etc.)

Connect with us to learn more about how to measure both impulsive and conscious/ rational reactions to positionings, messaging, claims, packaging, and ads!

Click here to read our previous conversation with ChatGPT about how much of our decision-making is rational versus emotional.

ChatGPT debunks “95% of decisions are non-conscious”

Key Conclusions

These are based on both ACUPOLL’s research and dialogue with ChatGPT ... when we dug deeper and won it over to our POV!

• Harvard Business School Professor Gerald Zaltman is the original source for this quote

• The 95% is an estimate – not the result of a particular study – as % non-conscious cannot even be measured

• When pressed, Zaltman and ChatGPT both acknowledge that the conscious mind still plays a critical role in decision-making (despite the impression one gets from hearing 95%!)

• Rational thought is particularly important in analyzing information, weighing options, and making choices – especially in later stages of decision-making – all things that can happen at times when buying, at the shelf, showroom, restaurant, or when online

• The interplay between conscious and non-conscious is complex, and both emotional and rational inputs to decision-making operate in tandem

• That’s why it’s critical to use research tools that measure both “System 1” impulse/emotion AND “System 2” rational reactions

Read our dialogue with ChatGPT below and see how it changes its “mind!”
Then connect with us to learn more about how to put this learning to use.

Ask us about our methodologies that combine non-conscious “System 1” and conscious “System 2” measures!

Click here to see ChatGPT’s response to our follow-up question about when rational thought outweighs emotion and impulse.

Free Report – What Consumers Want Your Brand to Do in This Inflationary Environment

Click here to download the free report.

System 1 Weight Management

Click to Read More

How consumer psychology and marketing strategy helped me lose – and keep off – 20 pounds

42% of Americans say they’ve gained weight during COVID, with 1 in 7 saying they’ve packed on 10 pounds or more – yet nearly half also say diets have not been successful for them. If you’re one of those who struggle with managing and maintaining your weight, consider these “System 1”-inspired strategies.

Tests on Data Quality in the COVID-19 Environment

We have published several Free Covid-19 Tracking Reports to help you understand how consumers are responding to the crisis, and what to expect in the future.  To provide you with the best research leadership possible, we have also analyzed historical results in prior crises, re-fielded tests, analyzed our studies in the field, talked to sample providers, and monitored competitive/industry learning.  The bottom line is that research continues to deliver insights reliably in this environment:

• We have not had significant difficulties recruiting respondents to participate.

• Historically, mean Purchase Probability, Uniqueness, and Value for our entire concept database did not vary more than 0.1 points in most cases over the 12-month periods before, during, and after the Credit Crisis – and competitors report the same learning.

• We’ve re-tested 13 ideas across a number of categories and price points, for both leading and challenger brands (thanks to Precision Sample for providing some of the sample for this).

Below are more details on the results and recommendations for future studies.  

We continue to provide custom online surveys, FastTrack™ evaluations, low-cost ACUPULSE™ omnibus studies, and Live Online™ qual+quant solutions to help you navigate and come out even stronger during the rebound in the months ahead. Please contact us if you have questions or if there’s anything else we can do to help.

********************************************

DATA QUALITY RE-TEST RESULTS AND TEST RECOMMENDATIONS

• On 10 of the 13 concepts, there were no significant differences in Purchase Probability, Uniqueness, or Value (or General Interest for 3 unpriced concepts) versus the original tests.

• Three of the 13 changed, for (mostly) clear reasons:

  • One health concept generates higher Purchase Probability and higher Value now, likely because it included a bacteria cleaning benefit – we believe this increase is a real/sustaining change.

  • One food concept generates the same Purchase Probability but significantly lower Value now … reflecting the heightened attention on a premium idea that didn’t really justify its premium.

  • One personal care concept related to shaving had significantly lower Purchase Probability and the same Value, perhaps because people are shaving less.

• This is consistent with 2 competitors who’ve re-tested in the U.S. and abroad and found nearly identical results.

• 12 personal care ideas tested in rapid succession on Impulse/Gut Reaction identified/ranked the top 5 ideas and bottom 2 ideas in the same order, and only one of the “middle” ideas tested significantly differently on this measure, perhaps because it had an on-the-go benefit after gym/sports which is a sore point right now.  

