/* global window */ // Content object for the report renderer (blog/blog-report-tpl.jsx). // Produced by the Writer→Editor→Humanize→Proofreader chain; draft in // blog/pipeline/drafts/snack-packaging.md. Source study fully anonymized: // no manufacturer, licensed-property, retailer, platform, or person names. window.__REPORT__ = { slug: "snack-packaging", title: "When the survey favorite loses: a licensed-toy concept test the attention data overturned.", lane: ["CONSUMER / LICENSED TOYS", "FIELDED JUL 2025"], heroTags: [ { label: "SOURCE-LINKED" }, { label: "ANONYMIZED" }, { label: "n = 220" }, { label: "US MARKET" }, ], heroMeta: [ { dt: "METHOD", dd: "AI-moderated interviews + concept reaction" }, { dt: "SAMPLE", dd: "220 usable (1,734 entered)" }, { dt: "AUDIENCE", dd: "US parents who buy this category" }, { dt: "SPLIT", dd: "54% female · 46% male · ages 25–50" }, { dt: "CADENCE", dd: "69% buy every 1–3 months · 19% weekly" }, { dt: "SHIPPED", dd: "brief to verdict, source-linked" }, ], summaryPre: "A consumer products company brought us a licensed toy line and a ranking problem. Parents had been surveyed and named the gentler of two screen properties their favorite direction. We ran a concept-reaction test instead of another survey, and the stated favorite did not hold once we watched where attention and emotion went. The lean-in landed on durability, not on which property was less scary", summaryMid: "the say/do gap is well documented — asking about intent can itself inflate it", summaryPost: "The survey heard what parents would say. The concept-reaction test caught what they would actually buy.", cites: { c1: { label: "[DURABILITY 92%]", ref: "STUDY · DURABILITY DRIVER · 92% OF RESPONDENTS", body: "\"Durability is first because they like to use them in different ways, but safety is always important.\" — Participant verbatim, durability theme. 92% defined value by durability over price; a toy that breaks reads as \"a waste of money.\" The emotional lean-in landed on construction quality, not on the property or the scare level.", }, c2: { label: "[SAY/DO GAP]", ref: "EXTERNAL · MERE-MEASUREMENT EFFECT · +25%", body: "Simply asking someone about purchase intent can make them up to 25% more likely to say they will buy — a measurement artifact, not a real signal (CloudArmy, 2024). In the same work, shoppers called a display \"eye-catching\" while eye-tracking showed they did not actually attend to it any faster or longer than the alternatives.", }, }, stats: [ { v: "92%", l: "define value by durability, not price" }, { v: "95%", l: "purchases begin with a child's specific demand" }, { v: "84%", l: "comfortable with the genre — conditionally" }, { v: "220", l: "qualified parents interviewed" }, ], findingsHeading: "Five findings — and the one that overturned the survey.", findingsIntro: "Each finding links to its source evidence — verbatim quotes, behavioral signals, and the share of respondents who voiced it. The full evidence layer ships in the downloadable report.", findings: [ { num: "FINDING 01", tag: "OVERTURNS SURVEY", tagAccent: true, hi: true, title: "The attention favorite wasn't the stated favorite", verbatim: "Durability is first because they like to use them in different ways, but safety is always important.", meta: ["92% of respondents", "stated pick: gentler property", "attention pick: durability"], timeline: [0.18, 0.41, 0.63, 0.86], }, { num: "FINDING 02", tag: "HIGH IMPACT", tagAccent: true, title: "The child is the real researcher", verbatim: "My kids see them online and tell me about them… they show me specific toys that the videos and creators point to.", meta: ["95% child-driven", "88% via short-form video", "parent is the reactor"], confidence: 0.95, confidenceLabel: "SHARE OF RESPONDENTS", }, { num: "FINDING 03", tag: "MED IMPACT", title: "The veto is pragmatic, not thematic", verbatim: "If it's appropriate for their age, I will look into it… the only thing that influences my decision is if it's dangerous.", meta: ["82% hold the veto", "durability · safety · budget", "not the scare level"], confidence: 0.82, confidenceLabel: "SHARE OF RESPONDENTS", }, { num: "FINDING 04", tag: "MED IMPACT", title: "The Goldilocks zone of fear", verbatim: "It's scary but not too scary — scary in a cartoonish, kid's way, so it's entertaining at the same time.", meta: ["84% conditional comfort", "spooky yes, gore no", "a maturity test, not a preference"], confidence: 0.84, confidenceLabel: "SHARE OF RESPONDENTS", }, { num: "FINDING 05", tag: "LATENT NEED", title: "The \"Trojan Horse\" — comfort smuggled into the scare", verbatim: "If the toy sung a song to them or had a nightlight or something for them at night… I'd be a lot more likely to pay for that.", meta: ["10–15% segment", "unprompted on the