Market research questions always say 'justify your choice'. Justify it against what?

Against the business in the question. "Primary research is more relevant but more expensive" is a textbook sentence that fits every business ever written about, which is why it scores so little. The marks are for connecting the method to this firm's size, budget, timescale and decision.

The four things to weigh

Run the scenario through these and the justification writes itself.

Budget. A sole trader opening a sandwich shop cannot commission a survey of 2,000 people. A national retailer can. If the scenario mentions limited capital — and it usually does — that is the examiner pointing at the answer.

Time. Secondary research exists already, so it is fast. Primary research has to be designed, carried out and analysed. A business that must decide before a lease expires next month is being told which one it can realistically use.

How specific the question is. This is the one students underuse. Secondary data answers general questions: is the market growing, who are the competitors. It cannot tell you whether your customers would pay 4.50 for your new product. If the decision is specific to the firm, only primary research reaches it.

Who else has the data. Published industry reports, government statistics and competitor accounts are genuinely useful and cost almost nothing. A strong answer notices when the information already exists rather than reflexively recommending a survey.

A worked judgement

A small bakery with 3,000 to spend is deciding whether to add a delivery service.

Secondary research tells it cheaply that food delivery has grown in its region and which platforms operate locally. That is real information and it costs almost nothing.

But it cannot say whether the bakery's own customers would use delivery, or what they would pay for it. For 3,000 the bakery could survey its existing customers — people already walking through the door, so the sample costs little to reach.

The justified answer is both, in that order: secondary first to establish whether the market is worth entering, then a small, cheap primary study to test the specific decision. Naming the order and the reason is what separates a top answer from a list of advantages.

Two things that lose marks

Describing instead of choosing. A question saying "justify" wants a decision. Listing four methods with their pros and cons, and no recommendation, caps the mark however accurate the list is.

Ignoring reliability. Primary research is not automatically better. A survey of thirty people outside one shop on one afternoon is primary and close to worthless. Sample size, who was asked and whether the questions were leading all matter, and mentioning them shows judgement rather than recall.