GLP-1 medications may be dominating headlines, but the most meaningful shifts are happening away from the spotlight, in the quiet adjustments people are making to their everyday lives.
When we speak to individuals who are actually using these medications, the conversation rarely centres on dramatic transformation. Instead, it revolves around a change in pace and perception. Appetite feels different. Cravings are less urgent. Decisions that once felt automatic, particularly around food and spending, become more considered. That recalibration of instinct might seem subtle on an individual level, yet when experienced at scale, it begins to reshape patterns of consumption in ways that brands cannot afford to ignore.
For organisations operating across food, drink, retail, beauty and healthcare, this is not simply a weight management trend to monitor from a distance. It represents a behavioural shift unfolding in real time. Basket composition evolves. Portion expectations adjust. Indulgence, functionality and value are being reassessed through a different lens. What feels relevant in a world of reduced impulse may not look the same as it did even two years ago.
At the same time, the surrounding landscape adds further complexity. Private prescribing continues to grow, NHS capacity remains stretched, and alternative supply routes are emerging with their own ethical and regulatory concerns. Meanwhile, secondary markets are forming around side effects, aesthetic changes and nutritional optimisation, signalling that GLP-1 is influencing far more than appetite alone.
What makes this moment particularly significant is its steadiness. These are not overnight shifts driven by hype. They are incremental behavioural adjustments that, taken together, have meaningful commercial and cultural implications.
In our latest podcast episode, we explore what people are really telling us about life on GLP-1 medications and what those lived experiences mean for brands seeking to remain relevant in a changing environment.
Every major business decision is, at its core, a capital allocation decision. A product launch, a pricing shift, a repositioning, an expansion into a new market… each one commits budget, time and resource long before it delivers a return. Once that capital is deployed, reversing course isn’t simple, and let’s be honest, it’s rarely inexpensive.
That is why the value of market research deserves to be considered in financial terms, not just marketing ones.
From the outside, market research services can sometimes look like a line item that sits ahead of the “real” activity. Something prudent, perhaps, but not always essential. Yet when viewed properly, strategic market research forms part of how risk is understood and managed before capital is exposed. It supports evidence-based decision making at the point it matters most, before investment scales.
The cost of getting it wrong is rarely small.
Overestimated demand becomes excess inventory and margin erosion through discounting. Misjudged pricing quietly compresses return on invested capital. A campaign built on assumption absorbs significant spend but ultimately will fail to convert at the level forecasted. Development budgets are committed to products that the market simply does not prioritise. And let’s be clear, none of these outcomes happen because teams lack ambition or capability. More often, they happen because assumptions were not pressure-tested early enough.
In financial terms, untested assumptions increase forecast variance and widen risk exposure. They tie up working capital in initiatives that may not deliver the expected return. While the research budget may feel material in isolation, it is typically modest when compared to the downstream cost of correcting a misjudged decision.
When considering market research ROI, the comparison should not be against doing nothing, it should be against the cost of being wrong.
We understand why market research can feel discretionary when budgets tighten. Leadership teams are balancing short-term P&L performance with long-term growth ambitions, and every line is scrutinised. But postponing insight does not remove risk; it simply shifts it further along the timeline, where the consequences are harder and more expensive to reverse. Scaling production before validating demand, entering a new segment without testing proposition fit, or adjusting pricing without understanding elasticity all increase strategic exposure at precisely the point capital is most committed.
Good market research does not eliminate risk. No responsible fieldwork partner would claim that. What it does offer is clarity. It narrows uncertainty before capital is deployed, stress-tests assumptions before they scale, and strengthens confidence in projected revenue and margin resilience. In that sense, investing in market research for business growth is not about buying opinions, it is about protecting return on investment.
And if market research exists to protect value, its integrity matters. Robust recruitment, representative samples, methodological rigour and secure data handling are not operational details; they underpin the reliability of the insight itself. Poor-quality research carries its own financial risk, because decisions made on flawed data can be just as costly as decisions made without any data at all.
Growth will always require calculated risk. That is the nature of business. The difference lies in whether that risk is taken with evidence or with optimism alone. The organisations that sustain strong returns over time are rarely the ones that avoid risk entirely. They are the ones that understand it properly before they commit capital.
