The Socratic Method and Consumer Understanding: Asking Better Questions with Sarah Montgomery

Description

In this episode of The Curiosity Current, hosts Stephanie and Victoria talk with Sarah Montgomery, Director of Human Insights at The Coca-Cola Company, about using the Socratic method to uncover deeper truths in research. Drawing on her work with brands like Vitaminwater, Smartwater, Dasani, Simply, and Honest Kids, Sarah explains how disciplined questioning helps challenge assumptions, avoid confirmation bias, and bridge the gap between corporate jargon and consumer reality. She shares techniques for addressing uncomfortable insights without damaging trust, and why intellectual courage is essential for moving past consensus-driven decision-making. The discussion also explores how to balance speed and rigor in an AI-driven research environment while maintaining focus on what truly matters. Sarah underscores the importance of broad curiosity beyond data and into culture, as a tool for better understanding human behavior. It’s a practical guide for turning research into a strategic driver rather than just a source of answers.

‍

‍Sarah - 00:00:01:

There's often this, like, charming illusion that we have that if we just nurture the relationship enough, we'll eventually be brought into the inner circle. But partnership isn't a prize you win for good behavior. If you find that you're having successful stakeholder relationships across a range of brands, different roles, and different personality types, that's usually a good metric that your strategy is working.

‍

Stephanie - 00:00:31:

Welcome to The Curiosity Current, the podcast where we dive deep into what's shaping today's trends and tomorrow's consumers. I'm your host, Stephanie, and I'm so glad you're joining me. Each episode, we tap into the minds of researchers, innovators, and insights professionals to explore how curiosity drives discovery and how discovery drives better decisions in an ever-changing market landscape. Whether you're a data enthusiast, a strategy pro, or, like me, just endlessly fascinated by human behavior, this is the place for you. So get ready to challenge your assumptions, spark some fresh thinking, and have some fun along the way. Let's see where curiosity takes us next with this brand-new episode. Before we get started today, I want to introduce my co-host, Victoria Waldman. Victoria is one of my colleagues here at AYTM. She's an experienced researcher with deep expertise in helping clients develop and refine their insight strategies. Victoria, I'm so excited you're here today.

‍

Victoria - 00:01:34:

Thank you so much, Stephanie. I'm happy to be here.

‍

Stephanie - 00:01:36:

So today on The Curiosity Current, Victoria and I are joined by Sarah Montgomery, Director of Human Insights at The Coca-Cola Company, where she leads research for the hydration category, which includes brands like Vitaminwater, Smartwater, and Dasani.

‍

Victoria - 00:01:52:

With over a decade of experience in consumer insights and marketing, Sarah has built a career around transforming data into actionable human insights. She's worked across multiple brands, from Simply and Honest Kids to Hi-C, and has spearheaded research that has driven key product innovations and strategic brand decisions.

‍

Stephanie - 00:02:10:

In today's conversation, we're going to delve into the Socratic method and how this technique of questioning assumptions and driving critical thinking can actually sharpen the way market researchers uncover insights and challenge organizational norms. We'll also explore how Sarah applies this method to her own work, empowering teams to push boundaries and deliver deeper consumer understanding. Sarah, welcome to The Curiosity Current. We are thrilled to have you today.

‍

Sarah - 00:02:38:

Thanks for having me. I'm glad to be here.

‍

Stephanie - 00:02:39:

It's going to be a fun conversation. Before we jump into the kind of heady topic of the Socratic method, I would love to just hear about your background and your experience in insights. It looks like in reading about your experience and how you've come to where you are that you're one of the few among us who came to insights through your formal education. You have a Bachelor of Marketing degree and a Master's in Market Research. Did you always know that you wanted to work in insights?

‍

Sarah - 00:03:05:

Oh, surely not. No. I was actually going to be a professional clarinet player, and I had originally applied to the University of Georgia to be a clarinet performance major. I got accepted to the university on my clarinet performance major, but was rejected from the University of Georgia as a freshman and ended up going to community college for two years. And I actually got my introduction to research because I was a focus group participant. Then I was brought in to be an intern because they liked my contributions as a focus group member, and I was hired on at that ad agency that I was participating in this focus group for. So I went from participant to intern, was brought on as an account executive very briefly, and then became a strategic planner. And that's kind of how I was first introduced into this more peripheral world of research, and then I sort of solidified that with my education. So it was a kind of roundabout way, but when you look at my resume, it looks more cohesive than it probably is in reality. So, yes and no. But my education was definitely very foundational to where I ended up. My bachelor's in marketing was really a great way to sort of build out the business acumen of understanding the marketing fundamentals. UGA has a great business school, and then I ended up going back to get a market research degree because I really wanted to dive further into that research part of the career. I just thought all the research-specific parts of marketing were so interesting. The MMR program at UGA was very attractive because I love UGA. The opportunity to go back to school there and the rigor of that program were all incredibly appealing to me. So not exactly a linear path, but one that I'm very happy I took.

