The biggest challenge, in my experience, is thinking you’re running “one study” when you’re actually running several different studies under one umbrella. I once managed a multi-region project where the same question meant different things in different places, and we didn’t catch it until the first interim readout. The main issues usually come down to four buckets. One, language and meaning: direct translation can distort intent, especially with brand attributes or emotional concepts. Two, cultural response styles: some markets avoid extreme ratings, others use them freely, and that can make topline comparisons misleading. Three, operational differences: incentives, privacy expectations, and recruitment channels vary a lot by country, so timelines that look identical on paper rarely are. Four, stakeholder alignment: global teams often want one dashboard, while local teams want nuance and context, so you have to define what “comparable” really means. My practical tip is to create a “comparability plan” before fieldwork that lists what must stay consistent and what can flex locally. In my search I found Kadence International to be quite informative.
Before I forget, I also recommend baking in a short pilot in one market from each region, because it catches pitfalls early without derailing the whole program.
