Wunderkind's experience shows what can change when a team can ask questions more often. In public testimony published September 1, 2025, Tim Glomb, its head of global content, reported more than 24 surveys by August 2025, compared with about two major anchor-content pieces per year previously.
Those units matter. Two annual research-led reports and 24+ surveys are not interchangeable deliverables. This is evidence of a changed research cadence, not a claim that every agency will multiply identical studies twelvefold.
Why rationing was the norm
Glomb described a content team that knew its questions and how to turn findings into stories. It needed usable data without rebuilding the entire production process for every question. When the research schedule is tied to a few major annual reports, emerging client questions can wait behind those commitments.
The Wunderkind case study includes the customer testimony. In the recording, Glomb explains how the team used surveys during tariff changes to understand consumers and its B2B audience. That is the named basis for this example; it is not an audited result for all agency clients.
What changes when the cost collapses
Lower production effort can make smaller, more frequent questions feasible. The customer described getting survey data in about two days and a report into market roughly two days after that. Those are reported results for that workflow, not a universal turnaround commitment.
The mechanism is practical: reuse a study structure, automate programming and routine production, review the output, and reserve the team's time for interpreting the findings. Survey automation describes which production steps the platform can support. The team still owns the brief, study decisions, and client recommendations.
Why this grows the pie instead of shrinking your fees
More questions can expand an agency's role, but volume does not automatically protect revenue or margin. A short pulse, a custom concept study, and an annual anchor report have different inputs and review requirements. Count those separately before comparing the economics.
An illustrative planning exercise is to list four decisions a client has postponed: a claim rewrite, a creative shortlist, a segment question, and a campaign read. For each, record the required audience, research design, team review time, and deliverable. Then compare the proposed program with the team's actual capacity and quote. This example is a planning checklist, not a savings calculation or customer result.
How to position it with clients
Start with the next decision rather than a promised multiplier. Explain what the client will receive, what the study can establish, and who will interpret it. Keep research production costs separate from agency strategy and reporting work.
Pricing for the MX8 Labs Research Platform is quote-based, determined by survey length and respondent count. Seats and features do not incur separate fees; data ingestion can cost extra. The pricing page describes the current factors. Do not convert a customer's historical costs into a public tariff.
Honesty on the number
The testimony distinguishes an observation from a forecast. By August 2025, Wunderkind had completed 24+ surveys. Glomb also anticipated 30–40 in 2025; that was a forecast at the time of the recording, not a verified achieved total.
Watch the public Wunderkind testimony or read the case study. For agencies considering the same production workflow, the agency workflow page explains how production support fits around your team. Bring a real questionnaire and its handoffs to the demo.
Correction, October 2, 2026: An earlier version treated the customer's forecast as completed work. The figures above distinguish the reported survey count from that forecast.