‍

Stephanie - 00:05:02:

I feel like it never is in market research, and that's kind of one of my favorite things about researchers. I think it almost takes most of us a little bit of winding to get there, and that journey is a powerful part of why we're good at what we do, you know?

‍

Victoria - 00:05:21:

I feel like it's that hodgepodge of interests that make us all sort of researchers and that natural curiosity. So I have to ask, how often are you still playing the clarinet?

‍

Sarah - 00:05:33:

Well, since I live in a one-bedroom apartment and I don't want to anger my neighbors too much, not terribly often. Usually just when I go back home to visit my mom for Christmas, I will indulge her and I will play my clarinet then, but not as often as I wish, unfortunately.

‍

Victoria - 00:05:52:

Yeah. Okay. Well, great. As Stephanie mentioned, you are going to talk to us a little bit about the Socratic method. To start, if you could just briefly explain the Socratic method for our listeners who may not be familiar with it. What is it? Why do you like it? And how does it work as a technique for fostering critical thinking and deeper understanding?

Sarah - 00:06:12:

Sure. Well, the Socratic method obviously comes from Socrates, a Greek philosopher, and it's really just a disciplined practice of asking pointed questions, sometimes inconvenient questions, to expose contradictions and clarify thinking. Socrates didn't really lecture. He kind of interrogated with civility but precision until his students or his interlocutors refined their ideas or would abandon them entirely—much to the frustration of the Greeks, who obviously executed him after they got a little bit sick of him doing this for too long. So there could be some downsides to this, although I think we as a civilization have come farther than that. So hopefully, that doesn't happen to you if you employ the strategy in your organization. But I think the benefit of it is that it really, rather than getting to a point of being incredibly argumentative by saying, "No, you're wrong," "No, that's not what the data says," or, "No, that's not what I told you," it kind of reduces the butting of heads naturally by framing everything more in a questioning sense of bringing it back to that curiosity. If you're framing things more as a question, you're getting closer to exploring things in a truthful center, you know? We're not trying to be an echo chamber. I'm not trying to reflect back to you, "I want you to be right," or, "I want to be right." We're trying to get to what is the truth, what is the most accurate. And if I'm constantly trying to ask you questions and get you to think about the statements you're making in a deeper way, question your logic, question your reasoning—"Why do you think that? What are your assumptions there? How are you defining a winning concept? How are you defining the strongest creative?"—then we're getting closer to what we're actually talking about, getting closer to the core truth of the matter. And then, hopefully, we do that without too much outright frustration.

‍

Stephanie - 00:08:28:

It makes a lot of sense, and I feel like you're sort of acknowledging pieces of this even in that explanation there. But there is sometimes a tendency in research, whether that's driven by our internal stakeholders or even researchers ourselves, toward confirmation bias—you know, finding answers that align with an assumption that we have, sometimes deeply held assumptions. How can the Socratic method help us avoid that kind of inherent confirmation bias that's just very human and encourage more open-ended exploration of consumer behavior?

‍

Sarah - 00:09:02:

Yeah. I think that's absolutely fair. I think that's an issue that a lot of researchers have. There are different tensions. I've worked on the supply side before, and now I'm on the client side. There are different tensions on both sides of that. On the supply side, you're trying to work with your client and not bother them or tick them off because you want them to keep hiring you. On the client side, you want to work with your stakeholders. You want to work with the C-suite executives because they have an opinion. They have a preference. There's politics at stake here. But, you know, I really believe that our job as insights professionals, as researchers, is not to accept assumptions but really to interrogate them with intellectual courage and a sort of disciplined curiosity. We cannot be an echo chamber in the organization. We are the challenger. We're the clarifier, the constructive skeptic in the room. Great insights are not born when they're concerned with political appeasement. They don't come from consensus for consensus's sake. They come from a willingness to steward the truth even when that truth is inconvenient and, honestly, especially when that truth unsettles the status quo. The most salient, relevant insights are the ones that are disruptive and the ones that break through things. And if we want to be a function in our organizations that changes things, that moves the business forward, we have to grow comfortable with the fact that we're going to say things that make people uncomfortable, that push boundaries, and that contradict things because sometimes the truth is not the thing that everyone wants to hear.

