We’re seeing it everywhere: capital investments paused, timelines adjusted, buying authority redistributed, and internal teams asked to do more with less. It’s a familiar cycle. And when this happens, research and marketing are often the first to be scaled back or postponed.
When visibility is limited, assumptions fill the gaps. And that’s where mistakes happen. Without timely insight, companies are forced to plan, prioritize, and position themselves without knowing what’s changed. In moments like this, research is not a luxury. It’s a necessity.
These are complex markets where conditions shift quickly and decision-makers need clarity to act. The organizations that continue investing in research when the market is in flux aren’t just gathering data. They’re reducing risk. They’re avoiding missteps, staying aligned with their audience, and making informed decisions while competitors are guessing.
We’ve seen small studies make a big impact, especially when designed with a clear focus. A concise, well-targeted survey can identify where buyer priorities have shifted, uncover new product needs, or confirm that current messaging still resonates. It doesn’t take massive sample sizes or long timelines to get direction. It takes the right respondents and the right questions.
Not all audiences are available on demand. When reaching contractors, engineers, facility operators, or other professionals in technical spaces, recruitment takes time, especially during peak work seasons. Resilient research plans build in space for that process. They don’t compromise targeting just to speed up fieldwork.
Another shift we’re seeing is research designed to support multiple parts of the business. Marketing may drive the project, but the insights are informing product teams, sales leadership, and executive strategy. When structured this way, one initiative delivers value across the organization and makes the investment harder to cut.
Especially during uncertain times, decision-makers need confidence in what the data is saying. That means verified sample, strong screeners, and clear logic.
We understand the pressure to control costs. But when it comes to research, trying to save money by sourcing cheaper, less-qualified respondents is one of the fastest ways to undermine the value of the entire effort. Inaccurate or low-quality data doesn't just waste budget. It creates misleading narratives that result in poor business decisions.
These are professionals with specific responsibilities, expertise, and constraints. When a study relies on unverified access or panels that can’t accurately reach niche technical roles, the findings may look clean, but they are often wrong.
There’s a real cost to presenting survey results with confidence that is misplaced. We’ve seen it happen. Leadership aligns behind insights drawn from misrepresented audiences, only to realize too late that the data didn’t reflect actual market conditions. That is a risk no organization can afford when margins are tight and the pressure to get it right is high.
It is better to hear from 75 verified professionals who match your target audience than 300 generic respondents who don’t. Good data leads to clarity. Poor data leads to course corrections you didn’t need to make.
In volatile markets, clarity is the competitive edge. And that only comes from research grounded in quality.
It’s understandable that teams feel pressure to conserve resources. But eliminating insight isn’t a cost-saving measure. It’s a risk multiplier. The companies that keep listening, learning, and adapting through research are the ones that remain grounded, agile, and ready to lead when conditions stabilize.
It is strategic. The alternative is flying blind.
Contact: Ariane Claire, Research Director, myCLEARopinion Insights Hub
A1: Because tight budgets expose the inefficiencies of large, layered research models.
A2: They stay closer to the work — and to the industries they serve.
A3: By eliminating friction and focusing on clarity, speed, and relevance.