Making B2B buying decisions has never been straightforward, but recent years have added new layers of complexity. Greater uncertainty, closer internal scrutiny, and even longer decision-making processes mean that choosing a supplier now feels like a higher-stakes judgement than it once did.

Against this backdrop, one finding from our Superpowers Index has remained consistent. Trust – defined by buyers as feeling safe signing a contract – is the strongest driver of B2B choice, ranking first for the third year in a row, ahead of factors such as price, innovation, and functional performance.

That consistency matters. It suggests that while tools, channels, and buying journeys continue to evolve, the core logic of B2B decision-making has not fundamentally changed. Buyers are still primarily concerned with managing risk.

Many organizations still treat trust as a communications outcome – something driven by brand visibility or perception. The data suggests something different: trust operates as a decision-enabling signal, grounded in risk reduction rather than brand affinity.

Trust in B2B is often treated as something abstract or emotional, but the Superpowers data suggests otherwise. Buyers are not responding to how likeable or visible a brand is. Instead, they are making a judgement about whether choosing a supplier feels safe, both for their organization and for themselves.

In practice, this means asking difficult questions:

• Will this supplier deliver reliably?
• Will they do what they say they will?
• And if something goes wrong, will I be exposed for backing them?

These questions become more important when we consider how B2B decisions are made. We know that B2B buying decisions are rarely taken by a single individual. Instead, buying groups are made up of functions such as procurement, technical specialists, senior leadership, and, in some cases, end users – each involved at different stages of the journey.

Further Reading

The 2025 Superpowers Index

Read more

Looking across the trust-related decision drivers helps explain why this matters. Different factors tend to rise in importance depending on the buyer’s role. Transparency, compliance, and dependability tend to be more important in procurement-led discussions, while expertise and reliable delivery are more prominent in technical or operational contexts. At a senior level, confidence in a supplier’s ability to respond to change and manage longer-term risk becomes more important.

This makes trust difficult to build through a single message or interaction. A brand may successfully reassure one stakeholder while quietly creating uncertainty for another – and in those situations, decisions often slow down or stall altogether.

This also exposes a common blind spot. Many organizations optimize messaging, content, and measurement around a single audience or funnel stage – when in reality, trust is built (or eroded) unevenly across the buying group.

Looking in more detail at the data helps clarify what builds trust in practice. One clear theme is the importance of evidence. Buyers place greater trust in brands with a visible track record, positive peer recommendations, and strong reviews. Advocacy and word of mouth are not just awareness drivers; they actively reduce perceived risk.

Trust is also personal. One of the strongest reinforcing signals in the Superpowers Index is not simply feeling safe, but finding it easy to convince colleagues of a brand’s credentials. Buyers trust suppliers that help them build an internal case, anticipate objections, and support them throughout the decision-making process.

Thought leadership also plays a role, although expectations have shifted. Brands seen as active thought leaders are around twice as likely to be trusted as those that are not. However, this reflects the usefulness of content rather than its volume.

Generic content no longer differentiates; insight that actively helps buyers understand, quantify, and defend decisions internally is what builds trust.

In this context, content that is optimized for volume or visibility alone may be failing to deliver its primary job: reducing uncertainty within the buying group.

This helps explain why trust matters even more in today’s environment. As buying groups expand and risk tolerance falls, trust does not just influence which brand wins – increasingly, it determines whether decisions happen at all.

For B2B leaders, the implication is clear. Trust reflects how effectively organizations support decision-making across the buying group, rather than being a single brand metric in its own right. Most organizations still measure trust in isolation – or through the lens of a single decision-maker – risking blind spots in how confidence builds or breaks across the wider buying group.

Understanding those dynamics requires a more structured view of how different stakeholders experience risk, what evidence they rely on, and where uncertainty still exists. Without that, it becomes difficult to diagnose whether trust is truly being built – or simply assumed.

For organizations looking to strengthen trust as a driver of growth, the challenge is not just recognizing its importance, but understanding how it is built, experienced, and measured across increasingly complex buying groups.

B2B International’s brand research solutions help uncover the specific drivers of trust within your market, identify where confidence is strongest or at risk, and translate these insights into clear, actionable strategies that build confidence across the buying group and accelerate decision-making.

To discuss how our tailored insights programs can help solve your specific business challenges, get in touch and one of the team will be happy to help.

