�Юлия Жилкина

�Юлия Жилкина �Маркетинговые исследования и Customer Development.
�Более 11 л?

08/06/2026

💡 There is one thing still deeply underestimated in marketing and CX: process.

In today’s Reel, I talk about why that is exactly where the brand shows who it really is 👇

💡 They say that whatever doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.In a researcher’s case, I’d put it differently:whatever doesn...
03/06/2026

💡 They say that whatever doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.

In a researcher’s case, I’d put it differently:
whatever doesn’t kill us turns into reflection and insight 😂

In my case, for example, there was - and still is - the Electrolux story.

It has now been more than two months, and I still have not managed to get my money back for a purchase that went wrong.
Somewhere along the way, I also had to get familiar with Consumidor.gov.br and Procon - Brazil’s consumer rights and complaint resolution bodies - just to try to move this situation forward.

Yes, it all started with a product that arrived defective.
But for me, that is not even the main issue.

The real issue is the lack of even minimally adequate processes to resolve problems when they arise for the consumer.

And that is exactly why the situation still has not been resolved.
And that is exactly why I had to turn to consumer protection bodies to put pressure on the company.

And for me, there are two key points here.

1️⃣ First:
if this has already become such a huge drain for me - someone who is educated, knows how to deal with documents, can organize evidence, and even uses AI to understand the steps - then what happens to the average consumer?

Do they give up?
Accept the defective product?
Lose the money?
Or simply fail to get to the end because the whole process seems designed to wear them down?

2️⃣ Second:
when the same problem shows up across multiple touchpoints, it no longer looks like an isolated failure.

It looks like the absence of a system.
It looks like a badly built process.
It looks like a lack of accountability for how the company actually resolves - or fails to resolve - the problem in practice.

And judging by the number of complaints I saw about other brands, I honestly do not think this is an isolated case.

It seems to be something quite common. And maybe that is exactly why this kind of company starts treating it as “normal” - because most of them still operate this way. For now.

💭 When researching Brazil, social class is not just a recruitment detail.It can change the logic of buying, choosing, va...
29/05/2026

💭 When researching Brazil, social class is not just a recruitment detail.
It can change the logic of buying, choosing, valuing, comparing and making trade-offs.

This topic came up recently in the Telegram chat of our research community in Brazil, which I co-founded, and later in an online session about sample design.

The question was simple, but important:
❓ why do so many studies still focus on classes A and B, while other social groups are often left out of the conversation?

So I looked at some publicly available data on consumption in Brazil.

💡 And the numbers point in an important direction:
class C should not be so easily left out of the research design.

In many cases, I would also look at B2 together with C, because the average household income of this group already places these families in a consumption logic that is quite different from A and B1.

Of course, these are open data points from different sources, with different methodologies and limitations. This is not one single study across all categories.

But they help make one thing clear:
for many categories, A and B help us understand margin, aspiration and premiumization.
But B2 and C can help us understand scale, frequency, adaptation, price sensitivity and other forms of value.

Swipe through the cards to see the data 👉

—————
📌 P.S. I want to do the same exercise later for Mexico and Colombia, because each country has its own structure, classifications and available data.

💡 Attention to detail matters.But endless revision is not quality.Some clients receive a report, ask for a few adjustmen...
26/05/2026

💡 Attention to detail matters.
But endless revision is not quality.

Some clients receive a report, ask for a few adjustments, and move forward without major difficulty.

And then there are others who get stuck on every detail, ask for more and more edits, go back to very specific cases, and bring up something that came up in just one interview out of twenty - sometimes without it even being important to the overall logic of the study.

And that is where the problem starts.

Because attention to detail is one thing.
But excessive digging into detail also gets in the way.

When we go too deep into those tiny points, we start losing what matters most.

In qualitative research, the job is not to assemble isolated profiles, loose quotes, and small episodes as if they all carried exactly the same weight.

The job is to analyze.
To separate what is central from what is secondary.
To leave out what does not change the market logic, the strategy, or the core reading of the study.

And when a client gets buried in details, they often stop seeing the essence.

With too much detail - and too much insistence on confirming every detail - they stop looking at the bigger picture.
And start working only with what respondents said directly, almost breaking everything down into atoms.

And that does not improve the report.
It just wears everyone down.

⭐️ There’s an uncomfortable truth about quality in research.When work is paid at very low rates, you cannot expect depth...
22/05/2026

⭐️ There’s an uncomfortable truth about quality in research.

When work is paid at very low rates, you cannot expect depth.

When someone is paid very little, they tend to get stuck in that flow of cheap projects, one after another. And in that rhythm, there is barely any alternative except trying to close everything as fast as possible, without really getting into each project, without having much space to think, and without being able to build much beyond the minimum deliverable.

(no judgment: I would probably do the same)

🤔 But now let’s look at the other side.

If that researcher starts getting paid more, will they automatically start working better?

No. Not automatically.

Because they may not have developed that other way of working.
Because they may not yet know how to do it.
Because previous clients accepted a lower level of quality, and that gradually became normalized.

(again: I understand why this happens)

The problem is that truly good work requires other layers:
▪️ knowing how to deal with clients
▪️ getting into the topic with real depth
▪️ building communication
▪️ building relationships
▪️ moderating with more judgment
▪️ writing reports with more reflection, more structure, and more strategic thinking

And that is also professional development.

The problem is that when someone keeps working for very low rates, they end up trapped in a difficult cycle.

To earn more, they would need to develop further.
But to develop further, they would need time, energy, and mental space.

And that is exactly what they do not have, because they need to keep taking project after project just to get through the month.
So they stay stuck in that place.

💡 That is why I see it this way:

If a client’s main goal, when commissioning a project, is to get the lowest possible price, they can forget about quality.

