BLOG Archives - L&E Research

Smarter Strategies, Better Experiences: What We’ve Learned

DWG Admin on May 8, 2025

Welcome back to the final blog of our Challenging the Status Qual series, where we delve into L&E’s journey to enhance participant experiences in research. In the previous blog, we dug deep into how participation in research can become a meaningful activity rather than just another task. Now let’s look back at the insights from our study, explore how L&E is acting on this feedback, and share practical tips to elevate participant experiences across the industry.

Respect, Rewards, and Results: Engaging Research Participants

Understanding the motivations and barriers of qualitative research participants is key to designing an experience that will not only deliver valuable insights, but also foster engagement and fulfilment.

People enjoy being part of a something larger. It is clear from our study that the opportunity to share opinions is rewarding, especially when participants see how their input is used. This remains true even when the primary incentive is monetary compensation – many take pride in their contribution, find the process interesting, and value making an impact. One participant shared, “I enjoy being part of the process… Hopefully, some of the things that we talk about do provide some value”.

However, a common frustration is having to fill out long, rigorous screeners that ultimately disqualify them. This makes them feel rejected or used for ‘data mining’. Respecting their time by informing them promptly when they don’t quality, ensuring transparency on the process, and sending clear, targeted invitations are key. One participant states that L&E’s approach was preferable because “efficiency is a big thing with you guys, making it user-friendly to go from the email process to getting booked.”

It is no surprise compensation emerged as a top solution to improve experience. Participants are interested in gamified reward points they can accumulate for gift cards, as well as opportunities for shorter, paid surveys with no qualification screener – even when compensation is lower. These are adjustments that would make research participation more attractive and gratifying.

Best Practices for Suppliers and Researchers

Having heard participant feedback, we identified the best practices for researchers and sample recruitment suppliers looking to get better engagement and reduce participant frustration. Sample recruitment suppliers can consider these best practices to ensure participants feel their time is valued and improve their experience:

Leverage dynamic technology and smart technology and smart techniques to target participants, as well as using demographic datapoint tracking to improve acceptance rates and reduce disqualification.
Streamline all opportunities into a central member portal.
Clearly communicate expectations.
Offer rewards for screener attempts, even when they get rejected to ease frustrations around screens – a major point for many.
Referral incentives can also help your member base.

For researchers, keeping in mind these strategies can significantly enhance participant experiences and reduce frustration:

Be mindful when designing screeners: respect participants’ time by keeping it short, and only ask what is necessary.
Notify Participants promptly if they are disqualified and consider collecting profile information through a check-in activity or during the session, rather than at the screener to best prioritise their time.
Participants take pride in their contribution, so sharing research results, when possible, helps keep them invested in being part of the research.
Keeping discussions lively during activities is essential to maintain their interest.
Avoid further taking up your participants’ time by changing details that will affect and confuse things.

From Feedback to Action: Driving Participant Satisfaction at L&E

At L&E, we’re actively addressing this feedback to optimise our member engagement. Our team has been busy improving the user experience on our member portal: making finding and doing screeners more accessible, improving the survey experience, and simplifying the login process. We are also in the process of developing our mobile app, intended to enhance communication, especially with younger people, through notifications rather than email.

Gamification is now embedded in our process, allowing members to earn points and badges, translating to monetary rewards. Beta testing shows a 5% increase in engagement rate in just a short few months, demonstrating the power of a more interactive and fun experience.

We’ve strengthened our communications, ensuring that screener expectations, such as time length, uploads, are clear from the get-go. Enhanced technology will also further support these improvements, enabling us to better target participants based on their profile datapoints to reduce outreach fatigue.

With the insights gained from this series, we’re excited to see our participant engagement continue to grow as we work on enhancing their experiences. Our roles as researchers and sample recruitment suppliers extend beyond conducing quality research; it includes ensuring a positive, fulfilling process for participants. Addressing their key concerns will strengthen relationships and emphasize the invaluable role they play in our work, because, at the end of the day, at the heart of qualitative research are the people who contribute to it.

How L&E Is Solving Market Research’s Biggest Data Challenge

DWG Admin on May 8, 2025

A Message From the CEO

Dear Partner,

A lot of talk about data quality has risen to a roar of late, and some of you have asked me to comment on it, as well as share what L&E Research is doing to ensure you get quality data, today and tomorrow, in order to make the best decisions. I myself have been pondering, as a 30+ year veteran of the industry, whether the market research industry has reached a crossroads. Please read on with your cup of coffee (or your favorite beverage of choice…no judgment here) on what’s going on, and what L&E is doing to raise the bar of data quality.

A Quick Synopsis on Data Quality

Let’s review what has recently transpired as it relates to panel quality.

An independent counsel (Case4Quality) was created a few years ago to study the issue of fraud in sample. The conclusion was sample is ridden with fraud. Bots (technology created personas that are given credentials to emulate humans) and “fraudsters” (people who are not who they say they are) riddle the sample landscape.
Last year Dynata, a 2018 merger of SSI and Research Now (creating the largest panel company in terms of both revenue and panel size) declared Chapter 11 and reorganized through the courts, eliminating over $500 MM in debt (I assume I do not have to expound on why the largest panel company in the space declaring bankruptcy is problematic/relational to data quality).
In the qualitative space, this person (Kimberly Joyful of Paid For Your Say) promises to teach consumers how to plug into the larger #mrx ecosystem to get into more studies that pay. While their website promotes an altruistic outcome, the reality is the leader of this group is a former researcher teaching her now 11k+ audience how to cheat in order to gain access to paid research studies.
And finally (but lastly??), last week a company in the #mrx space, Opinions 4 Good (also rebranded as Slice), was federally indicted on charges of fraud, making fake data sold as legitimate consumer opinions via the use of “ants” (people creating fake accounts to complete the surveys, with the leadership not only allowing it, but actively enabling and in fact creating it themselves).