The post Trust Remains the #1 Driver of B2B Choice – Here’s What That Really Means appeared first on B2B International.

Back from Quirks London and if I only had £1 for every time someone said “AI” I could have enough to rival Sam Altman.

Because it’s everywhere. Everyone’s using it. Everyone’s selling it.

And that’s the shift – in the space of a year, AI has gone from “differentiator” to “default.” It’s now the baseline, not the brag.

So if you’re a marketer or in house insights lead, here are 3 things that actually matter now – and more importantly, what to do about them:

1. AI isn’t the story – how you apply it is

A lot of what’s being labelled as “AI” is essentially smarter automation or enhanced tooling. Useful? Absolutely. Transformational on its own? Not really.

The real question moving forward is:

• Where is AI genuinely improving speed, efficiency, or scale?
• And where do you still need human judgement to make sense of it?

Because while AI can process, structure and summarize faster than ever, it doesn’t replace:

• context
• commercial understanding
• or the ability to challenge what the data is actually saying

Therefore if you’re commissioning research (or building it internally), push for clarity:

• Ask your teams or partners to map exactly where AI is used in the process
• Challenge whether it’s improving the decision, not just the output speed
• Invest just as much in interpretation as you do in tooling

The future isn’t AI vs humans – it’s AI for efficiency + humans for meaning.

Further Reading

5 Market Research Predictions for 2026: Why the “Human + Tech” Era Matters More Than Ever

Read more

2. “Speed” is getting louder – but quality still decides outcomes

There’s a clear push across the industry towards faster, lighter research. And in some cases, that’s exactly what’s needed – quick pulses, directional reads, early-stage thinking.

But what’s often missing from the conversation is:

• how robust the sample is
• how well it’s been validated
• and whether the output can actually support a strategic decision

Especially in B2B, where audiences are harder to reach and stakes are higher.

So rather than trying to make everything faster, the smarter play is to separate your approach:

• Directional / tactical work – Faster, lighter, clearly framed for early decisions
• Strategic / high rigor work – More time, more validation, built for confidence and impact

And then look for speed in the right places:

• onboarding
• contracting
• internal processes
• automation of repetitive tasks

That’s where AI can genuinely unlock value – without compromising what really matters.

Further Reading

Rediscovering Customer Needs in the Age of AI: Why Deep CX Insights Matter More Than Ever

Read more

3. Trust, data ownership and reassurance are becoming critical

One of the more interesting (and slightly uncomfortable) themes was around data ownership – particularly the idea that some platforms may be able to learn from studies run on them.

At the same time, clients are becoming more aware – and more cautious – about:

• where their data sits
• who has access to it
• and whether their competitors could indirectly benefit from it

This isn’t just a legal or procurement discussion anymore. It’s a trust conversation.

So treat data governance as part of your insight quality, not an afterthought:

• Build a simple internal checklist:
• Where is the data stored?
• Who can access or learn from it?
• What is retained vs deleted?
• Be proactive with stakeholders:
• Don’t wait to be asked – lead the conversation on reassurance
• Position data protection as a strength, not just compliance

In a world where tools are becoming more similar, trust becomes a differentiator.

Further Reading

Balancing AI and Human Insight in Qualitative Research

Read more

Final thought

The industry is getting faster, noisier and more automated.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s getting clearer.

The teams that will stand out aren’t the ones doing the most – they’re the ones who are most deliberate in how they do it.

• Clear on where AI adds value
• Clear on when speed is appropriate
• Clear on how they protect what matters

To discuss how our tailored insights programs can help solve your specific business challenges, get in touch and one of the team will be happy to help.

The post AI Is No Longer a Differentiator: 3 Takeaways from Quirk’s London appeared first on B2B International.

More than a decade after How Brands Grow was published, its core message is no longer controversial. Most B2B marketers now accept that brand growth is driven by reaching more buyers, not extracting more loyalty; by being easy to notice, easy to recall, and easy to buy, rather than by persuasion alone.

Yet in our work with B2B organizations globally, a gap remains. The principles are widely known – but they’re still hard to apply well.

That matters, because while the laws of growth haven’t changed, the context in which brands grow has – shaped by AI driven discovery, fragmented attention, and more risk averse buyers.