If the fee is more adequate, that still does not guarantee quality automatically.
You still need to choose carefully, ask for recommendations, understand who you are working with, and pay attention to that person’s level of judgment.

But at least then, the possibility of quality exists.

💡 In research, there is no such thing as “just moderating”, just as there is no such thing as “just writing a report”.If...
20/05/2026

💡 In research, there is no such thing as “just moderating”, just as there is no such thing as “just writing a report”.

If we care about real quality, moderation and reporting are not separate things.

More than that, research is, at its core, one single process.

Ideally, one deeply involved person should plan and organize the study.
And that is exactly the person who can later truly stand behind the quality of the final result.

If someone comes in just to moderate a discussion guide written by someone else, there are two options:
either that person adapts the guide, asks questions, gets into the project goals, understands the problem, and truly takes ownership of the research - in other words, does much more than “just moderate”,
or they simply moderate what is already there. And if that is the case, you cannot expect depth or high quality.

The same goes for reporting.

If the person writing the report did not truly take part in the process, did not help shape the questions, did not follow the interviews or groups closely, did not get into the nuances that came up in the field, then they will be working only with what already exists.

With what was asked.
With what was answered.
With what someone decided to explore - or not explore - at that moment.

And by then, the space to go deeper, shift the perspective, investigate further, or take the discussion in another direction is already gone.

Of course, that person can still do a good job.
Of course, they can still make a real effort.

But the quality of that result is already limited from the start.

18/05/2026

One thing in research always bothers me: when the respondent becomes the target of judgment instead of the object of understanding.

I brought this reflection into today’s Reel in a more direct, more spoken version 👇

🙄 “Terrible” things about me 4: I’m too direct.Yes. I say what I think, without trying to please everyone.I can listen t...
05/05/2026

🙄 “Terrible” things about me 4: I’m too direct.

Yes. I say what I think, without trying to please everyone.

I can listen to your opinion.
I can consider your point.
But I won’t fake agreement just to keep things comfortable.

And yes, that includes clients.
If the evidence doesn’t support a hypothesis, I’ll say so.
If someone interprets an insight in a way that isn’t in the data, I’ll call it out. I won’t adjust conclusions just to match an opinion.

You can choose whatever direction you want after that.
But I don’t compromise on accuracy, because I sign the work and I’m accountable for it.

⭐️ One of the hardest and least appreciated parts of a researcher’s job is often not the research itself.It’s building l...
02/05/2026

⭐️ One of the hardest and least appreciated parts of a researcher’s job is often not the research itself.

It’s building long-term working relationships with clients.

Among the projects I’m working on right now, there are two that are particularly demanding.
And they are not demanding because the topic itself is the hardest in the world.

They are demanding because of the communication.

More calls.
More alignment.
More back-and-forth.
More guide revisions.
More report revisions.
More discussions to understand exactly what the client wants, how they want it, and where they are placing the focus.

That kind of project takes a lot of time.
And more than that, it takes a lot of emotional and mental energy.

But there is an important point here:
I’m not talking about “difficult” clients in the negative sense of the word.

I’m talking about good, serious clients with legitimate demands, clear standards, and their own way of working.
Behind those demands, there is usually a logic.
A way of thinking about process, quality, delivery, and decision-making.

And that is exactly why it is worth listening carefully.

💡 If I looked at these projects only as isolated projects, it would be much easier to think:
this is just too heavy.

But in practice, I don’t see this as ex*****on alone.
I see it as relationship-building.

Building a shared language.
Building trust.
Building an understanding of how that client thinks, asks, prioritizes, reviews, and works.

And that changes the way the effort feels.

Because when that communication is genuinely built during the first project, the chances of the second one flowing much better increase a lot.

By the second project, you already understand better what the client wants.
How they formulate things.
What they pay more attention to.

And that is when a much stronger kind of collaboration begins.

That is why, more and more, I think about it this way:
➡️ not every effort within a project is only about that project.

Sometimes, an important part of the work is building the foundation for the relationship with the client to become stronger, clearer, and more productive going forward.

⭐️ There’s one thing in research that always bothers me:when the respondent becomes the target of judgment instead of th...
29/04/2026

⭐️ There’s one thing in research that always bothers me:
when the respondent becomes the target of judgment instead of the object of understanding.

In the middle of a project, comments start coming up like:
“he just didn’t get it”
“she’s talking nonsense”
“that makes no sense”
“he’s completely wrong”

And no, this is not about some simplistic moral point like “you shouldn’t judge people”.

In real life, everyone reacts to what they hear.
Everyone finds some statements more intelligent, more coherent, more confusing, or less well articulated.
That’s human.

The issue, in research, is something else.

The moment the conversation slips into deciding whether the respondent is “right” or “wrong,” we lose the focus entirely.

Because the purpose of research is not to evaluate whether a person is good, bad, prepared, confused, or difficult.

The purpose of research is to understand how they think, how they perceive a category, how they interpret a product, what logic they are using, and what emotions are involved.

The point is not:
“this person is thinking the wrong way”.

The point is:
“this person thinks this way”.

And that changes everything.

Because in the moment of research, we are not there to correct the respondent.
We are there to understand them.

Of course, markets can be educated and perceptions can change over time.
But that is usually a long-term process.

In most projects, the question is much more immediate:
how do we enter this market now?
how do we create resonance now?
how do we build something that makes sense to this person now?

Yes, we can change the market.
But only after that.

That is exactly why research exists.
Because one thing is what we, as professionals, see as “right” or “logical”.
Another is how the consumer actually thinks.

And that is the gap we need to understand 🧐

Address

Moscow

Telephone

+79636028369

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when �Юлия Жилкина posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to �Юлия Жилкина:

Shortcuts

Share