- ResourcesProduct TutorialOnline Tools
EN
If you’re trying to grow a business right now, there’s often a gap between what you know and what you wish you knew. Customers don’t change overnight, but their expectations do shift quietly. Markets don’t always move in obvious ways, and by the time something shows up clearly in revenue or churn data, it has usually been influencing behaviour for a while.
Early on, instinct can take you surprisingly far, especially when teams are small and close to customers. As decisions become more expensive and harder to reverse, though, relying on instinct alone becomes riskier.
Market research tools don’t remove uncertainty, but they can help reduce blind spots and make it easier to spot patterns before they turn into costly mistakes.
In practice, research tools tend to help with a small set of recurring problems that most growing businesses run into. Used well, they support three ongoing questions that rarely disappear.
Trends rarely announce themselves clearly. More often, they show up as small, uneven changes that are easy to dismiss. A few customer comments start to sound slightly different. A usage pattern shifts just enough to feel noticeable but not urgent. Certain questions come up more often, without quite crossing the threshold of concern.
Because these changes don’t look like conclusions, they tend to get overlooked. They feel like loose ends rather than evidence, especially when teams are focused on delivery, growth targets, and day-to-day problem-solving. By the time everyone agrees a shift is happening, it has often been shaping behaviour for much longer than most people realise.
Most teams don’t miss signals because they aren’t looking. They miss them because, under pressure, almost everything starts to look like a signal.
Data accumulates faster than judgment. Dashboards multiply. Feedback comes in through more channels than anyone can realistically review in depth. At some point, the question stops being “what’s happening?” and becomes “what do we think actually matters?”
Research tools help less because of any single insight and more because they encourage comparison. One data point rarely means much on its own. The same pattern appearing across behaviour, sentiment, and feedback is harder to ignore, even when it’s still emerging.
Timing is rarely clean. Acting early can feel premature. Waiting can feel responsible right up until it suddenly feels slow. Research doesn’t remove that tension, but it can narrow the range of plausible mistakes and make decisions feel more grounded than reactive.
Customer feedback is easy to collect and just as easy to misuse. People are very good at describing frustration and friction. They are much less reliable when it comes to diagnosing root causes or proposing solutions. That’s not a flaw. It’s simply how people process problems.
What tends to matter most isn’t the individual story but the repetition underneath it. Not the exact wording of a comment, but how language changes over time. When customers start describing the same issue differently, it often signals a shift in expectations, even if behaviour hasn’t fully followed yet.
This is where approaches like thematic sourcing become useful. Instead of reacting to individual responses, teams look across unstructured feedback to identify recurring themes and changes in how problems are framed. Without that step back, it’s easy to either chase anecdotes or flatten everything into averages that explain very little.
Tip: Meridian’s blog has a practical walkthrough of thematic sourcing, showing how research teams organise signals, map themes, and spot opportunities before they become obvious.
Watching competitors is part of running a business, but it’s also one of the fastest ways to lose context. From the outside, every launch, pricing change, or messaging shift looks deliberate. From the inside, most of those decisions are shaped by constraints that aren’t visible.
Time pressure, internal targets, resourcing gaps, or a strategy that’s quietly underperforming all influence what gets built and what gets announced. By the time something becomes visible to the market, it’s usually already a compromise.
The challenge isn’t awareness. It’s interpretation.
A competitor move can look like a strong signal of demand when it may simply reflect internal pressure. Customers don’t experience markets as neat narratives. They notice what affects them directly and ignore most of the rest.
Looking at competitor activity alongside customer behaviour doesn’t produce tidy answers, but it does add context. Sometimes customers respond. Often they don’t. In both cases, the gap between what’s visible and what actually matters becomes clearer.
Used early, research helps teams plan with fewer assumptions. It provides a way to test ideas, narrow options, and decide where not to invest before momentum and internal politics take over. This matters most when resources are limited, and mistakes are hard to undo.
Product teams often use research to reduce surprises, identifying friction before it turns into churn. Risk doesn’t disappear, but it becomes easier to avoid building things that look promising internally and fall flat with customers.
Research can also shift how pricing and positioning decisions are made. These conversations often rely heavily on opinion and influence. Shared evidence doesn’t end disagreement, but it usually makes discussions more constructive and less personal.
Once the foundations are in place, the next question is which tools are actually useful in practice. The right choice depends less on feature lists and more on what you’re trying to learn and how much time and effort you can realistically dedicate to research.
Showing up at the top of almost every list of best survey tools, Attest is used by teams that want access to consumer insights without building a full research operation. It combines survey design, audience access, and results in one place, which can be helpful for teams that want answers quickly without managing panels or data quality themselves.
It’s especially strong for:
For growing teams, the appeal is usually practicality rather than depth. You don’t need specialised research roles to run meaningful studies, which can make it easier to bring evidence into decisions that would otherwise rely on instinct.
SurveyMonkey is widely used for internal surveys, basic customer feedback, and quick pulse checks. It’s often the default choice for teams that want to ask straightforward questions and get responses back without much setup or training.
Its main strength is accessibility. Most teams can get started immediately, and it works well when the goal is to monitor sentiment, validate assumptions, or gather input at regular intervals rather than uncover deeper market insight. It’s less suited to nuanced research, but reliable for operational questions and ongoing feedback loops.
Some research tools are better suited to moments where how questions are asked matters just as much as what is being asked. Typeform is often used in these situations because its conversational format encourages people to slow down and respond more thoughtfully.
That approach tends to lead to higher completion rates and richer answers, especially for open-ended questions. Teams use it for exploratory research, customer interviews at scale, and situations where tone influences how much people are willing to share.
It’s not designed for heavy analysis, but it works well when the goal is to understand language, sentiment, or early-stage ideas.
Best for organisations with dedicated research teams and complex research requirements, Qualtrics is designed to support large-scale, formal research programmes rather than quick, lightweight studies.
It offers advanced analytics, experience management tools, and deep integrations across systems. For teams with the time, budget, and expertise to use it fully, that depth can be valuable. For smaller teams, however, it can feel heavy, both in cost and in the effort required to use it well.
Google Forms is a straightforward option for internal research, early testing, or quick data collection, especially when speed and ease matter more than depth.
It doesn’t offer advanced targeting or analysis, but it’s easy to deploy and widely accessible across teams. When the goal is to gather basic input without adding process or overhead, that simplicity can be a real advantage.
Research tools aren’t just add-ons for mature organisations. For teams that want to grow deliberately, they support better judgment, reduce avoidable risk, and make it easier to notice change before it becomes a problem.
As these tools become faster and more integrated into everyday workflows, teams that use them well gain a clearer view of what is shifting and why. Over time, that clarity compounds. Instead of reacting late, they recognise change earlier and respond with intent.
