C1. Brainstorming Sessions

A Step-by-Step Guide to Running Brainstorming Sessions onconsumr.ai

What is a Brainstorming Session?

Who Needs Brainstorming Sessions?

Product strategists, brand managers, and innovation teams who need to generate or sharpen ideas for a problem they've already framed - and want consumer reasoning to shape the ideation rather than do the ideation alone in a room. The narrower version: anyone using SCAMPER, Six Thinking Hats, 5 Whys, or similar frameworks for ideation work, who wants the cohort to participate in the framework rather than be cited as a thought experiment within it.

This is the format to pick when you have a problem statement and want structured idea generation back, or when you have early ideas and want them stress-tested through a recognized ideation lens.

What Is a Brainstorming Session?

Brainstorming Sessions is the first of three sub-types inside consumr.ai's Innovation Research family. Path: Qual → Innovation Research → Brainstorming Sessions.

Figure 1: Innovation Research landing - Brainstorming Sessions is the left card with the Frameworks badge

The format runs the cohort through one of five built-in ideation techniques: SCAMPER, Round Robin, Six Thinking Hats, Fishbone Analysis, or 5 Whys. Each technique structures the cohort's reasoning differently - SCAMPER prompts substitute / combine / adapt / modify / put-to-other-use / eliminate / reverse on an existing concept; Six Thinking Hats walks the cohort through six perspective lenses (Emotional, Planning, Creative, Benefits, Info Gathering, Risks); 5 Whys drives root-cause depth on a single question. The platform tags the most appropriate technique for the problem you've described, but the choice is yours.

Runs against 2-5 twins over 10-15 minutes. The What You Get bundle: idea clusters, feasibility assessment, prioritized concepts.

What a Brainstorming Session Produces

Output structure varies by technique, but the platform always returns a written conclusion synthesizing the cohort's ideation, plus a Response By Individuals section with the verbatim cohort contributions.

The Conclusion box surfaces the strongest concept the cohort generated, with key terms and product names bolded inline. In the New Balance walkthrough, the conclusion produced "New Balance 990 'Professional Series'" as the strongest variant - replacing traditional athletic mesh with premium matte leather or treated nubuck, a tonal embossed 'N' logo, retained ENCAP stability and Fresh Foam X cushioning, streamlined silhouette, and waxed cotton laces.

See detailed analysis expands the conclusion into named themes with paragraph-length supporting analysis under each. The themes vary by problem; the New Balance run surfaced four: The Material Evolution ("From 'Gym Gear' to 'Executive Wear'"), Refined Silhouette and Branding, Technical Core Preservation (with bulleted feature list), and The 'Stress Test' Value Proposition.

Response By Individuals presents the verbatim cohort contributions, organized by question. Each twin's response is displayed in full, with the prompting question shown above. This is where the source material for the synthesis lives - useful when the conclusion needs to be defended at the verbatim level or when a copywriter wants the exact language the cohort used.

Technique-specific outputs. When Six Thinking Hats is selected, the results render as six expandable hat panels (Red Emotional, Blue Planning, Green Creative, Yellow Benefits, White Info Gathering, Black Risks), each with the cohort's input under that lens. The structure makes it easy to flip between perspectives when reading the synthesis.

What a Brainstorming Session Won't Tell You

It generates and synthesizes ideas; it doesn't validate them. The cohort agreeing on a concept doesn't mean the broader market will - run a Concept Test against the synthesized output if you want a population-scaled read on whether the idea will land.

It also won't tell you whether the technique you picked was the right one for your problem. Different techniques surface different shapes of output - run the same problem through SCAMPER and through Six Thinking Hats and you'll get two genuinely different syntheses. That's a feature for cross-checking, not a bug, but it means the technique selection is part of the brief, not a default to skip past.

