Action standards are a common fixture in market research, particularly in concept and product use testing. They serve as pre-defined benchmarks that a product or concept must meet to be considered a "success" and move forward in the development process. The value of having clear action standards lies in their ability to streamline decision-making, provide a quantifiable measure of success, and ensure consistency across different projects. They can help companies avoid subjective interpretations of research findings, offering a seemingly objective gatekeeping mechanism for innovation. For instance, an action standard might dictate that a new product concept must achieve a certain percentage of "definitely would buy" responses to proceed to development.
However, despite their perceived utility, the application and origin of these action standards often present a curious challenge. A recurring issue arises when we seek clarification. Clarification is always needed to ensure the research design is robust, the data collected will be relevant, and the findings can be interpreted accurately. It is a rare occasion when clients can answer our questions regarding the basis or rationale of the action standards. The responses often received are along the lines of "'that’s just what we are told to use'" or "'that’s what the company has always used'". This suggests a disconnect between the established standards and a clear understanding of their strategic underpinning. Based on over 40 years of experience across various industries and methodologies, we can confidently emphasize the need for a more thoughtful approach. There appears to be a significant opportunity for organizations to enhance their teams’ understanding regarding the rationale and implications of utilizing company action standards in research.
This lack of clarity is problematic because it’s imperative that the action standards can be mapped back to the objectives of the research. If the success metrics are not directly linked to what the research aims to achieve, their utility diminishes significantly. For example, if a research objective is to identify a niche market for a premium product, but the action standard is based on broad appeal, the research might incorrectly signal a failure, leading to the abandonment of a potentially viable product. While we don't expect clients to be statisticians—that's our role—we do often need their understanding of the implications of failing or passing the action standards. This understanding is crucial because it can map us back to the objectives of the research. Without this foundational link, action standards risk becoming arbitrary hurdles rather than meaningful guides for progress.
To maximize the value of market research and the action standards within it, we suggest adopting a more deliberate and informed approach. Before initiating research that includes action standards, critically evaluate the origin and relevance of these benchmarks. We should be able to articulate why a particular score signifies success for the specific research objectives. This involves asking:
Furthermore, be prepared to discuss the implications of both passing and failing the action standards with research partners. This collaborative dialogue ensures that the research is not just a data collection exercise, but a strategic tool that genuinely informs business decisions and drives innovation.
By actively engaging with and justifying action standards, we can transform them from inherited mandates into powerful, objective measures of progress directly aligned to business goals.