The Enduring Laws of Growth – Seen Through a B2B Lens

Byron Sharp’s work challenged long held marketing assumptions by grounding brand growth in observed buying behavior rather than opinion. Ehrenberg Bass research showed that across categories:

• Most customers are light buyers
• Loyalty is weaker than marketers often assume
• Brands grow mainly through penetration
• Large brands benefit from double jeopardy
• Buyers typically purchase from multiple brands

While this body of research is largely rooted in consumer markets, its central implication still holds for B2B: growth comes from increasing the number of buyers who are likely to consider a brand, not from trying to deepen loyalty among a small group.

Where B2B needs more care is in how these principles show up when buying cycles are long, decisions are shared, and attention is limited.

Further Reading

9 Trends That Will Shape B2B Brands in 2026

Read more

Mental Availability in an AI Led Discovery Landscape

One of the clearest themes in our recent 2026 B2B Brand Trends article is that buyers are no longer discovering brands in neat, predictable ways.

Search engines, AI tools, peer recommendations, reviews, communities and influencers all play a role – often long before a buyer engages directly with a supplier.

This doesn’t weaken How Brands Grow. If anything, it makes mental availability more important.

Mental availability today is shaped by:

• how clearly a brand is recognized across third party channels
• how consistently it shows up beyond owned media
• whether buyers – or AI tools – can quickly understand what it stands for

Put simply: brands that are hard to recognize are harder to recall when buyers enter the market.

Distinctive Assets: Recognition Beats Explanation

How Brands Grow argues that advertising works mainly by refreshing memory structures, not by persuading people through detailed arguments.

That insight is particularly relevant in B2B. Buying cycles are long. Attention comes and goes. Buying groups change.

When buyers re enter a category – months or years later – they rely on what they can recognize quickly. Brands with consistent, distinctive assets tend to come to mind more easily. Brands that change frequently or spread themselves too thin often don’t.

In this context, consistency isn’t about playing it safe. It’s about making recognition effortless.

Further Reading

The 2025 Superpowers Index

Read more

Physical Availability Today: Ease Matters More Than Ever

Physical availability in B2B rarely means distribution in the traditional sense. It’s about how easy a brand is to deal with.

The latest Superpowers Index research shows that brands seen as easier to do business with enjoy clear advantages – winning more often and closing deals faster.

This is physical availability in current B2B terms:

• clarity of offer
• speed of response
• simple, joined up buying experiences
• fewer points of friction

Ease doesn’t replace brand. It strengthens it.

Trust as the Outcome of Familiarity

Trust remains the strongest driver of B2B choice. Buyers want to feel comfortable signing a contract, especially when decisions carry risk.

How Brands Grow helps explain why familiar brands often feel safer. It’s not simply about persuasion. Familiarity itself reduces perceived risk.

For newer or smaller brands, this creates a clear challenge: trust isn’t built through messaging alone, but through consistent presence over time.

Further Reading

A Best Practice Guide to Brand Research in B2B Markets

Read more

Why Brand Evidence Still Matters

Most B2B marketers understand these ideas. The real risk lies elsewhere – applying them without a clear view of how a brand is actually experienced.

To act effectively, organizations need to understand:

• how mentally available their brand really is
• which brand cues are recognized and which are missed
• where buyers experience friction or uncertainty

Without this kind of evidence, teams often fall back on assumption and instinct – even when they intend to be evidence led.

In Summary

How Brands Grow remains a strong foundation for understanding brand growth. The challenge for B2B marketers in 2026 is not learning the theory, but executing it well in a more complex, AI mediated buying environment.

Brand growth today depends less on finding new ideas, and more on applying well established ones with clarity, consistency and evidence.

The post How Brands Grow Still Holds – But B2B Brand Growth in 2026 Needs New Execution appeared first on B2B International.

Subscribe today for your dose of exclusive insights from the B2B market experts.

In this episode of the B2B Insights Podcast, Senior Client Partnerships Director Simi Dhawan speaks with Trevor Glue, Marketing Director at Ricardo, about the challenges B2B organizations face during acquisitions – particularly around brand perception, integration, and ensuring teams are aligned.

Recently, Ricardo acquired E3 Modelling, and B2B International supported the organization through a program of brand equity research to understand market perceptions and guide strategic decisions.

After acquiring E3 Modelling, B2B International supported Ricardo, a global consultancy operating across transport, energy and climate sectors, through a program of brand equity research to understand market perceptions and guide strategic decisions.

