It's not one or the other. Consulting keeps all its value when bespoke human work is needed. Collective Insight installs the diagnostic and engagement approach at the scale of your teams, whenever you need it — where a firm would charge a package then leave. Many use it alongside a consulting engagement, with the same methodological rigor.
• No raw verbatim exposed in restitution (aggregated reformulations) • Anonymized syntheses, with anti-re-identification rules (minimum thresholds per segment) • Shared mission framework (objective, rules, limits) with participants + PM + sponsor • Delivered representativeness reading (covered vs under-represented segments) Result: participants can express themselves frankly, and the sponsor receives actionable insights without putting anyone at risk.
No — it's the missing complement. NPS has value: a simple metric, a shared language, tracking over time. But to truly improve things, a number isn't enough: it explains little and can even mislead — a passing mood or a motive unrelated to the question is enough to move it. Research has documented this for a long time. We provide what the score doesn't say: the why, in your teams' own words, and the action paths. The score tells you where to look; we tell you what to do. (Sources: Keiningham et al., Journal of Marketing, 2007; Nunan, International Journal of Market Research, 2024.)
Participation is prepared, and the product helps. Every mission ships with an internal communication kit to explain the approach and make people want to contribute. On the experience side, questions are tailored to each person, a help chat prevents blank-page freeze, and voice input removes the writing barrier. What usually discourages people is the score-only survey with no follow-through; here, the approach leads to concrete actions — a real participation driver.
Client-side mobilization stays light, and roles are clear. Client side: frame the objective, carry the approach internally (launch message, reminders — templates provided) and act on the results. Collective Insight side: the method, running the interviews via AI, and the analysis. In practice, expect a few dozen minutes for the sponsor (scoping then restitution), a few hours spread out for the project manager, and 20 to 40 minutes per participant. In pilot phase, we support you on scoping and restitution.
You buy tokens. A token is only consumed when a participant answers for the first time: invited people who don't participate cost nothing. One activation opens access to up to 10 surveys over 30 days for that participant. Tokens don't expire, and unused tokens are refundable. We're in pilot phase: pricing is negotiable case by case for our first clients, in exchange for references and product feedback.
No. Collective Insight is used when you need it, the way you'd call on a consulting firm — not like software you pay for every month "just in case". No imposed recurring cost: you activate the approach when a decision calls for it, and nothing the rest of the time.
A form records fixed answers: same questions for everyone, no follow-up, no analysis. Collective Insight runs a real interview: the AI adapts, digs deeper, reformulates, then produces an actionable synthesis — not a table of raw data. And designing a good questionnaire (the right questions, without bias) is a craft: our scoping engine secures that step, which is often underestimated.
No, they are complementary tools. Kahoot and Beekast animate the moment — a workshop, a seminar — live and in a playful way. Collective Insight works around it: upstream to surface the real topics, downstream to anchor decisions. Live animation captures a room's energy at a given moment; we capture the deeper thinking of an entire group, at their own pace.
It's doable — we won't pretend otherwise. If you go for it, three points of caution: confidentiality (who accesses what, or participants won't open up), volume handling (RAG and function calling beyond a certain number of responses) and asynchronous AI processing (state machines, retries, concurrency). But the real question is opportunity cost: tying up your teams for months on a non-core tool, when a proven solution is available right now? Often, "buy" is also easier to get approved internally.