Saving an Innovation Team from Costly Guesswork by Taking the Research Lab on the Road...and also $12,500!
Case Study: In-Context R&D Research for a Cannabis Accessories Brand
A large, established cannabis accessories brand was approaching a critical innovation decision. Two closely related product approaches were under consideration, and R&D and Innovation teams needed clear direction on which path to pursue. However, the insight required couldn’t be generated through traditional research facilities. Legal restrictions on consumption, combined with participant privacy concerns, made standard approaches impractical. Instead, together we designed a legally-compliant, decision-focused, ethnographic in-context study in an RV that delivered exactly what the teams needed, without delaying innovation or compromising rigor. More importantly, by avoiding the need to rent a private location permitting controlled substances, smoking and video observation as well as the cost and logistics of Ubers to ensure safe travel to and from the location, this innovative work-around saved the client over $12,500.
The Situation
The brand faced:
No legal facilities available for observing real-world use
High downstream cost if the wrong direction was chosen
Subtle differences requiring behavioral and sensory validation
Pressure to make a choose one with a confident go/no-go decision
The R&D Innovation team needed clear prioritization on which of two formulas to roll out to the public.
The Approach
We replaced facility-based or simulated testing with a mobile, real-world research solution:
25 in-depth interviews conducted over 3 days
Blind evaluation of two product variants (presented as 3 choices in triangle test)
Observational grinding, rolling, and smoking exercises
Moderated interviews focused on decision drivers and tradeoffs
Sessions conducted in a mobile RV lab parked on private property and, when appropriate, participants’ homes
The mobile lab allowed us to combine R&D-grade validation with ethnographic observation of how people adapt, compensate, and make tradeoffs in real use.
The study focused on:
Ability to discern between subtle difference in formulation
Reported preference and reasons for it
Real-life consumer habits around making their own joints
The Key Insight
There was no universal “best” option. In fact, not all participants could reliably perceive differences between the two formulas, and when they did, their preferences were largely personal based on how the product felt in their hands and hit their throat when smoked, and whether coughing was seen as a sign of weed quality.
The decision shifted from “Which option is better?” to “Which experience are we designing for?”
The Outcome
By using a focused, in-context research design, we ended up shifting direction. Instead of the original goals of advancing one formulation with confidence, the company decided to produce both and market them according to the profile and preference of different consumers.
Why This Matters
Many
innovation teams default to traditional facilities with artificial settings or
over-scoped research that adds complexity without improving decisions.
This case study shows how:
Lean, well-designed studies can support high-stakes R&D decisions
Ethnographic research reveals insights conventional research settings might miss
Real behavior observed (not just stated preference) drives better innovation outcomes
The right study, not the most conventional one, delivers the clearest direction.