Hear Simi and Trevor discuss the business challenges prompting the research, the most valuable insights gained, and how the findings helped guide strategic decisions at Ricardo.

Key discussion points:

• Why unbiased external research is essential during acquisitions
• Understanding and validating the brand equity of an acquired company
• How research helps reduce post acquisition brand confusion
• Bringing internal teams and acquired employees on the journey
• Turning insight into strategic, operational and marketing decisions
• Why objective research prevents costly long term mistakes
• Lessons learned for organizations planning similar brand equity projects

Listen to the full episode:

Listen on Spotify >
Listen on Apple Podcasts >

Watch the full video:

Read the full transcript:

Simi (B2B International): Hi everyone, and welcome to the B2B Insights Podcast. I’m Simi Dhawan, Senior Client Partnerships Director at B2B International. Today I’m joined by Trevor Glue, Marketing Director at Ricardo, to discuss a challenge many B2B businesses face: navigating brand integration during acquisitions.

Ricardo, for those who don’t know, is a global consultancy working across transport, energy and climate. They recently expanded by acquiring E3 Modelling, and Trevor approached us to understand how the E3M brand was perceived in the marketplace. We worked together on a brand equity project, and today we’re diving into what prompted that work and how the findings shaped Ricardo’s strategic decisions.

Trevor, welcome – please introduce yourself and your role.

Trevor (Ricardo): Thanks for having me, Simi. I’m Trevor Glue, Director of Marketing at Ricardo. I’ve been with the business around 15 years, working across brand development, lead generation and supporting our go to market strategy globally. My role is essentially about connecting our capabilities with our clients’ challenges.

Simi: So let’s start with E3 Modelling. Could you explain who they are in relation to Ricardo?

Trevor: Absolutely. E3 Modelling is a company we had partnered with for many years before acquiring them. They specialize in large scale macro modelling across Europe – working at the intersection of environmental, energy and economic policy.

We’d collaborated extensively on policy development projects for organizations like the European Commission, where E3M provided modelling that fed directly into policy insights.

So strategically, culturally and technically, the fit with Ricardo was very strong.

Simi: Thinking back to the start of the research, what was the core challenge you were trying to solve?

Trevor: There were two main challenges.

First, although we knew E3M well from working with them, the acquisition created a different dynamic. We were conscious of avoiding bias – we didn’t want our own assumptions about the brand to influence major decisions around integration, naming or market positioning.

Second, we needed to bring people with us – especially E3M employees. They’d built a brand they were proud of. For a smooth integration, we needed clear, objective, external insight that everyone could trust.

Simi: And what did you find most valuable from the research?

Trevor: Validation was hugely important. Some feedback aligned with what we already believed, which reassured us. But the real value came from the detail – particularly around how customers perceived the balance between E3M’s commercial capability and their academic credibility.

That wasn’t something we had considered strongly before, and it has had a major influence on how we communicate their role today.
Beyond marketing, the insights affected operational thinking and even the kinds of projects we pursue. The findings have genuinely shaped decision making across the business.

Simi: Research is often about confirming what you know – but also uncovering the blind spots. It sounds like that played out here?

Trevor: Definitely. You don’t want research to be one big surprise – that would indicate you didn’t understand your market. But the value lies in the nuances: the specific messages that resonate, how customers want to be communicated with, and what truly differentiates the brand.

Your team also captured those “unconscious comments” that people drop in conversation – small insights that add up to something meaningful when you hear them consistently.

Simi: Earlier you mentioned post acquisition brand confusion. How did this research help build clarity?

Trevor: E3M had strong brand equity, but also strong product level branding. Sometimes customers knew the product names but not the company; sometimes the other way around.

The research helped us untangle that.

It showed how well the E3M name was known, what associations existed around their products, and how Ricardo fit into that picture. That insight gave us confidence to transition E3M into the Ricardo brand – and importantly, the E3M team supported the move because the research was unbiased and data driven.

Some of the key insights have become “pillars” we refer to repeatedly – they genuinely guide our ongoing marketing and operational decisions.

Simi: And in terms of business impact, how has the research influenced your strategy?

Trevor: It allowed us to move faster and with confidence. Without objective research, you tend to make decisions based on subjective feedback – perhaps a comment from a sales team member or an anecdote from one client.

