As artificial intelligence makes it easier for businesses to analyse consumer behaviour and generate research reports, market research experts are warning that companies risk making costly decisions without understanding the people behind the data.
Katrina Noelle, president of KNow Research, argues that tracking clicks, purchases and social media activity can show what consumers do, but may fail to explain why they behave that way. She believes the growing preference for faster, cheaper research methods could leave businesses relying on convincing answers that do not reflect real customer experiences.
In an interview published by Research World on October 20, Noelle said the distinction between collecting behavioural data and understanding consumers was becoming increasingly important as AI gained influence in marketing. The Brandspur Brand News report highlights the business risks associated with replacing direct consumer engagement with automated research.
Noelle pointed to findings from Hootology’s Super Bowl research, which showed that only 16 per cent of people who remembered an advertisement attributed that recall to a celebrity, despite 61 per cent of commercials in this year’s event featuring celebrity talent.
She said the figures exposed a disconnect between the creative strategies brands invest in and the factors that actually help advertisements remain memorable.
According to Noelle, the problem extends beyond celebrity endorsements to the way companies make decisions without adequately listening to their customers.
The gap can have significant financial consequences, particularly when businesses commit substantial resources to product launches, advertising campaigns or brand repositioning without properly testing their assumptions.
The hidden cost of cheaper research
Noelle warned that savings achieved through remote or synthetic research could prove insignificant if companies subsequently had to correct failed product launches or withdraw campaigns that misrepresented customer experiences.
She identified new product introductions, brand repositioning and decisions involving health, finance and other major life choices as areas where inaccurate consumer insights could be especially costly.
Although she continues to use digital research methods, Noelle said face to face engagement could reveal hesitation, conflicting responses, facial expressions and spontaneous reactions that might be missed during virtual sessions.
She also cautioned against treating AI generated consumer personas as equivalent to actual research participants. In her view, simulated responses are limited by the information and assumptions underpinning the models that produce them.
Real participants, she argued, can introduce unexpected perspectives that researchers did not anticipate, potentially changing how a company understands its customers or approaches a business decision.
For companies considering synthetic research because of its lower cost, Noelle raised a fundamental question: how would they know if the results were wrong?
She maintained that genuine research provides a methodology that can be examined and defended, while a fluent AI generated report does not automatically demonstrate that its conclusions reflect reality.
Convenience could leave consumers out
The debate also raises questions about whether the industry’s shift towards digital methods is affecting whose experiences are represented in market research.
Noelle acknowledged that online research has made participation easier for people who cannot travel, have mobility challenges or live far from research facilities.
However, she warned that online panels could overrepresent people with reliable internet access, sufficient time and confidence using technology.
This could leave businesses with an incomplete understanding of audiences whose circumstances differ from those of typical online participants.
She argued that reaching underrepresented communities requires deliberate engagement and relationship building, rather than simply selecting the most convenient participants.
Noelle also called for greater recognition of the expertise involved in qualitative research, particularly the ability to build trust, listen closely and interpret the meaning behind people’s responses.
She said researchers needed to explain the commercial value of these skills in terms business leaders could understand, especially when defending research budgets.
Her advice was to frame the discussion around business risk rather than methodology alone, asking decision makers to consider the potential cost of getting a product, campaign or customer strategy wrong.
Noelle also advocated greater pro bono support from research firms for non profit organisations, arguing that the same expertise used to understand commercial consumers could help charities better understand the communities they serve.
She believes AI can remain part of the research process, but warned that prioritising speed and affordability over accuracy could undermine the quality of business decisions.
For companies seeking reliable customer insights, her central argument is that technological efficiency should not be mistaken for genuine understanding.
