# Market Research Review — example deliverable Source: https://stacktr.ee/examples/market-research-review [← stacktr.ee](https://stacktr.ee/) · example deliverable · fictional client, real product · [Publish your own version](https://app.stacktr.ee/new?template=client-deliverable&from=example-research-review)  Confidential · survey n=2,140 · fieldwork June 2026 Prepared for Bexley Health Meridian North Research & Insight # Market Research & Data Review Bexley Health · daily-range concept test, June 2026 wave Prepared forBexley Health Ltd EngagementBX·RR·0626 Issued10 July 2026 LeadDr E. Naylor Contents [01 Method](#r1) [02 The data](#r2) [03 Findings](#r3) [04 Implications](#r4) ## 01 · Method ### How the evidence was gathered Fieldwork ran 2–26 June 2026: a 15-minute online questionnaire with 2,140 UK adults aged 25–65 who bought vitamins, minerals or supplements in the past twelve months, drawn from a nationally representative panel and weighted to the category buyer profile. Concept, framing and price were tested in randomised split cells, so no respondent saw more than one condition per design. MethodOnline questionnaire (15 min) + 24 depth interviews Samplen=2,140 UK category buyers, aged 25–65 Fieldwork2–26 June 2026 DesignRandomised split cells; monadic pricing WeightingAge, gender, region to category profile Precision±2.1pp full sample; ±4–6pp per segment We reproduced Bexley’s 2025 attitudinal segmentation with 91 per cent assignment stability, so every result here reads directly against the segments the team already plans with. Twenty-four 45-minute depth interviews, spread across the five segments, sit underneath the quantitative read. ## 02 · The data ### One concept clearly ahead, in the segments that pay The headline Overall it trails. In the segment that pays, it’s a 24-point win: lead with the clinical story, and hold the price under £22. The prize first. Desk sizing puts UK retail sales of vitamins, minerals and supplements at £1.9 billion in 2025. The daily-range formats this concept competes in account for £640 million of that, and the share Bexley can credibly take by year three, on current distribution and the pricing tested here, is £38 million. The fieldwork answers whether this concept earns it. Fig 1 · Where the concept plays · sizing, 2025 base Circle areas drawn to scale. Sizing: category panel data and Bexley trade coverage, 2025 base year. Against the category leader, the new daily-range concept draws 44 per cent preference overall, six points shy of parity. The average hides the result. Preventative Planners, 23 per cent of buyers but an estimated 38 per cent of category value, prefer the Bexley concept by 24 points. The deficit sits with Price Anchored buyers, who were never the launch target. Fig 2 · Concept preference vs category leader, by segment Preventative Planners n=48662% Symptom Responders n=55248% Convenience First n=41941% Ingredient Sceptics n=37133% Price Anchored n=31227% Priority segment Other segments The framing test is less ambiguous. Half the sample saw the range described as clinically dosed, half as naturally sourced. The clinical frame wins consideration in every segment, and most sharply where the margin lives. Fig 3 · Purchase intent by proposition frame, unpriced concept Clinically dosed61% Naturally sourced46% Definitely would buy Probably Might Would not Figure shows the value as top-two consideration. Split cells n=1,070 each. Read within segment, the same split shows the gap is widest exactly where preference is already strongest: the frame decision and the targeting decision point the same way. Fig 4 · Top-two consideration by frame, within segment Preventative Planners n=486 74 50 +24 Symptom Responders n=552 68 53 +15 Convenience First n=419 58 47 +11 Ingredient Sceptics n=371 49 38 +11 Price Anchored n=312 45 39 +6 Clinically dosed Naturally sourced +pts clinical advantage Frame cells within segment, n=156–276 per cell. 64% of Preventative Planners say they would switch from their current daily supplement for a clinically dosed range priced at or under £22. Switching intent, top-two · priced cells pooled · n=486 ## 03 · Findings ### Three findings, graded by confidence We grade every finding by the strength of the evidence behind it. High confidence means replicated across cells and robust to weighting; moderate means a single well-powered design; directional means a signal worth funding, not yet a fact. #### “Clinically dosed” is the winning frame High confidence The clinical proposition drew 61 per cent consideration against 46 per cent for naturally sourced, led in all five segments, and the gap widens to 24 points among Preventative Planners. The effect holds across age, region and gender after weighting. Ref RR-02 · full-sample split test #### Willingness to pay is a cliff, not a slope Moderate confidence Priced purchase intent holds from £18 (58 per cent) to £22 (55 per cent), then falls to 39 per cent at £26. The design is monadic, one price per respondent, so the cliff is inferred across cells rather than observed within buyers, and it has not been tested in-market. Ref RR-05 · three price cells, n=712–714 #### A pharmacist’s voice moves the sceptics Directional In the depth interviews, 17 of 24 participants raised pharmacist recommendation unprompted as the thing that would change their mind. A small endorsement cell lifted Ingredient Sceptic consideration by 14 points, but the cell is under-powered. Treat as a hypothesis to validate, not a result to spend against. Ref RR-08 · qual + endorsement cell n=214 From the depth interviews · 24 × 45 min “ If it tells me the dose and shows me the evidence, I’ll pay more without thinking twice. The leafy packaging reads like it’s got something to hide. R-1104 · Preventative Planner · F, 44 · Leeds “ My pharmacist saying it works would do more than any advert you could buy. That’s the only voice I trust in that aisle. R-2031 · Ingredient Sceptic · M, 51 · Cardiff ## 04 · Implications ### What this means for the launch Two dimensions organise the launch: how price sensitive a segment is, and how much clinical proof it needs before it buys. Mapping the five segments on those axes shows why the recommendations concentrate money where they do. Fig 5 · Segment map · price sensitivity × need for clinical proof Blob area scales with estimated share of category value; labels show the share. Positions from factor scores on the 2025 segmentation, replicated this wave. RefFindingImplicationRecommended action RR-02“Clinically dosed” wins the priority segmentsThe launch story is efficacy, not provenanceLead pack front and PDP copy with dose and evidence; keep botanical cues secondary RR-04“Naturally sourced” trails in every segmentThe current draft campaign leans on the weaker frameRebrief the creative agency before copy lock on 4 September 2026 RR-05Willingness to pay breaks above £22A £24.99 debut price risks the core segmentLaunch at £21.50; test £26 only inside a three-month bundle RR-08Pharmacy endorsement may unlock scepticsIngredient Sceptics are reachable, not lostCommission a 400-person validation cell before committing trade spend We walk the team through this readout on 16 July. Any later wave comes as a new page beside this one. Meridian North Research & insight · prepared for Bexley Health · not for onward distribution Questions? e.naylor@meridiannorth.co.uk Engagement BX·RR·0626 A fictional example published with Stacktree · no real client data --- Full markdown summary of the Stacktree marketing surface: https://stacktr.ee/llms-full.txt