• Mean agreement levels were statistically equal for 13 of 14 insight statements, and the 14th was only off 0.3 points on a 0-to-10 scale.

All this notwithstanding, we have seen some movement in sub-segments as well as on diagnostic measures, indicating there may be some changes in isolated cases in how consumers react, understandably, but not to the level of changing overall recommendations.  

All in all, we believe consumers have a clear cognitive capacity to project their feelings and conceptualize the future that lets them rate an idea or attitude in general instead of limiting themselves to the moment.  

Going-forward, we’ll go the extra mile to help you get the learning you need:

1. CONTINUED CARE:  We will continue to monitor results closely and re-test examples as needed.  We predict results may elevate for anything involving promises of infection control, sanitization, or saving money, which would be real/sustainable advantages in the foreseeable future.

2. PREMIUMS:  We encourage you to make sure any premium pricing in concepts is fully justified by perceived efficacy advantage that sustains good value, as consumer scrutiny on value has increased.

3. NEW STUDIES DURING CRISIS:  We are happy to include/re-test a previously-tested idea for comparison – at a substantially reduced cost. While we expect similar results, to the extent they vary higher/lower, we can use this to help you understand any impact current conditions may be having on newly-tested concepts. Re-tests are also recommended when you are interested in closely comparing results to previously tested ideas among specific segments or on detailed diagnostics.

4. STUDIES AFTER THE CRISIS:  For extra confidence, we would be happy to re-test an idea that was tested during the crisis for the first-time once it has passed, at a substantially reduced cost, to confirm the learnings hold true.

Free Report #10 – Holiday Safety, Vaccine Trends, and School Concerns

With the year coming to a close, our final waves of 2020 Covid research explore holiday plans, seasonal coping strategies, and parental concerns about education. We also revisit the economic and emotional effects of the pandemic, specifically looking at trends related to vaccination, employment, spending, and social behaviors.

Click below to download the FREE report.

Some key findings:

• Most Americans are following safety precautions for the holidays, yet many are still willing to take at least some risk to celebrate with family/friends

• Remote/virtual learning outweighs in-person schooling for the majority of children, and parents are now more concerned about academic and social setbacks than virus transmission

• Most people are following the news about vaccines, and while those who do are more likely to want vaccination soon, interest remains lower versus what we saw during the summer, with 1-in-4 saying they probably or definitely won't get vaccinated

• Not surprisingly, due to colder weather and recent spikes in cases, people are relying on indoor/at-home leisure activities more than before

Free Report #9 – News Sources, Politics, and Workplace Changes

This most recent wave of our pandemic tracking investigates which media outlets consumers are turning to for their news, how much they trust those sources, and how that correlates with their voting intentions in the 2020 presidential election.

We also explore what our changing workplaces look like, in addition to ongoing tracking of consumers’ core motivations and financial situations.

Click below to download the FREE report.

And, as a special addendum to this wave, we uncovered consumers’ attitudes and plans around this year’s Halloween:

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Free Report #8 – Safety Measures, Schools, and Coping through Food, Faith, and Alcohol

Waves 15–16 of our COVID-related ACUPULSE surveys conducted across nearly 20,000 consumers continue to explore important aspects of everyday life for Americans during the pandemic, specifically:

• Adherence to safety measures such as hand washing/sanitizing, mask wearing, and social distancing

• Intentions regarding vaccination

• Coping through hobbies/entertainment, food/alcohol, health & fitness, spirituality, and more

• Parents' choices and challenges around sending kids back to school – or not

• Ongoing tracking of consumers' priorities, spending habits, and income/employment

Click below to download the FREE report.

Free Report #7 – Psychological Insights into Consumers’ COVID Reactions

Waves 13–14 of our ongoing COVID tracking explore the underlying psychology of attitudes toward mask-wearing and other crisis-related behaviors, specifically:

• The surprising threats that "mask avoiders" perceive as superseding their health concerns

• A leading cognitive scientist's qual interviews yielding insights about emotionality, rational inconsistencies, and mental dichotomies

• Statistical analysis identifying four COVID attitudinal factors – fear, self-assurance, trusting compliance, and skeptical non-compliance

• Cognitive biases and System 1/System 2 conflicts

Click below to download the FREE report.