While the latest federal fraud case is alarming, in that company leadership knowingly falsified data (if the formal accusation is true), as I have outlined above, the bells have been ringing for quite some time that the #mrx ecosystem has a quality control problem. Everyone says their sample is “high quality.” But how do you know? I wanted to take a moment to demonstrate how some companies collect data, how L&E collects data today, and the engineering we’re undertaking for an even better solution tomorrow.

The Sample Ecosystem

Tia Maurer, Group Scientist at Procter and Gamble and member of the Case4Quality team advocating changes for a better data ecosystem, recently presented at an Insights Association (IA) event on fraud in research, and where sample is obtained by suppliers. I have copied a page from her presentation showing the five typical sample sources

*sample sources provided by The Market Research Society

I regularly use a cooking analogy when I speak with clients about sample and where they obtain it: “Do you care how the sausage is made?” Those clients that care about data quality always say “yes”: knowing how the sausage is made means understanding the origins of your sample, thus in turn knowing where your data is coming from. As everyone knows, the ingredients make the dish. Loyalty/rewards, affiliates/publishers and river/intercept are all tapping into outside communities in hopes they can be converted into a completed survey (these sources are also terrible for qual, as we proved in our research). However, there’s no way of identifying who that person is: the hope is they are who they say they are, and provide authentic feedback. And these sources have very poor response rates (read on for more on that). Databases/targeted lists typically have marginal accuracy (i.e. They usually have 60-80% accuracy of contact information). And like the other sample sources, response rates are low (especially now in the mobile phone era). This is why L&E builds organic panel

How L&E Does It

When speaking with clients, I always start by outlining the fundamentals of the research ecosystem and why we complete our research via our independently owned and operated research panel. Years ago, collecting data was typically conducted via phone call. You may remember the days when we all had a home phone/phone number (some still do, but analysis shows that number is now 27-29%). Now most people use mobile phones, and call screening has intensified, with mobile devices using apps to help identify (and block) callers. As a result of better screening technology (and some would argue over-saturation of surveys/poor surveys), response rates have plummeted. I outline this below to demonstrate the following math equation, which is actual study incidence:

-Accurate number (A; generally, list services would sell 80% accuracy) x someone answering the phone (B; I’ll be generous and estimate 80%) x cooperative HH (C; Pew Research reported 7% response rate in 2017, and getting worse) x qualified for the research and completes the questions (D; let’s say 20%, again a generous figure in many research study cases) x agrees to engage in phase 2 qual (E; let’s say 90%) x is available at the time of phase 2 (F; let’s be generous and say 95%) and then actually completes the research (G; our show rates are 93%, which is high for the industry) = study participation rate.

So, to calculate this: 80% x 80% x 7% x 20% x 90% x 95% x 93% = less than 1 in a hundred (.7% specifically) complete the study.

Less than 1% success is cost prohibitive for most clients; thus, we build organic panel by finding people interested in sharing their information and welcoming our engagements in exchange for participation in research studies. Turning data accuracy (A), response (B) and cooperation (C) into nearly 100% makes our overall completion rate considerably higher. 1.6 million people later and growing…that’s how we solve the sample problem.

The downside of a panel is it attracts bad actors. The industry calls them cheaters and repeaters (people that lie to attempt to get into studies, like the training classes taught by Paid For Your Say). L&E does a lot to weed out these bad actors:

We check ID’s. Over 90% of our panel has been ID validated. Online or in-person, we require a driver’s license or passport to participate.
We constantly scrub our panel. Duplicate phone numbers, addresses, email addresses…we’re always ferreting out people that are attempting to game the system, utilizing both technology and full-time staff to “clean” our panel.
Geofencing: as a company exclusively providing US panel, we firewall out all traffic not within the US (people outside of the US, their device has an IP address that shows their geo-location, unless they use a VPN. As a result, we also block most VPNs, and validate the few VPN accessed accounts that we allow).
We use a series of steps that require human engagement, resulting in humans verifying the human on the other end (example would be a tech check for online).

As you can see, we do quite a bit to deliver quality sample for our clients’ research. Despite this, we still have fraud issues. When we discovered Paid For Your Say, we found people in our panel in her audience. As a result, we planted a spy in her network to identify as many of her audience as possible (they’re still there in fact, as P4YS hasn’t found us yet!) in our panel, allowing us to quarantine them. We have thousands of accounts we’ve labeled in our systems as fraudulent or “do not call” from a variety of quality control steps like this. There are other examples I could provide on how fraud occurs, and how we combat it. But just like in the financial sector, when the financial opportunity exists, people will try to figure out how to cheat the system (fraud). And continuing to operate in this ecosystem, we’ll always be reacting to those efforts.

What is L&E Adding To Improve Data Quality Even More

I am heartened by the efforts that some in the industry are making, like Case 4 Quality. However, the problems in the sample industry are multi-fold:

Any ecosystem that promises rewards if you provide the right answers will always encourage dishonesty by people in hopes to earn said rewards.
Our industry has tossed itself overboard with companies promising they can provide all three elements of the “business triangle”: quality, speed and price. Poor sample is cheap, it is fast…and until recently, quality is not really validated, but always assured by the supplier as good (unlike a bad meal that would make you sick, there was no way to validate bad sample until after the fact).
Brands often seek low incidence audiences. Panels can track demographics, but behavior and attitude are always changing. To date, the way clients looked to solve this was with innumerous questions to ensure accuracy of the participant. However, this results in a poor experience for the consumer, answering lengthy questionnaires/screeners that rarely meet the brands’ specifications and thus don’t get to do the rewarding part: participation in the qualitative research that pays.

