Mixed-method research approaches tackle questions from different angles, leading to richer insights. However, landing on the best plan forward can be tricky. In this webinar, Nestlé Purina’s Senior Insights Manager, Ronnie Matthew, and Radius VP, Erica Pondillo share how they built a partnership that encourages innovative thinking and mixed-method strategies that result in deeper insights.
Read the webinar transcript below:
Paul Donagher:
Good afternoon everybody. Thank you for joining us. My name is Paul Donagher and I’m the director of Global Growth here at Radius. And thanks to all of you for attending today’s webinar, which will be on the subject of Partnering for Impact and how to best leverage mixed methodological approaches for optimal outcomes.
The webinar today will be a discussion between Erica Pondillo, who’s the Vice President of Client Services here at Radius, and Ronnie Matthew, Senior Manager within the Strategy and Insights group at Nestlé Purina. The webinar is scheduled for a maximum of 45 minutes, and if you’d like to ask a question of Erica and Ronnie, please type it into the software. I’ll be keeping a note of that as we go, and we’ll leave hopefully 10 or 15 minutes at the end where I can take some of your questions and pose them to Erica and Ronnie.
And so by way of introduction, in today’s webinar, we’ll be going over a lot of ground, but hopefully you’ll come away with an enhanced understanding of a couple of things in particular: the impact of a range of research phases and approaches and why combining different methods results in well-rounded, actionable insights; the role of a trusted partnership and why that’s so important; and how collaboration can lead to stronger research methodologies and better outcomes—and the magic of what we’ll call one-on-one equaling three.
When we combine the expertise of both supplier and client-side teams and bring our own unique points of view, thoughts, and experiences, the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.
So finally, just to give you an introduction to Erica and Ronnie, and then they’ll take it away. Erica, as I said, is a VP here at Radius, joined the business in 2008, leads a team of analysts and helps existing and new clients tackle challenging business issues through smartly designed research plans.
Erica has experience in both qual and quant techniques going across a whole range of B2C and B2B industries and across a whole different range of sectors: CPG, Food & Bev, Personal Beauty, Retail, Toys, Children’s Merchandise, Media and Communications Services. She’s recently been a guest speaker at Women in Research (WIRe) to present our approach to storytelling through data visualization. And Erica holds a BS in marketing from Fairfield University.
Ronnie is a very highly experienced strategy, shopper, and consumer insights leader, and has particular experience in CPG and retail spaces—particularly with the three brands that I mentioned: Purina, Unilever, and Meijer. He’s worked on a number of flagship brands such as ProPlan, Purina One, Dove, and Axe, and has worked across the U.S., Latin America, Europe, and Asia. In his current role at Nestlé Purina, Ronnie supports the company’s emerging business areas and spearheads consumer strategy and insights. He focuses on developing innovative products and services that unlock avenues for consumer engagement and foster the brand loyalty that I can certainly speak for myself, that me and my pets have for some of those brands that I mentioned.
And so with that, Erica, we will kick ourselves off.
Erica Pondillo:
Great. Thank you, Paul. All right, let’s dig right in. Many of us already rely on a range of research approaches to deliver more comprehensive insights, and that’s because when we only use one method—whether that’s numbers or narratives—we often miss the full picture. Traditionally, we might lean on a combo of quantitative and qualitative methods to capture the what and also the why. Mixed methods allow us to validate hypotheses, uncover hidden insights, and address business questions in a more complete manner.
Of course, it’s not necessary to leverage multiple approaches just for the sake of doing so. So Ronnie, tell us about how you typically evaluate whether to apply a single versus a mixed approach.
Ronnie Matthew:
Yes, that’s a great question, Erica. I would say it depends on a few factors. Some of the things I consider are timing, costs. Is the research transactional and tactical—such as late-stage concept tests—or is it foundational, where we need to unpack the “whys” and need a full spectrum of consumer viewpoints?
A single-method approach is great when the risk is low, when we are looking for a quick turnaround, or when we are trying to make go/no-go decisions based on some key KPIs that organizations have—or when we want to A/B test, that’s another example. So these are instances when I tend to use a single approach. I’ve also used a single approach in early-stage research when the direction is somewhat set and the scope is very narrow.