Those decisions can cost you years down the line.

Investing in external research might seem expensive at first, but the cost of making the wrong decision is far higher. The insight helped us avoid risk, build alignment internally, and sharpen our market approach.

Simi: If someone listening were about to begin a similar project, what advice would you offer?

Trevor: Bring your internal stakeholders into the process early. The research becomes far more actionable when the people responsible for implementing change have contributed to the questions and understand the findings.

On our side, gathering customer contact information earlier would also have helped – niche audiences can be hard to reach.

But from B2B International’s side, I honestly wouldn’t change anything.

Simi: And finally – what’s next for Ricardo?

Trevor: It’s an exciting time. Ricardo has recently been acquired by WSP, which opens up a lot of opportunities. There’s strong alignment between the two organizations, especially around environmental impact, transport and infrastructure. Our teams are energized about the new projects and enhanced capabilities this will bring.

Simi: Fantastic – exciting times ahead. Trevor, thank you so much for sharing your experience. And to everyone listening: thank you for joining us. If you’d like to learn more or have questions, please reach out or subscribe to our B2B Insights newsletter via the B2B International Insights Hub.

The post B2B Insights Podcast #69: How Brand Research Drives Smarter B2B Acquisitions appeared first on B2B International.

Recent years have shown that research isn’t optional. When budgets tighten, it becomes the tool that helps organizations make confident decisions rather than relying on guesswork. And as we look ahead, one thing feels certain: clients will need more support demonstrating the value of research internally, while also asking tougher questions about quality, speed, and the real impact of AI.

We asked the team at B2B International to share their predictions for research in 2026, based on conversations with clients and industry experts. Here’s our view.

1. Research will need to prove its value – and B2B International can help make that case

More people across an organization will want to understand why research is worth the investment. Our role will expand: not just delivering findings, but helping clients articulate the value of insight, align teams, and use research to shape strategy. Strong partnership will matter, helping clients understand not only what the findings say, but why they matter.

The voices behind this prediction:
Tracey Croft, Simi Dhawan, Georgina Stone, Wendy Joice‑Denhard.

2. AI will be viewed with more care – and we bring the clarity

AI will continue to divide opinion. Some businesses will adopt it quickly; others will slow down as the hype intensifies. In both cases, clients will need trusted partners who can separate real value from buzzwords and offer clear guidance on how to use AI effectively. Practical, honest thought leadership will become even more important.

The voices behind this prediction:
Grace Ennis, Simi Dhawan, Thomas Grubert, Jessica Timmins, Marc Brokenbrow.

3. Quality will matter more than quantity

As budgets shift – whether towards AI or in house teams – only the most valuable research will stand out. Clients will look for depth, clarity, and findings they can rely on. They’ll expect strong value for money and faster turnaround. This creates pressure, but also an opportunity to refine how we design, run, and deliver insights.

The voices behind this prediction:
Claire Lawson, Simi Dhawan, Thomas Grubert, Jessica Timmins, Georgina Stone.

4. Trust in online data will drop

Concerns about bots, fatigued panels, and low quality responses will continue. Surveys won’t disappear, but they’ll need to evolve: shorter, more engaging, and better validated. We’re also likely to see increased interest in depth interviews, stakeholder conversations, and focus groups, as clients want to hear from real people – not just anonymous datasets.

The voices behind this prediction:
Thomas Grubert, Jack Barks, David Ward.

5. “Qual at scale” and richer experiences will set us apart

This is a major growth area. More interactive methods – such as gamified tasks, heatmaps, or eye tracking – will allow us to understand behavior in a more natural way. When combined with stronger triangulation and sharper touchpoint insight, we can deliver research that feels both more human and more robust.

The voices behind this prediction:
Thomas Grubert, Louise Walton‑Coy, Jessica Timmins, Matt Botham.

Summary

As 2026 unfolds, one theme runs through every prediction: research will only grow in importance, but the way it’s delivered – and the expectations around it – are changing fast. Clients will need partners who can combine human understanding with technological innovation, cutting through complexity to deliver insight that truly moves a business forward. At B2B International, we’re ready to help organizations navigate this new era with clarity, confidence, and impact.

To discuss how our tailored insights programs can help solve your specific business challenges, get in touch and one of the team will be happy to help.