In short, we’ve created an ecosystem that encourages fraudsters (people that will do anything in hopes they get the reward) and discourages the majority of people that just would like to share their opinions (people that answer honestly, but as a result of low incidence research, rarely qualify, thus suffering through a miserable experience).

I am excited to share that L&E has launched, or is launching this month, several initiatives to create a better marketplace where consumers and brands can be connected, for better research outcomes, creating a better experience for both researcher and participant.

»The launch of our mobile app, with RealEyes Verify™ technology that will link facial recognition with a user’s research account.

»Behavioral data collection via the app, including geofence, website surfing and purchase behavior tracking.

» Making all panelist engagements have rewards. We have been testing this in select markets, and the results were overwhelmingly positive. We will be converting our entire panel ecosystem this year to a reward-based experience.

» Launched our self-serve platform, CondUX, enabling researchers to manage the entire research process, with qualitative and quantitative tools to execute.

Through the usage of our app, we will enable a more rewarding experience for the consumer while providing an easily verified (do you share your phone with anyone???) identity solution that also collects behavioral information passively, reducing question fatigue for the participant. When the consumer wins with a better experience, brands will win with better data.

Will your costs go up? Yes, a little. As stated previously, delivering speed, quality and price is not achievable in any industry. But when one considers the negative impacts of bad data on brand decision making, we’re confident paying a little more for high quality sample that can be delivered rapidly, will be game changing for brands. And for the first time, we will be opening up our panel to quantitative research at scale, at competitive costs with traditional quantitative panel solutions.

Close

I hope this letter has proven helpful to you as it relates to the industry, and the initiatives we are taking to create better research outcomes. Brands have begun engaging us, and the industry at large, bringing forth ideas and innovations to make the ecosystem better from the elements they can control (e.g. shorter surveys/screeners). It’s time for the industry to innovate as well. This is our way of delivering better sample, as well as bringing new data solutions to the forefront, to deliver better research results. I’ll be speaking more about this in the coming months…I believe a revolution in market research is underway.

All the best,

Brett

Navigating New Realities: Insights from Quirks Chicago 2025

DWG Admin on April 25, 2025

The recent Quirks Chicago conference offered a compelling look into the current trends and challenges of market research. L&E Research was on the ground, capturing the pulse of change directly from industry leaders and innovative thinkers. Here are the key insights and reflections from this impactful event.

Synthesizing the Real and Synthetic

One of the standout themes at this year’s conference was the continuing exploration of synthetic versus real participant data. While artificial intelligence (AI) has carved a significant space in market research, industry leaders remain clear on one point: AI can help – but it shouldn’t drive.

Synthetic data serves well for early explorations, spotting macro trends, screening concepts at scale, rapid testing, and filling gaps in large datasets. It’s perfect for quick-turn insights when “good enough” is genuinely good enough. However, when emotional nuance, behavioral accuracy, cultural context, and creativity are critical, human input remains irreplaceable. As emphasized throughout conference sessions, the future is hybrid, leveraging the strengths of both synthetic and real data to deliver actionable insights.

Insights at the Speed of Change

The ability to obtain rapid insights is no longer just beneficial; it’s essential. Kraft Heinz emphasized that swift insights can become a competitive advantage, enabling quicker decision-making, faster project timelines, and ultimately more successful product launches. Delays in insights can mean missing market opportunities entirely.

But speed doesn’t mean compromising quality. Effective market research today requires agile methods like real-time intercepts and job-to-be-done frameworks, complemented by the strategic use of AI. The goal is a streamlined pathway from question to insight to action, achieved through collaborative efforts between research partners and brands.

Emotion Drives Consumer Choices

Consumer behavior is increasingly recognized as emotionally driven. This was underscored in sessions led by Kraft Heinz, Mars, and Colgate-Palmolive. The core message? Successful brands aren’t just selling products – they’re nurturing emotional connections. Real consumer insights help companies understand the emotional underpinnings of consumer decisions, shaping strategies that resonate deeply and consistently.

For example, Kraft highlighted that while data informs the narrative (e.g., “33% cost savings”), it’s qualitative research that reveals the genuine emotional motivations behind consumer actions, such as a parent’s sense of achievement when providing nutritious snacks to their kids.

Strategic Breadth: A New Imperative

The concept of “strategic breadth,” introduced by Scientific Games, emerged as another key takeaway. This approach encourages companies to diversify their strategic thinking, drawing from a broad spectrum of insights and analytics. Strategic breadth isn’t merely about data collection but about integrating varied insights to build resilient and adaptable strategies that succeed in dynamic market environments.

The Power of Storytelling

Consistently echoed throughout the event was the importance of storytelling. Brands shared that insights alone rarely drive change – it’s the stories crafted from these insights that influence decisions, shape behaviors, and ultimately sell products. Researchers today must be storytellers, not merely data providers, effectively translating data into compelling narratives that resonate with stakeholders.

Collaboration and Innovation

Collaboration emerged as a critical ingredient for innovation. Brands increasingly seek research partners who can proactively offer creative solutions, support accurate and timely data collection, and ensure that panelists’ voices are authentically represented throughout the research journey. The emphasis is on partnerships that yield deeper insights and foster continual innovation.