When viewed through that lens, the value of market research becomes clearer. It is not simply a pre-project cost. It is a strategic safeguard, one that reduces exposure, strengthens confidence and helps businesses grow with intention rather than assumption.
We’re pleased to share that Acumen Fieldwork is ISO 20252 certified!
Now, we know certifications can sometimes feel like something that lives quietly in the footer of a website or on pages of a cred deck. But in research, this one carries real weight.
ISO 20252 is the international quality standard developed specifically for market, opinion and social research. It looks at how projects are designed, how recruitment is managed, how data is handled, how processes are documented and how accountability is maintained. In other words, it examines the bits that truly underpin trustworthy research.
And it’s thorough… really, really thorough. The audit isn’t a quick glance over a policy document. It’s a deep dive into how we actually operate, from screeners and consent processes to data security, supplier management and project controls. It asks one simple question in lots of different ways: are you doing what you say you do, and can you prove it?
For us, that answer is yes.
But what matters more than the certificate itself is what it represents. It reflects a team who care about getting things right. A culture where details are checked, participant experience is protected and data is handled with rigour. It’s about consistency, transparency and processes that stand up to scrutiny, whether anyone is watching or not.
To the surprise of no one, quality in fieldwork isn’t glamorous. It’s the quiet discipline behind the scenes. It’s clear documentation. It’s robust recruitment. It’s secure systems. It’s having the confidence to say no when something doesn’t meet the standard.
That’s the work our team does every day.
So yes, we’re ISO 20252 certified. We’re proud of that. But more importantly, we’re proud of the people who make it possible, the project managers, recruiters, IT team and admin staff who keep the wheels turning and the standards exactly where they should be.
GLP-1 has been everywhere lately. In headlines, in marketing calls, in group chats. But while the noise focuses on weight loss, we were more interested in something quieter and arguably more powerful.
What happens to everyday behaviour when appetite changes?
When appetite shifts, so does decision-making. And when decision-making shifts, markets follow.
Rather than relying on commentary or assumptions, we went directly to people currently taking GLP-1s and asked how their habits are evolving. Not just what they’re eating, but how they’re shopping, planning, spending and thinking about food and consumption more broadly.
What emerged wasn’t dramatic or extreme. It was a subtle, steady recalibration. Impulse purchases are declining. “Treat” culture feels different. Portion sizes, basket sizes and even the emotional relationship with food are adjusting. There’s more deliberation. More intention and less automatic behaviour.
For brands operating in food, drink, retail and health, it really matters. These aren’t one-off change and they point to a longer-term shift in how people engage with products, promotions and reward.
This is less about hype and more about understanding what’s structurally evolving beneath the surface.
We’ve pulled the findings together in a short report exploring the behavioural patterns we’re seeing, and what they might signal for brand relevance in the months and years ahead.
If you’re thinking about where growth comes from next, it’s worth a read. You can download it here.
Over the past 20 years, we’ve delivered all our healthcare research under the wider Acumen umbrella. From patient studies to work involving healthcare professionals and clinical environments, it’s been some of the most complex, sensitive and rewarding fieldwork we’ve supported.
What became increasingly clear is that healthcare isn’t just another sector sitting neatly alongside the rest. It operates differently to the consumer market. The regulatory landscape is tighter, the documentation requirements are more rigorous, and the conversations themselves often carry real emotional weight.
Rather than treating healthcare fieldwork as a bolt-on specialism, we decided it deserved its own focus.
That’s why we’ve launched Acumen Health.
Acumen Health is our dedicated arm built specifically for healthcare fieldwork, underpinned by compliance-led processes, in-house project delivery and teams who understand the nuance of working in clinical and regulated settings.
For us, this isn’t about creating something separate from who we are. It’s about refining and strengthening what we were already doing well. The principles of our fieldwork haven’t changed, meticulous recruitment, secure data practices and rigorous delivery have always been part of how we work. Acumen Health simply gives that expertise a clearer home.
At the same time, we’re conscious that healthcare research must never lose its human core. Behind every brief are patients, professionals and lived experiences that deserve respect. The operational side matters enormously, but so does tone, sensitivity and trust.
Acumen Health brings those elements together in one clear, intentional offer. It represents our continued investment in raising standards within healthcare fieldwork, and our commitment to delivering research that is rigorous, responsible and genuinely people-first.
