Original research built to be checked, not built to get a headline

Then we publish what it says, or we do not publish. Those are the only two options, and we agree them in writing before fieldwork begins so nobody is surprised.

This happens often enough to be worth planning for. An unexpected finding is frequently more interesting than the expected one, and a study that contradicts its sponsor’s assumption is unusually credible. Where a result would damage you, we shelve it — what we will not do is reframe it until it says something else.

Often yes, and it is usually stronger than a survey because it records behaviour rather than recollection. It needs care: anonymisation, aggregation thresholds so no individual customer is identifiable, a stated collection window, and a clear account of who is in the dataset and who is not.

The limitation to state plainly is that your customers are not a random sample of the market. That does not invalidate the finding, it defines it — and saying so is what makes the rest of the study believable.

For a commissioned survey, typically six to ten weeks from question definition to publication: two on design, two to three in field, and the remainder on analysis, writing and review. Rushing the design stage is the most expensive saving available.

Studies built on existing internal data can move faster, because there is no fieldwork, but they usually spend longer on anonymisation and on establishing what the dataset can support.

A visible method. Sample size, who was surveyed, how they were recruited, when fieldwork ran, and the exact wording of the questions behind the headline figure. A newsroom that cannot see those things will not risk the number.

Beyond that: a finding that is new rather than a restatement of something already published, a named person available to comment, and the underlying figures accessible rather than locked inside a designed document.

Nobody can promise that, and anyone who does is guessing. What we can say is that the material most reliably reused is stated plainly, attributed to a named source, dated, and sitting next to a description of how it was produced.

Practically, that means findings live on a real page as text, each figure written as a complete sentence with its basis attached, and the methodology published at its own address rather than as an appendix nobody can link to.

We publish our own research under the standards set out on our research pages, and we will not point you at a study we did not run or imply a back catalogue we do not have.

What we can show you before you commit is the method: the questionnaire review checklist, the disclosure template, and the limitations section format. Those tell you more about how a study will be run than a finished report does.