The post 5 Market Research Predictions for 2026: Why the “Human + Tech” Era Matters More Than Ever appeared first on B2B International.

The previous articles in this series focused on the specific words we use in questionnaires to ensure that language is interpreted clearly.

This time, we’ll look at the impact of making changes – whether to question wording or to the positioning of questions. This is particularly important for tracking projects where the same questions are repeated over time.

Making changes to questionnaires

A common temptation in tracking studies is to “improve” question wording between waves. While this can sometimes be justified, it’s important to understand the implications.

For example, a question may originally be asked as:

“Overall, how satisfied are you with your account manager?”

In a later wave, this might be changed to:

“Overall, how satisfied are you with the support you receive from your account manager?”

Although this change may seem minor, the meaning has been narrowed to focus specifically on support rather than overall satisfaction. Any changes in scores may therefore be driven by the updated wording rather than a genuine shift in sentiment.

Another common example is a question such as:

“How easy is it to use our platform?”

During the presentation, it may not be clear what respondents understood by “ease of use.” You could argue that the question is too broad and open to interpretation. As a result, the decision might be made to update it to:

“How easy is it to use our platform (for example, navigating dashboards, generating reports, exporting data)?”

This version is clearer, but it asks respondents to focus on specific features of the platform. Because we’re prompting on particular aspects, responses may shift.

These updated questions may well be stronger and more informative moving forward – but any comparisons with the previous versions should be treated with caution.

Positioning of questions

It is generally recommended to ask general questions before specific ones. A good example is the placement of the classic NPS question in a customer satisfaction survey.

Opening a survey with the general:

“How likely are you to recommend brand X?”

is preferable to asking it at the end. At the start, respondents give a top‑of‑mind answer before being “primed” or influenced by questions on specific aspects of the relationship – for example, customer service, delivery, or product performance.

Moving the NPS question from the start to the end could result in different scores. Again, we wouldn’t know whether the change reflected a real shift in sentiment or simply the effect of question positioning. This makes fair comparison over time difficult.

In summary

Avoid changing wording or repositioning questions in tracking studies unless absolutely necessary. Even small adjustments can influence responses and make comparisons unreliable. If changes do need to be made, be sure to document exactly what has been updated so the analysis and interpretation can account for it later on.

To discuss how our tailored insights programs can help solve your specific business challenges, get in touch and one of the team will be happy to help.

The post Why You Should Think Twice Before Updating Survey Questions in Tracking Studies appeared first on B2B International.

Writing a survey can seem simple – until you’re the one responsible for translating a list of business objectives into a clear, logical set of questions. There are countless decisions to make when designing a questionnaire, but this article focuses on three top tips for getting question phrasing right.

1. Keep questions specific

Questions should be as specific as possible, leaving little room for interpretation. The reliability and validity of a survey are higher when respondents interpret questions in the same way.

For example, consider the question:

“How often do you collaborate with other teams?”

Here, collaborate can be interpreted in different ways, and no time frame is specified.

A clearer alternative would be:

“In the last week, how many times did you work with someone from another team to complete a task?”

This version includes a defined time frame and asks about concrete behavior. It also ensures respondents use a consistent unit (the number of times), making results easier to interpret.

2. Avoid leading questions

A classic illustration of leading language comes from the Loftus & Palmer (1974) study, where participants estimated car speeds differently based on the verb used – smashed, hit, or collided. More forceful verbs produced higher estimated speeds.

This demonstrates why questions should use neutral language wherever possible and avoid implying an answer.

For example:

“How badly did the system failure disrupt your operations?”

This wording assumes a failure occurred and that it caused disruption. A more neutral alternative would be:

“To what extent, if at all, did the system issue affect your operations?”

Removing emotional or loaded language eliminates assumptions and allows “no impact” to be a valid response.

3. Avoid hidden assumptions

Building on the previous point, it’s important to ensure your questions don’t presume an experience or outcome. Let’s say you’re assessing how smoothly a client onboarding process has gone. One objective might be to understand what problems occurred.

Asking:

“What problems did you experience during onboarding?”

assumes that problems did occur and may lead respondents to invent or exaggerate issues.

A fairer approach is to begin with a closed question:

“Did you experience any problems during onboarding?”
(With answer options: Yes/No)

If the respondent selects Yes, then you can follow up with an open-ended question:

“What problems did you experience?”