Final Thoughts

Quirks Chicago 2025 reaffirmed that market research is at its best when it seamlessly integrates technology and human insight, speed and depth, data and emotion. As we navigate the complexities of today’s market landscape, embracing these dualities will be essential to capturing authentic insights that truly resonate.

At L&E Research, we’re committed to this balanced approach: leveraging cutting-edge technology alongside genuine human connection to deliver powerful, actionable insights. Because understanding people isn’t just our job; it’s at the heart of everything we do.

Injection Naïve: The New Unicorn?

DWG Admin on March 27, 2025

If you are a human factors engineer, medical device UX researcher or a healthcare market research firm, you have surely experienced a growing difficulty fulfilling injection naive quotas for your injection device usability studies. There has been a dramatic shift over the past decade in recruitment incidence within the injection naive vs injection experienced patient and caregiver segments.

Historically, when designing research outside of diabetes, injection experience was the low incidence cohort. However, over the past decade the pendulum has swung significantly in the other direction making inclusion of true lifetime injection naive patients and caregivers the needles in a haystack. In order to successfully execute injection device usability studies, it is important to understand the current climate as related to injection experience within the US population.

Why The Shift?

There are numerous factors leading to the injection experience incidence shift over the past ten years.

Diabetes continues to increase in diagnosis rate annually and is estimated to now affect 12% of the US population rising to 29% in the elderly. While there is an abundance of treatment modalities available, insulin is the #1 prescribed injectable in the US. 23% of diabetic patients self administer insulin.

The rise in autoimmune conditions accompanied by the emergence of self-administered biologics. 10% of the US population is affected by an autoimmune condition. Of those diagnosed, 6% are prescribed an injectable biologic.

Approximately 10 million patients in the US are diagnosed with osteoporosis. Forteo and Prolia, both injectable treatments and prophylactic approaches to treating osteoporosis are delivered via at-home injection.

Hormone replacement therapy diagnostics, education, accessibility and affordability has led to 20 million Americans being placed on an HRT protocol with 1.2 million inclusive of an injectable therapeutic.

Allergies and anaphylaxis, especially in children, have risen significantly over the past decade. The CDC now estimates 1 in 4 children have a diagnosed allergy. With that, there is an elevated population of children, and subsequently adults, trained to administer an EpiPen.

The growing popularity and now widespread access of injectable GLP-1 agonists will likely be the anchor forever sinking injection naive recruitment feasibility. Millions of Americans have now at least tried an injectable GLP-1 for diabetic management and/or weight loss. These statistics are expected to continue to climb due to the abundance of recently confirmed positive clinical outcomes and widening of regulatory approvals.

Tightened Definition of “Injection Naive”

Despite the growing adoption and prescribing of patient delivered injectable therapies, in recent years we have seen research designers, largely influenced by FDA guidelines, further narrow the definition of the “injection naive” individual. Most impactful is “injection naive” defined as lifetime injection experience with any device for any duration of time.

This is routinely confirmed to include the injection of self, the injection of others, the injection of a pet, being trained to perform an injection including simulation into an injection pad. By default, anyone who participates in an injection device usability study would then be considered “injection experienced”.

Challenges in Recruitment

Given the aforementioned rise in injectable therapies coupled with the tightening of naive definitions, recruitment of injection naive participants is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible in the setting of certain conditions.

The US general population is an injection experienced population. While this is great news for the injection experienced quota buckets, seeking patients and caregivers who are truly injection naive is rarely a feasible avenue in the US, especially in the setting of a chronic condition.

The Recommendations

The most important factor is education and intervention at the design level should a device usability project include a naive segment. As, once the device research methodology is approved, it is incredibly difficult to walk it back and request flexibility and exceptions.

Below are recommendations for ensuring your research is well represented by an injection naive cohort while presenting a segment that is recruitable to your recruiting firm. Including even one of these options in the design of your naive quota qualifiers significantly increases the incidence of recruitment.

Be Specific. Tailor your device experience to the device being tested. Autoinjectors, pre-filled syringes, injection pens, infusion and patch pumps, vial/ syringe and wearable injectors all require different techniques of administration. Experience with one does not equate to experience for all.

Consider the Time Lapse. A good rule of thumb is 10 years. It is reasonable to assume, especially with the forever changing injection device design, that if an individual has not administered an injection within the past 10 years, they can be considered naive.

Be Open to Surrogates. If true, lifetime injection naivety must be a requirement, it will be imperative to open the pool. Especially in the context of a chronic condition, whether patient or caregiver, the recruit criteria will need to allow for the inclusion of proxy participants from the general population to represent the naive cohort.

The Screener. It is important that the developed screener clearly distinguishes between injection-naive and injection-experienced individuals. One must take care to ensure the final screener is fully inclusive of all devices, injection methods and time periods as is required to qualify for the research.

We are privileged to conduct medical device usability research in the US. To maintain our progress and prevent recruitment challenges, it is essential for everyone involved in device UX to stay informed about the evolving trends in the adoption and prescription of at-home administered injectables nationwide.

This awareness should be integrated into the development of participant inclusion criteria. By doing so, we can ensure a seamless recruitment process for all parties involved: the client, the recruiting firm, and the participants.

Originally published on GreenBook.org on August 13, 2024.

Human-Centered Research: What We Learned at Intellus 2025

DWG Admin on March 27, 2025

One of the most appreciated aspects of Intellus this year was its intimate atmosphere. Unlike massive industry events, the conference fostered deeper conversations and direct collaboration between agencies, consultants, panel providers, and clients. Seeing familiar names and faces always feels like a reunion, but what stood out most was how closely sessions aligned with the realities of our daily work, tackling tangible issues with actionable insights and practical strategies that healthcare research teams can implement immediately.