To your question about mixed methods: I tend to lean into it when the scope is broad or when it’s very critical for me to understand the lived experience of the consumer versus, let’s say, just to learn about what they think or feel about an issue.
Another example that comes to mind would be where we know consumers say one thing but do something completely different. That’s when a layered approach might work better. But we know employing mixed methods can be protracted and expensive, and it’s resource intensive. That’s a reality. So it’s not uncommon for us to rely on a single methodology when conducting research. And the fact of the matter is the amount of research that we do is substantial and the cost can add up.
Erica Pondillo:
Yes, that’s an important point. And it’s also a good reason for us to consider mixing in agile techniques like AI-powered tools or tapping into the vast amount of digital data available by capturing and analyzing online behavioral data. In addition to tried-and-true mixed methods like focus groups and an online survey, today’s modern toolkit has so much more to offer.
And as a custom market research organization, we know it’s critical to incorporate technology that’s going to make processes faster, more efficient, and more insightful. But with the vast number of options, it can be challenging to navigate. How does this compare to your experience on the client side, and what’s your approach to adopting new techniques?
Ronnie Matthew:
Let me share my personal experience before I answer that question. It might provide better context. On average, I receive at least one vendor outreach per week, and usually it’s about a new research solution. These are very important interactions, by the way, for me as a client.
But as a client, it can be incredibly challenging to assess the true value of these new solutions, because more often than not, I find many of these solutions serve the same purpose. They are like old wine in a new bottle. While the approach may sound innovative, when I take a closer look, I often find that they do not provide any deeper understanding of the consumer than the techniques we already have in our toolkit.
So my approach to adopting new techniques is: I always start with one question—will this method help me get a deeper understanding of the phenomenon that I’m investigating compared to the existing techniques that I already use? Or will it help me understand my consumers at a deeper level?
To me, it is less about the solution and approach—while they’re extremely important—but it’s more about the outcome. Will the new technique lead to a better outcome? That’s something I always think about.
Erica Pondillo:
That’s a great point. And as research partners, we’re always looking to help you achieve those deeper insights and avoid redundant efforts. So what’s the approach you take to analyzing whether something will lead to a unique perspective or outcome?
Ronnie Matthew:
My approach to research, to be honest, has really evolved significantly over the years. Recently, I’ve been using a hub-and-spoke approach in my research. Think of hubs as the research question, and spokes are the tools that we use to answer those research questions. What this approach enables is it allows us to investigate a research question from different angles—effectively minimizing biases in both consumer responses and potential methodological biases.
And as researchers, we know that is something we have to factor in. We all deal with biases, and the goal really is to minimize those biases. A hub-and-spoke approach is an effective way of doing that.
In the past, I would say my approach was more linear. Even when I used mixed methodologies—for instance, I might end a qualitative phase, use findings from that phase to inform certain decisions, and then proceed to a quantitative phase to make additional decisions. A linear approach, I feel, tends to focus more on seeking consumer consensus than identifying consumer contradictions, which I think is a very different mindset.
Erica Pondillo:
I would completely agree. In fact, Radius has developed a framework that helps to establish a 360-degree view to understand consumers. So it’s similar to the hub-and-spoke approach you spoke about. It leverages multidimensional methodology to help more fully understand consumer practices, attitudes, and sentiments to gain inspiration for innovation and marketing.
To do this, we rely on an assortment of approaches—one being AI-powered netnography—to understand your target audience in a more natural online environment. To this, we might also perform an audit of client database information and secondary research available. And by coupling primary quant or qual initiatives with approaches like AI, ethnography, and existing knowledge, we’re able to identify both consumer consensus and contradictions.
Since you’re looking at the issue from multiple angles, how do you tend to think about the existence of contradictions that are uncovered using a nonlinear approach?
Ronnie Matthew:
There’s this quote that I love: “Consumers don’t think how they feel. They don’t say what they think. And they don’t do what they say.” This quote, I think, is attributed to David Ogilvy.