brief", "highest willingness to pay"], confidence: 0.70, confidenceLabel: "PLAY-TO-COMFORT OVERLAP", }, ], recommendation: { heading: "Lead recommendation surfaced from Finding 01", title: "lead", body: "Don't ship the survey favorite. Lead with durability across both properties — \"Built for Play,\" \"Collector-Grade\" — frame the two franchises differently (adventure for P-01, collectible-mystery for P-02), and prototype the dual-function \"Trojan Horse\" concept that converts the most anxious segment instead of writing it off.", tags: ["92% DURABILITY-LED", "DUAL-FRANCHISE FRAMING", "TROJAN-HORSE PROTOTYPE", "220 PARENTS"], confidence: 0.9, confidenceLabel: "EVIDENCE STRENGTH", }, evidenceHeading: "Two verbatims behind the reversal.", evidence: [ { time: "—", speaker: "DURABILITY THEME · 92%", body: "The thing I look for is quality. It's got to be durable, it cannot break easily… definitely durability and stability, things like that. I'll pay a little extra for more durable toys.", tags: ["DURABILITY · 92%", "THEME · VALUE", "FINDING 01"], }, { time: "—", speaker: "TROJAN-HORSE THEME · LATENT", body: "If the toy sung like a song to them or had like a nightlight or something for them at night — nothing scary, but something to get them to sleep — I would definitely be a lot more likely to pay for that.", tags: ["LATENT NEED", "THEME · COMFORT", "FINDING 05"], }, ], personasHeading: "Five buyer personas — and the plurality the survey missed.", personasIntro: "Segmented from interview behavior and verbatim language, not a demographic cut. Each carries its share of the sample and the line that defines it. The Durability Investor isn't a niche — it's the plurality whose real preference only showed up once we stopped asking and started watching.", personas: [ { share: "40–45%", tag: "MAIN PERSONA", name: "The Durability Investor", quote: "Durability is first because they like to use them in different ways… a toy that can last for a long time.", about: "Skews male, kids in the 6–12 \"destructive play\" years. Treats a toy purchase as a value calculation and pays more for construction that survives. The segment the stated ranking missed — their preference lives in their attention, not their answer.", }, { share: "35–40%", tag: "PROCUREMENT", name: "The Designated Agent", quote: "My kids see them online and tell me about them… they show me specific toys the creators point to.", about: "Pure procurement for a child who already decided. Discovers nothing; executes a non-negotiable request. Wants a frictionless path to the exact item, not personal discovery.", }, { share: "30–35%", tag: "GATEKEEPER", name: "The Cautious Monitor", quote: "The horror themes aren't exactly age-appropriate… the violence with all the kids kind of scares me.", about: "Open to the genre but runs a constant maturity check on their own child. Comfort is conditional. Needs reassurance that the fear is \"fun-scary,\" framed as fantasy or adventure.", }, { share: "20–25%", tag: "FELLOW FAN", name: "The Co-Conspirator", quote: "Not at all — I grew up loving horror stuff… I think it sparks creativity.", about: "Shares the child's passion. Less gatekeeper, more playmate. Buys high-fidelity collectibles to enjoy alongside their kid and values shared experiences over caution.", }, { share: "10–15%", tag: "LATENT NEED", name: "The Trojan Horse Seeker", quote: "If the toy had a nightlight or sang a song at night… I'd be a lot more likely to pay for that.", about: "A pragmatic subset of the Cautious Monitor. Would pay a premium for a scary toy that doubles as a comfort object, neutralizing their own anxiety. The highest-willingness-to-pay opportunity nobody put on the brief.", }, ], gateTitle: "Get the full report — all five findings, ten personas, the durability and Trojan-Horse evidence, and every verbatim behind the reversal.", gateDesc: "Drop your work email. We'll send the full report (PPTX and CSV available on request). No marketing follow-up unless you ask — we hate it too.", gateIncluded: ["Full PDF", "Editable PPTX", "CSV findings export", "All participant verbatims"], related: [ { href: "/blog/sample-report.html", report: true, lane: "REPORT · 13 min", date: "Oct 2025", title: "The challenger's playbook: beating the Giants in sportswear (n=259)", excerpt: "Comfort over logo, peer reviews over ads. Source-linked findings, five personas, and the verbatim evidence behind each.", author: "NeroView Research", meta: "Consumer / Sportswear", }, { href: "/blog/synthetic-vs-human.html", lane: "INDEX · 7 min", date: "Apr 2026", title: "Synthetic vs. human research: when each one wins", excerpt: "Where AI panels help, where they mislead, and why revealed behavior still beats a confident synthetic answer.", author: "NeroView Research", meta: "Methodology", }, ], };