At L&E Research, our healthcare team came away energized by key themes: deeper partnerships, thoughtful integration of emerging technologies, and an unwavering focus on the people at the heart of every study: patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals (HCPs).

Here are our key takeaways shaping how we continue to support our clients and the communities we serve.

From Service Provider to Strategic Partner

The days of simply being a behind-the-scenes research provider are over. Organizations are increasingly looking for true thought partners: teams that provide holistic insights, agile solutions, and a comprehensive understanding of their audience.

At L&E Health, we’re committed to being more than a recruitment partner. We proactively offer perspectives that might otherwise go unnoticed, particularly from harder-to-reach populations like patients and HCPs. Cross-functional collaboration allows us to maintain agility and elevate our role as strategic advisors. It’s about shaping smarter, more human-centered insights.

Technology and the Human Experience

AI was unsurprisingly a central focus at Intellus. The message was clear: organizations must experiment with AI now or risk falling behind. However, adopting AI effectively requires intentional support from leadership to ensure teams have time to explore and build essential skills.

Integrating AI in healthcare research presents challenges alongside opportunities. Can AI-driven chatbots genuinely build rapport? How well can they interpret subtle, nonverbal cues essential in healthcare conversations? While AI offers significant potential – like global consistency, multilingual support, cost efficiency, and geographic reach – it still lacks the critical empathy of human moderation.

A particularly urgent issue raised was adverse event (AE) reporting requirements, which demand a response within 24 hours. If AI is moderating, who’s monitoring in real time? Can we risk missing a serious patient-reported outcome because no human is present to interpret or escalate it?

Another critical tech consideration is accessibility. Mobile-first research methods are essential for reaching participants where they are, particularly busy HCPs and lower-income patient populations whose primary internet connection is their smartphone. However, incompatible technology can unintentionally exclude these critical voices. Addressing this isn’t just a technical issue; it’s fundamental to inclusivity and quality of insights.

The future of AI in healthcare research is promising but requires thoughtful, responsible implementation and human oversight to ensure quality and safety.

Transforming Insights & Analytics

McKinsey Consulting presented a powerful roadmap for healthcare insights teams seeking to increase their strategic impact:

Shift from Passive Reporting to Active Guidance: Insights should proactively inform decisions, driving immediate, practical actions rather than simply generating passive reports.

Ensure Insights & Analytics Has a Voice in Strategic Decisions: Position insights and analytics teams as trusted advisors by consistently involving them early in strategic conversations, enabling insights to shape critical business decisions from inception.

Align Insights Closely with Business Goals: Integrate insights teams directly with specific business units to ensure data-driven insights are not only relevant but quickly actionable, bridging the gap between analytics and strategy execution.

Invest in Effective Storytelling and Communication: Transform insights through powerful storytelling and compelling visualization, making complex data clear, memorable, and actionable for stakeholders.

Enable Agile Decision-Making Through Rapid Testing: Promote a flexible approach to decision-making that quickly tests and refines insights, allowing businesses to respond swiftly to market shifts and new opportunities.

Measure Insights’ Impact by Business Outcomes: Demonstrate the value of insights by directly connecting analytics initiatives with measurable outcomes such as revenue growth, customer engagement, and operational efficiencies.

Regularly Connect Leaders to Consumer Perspectives: Foster deeper, firsthand understanding by routinely exposing business leaders directly to consumer and market insights, enhancing empathy and ensuring decisions are grounded in genuine customer needs.

Consistently Deliver Trusted, Actionable Insights: Build and maintain organizational trust by regularly providing accurate, relevant, and strategically valuable insights that become essential to decision-making and long-term planning.

These strategies resonate with our mission at L&E: empowering healthcare organizations to act quickly, connect meaningfully, and lead with insights driven by authentic patient and provider experiences.

Looking Ahead

Healthcare is deeply personal. The insights we gather must reflect that truth – not just through data, but through the stories, needs, and voices of the people behind the numbers.

As we continue to evolve alongside our clients, our focus remains clear: helping brands navigate complexity with confidence, bring diverse voices into the fold, and leverage the best of both technology and human connection to improve outcomes.

We’re proud to be your partner on that journey.

Let’s keep the conversation going. If your healthcare insights team is rethinking its approach, we’d love to talk about how L&E Health can support your vision. Because when it comes to understanding people, we’re the people for you.

Reflecting on QRCA 2025: A Warm and Engaging Gathering for Qualitative Researchers

DWG Admin on March 5, 2025

The annual QRCA conference is always a standout event in the qualitative research industry, and this year’s gathering in Philadelphia was no exception. QRCA has built a reputation for fostering an inclusive and welcoming environment, making it a must-attend for qualitative consultants and researchers alike. While L&E Research’s presence at the event was centered around our exhibition booth, the experience reinforced why this conference remains such a valuable and unique space in the industry.

A Conference That Feels Like Home

One of the hallmarks of QRCA is its warm, supportive atmosphere. Unlike larger conferences that can feel overwhelming, QRCA offers an engaging and interactive experience tailored to the needs of qualitative professionals. The organizers do an incredible job of ensuring that attendees, especially newer researchers, feel included and empowered. From structured mentoring opportunities to casual networking conversations, the event fosters an environment where insights and experiences flow freely between industry veterans and emerging professionals.

This intentional focus on connection and knowledge-sharing is essential to the longevity and success of the research field. By providing a space for experienced researchers to mentor and guide the next generation, QRCA is helping to build a stronger research community—one that values both expertise and fresh perspectives.

