It’s just Market Research… isn’t it?

A company commissions a research agency to test a new digital health product. Participants are recruited online and asked about their health behaviours, medication use, and attitudes toward treatment.

They consent to take part. The data is anonymised. The findings will inform product strategy, and may later be presented externally.

No ethics committee is involved.

At first glance, this feels routine. It is, after all, “just market research”.

But pause for a moment.

When people are asked to share personal information, when that information is analysed systematically, and when the findings may influence decisions beyond the immediate project, the distinction between market research and human research begins to blur.

More than a just a company activity

Market research is often treated as if it sits outside the scope of research ethics. It is typically faster, more commercially driven, and less encumbered by formal oversight than academic or clinical research.

But ethics is not determined by whether a project is commercial or academic. It is shaped by what is being asked of participants, the nature of the data collected, and the potential for harm, whether direct or indirect.

In many cases, market research may be 'low risk'. Asking consumers about their preference for a product, or gathering anonymous feedback on a service, rarely raises significant ethical concerns. These activities are generally well understood by participants and can be managed within standard practice.

Where the complexity begins

The difficulty is that not all market research looks like this.

Some projects move into more complex territory. Health-related research is a common example, where participants may be asked to disclose sensitive information about their conditions, treatments, or behaviours. Even when anonymised, this type of data carries a different weight. Participants may not fully appreciate how their information will be used, or what conclusions might be drawn from it. There may also be privacy law implications of this.

Other projects involve populations who are not in a neutral position; patients, individuals receiving services, or communities who may feel an implicit pressure to participate. In these contexts, the idea of “voluntary participation” becomes less straightforward.

There is also a growing trend toward dual-purpose research. Work that begins as internal insight generation is later refined, structured, and shared more broadly. Findings are presented at conferences, included in reports, or positioned as evidence to support wider claims.

At that point, the activity starts to resemble the kind of research that would typically undergo independent ethical review.

Why consent isn’t the whole answer

It is tempting to treat consent as the defining line. If participants have agreed to take part, the assumption is that the ethical obligation has been met.

But consent, on its own, is not a safeguard against poor design, unintended consequences, or misuse of data. It does not replace independent scrutiny.

The more useful question is not whether something is labelled as market research, but what it is trying to achieve. If the purpose is purely internal and the risks are minimal, formal ethics review may not be necessary. But as soon as the work begins to generate broader insights, engage with sensitive topics, or involve participants in more than a trivial way, the ethical stakes shift.

A Spectrum, not a category

None of this suggests that all market research should be subject to formal ethics approval. That could be impractical and, in many cases, unnecessary. But the assumption that it never requires it is equally flawed.

Perhaps we should consider market research as a spectrum. At one end are low-risk activities that are unlikely to cause harm. At the other are structured investigations involving real people, real data, and real implications. The challenge is recognising where your work sits on that spectrum, and being honest about it.

However, this is an under-explored area in Aotearoa and warrants more consideration.

Where that line is unclear, independent advice can help bring structure to the decision.

At The Collective, we work with organisations to assess where projects sit on the spectrum; providing proportionate, practical ethics review where it is needed, and clarity where it is not.