The Lie We Tell Ourselves About Customer Research

For quite a while now we’ve been running a polite fiction in product development.

We ask customers what they think.
They tell us.
We build accordingly.

Then we act surprised when they don’t buy.

This isn’t a failure of effort. It’s a failure of theory.

Most human decision-making is not conscious, linear, or even particularly coherent. It’s fast, emotional, identity-driven, and post-rationalized. People decide first. Then they explain.

Which means if your research model relies primarily on asking people to explain themselves — whether through surveys or 90-minute in-depth interviews — you’re building strategy on narrative, not behavior.

And markets don’t reward narratives. They reward behavior.

‍

Organic In-Depth Interviews: Powerful, but Not Predictive

‍

Let’s be clear: Organic (what you call real/in person) in-depth interviews are serious tools.

They surface nuance. They reveal emotional language. They expose tension and contradiction. Remove qualitative research from product teams and decision quality collapses.

But interviews still operate at the level of conscious storytelling.

‍

When someone says:

‍

• “I switched because of price.”
• “I didn’t trust the brand.”
• “The features weren’t compelling.”

‍

They’re not lying. They’re reconstructing.

‍

Underneath those statements are forces they can’t directly access:

‍

• Status preservation
• Loss aversion
• Effort avoidance
• Identity alignment
• Habit inertia
• Fear of regret

‍

You can probe. You can ladder. You can sit with silence.

But you cannot fully interview the subconscious.

Interviews reveal how users frame their world.
They don’t fully reveal how they navigate it.

And navigation is what determines revenue.

‍

The Delta Problem

‍

Here’s the real issue:

There is always a delta between what people say and what they do.

‍

Call it:

‍

• The intention–action gap
• The narrative–behavior gap
• Or simply, human nature

‍

In research terms, it’s the difference between stated preference and revealed preference.

And that delta is expensive.

‍

It’s why:

‍

• “Strong purchase intent” doesn’t convert.
• “Users love it” doesn’t scale.
• “We tested messaging” doesn’t move revenue.

‍

Most companies accept this gap as inevitable.

They shouldn’t.

‍

What If We Could Minimize the Delta?

‍

What if we had a system that didn’t stop at narrative?

What if interviews generated hypotheses — and then those hypotheses were stress-tested against modeled decision environments?

‍

Imagine this sequence:

‍

1. Conduct in-depth interviews.
2. Extract stated motivations, tensions, and language.
3. Translate those into behavioral variables — risk sensitivity, status orientation, price elasticity, cognitive load tolerance.
4. Simulate decisions under trade-offs.
5. Identify where narrative collapses under pressure.

‍

That process doesn’t eliminate the delta.

But it shrinks it.

‍

Instead of taking “I would pay for this” at face value, you test:

‍

• What happens when a cheaper alternative appears?
• What happens when switching requires effort?
• What happens when identity alignment is weak?

‍

You’re not asking people to predict themselves.

You’re modeling the environment that forces their hand.

That’s how you reduce the gap between intention and action.

Not by interviewing harder — but by pressure-testing behavior.

‍

The Case for Behavioral Modeling

‍

If most decisions are subconscious, then prediction requires modeling behavior under constraint — not collecting articulated opinions.

Behavioral modeling asks:

What happens when this decision competes with status, risk, effort, and identity?

Because decisions aren’t made in calm rooms with moderators.

‍

They’re made:

‍

• Under time pressure
• In noisy environments
• With incomplete information
• In social contexts

‍

Interviews flatten this environment.
Behavioral systems reintroduce it.

If you want to forecast adoption, churn, pricing sensitivity, or resistance, you need to model trade-offs — not just document testimonials.

‍

Speed Is Strategy

‍

There’s another structural issue: cadence.

Traditional research is episodic:
Recruit → Interview → Synthesize → Present → Decide.

Modern product development is continuous.

Features ship weekly. Positioning evolves monthly. Pricing experiments happen quarterly. Research cycles that lag product cycles create blind spots.

Rapid simulation compresses learning loops.

‍

You can:

‍

• Stress-test positioning across psychological profiles
• Model pricing sensitivity under different framing
• Explore how identity alignment affects conversion
• Surface failure points before engineering commits

‍

Speed compounds.

The firms that learn faster make better bets.

‍

Why Averages Mislead

‍

Surveys — and even some qualitative synthesis — optimize for averages.

But markets don’t behave like averages. They behave like distributions.

Your most profitable users are often extreme.
Your biggest churn risks are rarely typical.

‍

Behavioral modeling allows you to simulate variance:

‍

• Risk-averse vs novelty-seeking
• Security-driven vs status-driven
• Identity-aligned vs identity-threatened

‍

Strategy lives in the tails.

Averages are comfortable.
Variance is profitable.

‍

Continuous Experimentation Is the Endgame

‍

The future isn’t fewer interviews.

It’s interviews plus behavioral modeling plus live experimentation.

Interviews generate insight.
Simulation stress-tests it.
Experimentation validates it.

‍

Three layers:

‍

1. What users say.
2. How modeled users behave under constraint.
3. What real users actually do.

‍

The goal is simple:

Minimize the delta between narrative and action.

Because that delta is where capital goes to die.

If you believe humans are rational, self-aware, and consistent, then asking them what they think is sufficient.

If you believe humans are emotional, identity-driven, and frequently unaware of their own drivers, then you need systems that model behavior — not just collect stories.

The companies that reduce the say–do gap will outlearn and outbuild the rest.

The others will keep asking customers why they didn’t buy — and mistaking the explanation for the cause.

‍