Why Brainstorming Sessions Matter

Most ideation work today happens with the team, an off-site, and a whiteboard. The audience is talked about and not consulted, and the strongest idea in the room tends to win regardless of whether it would land outside it. The result: concepts that feel sharp at the workshop and dilute the moment they leave.

Brainstorming Sessions inserts the cohort into the ideation itself. The structured frameworks (SCAMPER, Six Thinking Hats, etc.) keep the conversation rigorous rather than free-form, and the consumer reasoning shapes the output rather than gets reverse-engineered into the deck after the fact.

How Brainstorming Respondents Work

Each respondent is a full AI Twin drawn from observed digital behavior. The format supports 2-5 twins per run, with smaller cohorts (2-3 twins) typical for techniques like 5 Whys that drive deep on a single question, and larger cohorts (4-5 twins) typical for divergent techniques like SCAMPER or Six Thinking Hats.

In the walkthrough, the cohort was a single twin (Jessica Martin) running the 5 Whys technique against the problem of athletic-shoe purchase triggers. Single-twin runs work for techniques where depth matters more than breadth; for divergent techniques, pick a more diverse cohort.

Brainstorming's Unique Inputs

Discussion Role and Probing Style carry the same options as the other Qual sub-types. Role defaults to Insightful Marketer, with Behavioral Psychologist, Pattern Analyst, Design Strategist, and others available. Probing Style toggles Interview vs Reflection.

Define Problem is open text with three AI-suggested starters tuned to the segment and category. Be specific - the more concrete the problem, the sharper the ideation.

Select Technique is a dropdown of five built-in ideation methods. The platform pre-selects the most relevant technique for your problem (in the New Balance run, that was 5 Whys, tagged "Most Relevant"), but you can override. The five options:

SCAMPER- Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put-to-other-use, Eliminate, Reverse. Built for varying an existing product or concept along seven specific dimensions.

Round Robin- each cohort member contributes in sequence, building on the prior contribution. Built for collaborative idea-stacking rather than parallel ideation.

Six Thinking Hats- Edward de Bono's six-perspective framework (Red Emotional, Blue Planning, Green Creative, Yellow Benefits, White Info Gathering, Black Risks). Built for examining a question from multiple cognitive angles.

Fishbone Analysis- Ishikawa's cause-and-effect diagram. Built for diagnosing root causes of an existing problem, not for ideating new directions.

5 Whys- iterative why-questioning to drive from surface symptom to underlying cause. Built for understanding why a behavior or preference exists, not for generating product variations.

How Brainstorming Differs from Other Sub-Types

Brainstorming vs Consumer Co-Creation

Brainstorming generates ideas from a problem statement; Co-Creation refines a seed concept that you provide. If you're starting with a question and need ideas back, Brainstorming. If you're starting with an idea and want the cohort to develop it further, Co-Creation.**

Brainstorming vs Strategic Planning

Brainstorming operates at the product or feature level; Strategic Planning operates at the brand, market, or category level. If the question is "What should this product become?" Brainstorming. If the question is "should we enter this market," Strategic Planning.**

Limitations

Technique fit matters.5 Whys on a divergent ideation question will produce thin output; SCAMPER on a root-cause question will miss the mark. Match the technique to the problem shape.

Cohort size affects breadth.A single-twin run drives depth on the chosen technique but produces narrow ideation. For divergent techniques (SCAMPER, Six Thinking Hats), use 3-5 twins to surface a broader idea pool.

Generative, not validating.The synthesized concepts are starting points. Run them through Concept Testing (quant) or Co-Creation (qual deepening) before committing to one.

Video Walkthrough

Step 0: Getting to Brainstorming Sessions

Sign in to consumr.ai. From the dashboard, click Calendar → New Event → New Research Study. Select Qual → Innovation Research.

On the Innovation Research landing, three sub-types sit side by side: Brainstorming Sessions, Consumer Co-Creation, and Strategic Planning.