‍

Victoria - 00:10:48:

And that's interesting because, actually, before this, Stephanie and I were talking, and I was thinking about how assumptions, especially if they go unchecked, can grow into beliefs that connect to people's self-identity. And you mentioned civility, but what other advice would you have for challenging an assumption without it feeling as if you're challenging a person?

‍

Sarah - 00:11:08:

Yeah, I think that's totally fair. You know, we get so wrapped up in this idea that the things that I believe are me, and, therefore, if you're attacking someone's belief, you're attacking the person that they're attached to. And it can be hard to extract those two things from one another, but we have to try to ground people in the idea that wisdom doesn't come from certainty; it comes from admitting—starting from the admission that we're ignorant. That's where knowledge starts. That's where it grows out of. That's why the Socratic method can be beneficial, because you're not actually attacking the person's fundamental belief. You're chipping away at the basis of their assumptions, at the basis of their belief, not by saying, "The thing you believe is wrong or bad or incorrect," but by saying, "Why do you believe that? What is the edifice of your belief? How did you construct this thing that you're basing your assumptions off of?" And I'm going to work through your critical thinking, if there is critical thinking there. And once we've figured out how you've constructed it, if you have constructed it, I'm going to walk you to that assumption. I'm not going to correct you. I'm going to get you to the point where you've developed it yourself. And then you're not really being the bad guy. You're not actually going on the attack a lot of the time. You don't have to be the person that's saying, "No, bad, wrong, I don't like you." It's, "I'm leading you to it." We are going together. We are both walking hand in hand in pursuit of truth.

‍

Victoria - 00:12:52:

So you've worked with several brands throughout your career. How have you used the Socratic method to challenge internal assumptions about what customers want versus what they actually need or desire?

‍

Sarah - 00:13:03:

Yeah. I mean, I think you definitely don't go into it saying, "Hey, let's use the Socratic method on this one," because there's sort of a natural...

‍

Victoria - 00:13:14:

A blank stare when you say that?

‍

Sarah - 00:13:16:

Yeah, certainly. That's why I don't say that typically. They don't really even know that you're doing it. You don't know that you're applying it. That's kind of part of why it works so well because it just feels like you're having a discussion. It feels like you're having a really polite, sort of natural discussion. And honestly, people...we're kind of self-involved people. When's the last time you've been having a conversation with someone and they've been asking you lots of questions about you, your beliefs, the things that you think, and you've thought, "Oh, I hate when people are curious about me and my beliefs"? It's rarely ever happened. People like being questioned. They like people trying to understand them and the things that they believe. It can occasionally tip over to, "Okay, you're pestering me." So there's a time and a place. If we're busy and we're trying to take fast-turn research, you've got to choose your time and your place. And that's really the only other piece of advice I would add. In terms of, like, practical examples, you know, it happens all the time, you know, when there's a particular senior leader who has a preference for design A over design B, and you know that going into the meeting. We've always had those pieces of knowledge going in. When we know we want this campaign to do well, we know that we like this influencer, we want this to win, that's fine that they have those assumptions, but there's a reason that we're doing the testing. And it's because that "N of one" opinion is fine for them to have, but if that was the only opinion that mattered, we wouldn't be doing the consumer testing at all. The consumer is different from the people inside of the building in so many ways. They're not always urban metropolitan people with master's degrees that make X amount of money. You know, we're not our consumer a lot of the time, so we need to talk to them to understand what they want and what they like. And it is our job as researchers to make sure that that voice is represented in the room. And if you are afraid of that, if you are afraid of voicing that opinion, then I think you have to reevaluate what it is you think you're doing here. I think courage is...it's hard, but I think it's Churchill that said that courage is the first of human qualities because it guarantees all the other ones. You can't do anything without that ability to stand up for what you believe is correct and right and truthful. It's fundamental to what we do.

‍

Victoria - 00:15:52:

When you run into things, is it more that you think the assumptions are, "Everyone thinks like us?" Like, "I think like my consumer," but to your point, urban living with a master's degree is not the same demographic as necessarily your consumer. So are those the types of things that you see that kind of cause these conflicts, or are there other assumptions that you typically see within the organization that you think need to be interrogated?