We’re incredibly proud to see it formally launch and excited about what comes next.
You can visit Acumen Health by clicking here.
Market Research is all about representation – we are looking for the right people for the right criteria to represent the views of the right audience. How could it be anything but? Research, at its core, should be inclusive. It’s how we get the best insight, gather the most understanding, collect the most important data, and ultimately the best way to learn. However, the more we learn, the more we are coming to realise that we can often forget to give a seat at the table to those who need it.
In (what should be) a progressive society, where every day we are growing and learning, gathering insights and widening our understandings, the excuses for our exclusions are starting to run dry.
We’re all familiar with the term ‘hard to reach groups’. There is an increasing thought however, that these groups are not so much ‘hard to reach’ as they are ‘easy to ignore’. It is easy to say ‘well they don’t come forward’, but this is only half of the process.
One example of a ‘hard to reach group’, is the transgender community. Making up only 0.54% of the 16+ UK population (according to the 2021 census), they make up a seemingly miniscule number of the British population. Of course there are no transgender people in your project’s data pool, there are so few of them!
Statistics can be deceiving. 0.54% of the UK’s population actually translates to 262,000 transgender people – all 16 and above, meaning all eligible to participate in almost all research projects. If transgender people are hard to reach, despite over a quarter of a million trans people making up the UK populace, we must instead ask ourselves what WE are doing wrong, for us to struggle to find trans people who are willing to participate.
The good news is, there are some very easy steps we can take. The first being the most simple of all – using the correct names and pronouns.
The subject of pronouns has overwhelmed the conversation surrounding trans people. This is not, and never has been, the crux of the issue with the fight for trans equality. However, it is worth considering that this is how we lose people at the first hurdle. It takes very little thought to refer to people how they wish to be referred to. We easily accept when people prefer a nickname to their legal name, or vice versa. We hardly even think about it. So why is it so difficult now?
Being thoughtful about people’s pronouns is the earliest sign of safety you can give to a transgender person. It is the immediate signal that they are entering a space where they will be treated with dignity and respect. It is only a small thing, using the appropriate he/she/they/etc. We were all taught how to use a person’s name and pronouns while we were in the single digit ages. It is not a new or novel concept. But as the first thing that occurs in your encounter with somebody, this sets the tone for the rest of the interaction, as well as the likelihood of future interactions taking place.
In a world where trans people must look around the corner of every room they enter, checking for danger and seeking safety, the very least we can do as an industry is show up for them with respect. Trans people have voices to be heard, opinions to be shared, on a million different subjects that we can research. Any project you have, there will be a trans person out there who fits the bill. If they are hard to reach, then is it up to us to show that we are a safe place to reach out to. They should WANT to come to us.
It’s a small thing, but so incredibly vital – and so incredibly simple. There are thousands of transgender people we can learn from, just like everybody else. It should be our mission to break down the barriers between our industry and those ‘hard to reach’ groups, especially in ways that cost nothing. It takes nothing to be respectful, but to a trans person looking for inclusion, the payoff could be priceless.
Written by Alec Fuller (they/them,) Recruitment Specialist at Research Opinions part of the Fuller Research Group
Written by Lydia Fuller, COO at Acumen Fieldwork.
Over the past couple of years, I’ve witnessed first hand the seismic shifts reshaping the market research industry, none more so, than Covid. Overnight, the research industry was forced to pivot, to learn new skills and to show its ability to adapt to change, and quickly.
Today we see artificial intelligence dominating headlines and boardroom conversations – everyone has an opinion on it and like Covid, the impact of AI is going to be seen and felt across industries and sectors, we in the world of Market Research are not going to be alone navigating this new world.
For me, 2025 has been the year of embracing AI and new technology, playing with different tools and platforms, understanding how to get the best from it, testing where it can help, where it can save time and where it’s simply not sophisticated enough to … yet. It’s been the year of upskilling myself, joining in the big debates and starting to have a point of view on how we are going to incorporate it into workflows and processes.
What I find particularly interesting is that 2025 has also been the year where I’ve observed a resurgence of face-to-face research. When Covid hit and the world of Qualitative Research moved online, there was a big question mark about the future of face-to-face, and the number of viewing facilities that sadly closed their doors in the subsequent years only supported this feeling.