Step 1: Start a Brainstorming Session

Brainstorming Sessions is the leftmost card on the Innovation Research landing, marked with a blue Frameworks badge. The card lists the format basics - Structured Frameworks, 2-5 Twins, 10-15 Minutes - and the deliverables: Idea clusters, Feasibility assessment, Prioritized concepts.

Click Start Study under Brainstorming Sessions.

Figure 1: Innovation Research landing - Brainstorming Sessions is the leftmost card

Step 2: Pick the Discussion Role and Probing Style

The Select Role screen carries Questioning Style at the top and Probing Style underneath - the same Role & Approach shape used in Custom and Quick Focus Groups. The default role is Insightful Marketer; the default probing style is Interview. Questioning style plays a major role in framing the questions from a predefined strategic point of view.

Figure 2: Select Role screen - Questioning Style + Probing Style with Interview pre-selected

Click the role dropdown to switch personas. A Few of the available roles for Brainstorming runs:

Default Role (Insightful Marketer) - balanced ideation persona, useful for general brainstorming work.

Behavioral Psychologist - uncovers cognitive biases & decisions. Useful when the brainstorm is about why consumers behave a certain way.

Pattern Analyst - finds hidden connections & outliers. Useful for divergent techniques where unexpected combinations are the goal.

Design Strategist - empathy-driven problem solving. Useful when ideation needs to stay anchored in user need.

Figure 3: Role dropdown opened, showing the available discussion roles

In the walkthrough, the role was switched to Behavioral Psychologist - the goal was to surface the cognitive triggers underneath athletic-shoe purchase decisions, and the psychologist persona is built for that depth.

Click Select Objective.

Step 3: Define the Problem

The Define Problem screen surfaces three AI-suggested problem starters at the top and a free-text field underneath. The suggestions are tuned to the segment and category - in the New Balance walkthrough, they read: "Uncover emotional triggers behind athletic shoe purchases," "Reveal brand loyalty versus performance rationalization patterns," and "Expose gap between stated needs and buying.". You will need to remember to share a problem that can be brainstormed by consumers. AI Twins that are a part of this brainstorming exercise may not be branding, marketing or product experts, however they would be able to brainstorm from consumer's point of view.

Figure 4: Define Problem screen with three suggestions and a free-text field

Click any suggestion to populate the field, or type your own. The selected problem appears in the left rail under Define Problem and the populated text shows in the input field.

Figure 5: Problem populated - selected suggestion shown in field and in left rail

In the New Balance walkthrough, the problem selected was "Uncover emotional triggers behind athletic shoe purchases."

Click Select Technique.

Step 4: Pick the Ideation Technique

The Select Technique screen carries a single dropdown listing five built-in ideation frameworks. The platform tags one as "Most Relevant" based on the problem you defined - in the New Balance walkthrough, that was 5 Whys.

Figure 6: Technique dropdown showing all five available frameworks

The five techniques and what each is built for:

SCAMPER - Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put-to-other-use, Eliminate, Reverse. Built for varying an existing product or concept along seven specific dimensions.

Round Robin - each cohort member contributes in sequence, building on the prior contribution. Built for collaborative idea-stacking.

Six Thinking Hats - Edward de Bono's six-perspective framework. The output renders as six expandable hat panels at the results stage. Built for examining a question from multiple angles.

Fishbone Analysis - cause-and-effect diagramming. Built for diagnosing root causes.

5 Whys (Most Relevant) - iterative why-questioning. Built for understanding why a behavior or preference exists.

Figure 7: Technique dropdown with 5 Whys (Most Relevant) selected

In the New Balance walkthrough, 5 Whys was selected (matching the platform's recommendation). The left rail updates to show "Technique: 5 Whys (Most Relevant)" once the selection is locked.

Click Select Twins.

Step 5: Select the Twins

The Select Twins screen opens with a search field and a Recommend button. The format supports 2-5 twins per run. Click into the search field for the dropdown of available twins, or click Recommend for AI-suggested twins matched to the problem and technique.