‍

Sarah - 00:16:17:

I think there are a lot of reasons that we make assumptions. I think insights people are not immune from the same sort of mistake. It's a fact that we've worked closely with these brands and have been inside the building for so long that you feel a level of attachment to the brand. There's also the simple fact that business has its own dialect. You know, we talk about jargon all the time, and it's necessary for us to be able to communicate with one another, but it's also kind of insular. So the more fluent that we become in that business dialect, the more foreign the consumer and the shopper can seem. Insights exist, really, to reintroduce the vernacular of real life and real people. I think anyone that's ever done research or worked in insurance or financial research has probably seen this, especially. I did some qualitative research back when I was on the supply side for an insurance group. I think it was like a state medical or Medicaid group. And they could not understand why these retired seniors weren't picking health care plan A over these other options because it was obviously the better one. And the answer was just that insurance is confusing to people. And it was just something they could not wrap their mind around because to them, it's not confusing because they live and breathe this stuff all day, every day. So the difference between a premium and whatever other term is obvious and it's day-to-day to them. And the same thing applies in my field in the beverage world where we use terms to describe categories that consumers don't use, but we have these category definitions that enable us to sell into retailers or differentiate us from others. But it's not the way that consumers talk about those categories. It doesn't mean we have to destroy those terms inside the building, but it does mean that we have to remember that consumers don't talk about things that way. And so that matters when we're writing a survey, when we're thinking about what our real competitive set is, what the real switching opportunities are, what they're comparing us to when we're talking about taste or benefits, or what flavors we should be thinking of when we're launching an innovation. All of those things really matter. And if we forget those things and those assumptions because we've locked ourselves into these business frameworks with our own particular jargon for our industry or our business major mindset, we're losing that. We're losing a lot of the vernacular of real people.

‍

Stephanie - 00:19:17:

I think that makes a lot of sense. And I'm glad you unpacked some of those other kinds of assumptions because I think that they're very specific to working on the brand side, a lot of what you're talking about. It's like these internal assumptions. But before that, you had mentioned one that I think even on the supplier side, we run up against all the time, which is when you're doing creative evaluation or product evaluation, which is just truly there are often moments where you're evaluating somebody's baby. Somebody's baby is getting evaluated, right? And we tend to know that, and that's when that sort of the self-concept is bound up a little bit in the results of that study. And I think the challenges are the same, but they're unique with the internally to the brand and then externally because you feel like you ought to be able to be a truth-teller when you sit outside the organization, but it doesn't always feel like that because a client-supplier or partner relationship can feel equally tenuous or like something you want to preserve at all costs. And so I think it's so important to remember that the best partner you can be is the partner who's a truth-teller. Right? Or a truth-seeker.

‍

Sarah - 00:20:32:

Yeah. Yes. That role, especially, the role between insights and creative is one that I take very seriously because I came from strategic planning at an ad agency. So I was there working directly with the creatives who built these ad campaigns. So I have a lot of deep sympathy for the hard work that goes into the babies that are out there, and it sort of feels bad to go, "It tested below norm," and they go, "The blood, sweat, and tears I put into this thing." And you're right, it's hard to sit down sometimes and to sit there and tell them, "You know, this didn't perform well." And so the very natural human temptation is to go, "Well, how can we make these negative results look better?" Or, "How can we deliver this bad news in a way that doesn't sound bad or that isn't?" "How can we make this not so negative?" But the truth of the matter is, if it's negative, we need to be able to tell people, "This is bad news." But there's a way to deliver constructive news or unconstructive news. So I try to have a first-round meeting with the creative team and be like, "Hey, I'll level with you guys because you're adults and you're smart. This is not good news. What would you like to do about it? What is the thing? What is the message that we are united going to go with to the brand team and say, 'We've talked, and here is our strategic way forward,' leading with insights and a creative plan forward?" versus feeling like they get stabbed in the back with the brand team there, going, "Hey, those guys didn't do their job," because that's not productive to anyone, and that doesn't foster a good relationship between insights and creative, and they're not going to want to bring me in before the brief next time to lead with insights either. We all need to be working towards the same goal of understanding the consumer, understanding an insight, and moving forward from that point. I just think it's there's often this, like, charming illusion that we have that if we just nurture the relationship enough, we'll eventually be brought into the inner circle. But partnership isn't a prize you win for good behavior. And it's really tempting to believe that our role is to affirm and not to interrogate, to wrap every insight in sugar and to cushion every critique. But if you don't risk discomfort, you're not doing insight work; you're doing customer service. Insights can't be omniscient, but it is observant. And our power lies not in prescribing answers, but in knowing what deserves further questioning. And you have to be there not as a polite guest in the meeting, but as the person that they feel like they can't make a decision without.

