What Movies Reveal About Better Market Research and Brand Storytelling
- Loretta Hudelot, Adjunct Professor, Professor of Practice at The University of Texas at Dallas
- AI and Automation, Campaign Optimization, Customer Experience (CX), Managing Org Transformation, Managing Your Career, Other Martech, Strategy and Trends
In marketing, data is everywhere. Insight is not. Loretta Hudelot, a professor at The University of Texas at Dallas with more than 25 years of brand-side experience at companies including Verizon, Dr. Pepper, On the Border, and Chili’s Grill & Bar, said in a recent Martechify conversation that market research delivers its greatest value when it goes beyond reporting and reveals the story inside the data.
As she put it, “Data without a story is just numbers. It’s boring.”
To explain the difference between average insight and transformative insight, Loretta reached for an unexpected analogy: movies.
She described some films as simply “good” because they deliver on the genre promise. They entertain, the conflict is clear, and viewers get what they came for. But “elevated” films go further. They challenge assumptions, flip familiar tropes, and reveal something deeper about the human experience. Using Aquaman and Black Panther as examples, Loretta showed that both films deliver strong visuals and clear heroes, but Black Panther stands apart because it adds deeper emotional, cultural, and moral complexity. The same distinction can be applied to research.
Good research, Loretta noted, answers the immediate question. It shows what happened, measures performance, and validates assumptions. But elevated research digs beneath the obvious and gives decision-makers a narrative they can actually use. That deeper level of work, Loretta noted, gives teams “more of a narrative to build and to change,” so they can understand “where the North Star is for your business, for your organization, where you are going.”
As she put it, “Data without a story is just numbers. It’s boring.”
To explain the difference between average insight and transformative insight, Loretta reached for an unexpected analogy: movies.
She described some films as simply “good” because they deliver on the genre promise. They entertain, the conflict is clear, and viewers get what they came for. But “elevated” films go further. They challenge assumptions, flip familiar tropes, and reveal something deeper about the human experience. Using Aquaman and Black Panther as examples, Loretta showed that both films deliver strong visuals and clear heroes, but Black Panther stands apart because it adds deeper emotional, cultural, and moral complexity. The same distinction can be applied to research.
Good research, Loretta noted, answers the immediate question. It shows what happened, measures performance, and validates assumptions. But elevated research digs beneath the obvious and gives decision-makers a narrative they can actually use. That deeper level of work, Loretta noted, gives teams “more of a narrative to build and to change,” so they can understand “where the North Star is for your business, for your organization, where you are going.”
Watch the full interview with Loretta Hudelot of The University of Texas at Dallas to hear her fresh take on market research, brand storytelling, and AI. Learn why the strongest insights come from going beyond the data to uncover the human tensions and narratives that drive better decisions.
The simple methods that help uncover deeper truths
Loretta said her approach relies on two surprisingly simple tools: the Five Whys and a strong research brief.
The challenge, she explained, is that respondents and stakeholders often describe what they want rather than what they actually need. That gap can lead teams toward the wrong project, the wrong deliverable, or a solution that answers the wrong question. For example, instead of inventing a cell phone, people will ask for a longer telephone cord.
That is where the Five Whys comes in. The Five Whys technique was developed by Sakichi Toyoda, founder of Toyota Industries, in the 1930s, and it can be applied to many areas of life, including marketing research.
She pairs that technique with another question she regularly asks stakeholders and students: “What does winning look like?” That question, she said, often changes the conversation. It pushes teams to define success more clearly, exposes competing priorities in the room, and reveals the emotional or political tensions shaping the research request.
The challenge, she explained, is that respondents and stakeholders often describe what they want rather than what they actually need. That gap can lead teams toward the wrong project, the wrong deliverable, or a solution that answers the wrong question. For example, instead of inventing a cell phone, people will ask for a longer telephone cord.
That is where the Five Whys comes in. The Five Whys technique was developed by Sakichi Toyoda, founder of Toyota Industries, in the 1930s, and it can be applied to many areas of life, including marketing research.
She pairs that technique with another question she regularly asks stakeholders and students: “What does winning look like?” That question, she said, often changes the conversation. It pushes teams to define success more clearly, exposes competing priorities in the room, and reveals the emotional or political tensions shaping the research request.