The L&E Experience: Conversations and Creativity

At the L&E Research booth, we had the privilege of meeting a diverse group of researchers who stopped by to chat about their needs, challenges, and successes. Our conversations spanned a wide range of topics, from participant recruitment strategies to the latest trends in qualitative methodologies. The opportunity to engage with researchers face-to-face is always invaluable, as it allows us to better understand the evolving needs of our clients and the industry as a whole.

One of the highlights of our booth experience was our interactive game, where we invited attendees to share their most challenging recruiting audience. This competition brought out some incredibly creative and fun submissions, sparking engaging discussions and laughter among participants. It was exciting to see the enthusiasm researchers brought to this activity, making it a standout moment of the event.

Important Conversations on Data Quality

Another key moment of the event was a small group discussion led by Shannon Danzy from the Insights Association and L&E Research’s own Kelli Hammock. The session focused on data quality, particularly the GDQ data fraud initiative and its implications for researchers. In today’s research landscape, ensuring high-quality, reliable data is more important than ever, and it was encouraging to see researchers come together to discuss best practices and strategies for maintaining the integrity of qualitative research. These conversations are crucial in shaping the future of our industry and ensuring that qualitative insights remain authentic and trustworthy.

Looking Ahead

As we reflect on our time at QRCA, one thing is clear: this event continues to be an essential gathering for qualitative researchers. The sense of community, the emphasis on mentorship, and the meaningful conversations all contribute to an experience that goes beyond the typical conference.

L&E Research is proud to support and be part of this thriving research community, and we look forward to continuing these discussions throughout the year. Whether through conferences, webinars, or everyday conversations, we remain committed to helping qualitative researchers succeed. Until next year, QRCA—we can’t wait to see what’s in store!

Participant Engagement: What Makes an Experience Meaningful?

DWG Admin on March 5, 2025

Fresh off the press, it’s another of our Challenging the Status Qual blogs! In the previous edition we dove into understanding participant motivations and the frustrations that appear in the screening process. Now, let’s shift our focus to what makes research participation not just a necessary task but a deeply fulfilling experience, and most importantly, how can we keep it that way.

Research participants consistently report that the process of contributing to studies is engaging. This engagement stems from a combination of the ‘big three’: intellectual stimulation, social engagement, and the tangible financial rewards that come at the end.

Intellectual Stimulation: Appealing to the Mind for the Best Results

Engaging with new products, ideas, and concepts is valuable for participants. Research becomes an intellectual pursuit that keeps them motivated and interested in the process. People consistently enjoy delving into topics that are thought-provoking and relevant to their lives and having engaging discussions. This not only satisfies their curiosity but also gives them a sense of peeking behind the curtain, to explore products like never before. Discussion and idea-sharing further enhance their desire to contribute meaningfully and feel intellectually stimulated by the work and each other.

One participant stated that: ‘It’s always fun to hear what people are thinking. There are a lot of smart people here.’

Social Engagement: Creating Spaces for Community

Participants often value research as an opportunity to learn about new products and ideas while sharing their opinions in a structured and non-judgmental space. They find it rewarding to be in sessions where they not only express their views but also hear from others, taking part in a fun community activity.

One participant fondly recalled a group session where varied opinions were expressed respectfully: “Everybody wasn’t agreeing, but nobody was arguing. You can really kind of feel free to be honest, without offending anyone.” This open exchange brings about a comradery amongst participants, making them feel that their contributions are meaningful not just to a company but the group as a whole.

In-person research offers participants a dedicated space to focus, free from the distractions of daily life. From friendly staff to lobby refreshments, participants appreciate the comfortable environment and enjoy being able to test samples and prototypes in person with like-minded people. The absence of common household distractions—whether it’s family members, pets, or the doorbell— allows participants a break from the everyday to focus on the research.

Compensation: A Tangible and Appreciated Benefit

While it would be fantastic for participants to be powered alone by the love of research, we must not overlook the practical benefit of compensation. Participants are often straightforward when addressing its importance: “Who doesn’t love to get paid for talking?” For many, the financial incentive is a bonus that makes the experience even more rewarding. It’s never really just been about the money, though—it’s about the feeling of being fairly compensated for time and input.

The opinions of our participants are, when it boils down to it, what our clients need for best results. When we ensure that our participants feel valued through proper compensation, we, in turn, secure the best results for our clients.

Curating Meaningful Experiences

Ultimately, combining the ‘big three’ boosts engagement and makes participating in research worthwhile for everyone. By modeling our approach to what participants find fulfilling, we can enhance both their experience and the quality of the research outcomes.

As always, we encourage researchers to listen closely to their participants, valuing their insights not only during the study but in shaping future processes as well.

L&E Health Takes Strides in the Fight Against Type 1 Diabetes

DWG Admin on November 25, 2024

In the heart of Denver’s City Park, team L&E Health joined forces with the community for the Breakthrough Diabetes Walk, a vital initiative aimed at raising awareness and funding for type 1 diabetes research. This annual event is more than just a walk; it’s a powerful statement about our collective commitment to transforming lives and finding breakthroughs in diabetes care. At L&E Research, our mission extends beyond the boardroom and into the heart of the communities we serve, reflecting our core value of giving back.

As part of this year’s event, our team was thrilled to engage directly with participants—patients and caregivers alike. We understand the importance of listening to those affected by type 1 diabetes and providing them with opportunities to voice their experiences. Through initiatives like the Breakthrough Walk, we not only raise awareness but also expand our panel of dedicated participants. This expansion is crucial; it allows us to deliver richer insights and better quality data to our clients, ensuring that the voices of patients and caregivers are heard loud and clear in the medical research community.