‍

Stephanie - 00:23:16:

That is some powerful stuff, Sarah. I really like...lots of nuggets in there. That is awesome. I love it. What do you think about...like, one thing that I wonder about is that, you know, we talk about agility in research, you know, and we have been for probably ten, fifteen years now, but it really truly does feel like research is moving at a faster and faster pace all the time, especially innovation-related research. We're all moving faster and more nimbly than we ever have before. How do you think something like the Socratic method can be integrated into those agile research processes? And I guess I wonder, specifically, is it possible to maintain that kind of rigor and approach of Socratic questioning while staying responsive in that really agile process and making sure to hit those deadlines?

‍

Sarah - 00:24:37:

Yeah, absolutely. In fact, I think depending on how you adopt them, they can facilitate that usage because the tools that we have, the DIY tools, the AI, and the generative AI tools that we have, they can free us from a lot of the small tactical burdens that we have, like a lot of the really burdensome and onerous tasks that we have, and give us the space to focus on some of the more valuable strategic research that we do, the custom research, the big-picture synthesis that we do, the relational groundwork that allows for sustained, constructive dialogue with stakeholders. But, and this is important, I think we do sort of stand on a bit of a knife's edge because I feel like if we're not vigilant, it can become really easy to get hooked on the short-term dopamine hit of quick-turn DIY results. It's fast, it's clean, it feels really decisive, but speed is not depth. A chart turned around in forty-eight hours is not always a substitute for that deep-rooted human insight that helps a brand understand itself and its audience in a lasting way. And our role is in part to defend that distinction, to ensure that as tools get faster and faster and slicker, that we don't mistake this feeling of momentum for real meaning. And I think there's, like, speaking of the Socratic method, there's a deeper philosophical tension here, especially with this younger generation coming up through college that demands that we question what we know. AI...the Socratic method is all about questioning what you already know. It's about questioning your assumptions, questioning the edifice of your existing knowledge, and making sure that your foundations are well-grounded. AI, by contrast, is really kind of designed to be a very polite assistant in a lot of ways. It's sort of to mirror our own biases back to us and make them sound more intelligent in a lot of ways. And so in that sense, it can become a tool of intellectual comfort and not a tool of courage. An over-reliance on it, especially for the wrong tasks, can really dull the muscles we need to sharpen in this new era. So that would be, especially for young researchers, my really great caution.

‍

Victoria - 00:27:23:

And I mean, researchers of any generation, right? And in sharpening those tools, how do you coach teams to adopt a Socratic mindset?

‍

Sarah - 00:27:32:

Well, like I said, sometimes when I bring up philosophy, I'll get some somewhat of eye rolls because I tried to bridge this with my philosophy on AI. I was bringing up another philosophical premise of Plato's cave. My earpiece fell out. Sometimes when I bring up philosophy too much, I'll get a little bit of eye rolls because I can sound a bit pretentious. But one of the philosophies I talk about with AI is the concept of Plato's cave, that it's not actual intelligence, but it's like the shadows on the wall. So we see the shadows and we think it's the actual thing, but it's not the actual thing. It's the shadows cast by the thing that resemble insights and intelligence, but it's really just a figment of our imagination. Again, I don't generally walk into these with the first thing I'm talking about being the Socratic method—"Here's a one-on-one," "Here's an intro." It's more if people think or see that I have strong relationships with my stakeholders, they think or see that I'm successful with my projects in some way, and they want advice from me, then I have that advice to offer. And I typically don't frame it in the lens of, "Hey, you should go read the five dialogues of Plato," although you should do that because they're good. But you can just start framing it this way: if you're not comfortable with confrontation like I am, you can start by just asking questions of people and letting them do the thinking themselves. You can start by having them question their own premises. You're not having to get into this huge, you know, Oxford Hall-style debate where you're going point for point. You're really just digging a little bit and trying to make sure you understand basic things. Like, what are their definitions of things? Are you on the same page? When they're using terms, are we using the same terms? Because that's a lot of the time the difference of confusion. Like, what are your metrics for success versus what are mine? Are we making the same assumptions or different assumptions? That alone can be a huge game-changer to make sure we're on the same page. And I think it's a lot less intimidating for people to ask for clarification and ask for questions than it is to be in a meeting and correct someone, especially someone that's more senior to them, even if it's not their direct boss, but a stakeholder that's more senior to them.

