A better product decision starts with a blind test.
A reported blind sequential monadic test of three snack concepts. The figures below are illustrative—not verified market sales or a NOMAS client result.
Research partnership
ETK is NOMAS’s research partner. Brand Compass™, Distances Matrix™ and Triple-Helix™ are ETK methodologies, attributed to ETK—not presented as inventions of NOMAS.
Compare three products without revealing their identity
A reported blind, sequential monadic central-location test: each participant tasted the products in randomized order with wash-out between samples. The illustrative report describes category users at least once a week, age 18–49.
| City | Participants (n) |
|---|---|
| Riyadh | 196 |
| Jeddah | 148 |
| Dammam | 88 |
| Al Khobar | 48 |
Source / figure note: Predrag / ETK snack report, PDF p.2; HTML, Sample Composition. City counts sum to 480 as reported.
| Design item | Reported detail |
|---|---|
| Total sample | n=480 |
| Profile | 55% men · 45% women · ages 18–49 |
| Variant Y | Bold Chili-Lime |
| Variant X | Reduced Sodium |
| Benchmark | Current market leader (as named in report) |
| Measures | 9-point hedonic · 7-point JAR · 5-point purchase-intent scale |
Source / figure note: Predrag / ETK snack report, PDF p.2; HTML, Study Design and Sample Composition. Product “Benchmark” is anonymized; no manufacturer or client is named.
A sensory score, an intent measure and reach are not the same metric
Variant Y · overall liking
Variant X · overall liking
Benchmark · overall liking
67%
Variant Y; +9 percentage points versus the Benchmark and +23 points versus Variant X. This is stated intent, not actual sales.
54%
Reported reach for Variant Y alone at the T2B acceptance threshold. It is a TURF reach figure, not Y’s purchase-intent score. The report later shows 83% cumulative reach for Y + Regional Spice + Benchmark.
Mean score; 9-point hedonic scale. Scale starts at 0 for honest magnitude. The table supplies exact scores and the source’s segment values.
All consumers
Heavy users · 7+ servings/week
Moderate users · 3–6 servings/week
| Consumer group | Variant Y · Bold Chili-Lime | Variant X · Reduced Sodium | Benchmark · market leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| All consumers | 7.3 | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| Heavy users · 7+ servings/week | 7.6 | 6.1 | 6.5 |
| Moderate users · 3–6 servings/week | 6.8 | 5.8 | 6.7 |
Source / figure note: Predrag / ETK snack sensory illustrative report, PDF pp.3–4; companion HTML, Executive Summary and in-page chart data. The report claims a significant overall Y result at p<0.01, but the page does not recompute or validate inference; segment-level significance details are not added.
Use JAR to find direction; use penalty analysis to estimate the consequence
Share rating each sensory attribute below / at / above the ideal. Above combines “slightly high” and “too high”; it is not a single response category.
| Variant Y attribute | Below ideal | JAR | Above ideal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flavor intensity | 10% | 68% | 22% |
| Saltiness | 12% | 72% | 16% |
| Crunchiness | 19% | 61% | 20% |
| Aftertaste | 7% | 52% | 41% |
| Spice level | 11% | 58% | 31% |
| Oiliness / texture | 12% | 64% | 24% |
Source / figure note: Predrag / ETK snack report, PDF p.6; HTML, Sensory/JAR section. Above is combined “slightly high + too high”. Aftertaste is 26% slightly high + 15% too high in the figure, a combined 41%.
| Attribute condition | Liking points lost |
|---|---|
| Flavor intensity · too mild | −1.6 |
| Spice level · too mild | −1.3 |
| Aftertaste · too faint | −0.9 |
| Crunchiness · too soft | −0.7 |
| Saltiness · on target | −0.3 |
| Oiliness / texture · on target | −0.2 |
Source / figure note: Predrag / ETK snack report, PDF p.7; HTML, Penalty Analysis. Values are points lost in overall liking, not percentages. Source action thresholds: −0.5 actionable and −1.0 critical. Variant X saltiness is separately described as 71% JAR.
TURF tests reach; conjoint explores pack trade-offs
TURF (Total Unduplicated Reach and Frequency) reports cumulative unique reach at the stated T2B acceptance threshold. It is not interchangeable with stated purchase intent.
| Portfolio step | Cumulative unduplicated reach | Incremental reach |
|---|---|---|
| Variant Y alone | 54% | — |
| Add Regional Spice concept | 70% | +16 pts |
| Add Benchmark | 83% | +13 pts |
| Add Variant X | 87% | +4 pts |
| Add Cheese & Cream concept | 89% | +2 pts |
Source / figure note: Predrag / ETK snack report, PDF p.8; HTML, TURF section. The 54% for Y alone is portfolio reach and must not be labeled purchase intent. Order is the one presented in the source.
| Attribute | Importance |
|---|---|
| Price point | 31% |
| Pack size | 26% |
| Pack format | 19% |
| Health / sodium label | 14% |
| Brand cues | 10% |
Source / figure note: Predrag / ETK snack report, PDF p.9; HTML, Conjoint. Relative importance sums to 100% as reported; it is not market share.
| Attribute level | Utility |
|---|---|
| Price · SAR 3.00 | +1.52 |
| Price · SAR 4.00 | +0.31 |
| Price · SAR 5.50 | −0.94 |
| Pack · 28 g | +0.61 |
| Pack · 42 g | +1.18 |
| Pack · 170 g sharing | +0.77 |
| No health claim | +0.18 |
| Reduced-sodium claim | +0.64 |
| Flow-wrap bag | +0.44 |
| Resealable zip-top format | +0.83 |
Source / figure note: Predrag / ETK snack report, PDF p.9; HTML, Conjoint. Utilities are model values on the source’s scale, not percentages or currency; the report’s proposed 42 g resealable pack at SAR 4 is a synthetic recommendation, not a validated market price.
Lock the question, reformulate, then retest the range
The source proposes staged research. These are planning horizons and examples—not a delivery promise, calendar commitment or claim that later waves took place.
Lock Y and refine the package brief
Freeze the proposed Y specification; commission a targeted aftertaste-masking trial without reducing first-impression spice. Explore 42 g and a resealable zip-top as a conjoint-informed package direction—not an observed sale.
Reformulate X and develop a regional concept
Reformulate X to restore flavour intensity while retaining its reduced-sodium objective; the report proposes a Wave 2 flavour-intensity JAR target of at least 65%, a Regional Spice concept, and a modified-Y CLT with n=200 in Riyadh.
Re-test the range before a portfolio decision
The proposed Wave 2 CLT uses n=480 across the three candidates; re-run TURF to check range coverage, and use heavy-user qualitative work to shape Y communication. These are proposed next-study stages, not delivery commitments or completed activity.
Source / figure note: Predrag / ETK snack report, PDF p.10; HTML, Recommendations. Future Wave 2 sample figures (n=200 / n=480) are proposed research design only.
Start with the question your evidence needs to answer.
These examples are not client outcomes. A real engagement begins with your context, scope and evidence needs.