I’ll give you an example from my personal life just to illustrate the point. Let’s talk about my food philosophy—just humor me for a minute. I’m someone who prioritizes simple, real ingredients, clean eating, organic foods. I prepare meals from scratch and exercise on a regular basis. If I were to participate in a quantitative or qualitative study, I’d most likely be described as a clean eater or a health nut.
But I’m also known to wolf down a 10-piece bucket of KFC chicken, Original Recipe. Those are very true, contradictory facts about me. And as consumers, we all are consumers.
Erica Pondillo:
You mentioned igniting additional discussions within your organization. I imagine that these discussions, which stem from unexpected learning, may not always be easy to have. When there are ongoing hypotheses—especially if they’re shared by a stakeholder group—you could easily find yourself in a position of defense. And what you really are looking for is an open-minded mentality to interpret and reconcile the information together.
In my experience, I find it helps to bring a couple of different supporting factors to these types of conversations. The first is additional data points—primary or secondary—that support the unexpected learning. This helps establish validation from a factual point of view. The second is a wider, more macro-level perspective, such as external factors that consumers are dealing with—like delights or tensions. This helps ground us in the reality that the world around us can impact behaviors and attitudes.
Together, these supporting factors help facilitate a productive conversation that resonates more effectively with stakeholders. And to further ensure that these discussions are successful, it helps to minimize surprise—by sharing key information at various points throughout the project lifecycle. This allows the audience to absorb the learning in smaller steps rather than being overwhelmed by a final presentation. This is particularly useful when there are multiple phases or approaches, like we’ve been discussing today.
Ronnie, would it be fair to say that having a partner to help socialize unexpected information and facilitate productive conversations is something you welcome?
Ronnie Matthew:
Totally. And I’ll say Radius has been a critical part of this process for me. Working alongside partners like yourself and the entire Radius team—you all bring fresh thinking. We uncovered valuable insights that not only informed our strategies, but also deepened our understanding of our consumer.
In all of this, I feel collaboration is key. Let’s not forget, it’s also collaboration that makes the methodology design phase of research a co-creation process.
Erica Pondillo:
That’s a perfect term—co-creation. We recently co-created a methodology to unpack a niche but growing source of pet acquisition. We designed multiple phases of qual using both AI-led chats as well as personal interviews by a professional insight strategist to address the issue—combining a new tool with a traditional method.
I’d say this required a little bit of openness from both of us. The intent was to collect qualitative insights at scale while also capturing meaningful and deep information. And it did very well. But there was an element of the unknown in using this new technology, and we recognized and decided it was worth embracing because we would learn from the process regardless of the outcome.
We learned about the strengths and some limitations of this methodology, and we identified ways to optimize it for future use. And I think that mentality serves as a basis for growth. What I mean by this is: for both clients and suppliers alike, there can be a wall of hesitation that blocks growth in the service of assured success. And I feel that we’ve built a relationship where we feel comfortable bringing fresh ideas to the table for consultation in the spirit of elevating our work.
Ronnie Matthew:
If I may, I’ll add that a good relationship also means being able to push each other to critically question our assumptions and continue to refine as we go through the process.
I’d like to share an example of how this co-creation process allowed us to question assumptions that we made about our consumer and helped us uncover new insights. You mentioned pet acquisition. Over the past few years, we’ve been seeing changes in the pet acquisition journey, which we had been tracking for years through different surveys. And we were fairly confident that we knew what was driving the shift in consumer behavior. There was alignment across the organization on those insights.
So this should have been an ideal situation, right? Confidence in the insight. Alignment across the organization.
There was no reason to rock the boat. But this new approach that we co-created uncovered some contradictory information. As we continued to explore the question, new information emerged that added more context to what was really happening. This allowed us to revise our hypothesis and uncover aspects of the pet acquisition journey that I would say we might not have discovered through a more traditional process.
And we were able to take that risk because of the trust that our two teams—you know, we—have built over time.
Erica Pondillo:
I would also add that information sharing between clients and suppliers is another key to success over time. With a consistent team, we’ve built a foundational knowledge base of your category and your business. We strive to understand your strategic goals and ensure that the insights support the broader vision.