‍

Stephanie - 00:30:15:

You spoke to this a little bit, and I would love to hear you talk about it more. When you're applying this sort of dialectical method in market research or especially to your role and insights, how do you measure its success? Are there specific outcomes and metrics, shifts in behavior within your team or your organization that you're looking for to determine whether this is actually leading to deeper, more impactful insights? Is it at the bottom line that you're looking for? Like, how do you measure your success?

‍

Sarah - 00:30:44:

You know, I think the bottom line is always tough. Unfortunately, it's always hard for research because it's dependent so much on the organization. So that can't always be a good metric because that's a variant on where insights sit as a function in your organization. For me, it's so much dependent on my relationship with my stakeholders. Some of that can be personality-dependent, but I think that's part of why it's a good metric. If you find that you're having successful stakeholder relationships across a range of brands, different roles, and different personality types, that's usually a good metric that your strategy is working. And the metric that I'm using there is what are the types of questions that I'm getting? What is the nature of conversations that I'm being brought into? Am I begging to be let into the room, or are they proactively coming to me with questions? What are the types of questions I'm being asked? Is it last minute, "Hey, can you run these five out-of-home boards and tell me which one's the winner based on purchase intent?" and it's really just, "I'm an order taker, and they're giving me something and they want one specific metric out, and that's the only type of stuff they're coming to me with"? Or are they bringing me into cross-functional calls that I seemingly have no specific question for? They just want me in the room in general for conversations.

‍

Victoria - 00:32:53:

As a thought partner.

Sarah - 00:32:53:

Yeah, right. They want me as a strategic thought partner whenever they're having broad discussions about brand direction, about creative, about what they're doing for strategy next year. Those are the types of things that tell me I'm doing a good job because I'm valuable to this team. Because they feel like if they're making a big decision, they need me or want me in that room because I'm adding value to that team.

‍

Victoria - 00:32:53:

It makes a ton of sense. We've already talked about kind of adopting the Socratic method within the consumer insights team. But for it to be really successful, your colleagues and your stakeholders sort of need to, not need, but it would be helpful if they adopt this mindset as well. So how do you go about fostering a culture within the company where questioning assumptions just becomes a natural part of the decision-making process, especially if you do have conventional wisdom that's deeply entrenched in the organization?

‍

Sarah - 00:33:22:

That's something that, you know, I think is a very natural question to get. And I think, to me, the answer is kind of obvious. If you believe that your insights are fundamental truth-seeking, then you should believe that you're just going to be getting them somewhere that's fundamentally better than you otherwise would. So why wouldn't I vouch for that, right? The end goal is to be somewhere that's better. So if we're working towards something, even if the conversation is difficult, then I should believe that even if this process might be maybe occasionally temporarily uncomfortable because I have brought up something that maybe someone in the room didn't want to talk about or didn't want to hear or didn't want to be questioned, that's fine, because ultimately, at the end of the process, we've gotten somewhere closer to the honest truth of the matter, which is that if we had launched this, whatever, as an example, this creative, we would have wasted millions of dollars on an advertisement that wasn't as good, or we would have launched an innovation that wouldn't have been as successful. We're wasting money, we're wasting time doing something that is not as effective, that is not as close to truth. And there are many different types of truth. Our role is consumer truth. So I say this all the time: Coke is a great place to work because they care so much about consumer truth. But, you know, one of the things I used to joke about when I was working on the juice team is, like, "Look, if you ask consumers what they want for a juice, they will tell you, 'All natural with zero sugar.'" And I said, "That does not exist," but it's important that we understand that about what consumers want. Because sometimes they'll tell us things that are completely irrational, that don't really exist, and that's fine. But we need to know that, and then we balance that with other truths. Like, "What are supply chain truths? What are our RGM truths? What are our research and development truths?" And together, we can come to a collective decision about what is actually feasible for us to put out in the world. But your job as the consumer truth is to make sure that they have a really clear picture. If you're pigeonholing yourself and saying, "Well, I'm going to caveat that because they probably can't do that," that's fine. Let RGM tell you they can't do that because that's their job. Your job is to tell them what the consumer wants. And you can be a strategic thinker and business-minded and say, "Hey, we probably can't do this, but you should know this is what the consumer's prioritizing. This is what the consumer wants." That's fine too. But ultimately, that pursuit of truth is important.