Figure 8: Select Twins dropdown opened, showing available cohort options (Kayla Jensen, Mackenzie Bishop, Alexandra Russo)

In the walkthrough, a single twin was selected: Jessica Martin ("Comfort-driven healthcare admin who trusts New Balance for long hospital shifts and everyday life, balancing practicality with a touch of classic sneaker style"). Single-twin runs work well for depth-driven techniques like 5 Whys; for divergent techniques (SCAMPER, Six Thinking Hats), pick 3-5 twins to broaden the idea pool.

Figure 9: Select Twins screen with Jessica Martin locked in - left rail shows '1 AI Twins selected'

Two run options at the bottom: Conduct Meeting Once runs the brainstorm a single time; Start Meeting and Schedule queues the run as recurring. For a one-off ideation cycle, the single run is the right choice.

Step 6: Review the Conclusion

Once the brainstorm finishes, the platform routes you to the results page. The Conclusion box at the top synthesizes the cohort's ideation into the strongest concept candidate, with key terms and product names bolded inline.

Figure 10: Conclusion box at the top of the Brainstorming results page

In the walkthrough, the conclusion read: "The proposed product variant, the Brand Name 'Professional Series,' replaces traditional athletic mesh with premium matte leather or treated nubuck and features a tonal, embossed 'N' logo for a sophisticated, boardroom-ready aesthetic. It retains the essential ENCAP stability and Fresh Foam X cushioning to support 12-hour shifts while streamlining the silhouette and adding waxed cotton laces to bridge the gap between clinical performance and executive style."

That's a complete product brief in one paragraph - material specification, design intent, branding direction, technical core preservation, and the strategic gap the variant is built to address. The bolded "Brand Name 'Professional Series'" anchors the synthesis to a specific product candidate the brand could spec from.

Step 7: Read the Detailed Analysis

The See detailed analysis link inside the conclusion expands into named themes with paragraph-length supporting analysis. The themes vary by problem; in the New Balance run, four themes surfaced:

Figure 11: See detailed analysis - thematic breakdown supporting the conclusion

The Material Evolution: From "Gym Gear" to "Executive Wear"."The primary barrier for loyalists like Jessica Martin is the visual 'sportiness' of mesh. To solve this, the variant utilizes matte leather or high-quality nubuck in a palette of deep navy, charcoal, and earth tones. This shift removes the 'gym shoe' stigma while maintaining the structural integrity required for high-mileage use. To address the loss of breathability inherent in leather, the design incorporates discreet Cordura panels or micro-perforations in the toe box, ensuring the foot remains cool during 12-hour clinical or administrative shifts."

Refined Silhouette and Branding."To ensure the shoe complements professional attire (suits or tailored scrubs), the silhouette undergoes a subtle streamlining of the heel and toe box. This reduces the 'chunky' profile of traditional trainers without compromising the wide base needed for stability. Branding is transitioned to a tonal, embossed 'N' logo, which maintains brand identity in a whisper rather than a shout, aligning with the 'quiet luxury' aesthetic preferred in professional environments."

Technical Core Preservation.The Technical Core remains the non-shoe-swap value proposition. The variant must retain: ENCAP Midsole & Fresh Foam X (essential for preventing arch fatigue during long periods of standing); Slip-Resistant Outsole (a critical safety feature for slick, waxed hospital floors); Waxed Cotton Laces (a small but significant finish detail that provides a 'finished, intentional look' compared to standard athletic flat laces).

The "Stress Test" Value Proposition."This variant embodies the new 'shoe-swap eliminator,' simplifying the user's life. By providing a shoe that handles a SEPTA commute, a high-stakes board meeting, and a 12-hour shift, New Balance captures the 'Long Time Loyal' segment's desire for a single, reliable tool that performs under pressure and looks the part in any setting."