From a wall of numbers to a story people can act on
Loretta shared one example from a packaging study involving multiple design options, extensive testing, and a large sample of respondents. The research was rigorous. It included advanced quantitative methods and delivered a traditional report filled with performance scores and metrics.
But when she reviewed the output, something still felt incomplete. The report gave stakeholders what they had asked for, but not what they truly needed. So, Loretta went back to the brief and re-examined the real definition of success. There, she found the hidden story: two stakeholder groups were measuring “winning” in very different ways.
One group, the designers, cared most about beauty and display value. The other group, the business team, cared most about willingness to pay and commercial performance.
As Loretta described it, “There were the designers who had designed this product, and for them, their number one thing was it has to look beautiful… There was a second group of people [who] said, ‘This has to make money… People need to be willing to pay more for this.’ That’s the tension. That’s the rub. That’s where the conflict is.”
That conflict became the story. Rather than presenting stakeholders with a flat wall of numbers, Loretta reorganized the findings around the two competing definitions of success: beauty and willingness to pay. She created a simple two-by-two framework to show which concepts scored highest on each dimension, then used that framework to guide the discussion in the room. By turning the results into a narrative about stakeholder tension and tradeoffs, she made the findings easier to engage with and easier to act on.
But when she reviewed the output, something still felt incomplete. The report gave stakeholders what they had asked for, but not what they truly needed. So, Loretta went back to the brief and re-examined the real definition of success. There, she found the hidden story: two stakeholder groups were measuring “winning” in very different ways.
One group, the designers, cared most about beauty and display value. The other group, the business team, cared most about willingness to pay and commercial performance.
As Loretta described it, “There were the designers who had designed this product, and for them, their number one thing was it has to look beautiful… There was a second group of people [who] said, ‘This has to make money… People need to be willing to pay more for this.’ That’s the tension. That’s the rub. That’s where the conflict is.”
That conflict became the story. Rather than presenting stakeholders with a flat wall of numbers, Loretta reorganized the findings around the two competing definitions of success: beauty and willingness to pay. She created a simple two-by-two framework to show which concepts scored highest on each dimension, then used that framework to guide the discussion in the room. By turning the results into a narrative about stakeholder tension and tradeoffs, she made the findings easier to engage with and easier to act on.
Why AI still needs human judgment
The conversation also turned to AI, which Loretta said she actively uses in her own work. She noted that AI helps her brainstorm, organize information, and accelerate synthesis. “You can still use AI to help you think smarter,” she said.
But she also drew a sharp line between assistance and judgment. Loretta pointed to the subtle human work of noticing tension, interpreting silence, spotting outliers, and sensing when an answer is technically correct but emotionally flat. “AI can’t tell you that. AI can’t connect the dots,” she said. Her experience suggests that the best results come when researchers bring context, curiosity, and lived understanding to the process, then use AI to extend their thinking rather than replace it. Without that human layer, she warned, the result can sound polished but feel empty.
But she also drew a sharp line between assistance and judgment. Loretta pointed to the subtle human work of noticing tension, interpreting silence, spotting outliers, and sensing when an answer is technically correct but emotionally flat. “AI can’t tell you that. AI can’t connect the dots,” she said. Her experience suggests that the best results come when researchers bring context, curiosity, and lived understanding to the process, then use AI to extend their thinking rather than replace it. Without that human layer, she warned, the result can sound polished but feel empty.
The future belongs to curious researchers
For marketers navigating an increasingly automated landscape, Loretta’s advice goes back to fundamentals. The differentiator, she suggests, is not just technical fluency. It’s the ability to keep probing, keep listening, and keep challenging the first obvious answer.
As she summed it up, “It’s the ability to keep asking questions.” That mindset may be the real dividing line between surface-level reporting and insight that changes decisions.
In a world full of dashboards, summaries, and AI-generated analysis, Loretta makes a compelling case for a more human kind of research. The best marketers, she suggested, do not stop at what the numbers say. They keep going until they find the meaning underneath.
As she summed it up, “It’s the ability to keep asking questions.” That mindset may be the real dividing line between surface-level reporting and insight that changes decisions.
In a world full of dashboards, summaries, and AI-generated analysis, Loretta makes a compelling case for a more human kind of research. The best marketers, she suggested, do not stop at what the numbers say. They keep going until they find the meaning underneath.
Related resources
Want more like this resource? Find helpful links below.