And this is possible because of the generous amount of time you invest in sharing information with us—as if we were an extension of your team.
Ronnie Matthew:
That’s really kind of you. You mentioned information sharing—I couldn’t agree more. I feel it is a vital ingredient in any successful client–supplier partnership.
As researchers—whether we’re on the client side or the supplier side—we all have access to the same tools, techniques, and methodologies. And we might also be talking to the same set of consumers. And I bet there’s a good chance we might also be asking the same questions we asked two years ago.
So if that’s the case, how do we generate truly meaningful insights? This is where I feel information sharing plays such an important role.
On the client side, I have the advantage of knowing more about the consumer, more about the category, more about the business than any supplier. That’s a privilege—that’s an advantage I have. I sit on a wealth of legacy insights about the consumer and the category. So when I start a new project, I always aim to build on this institutional knowledge and avoid rehashing what my business partners already know.
I’ve been in this company for 11 years. I work with business partners who have been here even longer, and they know a lot about the category. That’s why information sharing is so important. As much as I can, I try to bring my supplier up to speed on that institutional knowledge so we’re not repeating what the organization already knows.
Where this approach really shines is when we are working together—let’s say, to articulate the research question. Having that institutional knowledge in the rearview mirror really helps us focus on uncovering insights that are truly new and nuanced. That’s why investing the time upfront in sharing information with a supplier is so critical.
In my experience, the other advantage is that it makes the supplier more knowledgeable. It enables them to ask better questions. And—something extremely important to me—it allows them to challenge my assumptions.
Erica Pondillo:
Yes, and as I mentioned earlier, you are extremely generous with your time. This experience adds value to the work we do together.
For others listening in who may not have as established relationships with a supplier partner, I imagine that investing time to knowledge-share may feel somewhat less advantageous. But there are ways to go about it that don’t overburden one party or the other.
For example, as new information is socialized within a client organization, consider adding your supplier partner to the distribution list—obviously as relevant and appropriate. But this helps reduce the time required at the start of a new project because the supplier is keeping pace, versus requiring a lengthy, point-in-time knowledge audit.
Another tip is to share bite-size information on standing meetings and conversations. If you have scheduled time together, set aside a few minutes at the end of those conversations to provide a brief update on a particular topic or discuss industry-related news or developments.
Paul Donagher:
Excellent. Erica, Ronnie, thank you. And there are a number of questions that have come through. I may—as I do in these—if I see questions that are fairly similar, try to combine them a little.
But a few people are asking a question, which I think comes from a segmentation standpoint: If everyone accepts that there are consumer contradictions, should we still try to build segments and profiles and understand our audience when there are so many contradictions?
And how should we look at segments now? You guys are not necessarily talking about segmentation here, and I don’t think there’s anything you’ve said that would dissuade me from doing a segmentation study. But it’s an interesting topic. When there are so many contradictions and you’re thinking about different segments you might want to reach out to, does that have any implications for how we think about our audiences and our communications to them?
Ronnie or Erica—feel free, either of you, to jump in on that one.
Erica Pondillo:
Yes, I could start. Ronnie, it makes me think of the case study that you went over—uncovering two different audiences that you didn’t actually think about in two different ways. You thought it was more of a homogeneous audience, and we found that there were actually two distinctive audiences in the research that we conducted.
Potentially, had we done a segmentation-type study, that might have come through in that type of research. I think segmentation still plays a very important role. Uncovering the nuances within a larger audience is still going to be an important initiative. I don’t think this replaces that in any way.
Ronnie Matthew:
Yes, yes. I’ll just build on that, Erica. That’s a great question. I don’t think they’re contradictory at all. You need segmentation because you need a target, right? You can’t target everyone—so segmentation allows us to focus.
What this approach allows us to do is really understand the nuances—those contradictory facts—within a segment. For example, I brought this up earlier when I was talking about contradictions in my own life. Let’s say Burger King looks at my attitudes and says, “I’m not going to target Ronnie because he’s a health nut.” But the fact is—I also eat KFC.
