Work we can show

Finding common ground on housing

Canadians judge housing by what it costs, not how much gets built.

Challenge

The Homes and Growth Coalition wanted a plan that renters, owners, young and old could all get behind. In a debate this divided, it first needed to know where Canadians actually agree.

What we did

We asked 4,245 Canadians to choose. They weighed priorities against each other, picked which homes fit which households, and named a fair price. Asking about outcomes first means people are heard before solutions are chosen.

Result

Real common ground: affordable rentals ranked first or second with every group, renters and owners, young and old. Asked what would show real progress, Canadians picked affordable prices first, and “more homes” fifth. And one weak spot is clear: Canadians accept denser housing, but doubt a mid-rise works for families.

• 4,245

  Canadians
• 46%

  chose prices that keep pace with incomes
• 17%

  chose more homes built

How we measured it

A bilingual national survey in September 2026, weighted to reflect Canadians. Margin of error for a comparable probabilistic sample: ±1.5%.

Learn more: Homes and Growth Coalition (opens in a new tab)

Making the case for climate adaptation

A climate adaptation case built on how Canadians actually see the risk.

Challenge

One of Canada’s largest insurers wanted to lead on climate adaptation. To do that credibly, it needed to know how Canadians see climate risk, and what matters to them about it.

What we did

We asked 2,600 Canadians how they see climate risk and identified five distinct audiences. Then we tested messages, including live online, to see which arguments landed.

Result

The client got a national baseline, a regional climate-risk index and a research memo for its leadership, followed by a full engagement program.

• 2,600

  Canadians
• 5

  audience segments

How we measured it

A national survey, plus live online testing. Margin of error for a comparable probabilistic sample: about ±1.9%.

Finding the message that would have backfired

One message worked. One would have backfired. We caught it first.

Challenge

A global apparel brand facing public concern over animal welfare needed to know which messages would reassure people, and which would make things worse.

What we did

We surveyed about 1,500 people in each of Canada, the US and the UK to see where different audiences stood on the issue. Then we tested three messages against a control group before a word went public.

Result

One message improved how people saw the brand, with no backlash. Another lowered purchase intent among key customers in Canada, so we recommended not running it anywhere.

• 3

  markets
• ~1,500

  respondents per market

How we measured it

Three measures for each message and audience: brand favourability, views on the issue, and purchase intent.