AI can now simulate customers.

You can generate “digital personas.”
Run synthetic interviews.
Test positioning instantly.
Stress-test objections without recruiting anyone.

The promise is speed and scale.

The real question is:

If AI can simulate consumers, do we still need real qualitative interviews?

The short answer: yes.

The deeper reason lies in where synthetic users get their knowledge.

What Synthetic Users Are Actually Trained On

Synthetic users are built from large datasets, typically including:

• Public web content
• Reviews
• Forum discussions
• Marketing copy
• Survey data
• Structured research datasets

Many commercial “synthetic consumer” systems are additionally trained or tuned on proprietary survey panels and structured quantitative research.

That matters.

Because survey data is fundamentally different from qualitative interview data.

The Survey Problem

Surveys are useful for scale.

They are not strong qualitative instruments.

Survey responses often:

• Are short and shallow
• Reflect socially desirable answers
• Contain limited context
• Lack follow-up probing
• Encourage rationalized explanations

When synthetic users are built primarily from survey-style data, they inherit those limitations.

They become optimized to generate:

• Coherent but generalized responses
• Surface-level motivations
• Predictable objections
• Statistically common perspectives

That is not the same as qualitative depth.

Why This Matters for Insight

Qualitative insight often comes from:

• Long, messy narratives
• Contradictions
• Emotional hesitation
• Unexpected framing
• Specific lived events

Surveys rarely capture this.

If synthetic users are trained predominantly on:

• Aggregated responses
• Cleaned datasets
• Rationalized summaries

They reflect structured expectation, not lived complexity.

The model learns patterns of what people typically say.

It does not experience what they actually struggle to articulate.

Real Interviews Capture Something Different

In real qualitative interviews, participants:

• Struggle to explain motivations
• Reveal tensions unintentionally
• Contradict earlier statements
• Share emotionally loaded examples
• Expose context that surveys miss

These moments are not always statistically dominant.

They are often strategically important.

Synthetic users tend to generate internally consistent responses.

Real humans are not internally consistent.

That inconsistency is often the insight.

The Risk of Modeled Generalization

When you rely on synthetic users:

You are sampling from a modeled distribution of past expressed opinions.

This reinforces:

• Dominant narratives
• Average sentiment
• Common objections

It under-represents:

• Emerging behaviors
• Minority signals
• New category formation
• Shifts not yet reflected in structured datasets

Innovation frequently happens at the edge of distribution.

Synthetic systems are built to approximate the center.

Where Synthetic Users Are Useful

Synthetic users can help with:

• Early hypothesis stress-testing
• Messaging refinement
• Brainstorming objections
• Identifying obvious friction
• Rapid internal iteration

They can accelerate thinking.

They should not replace empirical validation.

When Real Interviews Become Even More Important

Real interviews matter most when:

• Entering new markets
• Launching new product categories
• Diagnosing churn
• Exploring emotional drivers
• Challenging internal assumptions

These contexts require:

• Context-rich narratives
• Deep probing
• Clarification of vague statements
• Segment-level nuance

Synthetic responses cannot reliably reproduce this depth.

Real Interviews at Scale Change the Tradeoff

Historically, synthetic users were attractive because real qualitative research was slow and expensive.

But that constraint is shifting.

With structured systems, teams can now:

• Run dozens of interviews in days
• Collect voice-based responses asynchronously
• Transcribe automatically
• Accelerate bottom-up thematic analysis
• Compare segments systematically

When real interviews can scale, the justification for simulation weakens.

Speed no longer requires sacrificing reality.

Synthetic vs Real: A Clear Contrast

Synthetic users provide:

• Speed
• Low cost
• Structured generalization
• Hypothesis simulation

Real interviews provide:

• Lived experience
• Emotional nuance
• Contradiction
• Context
• Traceable evidence

The higher the stakes, the more grounded evidence matters.

The Illusion of Insight

Synthetic outputs often look polished.

They:

• Sound articulate
• Provide structured reasoning
• Offer plausible objections
• Generate confident summaries

But fluency is not evidence.

Understanding requires grounded data.

Synthetic systems model expectation.

Qualitative research uncovers reality.

Those are not interchangeable.

A Responsible Approach

A balanced model looks like this:

• Use synthetic tools for early-stage ideation.
• Use real interviews for validation and discovery.
• Use AI to scale collection and analysis.
• Maintain bottom-up discipline in thematic development.

Simulation can accelerate thinking.

It should not replace evidence.

Final Perspective

Synthetic users are built from patterns in existing data, often heavily influenced by survey-style responses.

Surveys are known to flatten nuance.

When synthetic systems inherit that structure, they reproduce its limits.

Real qualitative interviews capture complexity, contradiction, and lived detail.

If your goal is speed alone, simulation may suffice.

If your goal is insight, reality still matters.

For a broader overview of AI in qualitative research, see our guide: AI for Qualitative Research in 2026: What Actually Works (and What Doesn’t)

‍