Yet this year, it’s made a (long, overdue) comeback. Of course, there’s still been lots of online methodologies, but clients are, once again, requesting in-person research and online doesn’t feel the automatic default option. Where it previously felt quite challenging to convince clients as to the value of face to face, to motivate them out of their homes, to get them to want to travel to in-person sessions or to be able to justify the additional venue costs, something feels like it’s changed.
And for me, it’s no surprise that these two, quite polar changes seem to have occurred alongside each other. As the world embraces AI, the need for real, authentic, human connection is stronger than ever. AI is enabling the research industry to move at speed, to process vast datasets, quickly identify patterns and deliver initial findings faster than ever before. However, somewhere within this world of speed and technology has highlighted the need to make sure that the human remains front and centre of why we exist.
Maybe as an antidote to AI, I sense clients wanting to connect with consumers in an authentic way, to see the whites of their eyes, hear the subtle inflections of their voices and observe them as they go about their behaviours, confident in their validity as humans and not bots.
We’ve seen increases in focus groups, ethnography, accompanied shops, observations and intercepts and I see a renewed vigour for client teams choosing to come together to observe research sessions away from the day-to-day distractions of the job. These in-person methods allowing them as a team the time to observe, discuss, debate and move projects forward with consensus, in a way that isn’t so easy to do online.
Looking ahead to 2026 I see we still have a way to go in navigating AI and what it means for our industry, I don’t think anyone quite has the answer just yet, but I feel excited that we have a new tool in our armoury, one that helps speed up our processes and allows us time to focus on where we can add the most value.
We can debate the merits of moderator bots and synthetic participants all we like and I’m sure in this new world, each will have their place. I’m confident that we as an industry will embrace this new technology and adapt and pivot where necessary as we learn more about AI’s capabilities, just as we have done before.
But most importantly, the crux of what we stand for as an industry doesn’t change: connecting with humans, telling their stories, bringing to life their voices and keeping them at the forefront when it comes to decision making.
Wow – What a whirlwind of a year. What is it they say? “Change is the only constant in life” (and when I say they, I mean the Greek philosopher Heraclitus apparently) and it certainly feels like change is going at the speed of light.
For 2026, it seems like its an evolve or die situation and if nothing else, its going to be fascinating.
Reflecting on this year, a few notable changes spring to mind. Other than the mind-blowing words added to the Oxford English dictionary, which include “Trad wife” “delulu” and “skibidi”
I’d say there are no words but clearly there is!
My 10 year old delights trying to decode which dupes come from which original brand in the makeup section of any store. And even I clocked Aldi doing a hand cream that looked suspiciously like L’Occitane. Now I know that this has been going a while but it seems like a turning point has been reached this year and dupes are mainstream. I’m going to guess the cost of living has sky rocketed the dupe market, but now its here, it’s here to stay. It feels everyone is questioning value (and not just monetary) and where that really lies. Can anyone really tell the difference between a dupe and the real thing? And does anyone care?
I don’t think we have yet understood the huge and wide-ranging implications of this remarkable breakthrough drug. Having had 1st hand experience of using these, I’m not sure we have grasped the extent of change to come. From what we buy in the supermarket to how we eat out need immediate research to keep up with changing attitudes. But further than that, how do we keep up with attitudes to supplements and even the way we buy clothes?
My own changes have been radically changing what I buy at the supermarket – crisp brands you should be scared! Only really eating out at Wagamama’s if I can help it (oh I love Waga’s could write a whole piece on why they are wonderful) as well as buying supplements like Collagen and Creatine for the 1st time. And my new passion…Vinted! I find the things I have that I love in a smaller size and then sell my bigger ones-MAGIC!
Sorry I have to mention it. Don’t worry, not going to tell you I’ve got it down and I now sip margarita’s in the sun having outsourced my brain to AI. Although I would quite happily, if I knew how! And that is what this section is about, getting a clue about AI. Going back to my fascinating chat about new words, Dictionary.com chose “agentic” as their word of the year for 2025. Apparently, it refers to AI! But my resolution for 2026 is to get to grips with AI and really make an effort to understand its uses and capabilities. Its very clear there is huge scope for efficiencies and speed of turn around so where do I start…….I start by admitting I am pretty in the dark and get people who are not in to help and guide me. Hint: no AI was used in the writing of this piece.
