We have led a campaign to shift perceptions from a 'ranking' mentality to a value-based comparison approach which allows a genuine fit for purpose discussion to be had.
Ranking sounds great. Until it gets silly. Let me give you two examples:
Being the tenth best life insurance contract sounds dreadful. But what if your score is 91% of the best contract? All these contracts will pay out if you die. All of them would beat a policy with a pre-existing conditions exclusion and a host of built-in hazardous occupation and pastime exclusions. Consumers regularly buy products lacking 9% of the features of the best product in class. I always buy the latest smart-phones, my middle child is perfectly happy with an older phone. He openly mocks me for spending so much when he could buy three of his phones for the price of one of mine. He prefers to save his money for a better PC. What I get for the extra money, he doesn't care about. Tell him that his phone is only about the tenth or even 20th best he could buy and he doesn't care.
Then take the opposite case. Buying the second best product in a set of five sounds not bad at all. Until you find out that it has only 50% of the features of the best and yet costs almost the same price. This happens too. That's why I believe that value-based research makes a lot more sense. Value-based research means that you compare the meaningful differences between products bearing in mind their actual value to the consumer. It also means you have to give up on two bad habits:
You have to stop giving loads of points for microscopic benefits, and you have to stop ranking. Because both those bad habits hide how valuable the differences are to consumers.