Qual isn’t what it used to be. It’s better. In this Q&A, Amanda Hirsch, President of Vital Findings, sits down with Ivey Crespo, VP Qualitative at Vital Findings, and Beth Foster, most recently Sr. Manager, Global Consumer and Shopper Insights at The North Face, to discuss why the industry’s push toward qual-at-scale and automation is being matched by a return to immersion: researchers in context, in the moment, with real consumers doing real things. The strongest brands are using both scale and depth deliberately. And when the challenge is innovation, immersive qual – especially Spark Sessions – can expose blind spots before they become expensive decisions.
The conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
The Blind Spot at the Summit
Amanda: We hear a lot about how AI is making qualitative research faster and more scalable. But we also know that deep, immersive qual is having a resurgence. How does this impact innovation research?
Ivey: AI has obviously transformed the industry, and it’s been interesting to see where it’s taken off and has unique strengths versus how it sharpens and elevates where and when immersive qual is best. AI-driven methods get incredible speed and reach. We can collect input from more people and synthesize it faster. But with innovation and product development, that’s not always what you need: a product can be technically impressive and still miss the behavioral, emotional, or cultural context that determines whether people adopt it. Immersive qual is still the engine to deeply understand and explore that context, and to ensure innovations truly address a grounded, real-world need.
Beth: Exactly – at The North Face, that challenge often showed up because innovation starts with a small, highly dedicated team. They’re close to the product and can sometimes end up talking to only themselves. They may also co-create with elite athletes whose needs differ from those of the broader market, but either way, they’re often overlooking input from everyday consumers in the innovation and product development process.
Pockets are a simple example. Elite climbers may see them as unnecessary bulk, while most customers see them as essential. A jacket for typical consumers couldn’t go to market without a pocket. So a product built without that insight wouldn’t sell. That is the innovation blind spot: the idea gets trapped with lead users but fails to connect with everyday consumers.
Ivey: And that dynamic isn’t specific to outdoors apparel and gear. We’ve seen this play out across categories. If consumers enter into the conversation only after a product is largely defined, like in later stage testing or only to inform positioning, research can validate or refine an idea – but it can’t meaningfully influence what gets built.
Why Immersive Qual Sits at the Tree Line
Amanda: In your presentation at Quirks New York, you both used the idea of a “tree line” to describe where immersive qual fits. What does that mean – and what does research at the tree line actually look like?
Beth: I love to use a mountain metaphor, coming from The North Face and being an avid hiker and camper myself, it’s just a natural fit! So applying the metaphor here, at the summit are innovation teams, R&D specialists, and elite users. They hold a wealth of knowledge and ideas, but sometimes can create their own echo chamber. In contrast, at the base are broad audiences and scalable tools: quantitative research, AI-enabled methods, and qual-at-scale. These are critical for validation, but can miss nuance and context.
The tree line sits between them, and that’s where we’re placing immersive qual in this metaphor. It’s more accessible and representative than the summit, but more focused and in-depth than the base.
Ivey: At that tree line, or with immersive qual, we recruit consumers who know the category well enough to give articulate feedback but are still rooted in day-to-day realities. They can challenge assumptions and evolve a concept while there is still time to act.
Amanda: How does immersive qual help you conduct innovation research at the “tree line?”
Ivey: In my role at Vital Findings’ QualLAB, the work is experiential, collaborative, and expressive. Spark Sessions are the clearest expression of the collaborative pillar. They’re longer and larger than conventional focus groups, but they run more like workshops – very active and very dynamic. Participants compare, try, prioritize, and create alongside researchers. The result is richer conversation and live iteration. Teams at the top of the mountain can quickly pivot and apply learnings to directly fuel R&D, or then turn ‘down the mountain’ to scale & validate themes.
Beth: And not every project needs that level of depth. At The North Face, roughly 60 to 70 percent of research needed to be fast and scalable. The other 30 to 40 percent belongs at the tree line, where deeper input gives teams confidence to make larger changes.
Spark Sessions as an Innovation Tool
Amanda: Can you walk us through a project where you brought consumers into the innovation process unusually early – and what immersive qual gave you that a more conventional study wouldn’t?
Beth: One early Spark Session project involved an insulated material. We had a concept, a few fabric samples, and many ideas about what kind of product it should become. We needed to determine whether it solved an unmet need, where it belonged, and whether consumers could challenge our assumptions. It was the first time Insights had entered the process that early in the innovation cycle. We chose Spark Sessions because we needed more than reactions – we needed direction.
Ivey: For that project for The North Face, nearly 50 consumers total spread across different international markets joined three-hour sessions. We began with a baseline survey reacting to product samples, then as a full group we discussed gaps in their current gear before moving into facilitated breakout stations. In these breakouts, participants tried multiple products, compared them, and ideated on other applications for the material. That structure created breadth without sacrificing depth. We could observe and explore behavior, probe reactions immediately, and let participants build on one another’s ideas.
Beth: It was impressive to see that consumers stayed engaged for the full three hours. More importantly, the larger format gave us a very clear direction. A smaller study might not have broken the ties between competing ideas. The Spark Sessions identified the strongest applications and challenged the obvious assumption that insulated material should simply go into a jacket. They also revealed questions the eventual product and communications would need to answer.
Seeing What Surveys Cannot
Amanda: Was there another project where immersion revealed something you might have missed with surveys alone – something you really had to see people do?
Beth: Another immersive qual project focused on North Face pants and an in-store display. We needed to learn which products would attract attention, how the pants fit, and what the retail experience should communicate. With limited time and samples, we again turned to Spark Sessions.
Ivey: We built a simulated retail set-up and conducted both static and active fit tests. Participants tried on the pants, then did a light workout – lunges, climbing stairs, etc. – to generate enough heat to evaluate movement, seams, comfort, and temperature regulation.
Being there live mattered. We could see someone light up when a product fit well or grimace when something felt wrong, then probe immediately. We also found gaps between survey answers and lived experience. Category terms such as “DWR” and “Ripstop” did not always translate to consumers and therefore didn’t communicate value, while useful features sometimes remained hidden until participants moved. Misses like these are not always unearthed through other methods, which results in insights rooted in assumptions and misunderstanding.
Beth: And those observations affected the assortment, colors, signage, fit, and positioning. Consumers gravitated toward a climbing pant based on performance, for example, but a large “Climb” sign would have made many feel it was not for them. Immersion helped us correct the experience before it reached the store. Plus, it was fun seeing Ivey double as an aerobics instructor!
The Future Is Scale and Immersion
Amanda: With AI and qual-at-scale expanding so quickly, how should researchers think about the role of immersive qual going forward – and what has to change inside insights teams for it to have real impact?
Ivey: The return to immersion is not a retreat to old-fashioned qual. It is an evolution. Scale is right for reach, prioritization, and validation. Immersion is more impactful when teams face ambiguity, need to observe behavior and hear real language, or are making decisions that will be costly to reverse.
Beth: The practical challenge is entering the development cycle early enough. Insights teams need to understand the go-to-market calendar, know the last point findings can influence a decision, and build consumer checkpoints into the process. Our role is not to patrol product teams. It is to bring the science that complements the art of design.
Ivey: Ultimately, we’re not replacing methods. It’s about matching the method to the altitude of the decision and bringing consumers in while they can still have a meaningful impact.
Want to learn more? Reach out to Ivey and ask for our innovation tip sheet!