Or KFC might say, “He’s a clean eater, he’s not in our audience.” But I am. So understanding contradictions really helps us understand when to target. It’s not if to target, it’s when and how to target.
Paul Donagher:
Absolutely. And I do actually have a terrific question to finish up with here that Felicia just put up—Felicia, I’m not going to ask that one just yet. A couple more questions first.
Here’s one: Curious about the number of single-methodology versus mixed-methodological studies you’re seeing. When you talk about outcomes from different methods, would you say that you’re seeing more mixed-methods types of situations and methodological opportunities versus single-methods than before? And how might you see that playing out in the future?
Ronnie Matthew:
Yes, that’s a good question. I feel the mix has changed for sure—especially in my organization. After we embraced agile tools, and more recently with AI being used in research, we’ve been running pilots and experiments.
And I feel we’re conducting more mixed-methods studies now than we were before. That said, it hasn’t replaced the single-method approach. I think single-method studies still have an important place in research, and I’m not advocating we move away from them entirely.
But it’s much easier now than ever before to incorporate mixed methods into our research. It’s gotten more cost-effective and faster. As for the future? If I had a crystal ball—I’d say AI is a game changer. The amount of data we’re able to process through AI tools—whether behavioral, attitudinal, or trends data—these are exciting times to be in insights. And I see more mixed methods being used because of these technological changes.
Erica Pondillo:
Yes, I mean, I echo that completely. With the proliferation of AI-powered methods, I think the need for a human-led counterpart is going to be really important for confidence in the findings and the depth of learning. So mixed methods will be very common in the near future.
Paul Donagher:
Another question, kind of related to the first: What about inconsistencies in respondent feedback? Any tips on how to handle that with stakeholders who may expect research to offer clear consensus or definitive direction?
Erica Pondillo:
Yes, I can take that. I think it helps to consider how your audience makes decisions. Will more data points give them confidence, or would a broader contextual narrative work better? Probably a bit of both.
I go back to something we said earlier—consumer inconsistencies are all truths. It’s our job to make sense of how they coexist. And yes, sometimes that means more research to get clarity.
Ronnie Matthew:
The only thing I’d add is: that’s such an important question to think about. Because this takes us beyond just doing research—it’s about how we present the research in a meaningful, actionable way.
There’s no one-size-fits-all solution. I really try to understand my stakeholders. One thing I do is build a small group of core stakeholders—maybe one or two people—who can react to the early findings before we do a broader share-out. They may ask questions I didn’t think about, and we may already have the answers in our data. That helps us prepare and shape the story better.
Also, in fast-moving categories, I’ve seen business questions evolve even during fieldwork. So being open to bringing in new questions early helps us manage the unknowns.
Paul Donagher:
One other question, folks. You talked about collaboration—and we all agree it’s key. Any best practices you’d recommend to achieve ideal collaboration between supplier and client?
Erica Pondillo:
Yes. Personally, I take the approach that we are in this together. Your success is our success. And having worked on the client side myself, I know the importance of engaging end users early—talking about what success looks like to them from the beginning.
Be flexible. Adjust as needed. Share learnings throughout the project instead of waiting until the end. That iterative process really helps deliver something that stakeholders feel invested in.
Paul Donagher:
Ronnie, do you have anything to add?
Ronnie Matthew:
No, I think you’ve covered it all. Those are exactly the types of things I try to keep in mind as well.
Paul Donagher:
I do have one last question—and this is the one from Felicia, not related to anything we’ve discussed. Erica, what are your dogs’ names?
Erica Pondillo:
<laughs> We’ve got Leroy on the bottom right, and Steven on the top left. They were adopted from Petfinder, and I highly recommend Petfinder if you’re looking for your next pet.
Paul Donagher:
Got it. Well listen—Ronnie, Erica, thank you so much for presenting this webinar today. Very enjoyable.
Folks, thanks for your questions and your participation today. Our next webinar will be in June—we’ll be talking about the American Innovation Index. Until then, thanks everybody, and enjoy the rest of your day.
Ronnie Matthew:
Bye.
Erica Pondillo:
Thank you. Bye-bye.
Want to learn more about building a research partnership for deeper insights?