As we get to the festive period (not something I relish sorry) a couple of things have stood out to me (other than me becoming more Grinch like each year)
I won’t rant but they are awful. I genuinely do not understand why they are permanently heaving. My friend was recently telling me (quite happily I might add) that she queued for 30 mins for a bubble tea! My mind was blown. Apparently it’s the best bubble tea and I clearly didn’t get it. She was right -I DO NOT get it! I was reflecting on this later, having had the misfortune of seeing the queues for food stalls for myself and I think it is a metaphor for the current climate we live in. Short term relatively low-cost fixes to try and feel better.
Almost a complete set of awfulness. Waitrose was the only exception for me (but not going to start shopping there sadly) Is the whole concept now outdated, or were they just not very well considered? Again, this is a whole thing on its own but if I were a few of the major retailers. I’d be having a really hard think for next year.
Particularly bad ads (only in my view this isn’t rage bait) were Tesco and Sainsbury. Why Tesco insisted on pointing out all the stuff people don’t like about xmas is beyond me. And why Sainsbury use Stephen Fry to voice over “good food for all of us” doesn’t make any sense to me. I really didn’t like Sainsbury using the WW2 xmas day football match to sell a few satsumas but that now looks like genius in the current onslaught of rubbish. Even Aldi let me down. Discuss.
Hope you have your seat belts on ready for the ride that is 2026. It is going to be an evolve or die year. Let’s not be scared though – embrace the chaos and let creativity reign.
And I will be trying to keep in mind the wonderful Charles Mackinsey’s quote from The boy, the mole, the fox and the horse: “One of our greatest freedoms is how we react to things.”
Screeners are integral to ensuring participants are recruited correctly, and they’re also one of the first things a participant will see and fill in when they want to take part in research, so it’s really important we get them right! Market research at its core is about understanding people, and our first opportunity to do that often comes from their survey application, so it’s important that the language we use within our screeners set a standard from the start that we want them to feel comfortable and safe to answer all questions honestly.
With this in mind, we’ve recently re-looked at the way we ask standard questions to ensure we’re remaining as inclusive as we can be.
Though thankfully few and far between, we sometimes receive screeners where the only gender options are male, female and other which is why we need solid standard questions to ensure our practices remain inclusive and respectful to all. Our standard gender question reads:
The following question is related to how you describe your gender identity. To ensure we’re speaking to a representative sample, please can you tell me how you describe your gender identity?
[ ] 1. Woman
[ ] 2. Man
[ ] 3. Non-binary
[ ] 4. Gender non-confirming
[ ] 5. Prefer to self-describe:
[ ] 6. Prefer not to say
Previously, options 1 and 2 read as female and male, but we’ve updated it to ‘woman’ and ‘man’ because female and male focus more on biological sex and can often exclude transgender people, but woman and man are social terms that acknowledge a wider range of gender identities. We don’t ever want anyone not to apply for something they’re interested in because the first questions they answer aren’t as inclusive as they can be, so it’s important that the language we use is affirming to ensure that all those filling it in feel seen and heard, which in turn shows that we want them to feel safe to express their opinions, which after all is what market research is all about.
We have also updated our question to check whether participants have any access requirements that we need to be aware of to encourage participants to share anything that they’re comfortable sharing with us. This question can often just be seen as referring to physical disabilities, but we want everyone to feel comfortable to tell us the adjustments they’d need to take part. This may include step-free access or large print materials, but we also want to know if a participant feels like they might need to take a pause, or if they’d prefer to take part in a quieter environment or smaller group where we have the option.
We also use and have evaluated our standard questions for things like sexuality, ethnicity etc and we update these based on feedback from participants. For example, participants have fed back to us that Sri Lankan should be included on our ethnicity question, so that is now included. This blog post would be a lot longer if we went into detail on every question (and believe me, we could), but it’s really important that our screeners are as inclusive as they can be! They’re often the first way a participant will express interest in a project, so we need to make sure that when they do apply, we’ve created a welcoming environment for everyone to answer honestly.
Written by Robyn Simner, Project Manager at Acumen.
We care about getting this right. And we know lots of others do too.
If you’d like advice, guidance, or even just a second pair of eyes, you know where we are.
