# After Consumer Council evidence that some HK supermarket BOGOs deliver far less than ~50% off and larger packs can cost more per unit, which grocery pricing/transparency concept wins purchase intent among weekly HK supermarket or online grocery shoppers who compare promotions and pack sizes?

- Share code: `7BV29ZH5KXdB`
- Report type: `scenario`
- Generated: Sep 29, 2026, 09:40 AM (`2026-09-29T09:40:49.966Z`)
- Scenario: `product_testing`
- Label: Product Testing — 9/29/2026
- Population: Hong Kong adults who shop at a supermarket or online grocery at least weekly and compare promotions or pack sizes when buying household staples (food, drinks, sauces, milk, noodles)
- Respondents: 317
- Credits used: 1.99 Credit
- Analysis: v2

## Concepts
- **Unit price on every shelf and page**: At a Hong Kong supermarket or online grocery, every staple shows a clear unit price per 100g or 100ml on the shelf label and product page next to the selling price, so you can compare brands and pack sizes without calculating yourself.
- **BOGO with effective per-item price**: A Buy-1-Get-1-Free or bulk-buy promo that also shows the effective price per item after the promotion and compares it to the last non-promotional single-item price, so you can see the real discount percent.
- **Historical / target-price alert (OPW-style)**: Before you add a staple to cart, an Online Price Watch-style tool shows the last 7- and 30-day high/low, unit price, and optional target-price alert when the item drops to your set price across major HK online grocers.
- **Larger pack as default better value**: Assume the larger pack of the same brand is always better value. No unit price is shown. You pick the bigger bottle or multipack because larger usually means cheaper per unit.
- **Classic BOGO badge only**: A classic Buy-1-Get-1-Free or Get-1-More-for-$1 badge with no unit price, no effective per-item price, and no historical price. You decide from the promo label alone, expecting roughly half price.

## Overview
In response to supermarket promotion skepticism in Hong Kong, shoppers strongly favor transparent benchmark tools over promotional claims. Concept c3 (Historical/target-price alert) narrowly edges c1 (Unit price on every shelf) in purchase intent and top-2 box commitment, backed by high credibility. The panel skews heavily toward research-oriented behavior (243 research-heavy shoppers out of 357 in HKG), while conventional promotions (c4 and c5) suffer steep credibility deficits.

### Key findings
- Historical price tracking drives the highest purchase intent, backed by strong perceived credibility.
- Universal unit pricing offers the greatest usability advantage among transparency concepts.
- Standard promotional badges face severe skepticism and rank lowest in shopper purchase intent.

### Concept leaderboard
Summary score across the constructs in this run.

- #1 **Historical / target-price alert (OPW-style)** — score 4.05
- #2 **Unit price on every shelf and page** — score 3.9721
- #3 **BOGO with effective per-item price** — score 2.9094
- #4 **Larger pack as default better value** — score 2.1338
- #5 **Classic BOGO badge only** — score 1.4805

### Audience screen
Is this the right panel?

- 100% in Hong Kong
- 27% aged 55+, 23% aged 45-54
- 27% upper-middle income, 27% students or unemployed
- 68% research-heavy (shopping)
- 43% early-majority, 25% early-adopter (tech adoption)

Use this as an initial audience screen: retarget population_query or run a follow-on Scenario if the mix does not match the intended segment.

Directional panel mix from synthetic respondent profiles — not official statistics.

## Qualitative
### Radar
- **Unit price on every shelf and page**: purchase_intent=3.87, relevance=3.88, uniqueness=2.32, usability=4.33, credibility=4.25
- **BOGO with effective per-item price**: purchase_intent=3.55, relevance=3.65, uniqueness=2.64, usability=3.83, credibility=3.89
- **Historical / target-price alert (OPW-style)**: purchase_intent=3.89, relevance=3.89, uniqueness=3.23, usability=3.59, credibility=4.19
- **Larger pack as default better value**: purchase_intent=2.55, relevance=2.96, uniqueness=1.88, usability=2.41, credibility=2.18
- **Classic BOGO badge only**: purchase_intent=2.52, relevance=2.89, uniqueness=1.51, usability=2.13, credibility=2.04

### Relative position by construct
Comparative rank score 0–5: per-persona concept ranking per dimension (Plackett–Luce expected rank) — 5=best of the set, 0=worst; sums to ~2.5 per concept across the panel

- **Unit price on every shelf and page**: purchase_intent=4.07, relevance=4.1, uniqueness=3.92, usability=4.24, credibility=4.06
- **BOGO with effective per-item price**: purchase_intent=2.27, relevance=2.12, uniqueness=2.26, usability=2.43, credibility=2.72
- **Historical / target-price alert (OPW-style)**: purchase_intent=4.21, relevance=4.13, uniqueness=4.16, usability=3.82, credibility=4.22
- **Larger pack as default better value**: purchase_intent=1.72, relevance=1.85, uniqueness=1.73, usability=1.65, credibility=1.32
- **Classic BOGO badge only**: purchase_intent=0.44, relevance=0.53, uniqueness=0.47, usability=0.38, credibility=0.91