Team L&E’s involvement goes beyond mere participation. Each step taken and each story shared at the walk underscores our commitment to improving patient outcomes and enhancing the quality of life for those living with type 1 diabetes. The event has been a resounding success, raising over $430,000 thus far, which will directly support diabetes research and initiatives aimed at making significant advancements in treatment and care.

For L&E Research, the benefits of participating in the Breakthrough Diabetes Walk are manifold. Not only do we expand our database with high-quality, verified patient recruits, but we also reinforce our position as a leader in healthcare research dedicated to making a real difference. Our team members, energized by the opportunity to give back and contribute their time to a great cause, return invigorated, and ready to apply new insights and experiences to their work.

The Breakthrough Walk is a testament to what we can achieve together for the diabetes community. It reflects our unwavering support for groundbreaking research and our dedication to the individuals and families affected by type 1 diabetes. At L&E Research, we remain committed to our foundational value of community contribution, striving each day to not only meet but exceed the expectations of the communities we serve and the clients we support.

As we look to future events and the continuous expansion of our research capabilities, we are grateful for the ongoing support of our participants, clients, and team members who make initiatives like the Breakthrough Walk possible. Together, we are not just walking; we are paving the path toward a brighter, healthier future for all.

The Human Touch in High-Tech Research: A 2024 Outlook on Industry Trends

DWG Admin on November 6, 2024

Our 7th annual Future Trends in Research and Technology webinar brought together leaders in the market research industry to discuss how innovations are reshaping the field. Featuring Barry Jennings from Microsoft, Charlie Rader from Procter & Gamble (P&G), Lenny Murphy from Greenbook, and Brett Watkins and Kelli Hammock from L&E Research, the panel delved into advancements in AI, synthetic data, insourcing, and participant experience. This discussion provided a nuanced look at the balance between embracing technology and maintaining a human-centered approach in research.

AI: Separating Hype from Reality

Artificial intelligence was at the forefront of the conversation, with panelists discussing the distinction between buzz and practical applications. Barry Jennings from Microsoft opened with an insightful take: “I’m not too worried about Terminator or The Matrix just yet.” He shared how Microsoft’s AI efforts focus on tangible improvements, from automating mundane tasks to enhancing the value of qualitative research assets. “What do we do with all those transcripts, videos, etc., and make them more useful research assets?” Jennings asked, emphasizing that AI’s role at Microsoft is less about futuristic scenarios and more about creating efficiencies that allow researchers to focus on deeper insights.

Charlie Rader from P&G added to the conversation by describing AI as a “new operating system” for research. Rader highlighted how P&G leverages AI through external vendors who provide tailored solutions specific to their research needs. “I’m looking for vendors and solutions that have done some of the lifting in that space so that it’s easily moving on into talking with people, getting the conversations done, and then synthesizing to what’s next,” he explained. This focus on customized AI tools underscores P&G’s commitment to actionable insights rather than one-size-fits-all solutions.

Synthetic Data: Enhancing Flexibility and Privacy

When the discussion shifted to synthetic data, Lenny Murphy of Greenbook offered a balanced view of its transformative potential. Synthetic data allows researchers to explore scenarios without compromising privacy, but Murphy noted the limitations: “It’s useful…but it is—I mean, it’s probably the oldest story in market research. You know, Henry Ford said if you would’ve asked people what they wanted, they would’ve said faster horses.” Murphy’s perspective highlights synthetic data’s strengths in testing and simulation while cautioning that it may fall short in truly novel or disruptive research.

Barry Jennings echoed Murphy’s sentiments, observing that synthetic data works best when built on specific, high-quality datasets. “If I were to inform and create synthetic data with a company’s data…that’s going to be way better than a generalized model,” he stated, noting that synthetic data’s effectiveness improves significantly when customized to a particular client’s data environment. Jennings highlighted that while synthetic data has its place, real-world validation remains essential for groundbreaking research decisions.

Insourcing: A Strategy for Enhanced Control

The trend toward insourcing, or developing in-house research capabilities, was a prominent theme. Brett Watkins of L&E Research described how insourcing allows organizations to retain control over their data while reducing reliance on third-party vendors. This approach allows brands to ensure data consistency and alignment with their broader organizational strategies.

In contrast, Barry Jennings offered Microsoft’s hybrid approach, which combines internal research with strategic partnerships. “We believe in having a set of research partners who go deep,” he shared, explaining that working closely with select vendors allows Microsoft to manage its high demand for research without compromising quality. By reserving internal resources for customer-centric projects and relying on trusted partners for other initiatives, Microsoft is able to maintain a flexible yet reliable research structure.

Participant Experience and Sample Quality

Participant experience and sample quality were also top priorities for the panelists. Kelli Hammock from L&E Research emphasized the importance of creating a seamless experience for participants, remarking, “They don’t mind the screening process so much, but they do mind that they’re not being compensated for it.” Hammock explained how incentivizing even the initial stages of research can improve participant engagement. “We’ve seen our engagement rate go from, I believe, 10% up to almost 30%,” she shared, referencing a recent pilot program. By acknowledging participants’ time and effort, the industry can foster trust and increase engagement.

Charlie Rader highlighted the value of treating participants respectfully, noting, “We got to recognize that these are busy moms and dads…and they are taking valuable time out of their lives to be able to share their thoughts with us.” This human-centered approach aligns with P&G’s commitment to treating respondents as valued contributors rather than mere data points.

