Synthetics Challenges Market Researchers Should Consider

How far can synthetic respondents take us in market research?

As technology continues to transform the landscape of market research, synthetic respondents—AI-driven models designed to mimic human participants—are gaining attention for their potential to unlock new efficiencies and insights.

However, as with any innovation, using synthetics requires careful consideration.

While synthetics can accelerate research and extend our reach, they also present unique challenges that researchers must navigate. 

It's important to consider issues such as synthetics' bias, experience gaps, and inability to capture physical actions.

Differences in scale ratings and the difficulty of interpreting new trends and concepts are also key factors to keep in mind. Additionally, market researchers should be aware of the potential loss of nuance in group responses when using synthetic respondents.

Synthetics aren't a silver bullet. They are not the perfect fit for every case. And at the end of the day, synthetics do not eliminate the need for real people in research. 

However, when thoughtfully integrated, synthetic respondents can serve as a valuable complement—enhancing research processes and uncovering insights that might otherwise be missed.

To truly harness the power of synthetics, it’s essential to understand both their strengths and their limitations.

In this blog, we’ll explore the key issues associated with synthetic respondents, and discuss why, even in a digital age, the human touch remains indispensable in market research.

What are the main challenges of using synthetics in market research? 

1. Nuance and Bias
2. Experience Gaps
3. Physical Actions
4. Differences in Scale Ratings
5. Emerging Trends and New Concepts
6. Nuance in Group Responses
7. Industry Acceptance

Here are some of the key challenges and issues to keep in mind when considering synthetics:

Nuance and Bias

Even though synthetics are built with detailed demographic and psychographic profiles, they may miss the subtlety and depth of real human participant behavior.

For example, in studies involving group dynamics or the adoption of emerging trends, synthetic responses can lack the unpredictability and nuance that comes naturally to people. Additionally, like any research sample, synthetics can introduce their own forms of bias.

Bellomy and others in the research community are conducting ongoing R&D to study the nature and scope of these biases.

Experience Gaps

Synthetics may not have genuine lived experiences, but their training data equips them to understand and recognize a range of human experiences and draw from the shared experiences and prior sharing from those groups.

What synthetics cannot do is reflect real-world events as real-time experiences. For example, they did not encounter a rude barista while picking up their coffee today and thus cannot share feedback on that experience. 

Only a human can share their real experience in real-time, but synthetics can extend customer experience insights through digital twinning methodology and extension research beyond the transactional record.

Physical Actions

Similar to the experience gaps noted above, synthetics cannot perform physical tasks. While they can describe or project what opening a package might be like, they can’t physically interact with products or environments. This limits their use in research that requires hands-on testing or observation.

Differences in Scale Ratings

Synthetic respondents may not interpret or respond to Likert scale and other questions (like rating satisfaction from 1 to 5) in the same way humans do.

This doesn’t mean that synthetics always gravitate towards the middle; but they don’t use the range of the scale in the same way as humans.

Researchers should consider this variation when interpreting synthetics’ results versus traditional human respondents. Bellomy is conducting internal research on how various question wording and scale labeling approaches impact synthetic responses for rating scale questions.

Emerging Trends and New Concepts

When it comes to new products, services, or concepts that haven’t yet entered the mainstream, we are still determining the accuracy of synthetics’ reactions.

Human respondents bring lived experience and intuition that AI models can’t fully replicate, especially for trends that are just beginning to take shape. Where synthetics can be useful is in initial evaluation of new concepts and rapid iteration to prepare concepts for final human review.

Nuance in Group Responses

On a group level, synthetics tend to be less nuanced than a comparable group of human respondents. This can be especially apparent when researching complex or subjective topics where human perspectives are highly varied.

Industry Acceptance

The market research community has responded to synthetics with both interest and caution.

While some see great potential, others are wary of unknowns—especially around reliability, bias, and best practices. As a result, people often use synthetics alongside traditional panels, rather than instead of them.

Bellomy has been conducting and will continue to conduct research on the quality and reliability of synthetic responses, and we will share our perspectives through content such as this blog series.

We recommend using both synthetic respondents and traditional respondents when possible, as a hybrid model leverages the strengths of each to produce richer, more reliable insights.

How can researchers move forward responsibly with synthetics?

As the field of market research continues to evolve, synthetic respondents offer an exciting new frontier—one that promises new efficiencies and fresh perspectives. However, their use demands a thoughtful approach. Researchers must remain vigilant about the unique challenges that synthetics present, from potential blind spots to interpretive differences, ensuring that results are both meaningful and reliable.

Ultimately, the real value lies in balance. By combining the speed and reach of synthetic models with the depth and authenticity of human insight, market researchers can unlock richer, more nuanced understanding. Embracing synthetics as a complementary tool—not a replacement—will empower the industry to innovate while still honoring the irreplaceable complexity of human experience.