We’re not order-takers, either
While the focus of our annual Q Report survey is nominally on the perspectives of client-side researchers, we do try to check in with the vendor or agency-side readers with some regularity to get their side of the story. After all, the client-siders have had plenty of opportunities over the years to vent some of their frustrations so it’s only fair to give the vendors a crack. So in the most recent Q Report survey we posed this open-end to the vendors: What are two or three things you wish your in-house/corporate researcher clients better understood about your job?
The most prevalent theme in supplier responses centered on the old “better, faster, cheaper” dream. As one respondent bluntly put it: “Cheap – fast – good – pick 2 out of the 3.”
Research suppliers consistently express frustration with clients who expect premium-quality research delivered quickly at bargain prices. Many suppliers want clients to recognize that quality work requires adequate time and appropriate budgeting. As one supplier noted, “Quality has its price and quality often needs time.”
The responses highlight that corporate researchers often fail to appreciate the complexity and labor involved in executing research projects. This includes the time required for thoughtful analysis, the effort needed for quality recruitment and the specialized expertise that delivers actionable insights rather than just data.
One supplier summarized this dynamic effectively: “Faster and less-expensive are opposite poles and you usually can’t get both.” Another respondent added, “Research will answer their objectives only,” warning against adding unnecessary information that ignores the main objectives.
Suppliers also wish clients better understood that the research landscape has changed. “It’s important for clients to recognize that the costs associated with conducting research have increased over time,” noted one respondent. Factors like inflation, rising operational expenses and increased technology costs have pushed up the cost of quality research. Yet suppliers report that many clients still expect pre-inflation pricing.
Complexity and effort
The second major theme is that clients often underestimate the complexity and effort involved in executing research projects. This includes everything from programming surveys and managing field operations to quality control, analysis and reporting.
The misunderstanding of research complexity manifests in several ways:
Underestimated timeline requirements: Suppliers wish clients understood “the time it takes to get something done” and “the complexity of a project and consideration to make it more manageable.” When clients expect immediate turnarounds, they’re often unaware of the intensive effort required behind the scenes.
Impact of scope changes: “Change in scope after the project is quoted and signed off on will lead to changes in price and/or extended timeline. It’s not realistic or fair to think otherwise,” said one supplier. Several respondents expressed frustration about clients who make “can you just” requests without recognizing how even small changes affect the entire project timeline, resource allocation, and budget.
The ripple effect of delays: “When there are delays on their side, the entire project timeline then has to be pushed that same amount of time.” This frustration was echoed repeatedly, with suppliers noting that client delays don’t simply compress the supplier’s timeline – they create scheduling conflicts across multiple projects and teams.
Research is not a button press: “Despite advances in AI and automation, getting to good insights takes time. Research is not a button I push that spits out a report for you. Well, it CAN be that, but that’s not what you want.” Multiple suppliers emphasized that meaningful insights require thoughtful human analysis.
Partners, not just suppliers
Perhaps the most emotionally resonant theme in the responses was the desire for true partnership rather than a transactional vendor relationship. “I wish that they trusted us as a partner more than just a supplier,” wrote one respondent. “It is so beneficial to work on a brand throughout its lifetime vs a one-off project. I also wish they understood that we are here to help them best we can and we want to be along the process with them.”
Several elements comprise this partnership theme:
Sharing context and business objectives: Suppliers frequently mentioned that clients withhold critical information that would help them deliver better insights. “We will better meet their needs if they share their real objectives,” explained one supplier. Another added, “The more information they share with us about their objectives and how they will use the research, the better we are able to craft a research solution tailored to their specific needs.”
Trusting supplier expertise: “We are experienced in what we do,” offered one supplier, reflecting a common sentiment that clients often fail to leverage the deep expertise suppliers bring. Several mentioned clients dictating methodologies rather than sharing problems and allowing suppliers to recommend the best approaches.
Recognizing mutual success: “Our job is to enlighten them on a new approach which could help them with their current role, save time, money and increase the level of insights so they can make better decisions for the organization.” Many responses emphasized that suppliers want their clients to succeed and see their relationship as collaborative rather than adversarial.