Strategic Implications and Future Outlook

Throughout the webinar, the panelists emphasized the need for a thoughtful approach to adopting new technologies. Lenny Murphy shared a pragmatic view on the current landscape of AI adoption. “Adoption is still in the infancy, the beginning of the adoption curve,” he explained, pointing out that while AI use is growing, it hasn’t reached mainstream levels across all companies. Murphy predicted that as AI tools evolve, market research would face shifts similar to those seen in quantitative research when automation initially emerged, with AI potentially transforming qualitative research as well.

Barry Jennings highlighted AI’s potential to streamline decision-making processes within Microsoft. He shared an example of an AI tool that could quickly answer questions that would otherwise take weeks of traditional research, noting, “It allowed that analyst to go do something that would fit into a bigger bucket.” Such applications demonstrate how AI can empower researchers to focus on high-value tasks, optimizing both time and resources.

Refining the Signal

The panelists agreed that while technology offers transformative potential, human insight remains central to meaningful research. Charlie Rader highlighted the importance of focusing on data quality and precision, noting, “We are trying to reduce the noise in our data sets to improve the signal…whether that is better screening [or] use of synthetic data.” Lenny Murphy reinforced this view, discussing the need for a thoughtful approach to engaging participants and the broader public: “We do have to do a better job of engaging with folks. We have to do a better job of creating a value exchange, a fair value exchange for their time.”

The 7th annual Future Trends in Research and Technology webinar concluded with a unified message: technology and human insight should work together to advance the field of market research. As Jennings remarked, the current pace of innovation is unparalleled, but “it’s a journey to figure out” how best to integrate these tools. The panel’s insights offer a roadmap for navigating this rapidly changing landscape, where AI, synthetic data, and participant-centric strategies can empower researchers to generate more meaningful and impactful insights.

Optimizing Participant Engagement: Tackling Frustrations in the Screening Process

DWG Admin on November 1, 2024

Welcome back to our Challenging the Status Qual series! In the previous blog of this series we looked at the real motivators for participants, now let’s focus on the delicate step of the screening process.

No one disputes its importance; however, it must be acknowledged that this process can often be a frustrating aspect of qualifying participants for studies.

While essential for ensuring that all the right demographic boxes are ticked and all relevant perspectives are represented, the often-arduous process can leave participants feeling like they got the short end of the stick. We’ve been exploring how we can improve the screening process to better suit them, aiming to increase participation, enhance satisfaction, and ultimately deliver higher-quality data for your research.

The Upside: What Participants Value

Screening has its ups and downs, so we checked in with our participants to understand what keeps them motivated to take part. One of the most appreciated aspects we found is early disqualification in screeners. Participants value their time; they prefer to know as soon as possible if they do not qualify for a study. This helps them avoid wasting energy on unnecessary questions that won’t be used.

Transparency in the initial description of a study is another key factor. When participants are clearly informed about the qualifying criteria—such as needing to be a cat owner or play multiple wind instruments—they can quickly determine whether these apply to them. This simple step prevents the frustration of going through lengthy screeners only to be disqualified for a reason that could have been clear from the start.

The integration of member portals, where participants can easily track their screener status, check relevant appointment dates, and manage tasks or documents, is another positive development. These portals not only lend the research an official air but also provide a central, secure location for participants to manage their involvement.

Clear communication throughout the screening process is crucial. Participants value direct and consistent updates via email, text, or phone, ensuring they are never left in the dark about where they stand in the qualification process.

One participant said: “You don’t know where you stand in their process of qualification. So, L&E makes it very user-friendly to go from the email process to getting booked.”

The Downside: Lack of Clarity

Despite the positives, participants frequently report significant pain points when trying to qualify. Low success rates and repeated rejections are major turn-offs. Many participants express frustration with lengthy, multi-page screeners that give them the impression they are on the right track, only to be disqualified at the very end. This experience can feel like a waste of time and effort. The repetitive nature of these lengthy screeners doesn’t help; participants often feel as though they are being asked the same question in slightly different ways, over and over again. This tediousness can make them feel like their responses aren’t being appreciated or considered, further diminishing their engagement and satisfaction.

Unexpected requirements within screeners, such as needing to upload a photo or record a video, can also catch participants off guard. If they are not able to fulfill these requests immediately, it can disrupt the process, forcing them to pause and return later, which adds to their frustration. Participants suggest that being informed of these requirements upfront would help them prepare accordingly and avoid unnecessary interruptions.

“I’m just not prepared to be on camera, and I didn’t know that was happening. So that can be frustrating because I feel like I have to stop and kind of beautify myself”, said another participant.

Finally, the practice of disqualifying participants based on recent participation in other studies is a sore point for many. Participants often do not understand why past participation should affect their eligibility, especially if the studies are unrelated. This lack of clarity can lead to confusion and a sense of unfair exclusion.

The Fix: Transparency and Better Communication

So, what can we do to improve this? There are several key steps we can take. First, we can increase questionnaire transparency at every stage—from study invitations to overall screener design—to set clear expectations and avoid unnecessary disqualifications. Prioritizing early disqualification and keeping screener questions relevant and concise will also respect participants’ time.

Additionally, better communication about time commitments and any special requirements before participants even begin can help them decide whether to proceed, preventing them from feeling overwhelmed. Reevaluating the criteria for disqualification, particularly regarding past participation, can help retain engaged participants who might otherwise feel unjustly excluded.

Minimizing participant frustrations with satisfaction is essential for optimizing the research screening process. By increasing transparency, improving communication, and refining the criteria for disqualification, we can create a more participant-friendly experience. These improvements not only respect participants’ time and effort but also enhance the quality of the data collected, ultimately leading to more successful research outcomes.