Starting with a closed question also makes the data easier to analyze, as respondents can be cleanly categorized into those who did and did not experience problems. This would be much harder if only an open-ended question were asked.

In summary, when writing questionnaires:

• Be as specific as possible
• Avoid emotionally loaded or leading language
• Don’t make assumptions

To discuss how our tailored insights programs can help solve your specific business challenges, get in touch and one of the team will be happy to help.

The post 3 Top Tips for Getting Questionnaire Wording Right appeared first on B2B International.

Following my previous blog on jargon, I wanted to share some top tips to avoid jargon creeping into your research projects. In my experience, projects where we are testing something new – such as a product or service – are the ones most likely to fall victim to jargon. Typically, we describe the new product or service to a customer and gather their feedback. What do they like? What do they dislike? And ultimately, are they going to purchase?

Waiting to receive the description of the concept (jargon in itself, but useful shorthand for the purposes of this blog) is a tense time for any researcher. We are usually crossing our fingers that we can create something clear and concise for respondents to review.

Before considering the description itself, it’s worth taking a moment to think about the different ways we can test concepts in research. Our options typically include:

1. Reading a description out loud – While the administered nature of a phone interview can help ensure understanding, this approach can be tricky and time-consuming. For example, a long description can be hard for respondents to remember.

2. Asking respondents to review a written description – This can be shown on-screen and is therefore suitable for both phone and online interviews. It’s often easier for respondents to digest and reflect on what is being conveyed, and is typically our preferred method.

3. Showing a video or animation describing a concept – These can work well and are usually more engaging. However, respondents can sometimes fall into the trap of commenting on the execution of the video – such as the colors or the content – rather than the concept itself.

Regardless of the format, the content of the description is critical. This is your chance to clearly articulate the concept and gather useful, relevant feedback. In our experience, you should:

• Remember the description is for research, not a sales pitch. What information does someone need to form an opinion?

• Keep it succinct and to the point. We cannot reasonably expect a respondent to read pages of text as part of an interview.

• Keep the text simple, using short sentences. Avoid words such as “seamless”, “best‑in‑class”, and “industry-leading”.

• Think about how the concept may work in practice by using a scenario rather than a long list of benefits. This helps bring the product or service to life.

• Avoid using internal language or project names. “Concept 1, 2, 3” is fine – customers don’t need to know that you’ve called one project Falcon!

Once you’re happy with the description, there are a couple of things you can do to test how it will land in an interview. A simple check is to ask someone outside the project team to read the concept. If it is going to be read out during an interview, can they get through it without stumbling? Do they ask for clarification?

In the interview itself, you can also use simple tactics to check understanding. If respondents don’t understand the concept, you run the risk of the research failing. Provide an opportunity for them to ask questions, or ask them to describe or paraphrase the concept in their own words.

More broadly, regardless of the research objective, a good test when writing questionnaires and research materials is to ask yourself whether you would use the same language when speaking to your friends. In B2B research there can be a need for a more professional tone, but remember: we are interviewing humans.

To discuss how our tailored insights programs can help solve your specific business challenges, get in touch and one of the team will be happy to help.

The post How To Avoid Jargon Creeping into Your Research Project appeared first on B2B International.

I remember sitting at the back of an A-Level English Language class many years ago when the teacher was trying to explain the concept of jargon. The idea that different jobs used specialist words and phrases baffled me. How could there be words that I hadn’t yet heard? I could imagine long, complicated terms used by lawyers or doctors that the average person might not come across – but I wasn’t planning to become a doctor or a lawyer, so it didn’t feel particularly relevant.

Fast forward a couple of years to my first week in a research agency, and I couldn’t believe it. Everyone kept talking about “the deck,” and it wasn’t a pack of cards but a PowerPoint presentation. People kept mentioning “DP,” and it took me about a week to work up the courage to ask, “What is DP?” It turned out to be the data processing team sitting across the table from me.

One of the first clients I worked with had so many acronyms that I had to create a glossary just to understand what my manager meant when he asked for “the North IOP NPS results for the RDs.” So it turns out jargon is a thing after all.

A few more years passed, and I found myself spending evenings behind the mirror in focus group venues, furiously typing notes and listening to clients react to what their customers were saying. One evening, the back room was up in arms. They couldn’t believe customers didn’t “get” the carefully worded paragraph describing a new service offering. It was unanimously declared that there was too much jargon.