The human elements
The fourth major theme revolves around the human elements of research operations that clients often overlook. From managing multiple competing priorities to understanding the realities of field work and recruitment, suppliers wish clients had better appreciation for the human side of research execution.
Multiple clients and competing priorities: “That we work on multiple projects at one time” was a frequent refrain. Suppliers want clients to understand they aren’t on-call resources working exclusively on a single client’s projects. As one put it, “Please allow us at least an hour to respond.”
Field realities and respondent dynamics: “We are dealing with human people and not with robots esp. when we are talking with respondents.” Many suppliers highlighted that clients often have unrealistic expectations about research participants – from assuming respondents will complete lengthy surveys to expecting immediate recruitment of specialized segments.
Respondent experience matters: “Respondents are people and not just numbers.” Several suppliers emphasized the importance of respecting participant time and experience, noting that poor survey design leads to poor data quality. One advised, “If you won’t sit and go through endless grids, a respondent will not either and they will click through at random.”
Basic professional respect
Underlying many responses was a call for basic professional respect. Suppliers described challenging client behavior that affects their work-life balance and professional dignity:
After-hours demands: “The primary issue is how their delay in reviewing and approving materials, such as questionnaires and stimuli to be tested, impacts project deadlines. As vendors, we often have to go to great lengths to deliver results on time, which can sometimes have negative impacts on our personal lives. This is particularly frustrating given that these delays come from companies that heavily emphasize ‘work-life balance.’”
Communication expectations: Multiple suppliers mentioned clients who expect immediate responses but then go silent themselves. One noted, “I wish they would remember that the majority of what we produce (and what they appreciate the most) comes from our brain matter. We don’t push a button and have some machine spit it out on the other side.”
Professional courtesy: “When you ask for a complex brief and it takes us a week to write you a proposal, please let us know that you have received it and the outcome. It is basic common courtesy and is often not done by our clients.”
The path forward
The responses reveal a clear desire from suppliers for stronger, more collaborative relationships with their corporate research clients. Based on the feedback, several recommendations emerge for improving these partnerships:
- Recognize the value equation: Understand the realities of the time-cost-quality triangle. Be realistic about what’s achievable within budget and timeline constraints.
- Communicate objectives, not just specifications: Share business context and how research will be used, not just methodological requirements.
- Involve suppliers early: Bring research partners into the process at the planning stage rather than after decisions are made.
- Respect expertise: Trust suppliers’ methodological recommendations and feedback on feasibility.
- Plan for adequate timelines: Allow sufficient time for proper recruitment, fieldwork, analysis and reporting.
- Anticipate the ripple effects: Understand how delays and changes impact the entire project schedule, not just the immediate task.
- Respect professional boundaries: Maintain reasonable expectations about response times and after-hours availability.
Deliver superior outcomes
The collective wisdom from these supplier responses points to a significant opportunity: transforming research supplier relationships from transactional vendor interactions to strategic partnerships that deliver superior business outcomes.
At the core, suppliers want clients to understand that they’re invested in mutual success. As one respondent put it, “We are here to make them look good – but we need information and support to let us do that.”
By developing greater understanding of supplier constraints, challenges and capabilities, corporate researchers can build stronger relationships that ultimately deliver more meaningful insights. When corporate researchers treat suppliers as true partners rather than interchangeable vendors, they unlock the full value of external expertise while creating more productive and satisfying professional relationships.
The fundamental message from suppliers is clear: They want to be partners in solving business problems, not just executors of tactical research. With greater mutual understanding and respect, both sides can achieve better outcomes.
Methodology
The Q Report work life and salary and compensation study of end-client/corporate researchers is based on data gathered from an invite-only online survey sent to pre-qualified marketing research subscribers of Quirk’s. The survey was fielded from June 17 to July 23, 2024. In total we received 1,504 usable qualified responses, of which 502 were from end-client researchers with 126 respondents indicating they were unemployed. (Not all respondents answered all questions.)