‍

Victoria - 00:36:13:

It is. And I think you bring up a really good point that a lot of times, our stakeholders expect research to have the silver bullet answer, and it's not. It's meant to guide decisions in conjunction with business acumen and what we know about the organization and the larger economy and marketplace at scale. It can't just be one piece of the puzzle. It's not the entire puzzle. It's just a piece of the puzzle.

‍

Sarah - 00:36:39:

Right. Which is, I mean, this comes up most obviously whenever we do research on pricing, which is what I love. I'm like, "If you ask them, they're always going to tell you as close to free as I will let them say."

‍

Stephanie - 00:36:50:

It's just rational.

‍

Sarah - 00:36:53:

Yeah, right. Which is why you need to have some sort of, like, a conjoint methodology to introduce trade-offs because if you just give them price points, they're just going to say, "I want as much as possible for as cheap as possible."

‍

Stephanie - 00:37:05:

As possible.

‍

Sarah - 00:37:07:

For sure. We're all consumers, and that's what I mean about business acumen. I'm like, "Because when we're consumers acting in the real world, we know that." We know we want to spend as little money. But as soon as we put our business hats on, we're like, "Well, maybe they'll like it if I charge them." It's like, "No. Why would they like that?"

‍

Victoria - 00:37:24:

Yes. There's always that. I've had that before. Like, "The consumer will understand if we have to price more." "I'm like, 'No, they don't.'"

‍

Stephanie - 00:37:33:

I had a question in here, and I mean, I still...I'm going to ask it, but I feel like I have learned enough from you, Sarah, that I know what your answer is going to be. But it's in the context of AI. We talk a lot about AI on this podcast, and I was curious, you know, "Can the Socratic method coexist with our sort of AI-driven approaches?" I'm going to guess that you would say it's never been more important for it to sort of coexist and be a part of the process as it is in the context of AI.

‍

Sarah - 00:38:08:

Yeah. I mean, I think I'm not a Luddite. I don't think that we can...I don't think you can stop the progress of technology. It's impossible to rail against those machines indefinitely, so it's pointless to halt the progress of technology. But it is important to think about how we're using technology and the ways that we're using technology. AI is an interesting tool because of the thing that it's trying to do, right? It's not challenging your assumption. If you tell AI, "Give me an argument for blank," and, you know, there's some...most AIs have some sort of like a political filter. Some of them will not make an argument for the most heinous thing in the world, but barring those extremes, no matter what you put in, it will give you a relatively polished, relatively intelligent argument for whatever position you give it. It's not really going to say, "Well, have you considered?" or, "Why do you think that?" Because that's not what it's doing, which is fine because that's not what it's supposed to be doing. So that's why I caution with AI. You can't not use it. I use it all the time, especially when I'm trying to, like, quickly polish up an email, because it saves time. And that's a big thing that we need to do is just, like, if you're trying to save time so that you can better use it for those other things, like honing your critical thinking skills, but don't try to use it to supplement or replace critical thinking because that's not what it's doing. It can't do that. It's a big regression model that's just going to take what you say and reflect back at you something else.

‍

Victoria - 00:40:00:

Lastly, what is one piece of advice you'd offer to someone just starting out in the world of consumer insights?

‍

Sarah - 00:40:07:

I talk a lot with younger people in research. I'm on the UGA advisory board, so I get the opportunity to talk to them a lot, the MMR advisory board. I love having that opportunity to stay connected to that next generation of researchers, and it's amazing how fast the industry feels like it's changing, especially because of all the technological movement we've seen even in the last couple of years. I think higher education still plays such a crucial role as an intellectual foundation for the next generation. If I were to give a piece of advice to the next generation or younger researchers that are coming up into the field, I would say that there are a couple of really defining skills that it takes to be a good researcher, and those things really aren't going to change no matter how much technology changes or how much the industry changes. One is a lot of what I've talked about here today: intellectual courage, that willingness to question not just others but yourself and making sure that you're always opening yourself up to the possibility that you could be wrong about things. Second, a need for agility, the ability to navigate rapidly changing tools and data landscapes without losing sight of what really matters: equally rapidly changing human behavior. And finally, curiosity, fitting for the podcast title, but about people, obviously, but also—and this is very important—intellectual and artistic realms. Literature, philosophy, history, art—these are not separate interests; they're vital tools for understanding the human condition. Engaging deeply with them doesn't just make you a sharper researcher, it makes you a more empathetic and thoughtful human being. So don't just take the shortcut with AI and all of these simplistic technological tools. Read deeply and read widely. Watch things, engage with as much as you can because you will never have more time than you do now to do that.