Free Report #6B – Re-Start Reactions, Commerce & Controversy (Quirk's Edition)

This Special Report for Quirk’s Media Subscribers captures Waves 10–12 tracking of peoples’ everyday lives, hearts, and minds since March 18 across more than 15,000 consumers, including:

• The positives, priorities, and emotions surrounding the crisis

• Our most recent learning on reactions to resuming activities

• Mixed attitudes concerning the protests against government restrictions – plus reactions to broader racial protests

• How people want advertisers to adjust to current events

Click below to download the FREE report.

Free Report #6 – Re-Start Reactions, Commerce & Controversy

While many consumers have resumed normal activities, or plan to as soon as restrictions are lifted, up to 40% continue to say they will wait until they feel safe doing so. Many also hope to continue some of the new (positive) behaviors they’ve adopted during the lockdown. Still, patience is wearing thin, and the social landscape has become increasingly complex amid recent protests.

Click below to download our latest FREE report.

In our 10th and 11th waves of COVID-19 research, we explored:

• How re-start's going and the future of commerce

  • Resumed activities, reactions, and plans

  • What's happening in e-commerce, including interest in subscription services and Amazon 2-hour delivery

• The high (but declining) support for government restrictions, and demos behind changes

• How people want advertisers to react to these social issues

Free Report #5 – Snacks, Masks, and Economic Impacts

It’s no surprise that consumers have been cooking and eating more during this time, which presents opportunities for Brands to meet a variety of needs regarding nutrition as well as convenience. Our most recent surveys looked to uncover these insights, as well as to understand differing opinions and expectations around safety restrictions, business re-openings, and income recovery.

Click below to download our latest FREE report.

In our 8th and 9th waves of COVID-19 research, we explored:

• Changes in snacking habits – and resulting weight gains

• Views from both sides of the fence around government restrictions and mask requirements

• Trends in salary reductions, including impact of the crisis by income bracket

• Expectations around job recovery among those who've lost employment or income

Free Report #4 – Opening Up

Government restrictions have little to do with consumers’ decisions about getting back into public life – personal perceptions of safety are what matter. Two-thirds of those who have stopped shopping in stores, going to restaurants, etc., say they will wait until it feels safe to go back. Therefore, providing reassurance will be paramount to regaining business.

Click below to download our latest FREE report.

In our 6th and 7th waves of COVID-19 research, we explored:

• What, specifically, are the top 3 solutions most likely to make consumers feel safe?

• Are people still willing to make sacrifices to help others, and how is that changing?

• The dramatic shift we are seeing in consumers' priorities when buying products, right now!

• As well as tracking changes in previous questions

Free Report #3 – Consumer Expectations

Recognizing that the world will be fundamentally changed following the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers share how their priorities and behaviors are shifting, as well as what they hope to see from companies as “the new normal” unfolds.

Click below to download our latest FREE report.

In our 4th and 5th waves of COVID-19 research, we explored:

• More reactions to the changes in consumers' lives

• What's giving them pride and confidence admidst the crisis

• Attitudes toward the sacrifices and restrictions they're being asked to make, and what it means for the future

• How they want companies and retailers to respond to the crisis

• As well as tracking changes in previous questions

Free Report #2 – Looking Ahead to Post-Crisis

Because the situation is rapidly evolving, we are updating our learning periodically to keep you informed on trends related to the COVID-19 pandemic and how it’s affecting behaviors of American consumers.

Click below to download our latest FREE report.

The 3rd wave of our research captures:

• Consumers' shifting priorities post-crisis, including their opportunities and fears

• The “unsung (product) heroes” and activities that are helping them through the crisis

• How they expect their behaviors/lives to change when this is over – which suggest a variety of opportunities

• Additional insights into the changes they want to see in advertising

• Other trend data reinforcing the extent of the virus impact

Click here to read the feature news article on this report!