The insights-to-activation gap is a problem as old as the market research profession itself: the research team delivers rock-solid data and clear recommendations, insights activation plans sit on the shelf, and decisions are either deferred or made based on priors and gut instincts rather than thorough findings.
Researchers often think of this gap as the result of a game of telephone that takes place at the end of the research process. Consumer insights travel from the research field to several versions of a deck, to a presentation to the key stakeholders, and something gets lost in translation.
While every research professional has certainly been through this, the narrative is slightly oversimplified. In our experience, that game of telephone often begins much earlier in the process of commissioning and executing research, with the brief itself.
The traditional research-to-action pipeline, from insights to action planning to decision-making, is inherently leaky. Plugging the leaks takes more than an outstanding final presentation. It takes understanding the many different points where misalignment is likely to occur. In other words, insight activation occurs throughout the process, not just at the end.
At Radius, we’ve found that when research teams treat activation as separate from research, stakeholders can, in turn, treat activation as a confrontation. The final presentation, in which the research team presents its recommendations, ultimately puts decision-makers on the defensive. By contrast, when activation is intertwined with research, stakeholders and insights teams work in collaboration.
In other words, closing the insights-to-activation gap means closing the gap between the research process and the stakeholders themselves. Here’s how we approach closing that gap across each step of the research process.
Step 1: Align with Key Stakeholders Before Research Begins
A CMO asks their insights lead to solve the loyalty challenge that’s putting a ceiling on their brand’s growth. The insights lead puts together the brief, reaches out to their vendors, has some calls, and kicks off a research engagement.
They’ve briefed the research team on the CMO’s preferred deliverables and goals, the research is executed, and the engagement ends with a polished presentation.
The problem: after assigning the research lead to this project, the CMO had a conversation with a colleague that shifted their perspective on the project, entirely unbeknownst to the research lead or the vendor. The CMO has several questions that go unanswered because the research team never knew they were meant to answer them.
This is just one way the game of telephone can start with the very first call. The agency is three steps removed from key stakeholders, opening up two opportunities for misalignment by the time they receive the brief.
The solution we’ve found most effective is to confer with key stakeholders from the beginning of the engagement and ask them two questions directly: What are you trying to learn, and what do you need to feel your question has been answered?
The idea is not to bypass the insights lead, but to ensure alignment. Prompting key stakeholders to restate their goals keeps the insights lead abreast of any updated thinking, per the above example.
It also gives both the stakeholders and the insights leader an opportunity to clarify their goals with the assistance of a third party. This is helpful not only for instances of miscommunication, but also in cases where the insights lead is either less experienced or has a less close relationship with the key stakeholders: in other words, situations where the insights lead may not be empowered to push back or ask hard questions that clarify the goals for research.
When the agency steps in to clarify the brief before the research begins, it helps everyone do their jobs better, and look better in the end. The CMO gets to share their most up-to-date thinking with all parties involved, the insights lead builds authority in conjunction with their chosen research partners, and the agency is positioned to deliver research that’s fully aligned with the brand’s goals.
On an emotional level, it also ensures that all parties feel adequately heard. The trust that emerges when both the CMO and insights lead feel heard by a neutral third party is what makes activation possible later.
Step 2: Report Findings at Every Phase, Not Just the End
A healthcare provider servicing customers with a chronic illness needed to better understand their customers’ needs. Radius laid out an eight-month, multi-phase Jobs-to-Be-Done study utilizing a different methodology at each stage.
How do the findings from one stage inform the methodology of the next? Are all stakeholders aligned on what those findings are and, therefore, how that next stage should proceed? What if the key stakeholders become interested in a question that arose at an early stage — one that was never followed up on and that would be too costly to go back and explore?
All these questions and considerations can be addressed by bringing stakeholders in for check-ins between phases. Otherwise, each phase provides a new opportunity for misalignment.
Moreover, in a final presentation, if stakeholders must be walked through every step of an eight-month process in one session with no prior exposure, attention will fade at the most pivotal juncture.
Activation that occurs throughout the research, rather than merely bookending it, drives confident, effective decision-making.
That means sharing and discussing findings at every stage. When one phase of research concludes, stakeholders should be informed: “Here is what we learned at this stage, and here’s how we’re going to apply it to the next one.”
This can look like a working session, or an informal conversation: whatever aligns the research schedule with the stakeholders’ working cadence so that both stay on track. The goal is to bring stakeholders in early and often enough that they feel close to the findings, have time to sit with them over the course of the engagement, and can voice concerns or incidental points of interest that might influence the course of the research.
Compare this to a final presentation on which everything depends. In the latter case, stakeholders must digest and respond to a large volume of information in one sitting, assess whether it aligns with their expectations, and decide whether they agree with the recommendations.
Continuous engagement, by contrast, creates buy-in by leaving room for feedback and dialogue. Decisions are shaped collaboratively and gradually, rather than on the spot or behind the backs of researchers hard at work.
Step 3: Pair the Final Presentation with a Facilitated Decision Session
With the previous two steps addressed via continuous engagement of the key stakeholders, any research team would be well-positioned to deliver a final presentation that addresses their every question and provides clear recommendations for action.
Except that even in the best of cases, this presentational approach can still fail to set the key stakeholders up for action. It goes back to stakeholders perceiving activation as a form of confrontation: “This is our recommendation, take it or leave it.” Many will be inclined to leave it.
We’ve found success pairing the final presentation with a facilitated session between key stakeholders and the insights team: structured time to think through how the insights presented apply to their go-to-market strategy, messaging, innovation plans, and so on.
The brand-side research team might have their ideas about how to move forward with our insights, and the key stakeholders might have others. Whether the two parties pick one of two routes, meet in the middle, or find a new solution, what ultimately matters is that a definitive decision is made and is rooted in strong insights.
Our role in this final step is just the same as in the first: as the third party, we can validate input from both the insights lead and the CMO, ensure that all voices are heard, and align all parties toward a shared goal with action that’s informed by the research.
We don’t look at this final stage as the activation, but the culmination of sustained activation. Without sustained activation, the presentation stage is a roadblock that can only be lifted through persuasion; instead, it’s the end product of a collaborative process that has built momentum for weeks, months, or more.
Fear is the heart of the insights activation gap
Sustained activation stacks the odds in favor of action. But a brand can run a well-aligned, well-delivered research engagement, and still defer action.
Consider the example of a brand with a decades-long foothold in supplements for seniors. All research showed that, amid the explosive growth and diversification of the supplement category, the brand faced a crystal-clear opportunity to expand its offerings to the general market.
But the brand saw its equity among seniors as its bedrock and was terrified to risk losing it. With the resources and planning that general market expansion entails, they equated the move with sacrificing their legacy consumer base.
The blocker here was not any misalignment, miscommunication, or falloff in engagement, but plain and simple fear. Even for brands without as long a legacy as this one, fear is a powerful influence with more time behind it than the trust insights teams are tasked with building.
Fear is also not irrational, especially when the typical research process has long resembled a scary medical diagnosis: we ran the tests, and this is what we found.
On the other hand, everyone loves a good mystery. Continuous activation hands everyone a magnifying glass and puts them on the hunt for clues. When stakeholders share in the “eureka!” moment, it’s hard for them not to take action.
In other words, when stakeholders arrive at conclusions alongside the research team rather than receiving them at the end, the case for action is one they’ve already made themselves.
Want to discuss what Radius can uncover together with your brand? Let’s talk.