‍

Victoria - 00:42:26:

Do you have a concern that the reliance on some of the new technology like AI is going to result in an erosion of critical thinking?

‍

Stephanie - 00:42:35:

Brain rot?

‍

Victoria - 00:42:36:

Yeah, basically. Yeah, right? It's easy, it's quick.

‍

Sarah - 00:42:41:

Yeah.

‍

Victoria - 00:42:41:

I don't have to...maybe I won't interrogate it.

‍

Sarah - 00:42:43:

Yeah, I do have that concern. I think MIT actually recently did a study on that finding that it's kind of already happening. You know, there is this idea that, "Oh, if I can just shortcut things and not deal with the struggle and the complication and the difficulty, then that's easier, and easier is always better." And that seems sort of obvious in a way, but it's actually completely the opposite of the case. Human beings need to struggle through things. Struggle is the way that we learn; it's the way that we adapt. You grow muscle by struggling to lift heavy things. You learn to cook by pushing yourself to try recipes you haven't tried before. You struggle to gain knowledge by reading books that are just outside of your intellectual capacity. That's how you grow, is by challenging yourself. And if you're not challenging yourself and you're just not—to sound like a "these kids today" boomer—but if you're just scrolling through TikTok and letting the AI algorithm feed you whatever, you're not going to get anywhere. You have to be intentional with what you're consuming with your media. You have to be intentional with building a life for yourself that is meaningful. Do not let the ease of the screen life tempt you into its warm embrace because it is very tempting, but it is an artificial happiness, and it will not get you anywhere.

‍

Stephanie - 00:44:17:

As you were speaking, I just kept thinking it's intentionality, right? And then you said that because that's really what it requires now, right? Like, there may be in the past, it didn't require so much intentionality to cultivate that. But in the environment we live in, with so many quick hits and so many easy ways forward, it really does require carving out intentionally that space and time for yourself.

‍

Sarah - 00:44:39:

Well, because before, we had this wonderful resource that wasn't scarce: it was boredom. You had boredom in such vast quantities. And when you're bored all the time because you don't have this constant source of endless distractions—which, you know, I'm not trying to be holier-than-thou; I deal with this all the time where I'm constantly sucked into various screens—but when you're bored, you try to fill that boredom with other things. "I'm going to read, I'm going to walk, I'm going to exercise, I'm going to do things, I'm going to develop hobbies, I'm going to cook, bake," or whatever. That's how creativity and intellect develop. When you don't have boredom because you always have screens of various sizes filling in that boredom, the creativity dies on the vine. You don't have it. So you have to really, really fight against that because these little machines are designed to prevent it. They're designed to just suck you in and never let you off. We can't...can't let them win. Can't let them win.

‍

Victoria - 00:45:42:

Well, and now I'm really going to date myself, but I remember doing book reports with encyclopedias, and you had accidental discovery. You go to "B," and then you would discover a whole new thing in alphabetical order. And now you're just specifically searching for what you want, and I feel as if that is also just inverting accidental discovery. You don't have that as much anymore.

‍

Sarah - 00:46:03:

Right. Yeah. It's perfectly crafted to what you're already interested in, what they already know you'd like. You get sent down this little tiny stream. You are really carefully crafted that they're not going to send you outside of your existing stream. Yeah. It's preventing critical discovery and creativity. It's really, really bad. And now I think there have always been worse things. This is definitely not the worst time to be alive. I am not a doomer in any way, but that doesn't mean that it's not a real problem.

‍

Stephanie - 00:46:37:

For sure. And like you said, again, I mean, just to go back to it, it requires intentionality to move outside of it. If you don't have that, you're...it's not going to happen because it's simply been made too easy to stay in that sort of, in that river of content or screens or...yeah. Sarah, this has been an absolutely illuminating conversation, fascinating stuff to get to talk about with you today, and we really appreciate you coming on the show.

‍

Sarah - 00:47:07:

Thank you so much for having me. It was lovely talking to you both.

‍

Stephanie - 00:47:10:

Thank you so much.

‍

Stephanie - 00:47:11:

You, too. The Curiosity Current is brought to you by AYTM.

‍

Stephanie - 00:47:18:

To find out how AYTM helps brands connect with consumers and bring insights to life, visit aytm.com.