Each theme operates at a different layer of the product brief: Material Evolution covers the visible-design layer, Refined Silhouette covers the structural-design layer, Technical Core Preservation covers the engineering layer, and Stress Test Value Proposition covers the positioning layer. Read together, the four themes are ready to hand to a product designer or industrial design team without further interpretation.

Step 8: Review the Response By Individuals

Below the detailed analysis, the Response By Individuals section presents the verbatim cohort contributions, organized by the questions the technique drove (5 Whys generates iterative follow-up questions; Six Thinking Hats generates one prompt per hat; SCAMPER generates seven prompts mapped to the framework's letters).

Figure 12: Response By Individuals - Jessica Martin's verbatim responses to each prompted question

In the run, Jessica Martin's responses surfaced across seven questions including:

Describe a recent situation where you needed your shoes to perform well and look polished:"Honestly, John Doe, it was just last week. I had a pretty high-stakes budget meeting at the hospital where I had to present some new departmental projections to the board. Usually, I'm running between radiology and the admin offices in my standard 990s, but for that meeting, I really wanted to look the part. I wore my navy suede pair because they always feel a bit more put-together than the mesh ones. I had to walk from the SEPTA stop in a bit of a drizzle, so I was a little nervous about them looking scruffy, but they held up beautifully. It gave me that extra bit of confidence to focus on my presentation instead of worrying if my feet were aching or if I looked too casual for the room."

What challenges do you face when wearing athletic shoes in professional or formal settings?:"John Doe, it really comes down to the materials...the standard mesh just feels too casual for a board meeting or a formal lunch. I find myself wanting that more polished - like a matte leather or a treated nubuck - that doesn't look like I just stepped off a jogging trail."

What is one feature or design change that would make a trainer feel appropriate for both work and after-work events?:"John Doe, I think it really comes down to the materials. If you could take that incredible ENCAP cushioning and the stability I rely on for my shifts at Jefferson, but swap out the standard mesh for something more polished - like a matte leather or a treated nubuck - that would be a game changer. It would allow me to transition from walking the hospital corridors to a nice dinner or an event without feeling like I'm wearing a gym shoe."

Each response is the source material for the synthesis. The Detailed Analysis themes pull directly from this section - the Material Evolution narrative is built on Jessica's mesh-vs-nubuck framing, the Stress Test Value Proposition is built on her SEPTA-to-board-meeting story. Use this section when the conclusion needs to be defended at the verbatim level.

Step 9: Six Thinking Hats Output (Technique-Specific)

When Six Thinking Hats is selected as the technique instead of 5 Whys, the results page renders a six-panel structure underneath the detailed analysis - one expandable panel per hat. Each panel surfaces the cohort's input through that specific lens, with the responding twin's profile shown alongside. An "All" button on each hat opens the full quote in the cohort's own voice.

Figure 13: Six Thinking Hats output (example) - Red Hat (Emotional) panel expanded with Jessica Martin's response

In an example Six Thinking Hats run on the same emotional-trigger problem, the Red Hat (Emotional) surfaced: "I feel relief with new shoes, anxiety when my feet hurt, and nostalgia for familiar silhouettes. The desire to feel prepared is a strong motivator."

Figure 14: Six Thinking Hats output - Blue Hat (Planning) expanded with strategic framing

Blue Hat (Planning) surfaced: "Purchasing shoes is about moving from discomfort to feeling ready and in control. It's more than a transaction." Each hat gives you a different cognitive angle on the same question - useful when the brainstorm needs to walk a stakeholder team through multiple perspectives rather than land on a single conclusion.

Five inputs (Role, Probing Style, Problem, Technique, Twins) and one results page with three readable sections (Conclusion, Detailed Analysis with named themes, Response By Individuals - plus technique-specific output structure when relevant). The whole cycle from "we have a problem to brainstorm" to "we have a synthesized concept candidate plus consumer rationale" closes inside a 10-15 minute working session.