So, what are the implications for researchers and marketers in all of this? Simply: don’t assume you’re speaking the same language as your customers.

1. Test your language.

Use research to test customer-facing assets such as advertising copy or descriptions of a new product or service. It’s amazing what a different perspective can reveal. Similarly, always test questionnaires and research materials to make sure the questions make sense, and keep marketing and sales jargon to a minimum. Very few people talk about “concepts” in real life.

2. Listen to customers.

Ideally, do this in real life. But if the research doesn’t lend itself to in-person focus groups, include audio clips or open-text responses to bring the findings to life. If it’s a quantitative survey, consider short VoxPops or videos to give more impact to the results. Also think about other data sources you can tap into – for example, contact forms or customer service requests.

3. Don’t be afraid to ask questions.

If someone uses a phrase you’re not sure about, ask what it means. Also think about what you could ask to uncover the language people naturally use. For example: “If you were looking for a supplier or solution for X, what would you Google?” One of the perks of being a researcher is that there’s no such thing as a silly question!

To discuss how our tailored insights programs can help solve your specific business challenges, get in touch and one of the team will be happy to help.

The post Are You Really Speaking Your Customers’ Language? appeared first on B2B International.

In a crowded insights landscape, standing out requires more than methodology. It demands trust, consistency, partnership, and the ability to deliver clarity in a complex world. This is why so many global brands return to B2B International year after year – and why our latest Client Experience results paint such a positive and compelling picture of our work.

The Numbers Tell a Story of Excellence

Our Net Promoter Score (NPS) for 2025 stands at an impressive +57, an increase on our already strong performance in 2024. In the B2B research sector – where expectations are high, project environments are intricate, and stakeholder groups are diverse – an NPS of this caliber is not just strong; it’s exceptional. It reflects deep trust, loyalty, and satisfaction among the organizations we support.

Our Overall Satisfaction (CSAT) score reinforces this narrative. In 2025, clients rated their experience at 8.62 out of 10. At B2B International, we consider anything 8.0+ to be a “good” score – one that exceeds many industry benchmarks – and these results show our consistent ability to meet and surpass that threshold.

Beyond the Numbers: People, Partnership, and Performance

The most consistent feedback from clients centers on our people. Whether they’re project managers, researchers, or operations specialists, clients repeatedly highlight our friendliness, professionalism, expertise, and the confidence our teams inspire. They describe our people as “brilliant,” “engaged,” “lovely to work with,” and trusted to “always deliver.”

This human strength – rooted in empathy, expertise, and a genuine commitment to helping clients achieve their objectives – is often the differentiator in complex B2B studies. Clients know we bring clarity, structure, and calm to projects involving global stakeholders, tight deadlines, or intricate internal dynamics.

Exceptional Project Management and Operational Quality

Across the research lifecycle, clients consistently rate our project management above 9/10 for flexibility, communication, and the reassurance of being in “safe hands” at every stage. These operational strengths are underpinned by rigorous processes, transparent communication, and a deep understanding of how to support busy client teams.

Our international capabilities are another standout, with scores rising to 9.1 in 2025 for meeting global research needs across diverse markets and audiences. For multinational clients, the ability to reach senior decision makers across geographies is essential – and B2B International continues to excel here.

A Commitment to Modern, Impactful Reporting

In an era where insights must drive action across entire organizations, clients value both the depth and clarity of our outputs. They appreciate the detail within our reports and our responsiveness in distilling findings into executive ready summaries that can be easily digested and shared internally.

Enhancing storytelling, modernizing visualization, and ensuring insights flow seamlessly through client organizations remain key priorities for us.

A Partner That Clients Respect, Trust, and Recommend

The data is compelling, and the testimonials are heartfelt. B2B International is a trusted partner because we combine rigorous research, a human approach, and global reach with an unwavering focus on helping organizations move forward confidently.

When clients describe us as agile, engaged, loyal, and knowledgeable, it reinforces that our work goes far beyond data. It’s about relationships, impact, and partnership.

This is what makes B2B International a research agency that clients not only return to – but champion.

To discuss how our tailored insights programs can help solve your specific business challenges, get in touch and one of the team will be happy to help.

The post Why B2B International Continues to Be the Partner of Choice for World-Class B2B Research appeared first on B2B International.