Example

How this works in practice.

One illustrative FMCG decision example, showing how a valid consumer study can still leave the business without a usable next move.

The data was valid. The business was still stuck.

A mid-size household goods brand had run a consumer study.

Two communication concepts were tested for the chosen brand territory: endorsed by professionals. The idea was to signal expertise, add credibility, and give shoppers a stronger reason to believe.

The result was technically valid: no concept clearly won.

Commercially, the business still had no clarity about the next move.

The study had tested something reasonable, but incomplete. It compared 2 communication concepts before the professional endorsement territory had been translated into a clear buyer benefit.

Markt.Scan: diagnose the blockage

The first step is to sort the problem into the right commercial bucket. The study answered the concept question. Markt.Scan checks which business problem is actually blocking the decision.

  • Communication clarityThe territory may be right, but the concepts are too similar, too soft, or too unclear to shift preference.
  • Shelf executionThe idea may be right, but it disappears at the buying moment because the pack, shelf position, or claim hierarchy does not carry it.
  • Perceived valueThe brand may be asking for a premium that the current proof does not justify.
  • Positioning relevanceThe territory may not matter enough in the category.
  • Communication angleThe territory may be directionally right, but the buyer benefit behind it is not yet clear.
Output

What Markt.Scan delivers

A clear diagnosis of where the blockage sits, and which decision should be validated next.

Example output: The blockage was not the quality of the 2 concepts. The issue sat upstream: professional endorsement had not been translated into a specific buyer benefit.

Markt.Signal: identify the strongest communication angle

Once the blockage is clear, the decision changes.

The question is no longer: which concept wins?

The question becomes: which buyer benefit should carry the professional endorsement territory?

Professional endorsement can mean expert authority, better cooking results, confidence that the product works, premium quality, or practical know-how.

Output

What Markt.Signal delivers

A validated communication angle for the chosen territory.

In this case, the strongest commercial angle is not professionals approve this. It is professional kitchen shortcuts for easier everyday cooking.

Example output: Keep the professional endorsement territory, but change the communication angle. Professional endorsement should support a concrete everyday benefit, not lead as abstract authority.

Markt.Lever: choose the first move

Once the communication angle is clear, the work becomes practical.

The question is no longer what the territory should mean. The question is where to apply the angle first.

For this brand, the first lever is claim hierarchy: what the shopper sees first, what supports the promise, and how professional endorsement earns its role.

Output

What Markt.Lever delivers

A first action sequence that turns the validated angle into commercial work.

Example output: Change the claim hierarchy. Lead with easier everyday cooking. Use professional endorsement as the source of shortcuts, not as the main message. Brief packaging and communication around professional shortcuts for everyday kitchens, then test the shelf-facing version before rollout.

This gives the brand a clearer pack message, a sharper retailer argument, and a better creative brief before more money goes into communication.

What the client can do tomorrow

Stop debating why 2 concepts tested the same.

Keep the territory, but translate it into a clear buyer benefit. Professional endorsement should support easier everyday cooking, not lead as authority.

That is the difference between a valid research result and a decision-ready recommendation.

Recognise your situation?

A valid study, a stalled decision, or several plausible explanations competing for attention. The briefing call is where we sharpen the question and decide what evidence is actually needed.

Book a free briefing See what fits