In early 2012 I worked on my first sustainability-focused project. This involved helping a large bank understand how they could streamline their printed statements to lessen their paper footprint. Since that time, the world of sustainability has changed dramatically. Over the past several years the topic of sustainability has evolved, broadened and become more of a focus in some cases, a lightning rod in others. The terms have broadened to include eco-friendly, green, low-impact, carbon-neutral, net zero, real zero and others.

In the concluding chapter of Everything Is Predictable, Tom Chivers asserts that “…everything decision-related is Bayesian. It simply describes the optimal way to integrate new information with your prior best guesses. When you look at it like that, so many things seem to make more sense.” If you’re in the business of quantifying consumer behavior, it’s quite a compelling statement.

"I love how actionable this feels. There are real things we can do with this." That’s a quote from a recent client on an engagement that included a Market Research Online Community (MROC). That is tremendously gratifying to hear based on my early experiences with MROCs.

AI is rapidly advancing and shaking things up across a variety of industries, and marketing research is no exception. It’s clear that AI holds immense potential for analytic use in this field. Yet, we wanted to personally dig in to understand how AI stacks up against the claims. To gain a true picture of AI capabilities, MarketVision has been actively testing different AI analysis tools within our qualitative research practice to identify both their limits and potential to deliver value.  

Now that we have digested 2023 and are onboarding 2024, it’s a good time to assess where we are in the insights industry. After having an opportunity to connect with insights clients, research partners, and also peer companies at the Insights Association CEO Summit, several themes have emerged.

Unlocking the Hidden Links: Similarities Among Rare Diseases?

The criteria for what constitutes a rare disease differs from one country to another. For instance, the FDA Orphan Drug Act defines a rare disease as one that affects fewer than 200,000 people in the United States1. In the European Union, a rare disease is defined as one that affects no more than one person in 2,0002. Japan’s legal definition considers a disease rare if it affects fewer than 50,000 or about 1 in 2,500 people3. Given the lack of a universal definition, it raises the question: Could there be any similarities among rare diseases?