### Excerpts
#### Unit price on every shelf and page
**purchase_intent**
- "I would adopt this feature if it were available at my usual supermarket like ParknShop or Wellcome. The convenience fits my need to compare value efficiently across different brands." (Slightly positive)
- "I probably won't switch retailers just for this, since I'm already locked into my usual spots for convenience. It would need to save me real money, not just time, to justify changing my routine." (Slightly positive)
- "I would buy this without hesitation because it matches what I have been looking for when shopping online. It saves me the trouble of calculating unit costs myself during my busy week." (Slightly positive)
- "I’d definitely give this a try on my next grocery run since I already research prices heavily before buying. It reduces the friction I feel when I’m short on time between work and yoga." (Slightly positive)
- "I would buy this without hesitation because it matches what I have been looking for to save money on groceries. It feels like a tool that respects my time and financial goals as a saver." (Slightly positive)
- "I will not commit to a specific purchase based on this alone, as I already trust my current grocery providers. However, I would expect my preferred stores to adopt this standard to maintain my continued loyalty." (Slightly positive)
- "Might find it useful someday when I'm budgeting more carefully, but right now I tend to impulse buy anyway. Would help if I was planning meals for a bigger group." (Neutral)
- "They might try this if it appears in their usual online grocery run, but they hesitate to change habits unless the savings feel concrete. They prefer sticking to known brands when busy with client deadlines." (Neutral)
- "I am unlikely to adopt this as a new habit since my current routine already works for me. The change would not move the needle enough to alter how I spend." (Neutral)
- "They would not change where they shop based on this alone, but they might pause longer at a supermarket aisle if the labels were clear. Their spending goes more toward travel and camera gear than grocery efficiency." (Neutral)
**relevance**
- "Currently, this feels mostly irrelevant because they stick to familiar brands and sizes already. They barely see where it would fit into their regular routine at the neighborhood market." (Strongly positive)
- "This feels relevant to how I live and work because I need to stretch my salary while supporting my family. I can see myself using this daily to make sure I am not overspending on household staples." (Slightly positive)
- "This feels relevant to how I live or work; I can see myself using it when I prepare the weekly shopping list for my family. It supports my need to stretch savings without sacrificing quality for our meals." (Slightly positive)
- "This feels relevant to how I live or work because I can see myself using it to compare staple prices efficiently. As I restructure assets for a stable retirement income, knowing exact unit costs aligns with my budgeting goals." (Slightly positive)
- "This fits my need for precision and independent living in the Mid-Levels. When I review stock portfolios, clarity is everything; the should apply to household budgets too." (Slightly positive)
- "This fits well with my habit of researching purchases thoroughly before committing, especially since I manage household expenses carefully. It simplifies a task I already spend time on, making it easier to stick to my budget." (Slightly positive)
- "It fits moderately well since I manage the household budget, but I already prioritize investment and education expenses over grocery minutiae. When I'm rushing between meetings and HIIT, I skip the granular price checks unless it's a major staple." (Slightly positive)
- "It actually misses the mark for me since my budget isn't the main concern—I care more about vibe and quality for my cafe photos and dinner parties." (Neutral)
- "This fits moderately well with my interest in clear information, yet it is not a priority for my daily choices. I focus more on quality and heritage than on calculating per-unit savings." (Neutral)
- "This fits somewhat with their focus on smart spending as a freelancer, but it is not a priority compared to project work or travel planning. They notice it more when grocery shopping for home brewing ingredients." (Neutral)
**uniqueness**
- "This feels like a standard expectation rather than a new benefit in Hong Kong markets. Many shops already show rough comparisons, so it does not stand out as special." (Neutral)
- "They recognize the idea from older markets where small signs showed weight and price, so it feels familiar rather than new." (Neutral)
- "Feels like something I’ve seen on big store apps before. Nothing new for me compared to what I already use." (Neutral)
- "It's not totally new since some apps show it, but having it consistently on physical shelves feels different. Most places still make you hunt for the fine print if you want to compare." (Neutral)
- "While this is common in some Western markets, it is not standard here so it feels distinct compared to what I usually encounter. It is not entirely new to me as a shopper but it is new to my local context." (Slightly negative)
- "This stands out from what I usually see because most labels only show total price, not cost per weight. It feels notably different from the confusing displays I encounter during my weekly shopping." (Slightly negative)
- "This stands out from what I usually see since most apps only show total price. It feels notably different and valuable compared to standard shopping tools I use daily." (Slightly negative)
- "It stands out because most HK apps still force me to do the math myself across different package sizes. I haven’t seen this level of clarity consistently online or in-store." (Slightly negative)
- "This stands out from what I usually see in local supermarkets where labels are cluttered. It feels notably different from the current experience on Xiaohongshu or supermarket apps." (Slightly negative)
- "It feels familiar because I already do these calculations myself using notes on my phone. Nothing about it stands out as new compared to what I currently do." (Slightly negative)
**usability**
- "This looks easy enough for me to integrate into my existing shopping trips. I would not struggle with it because the interface is straightforward and does not require learning new tools." (Slightly positive)
- "Looks straightforward enough; I won’t need to hunt for info or do mental math while scrolling. That simplicity works for my pace, especially when I'm multitasking on the commute." (Slightly positive)
- "I worry about the friction if the online interface doesn't load smoothly on my commute or if shelf labels get outdated too fast. Sometimes new systems feel clunky compared to what I'm used to." (Slightly positive)
- "The interface looks straightforward for someone comfortable with my tablet and smartphone. I do not want extra steps; just the numbers next to the items I usually pick." (Slightly positive)
- "I suspect there might be friction if the labels are small or difficult to read on a busy screen. My current method of comparing prices manually works well enough that I hesitate to rely on this." (Slightly positive)
- "Relying on shelf labels or pages adds friction when I shop quickly after work. I prefer a consolidated view on my phone rather than checking multiple sources during a brief visit." (Slightly positive)
- "Reading labels on shelves is straightforward for them, though they worry online pages might be harder to navigate on their phone. They would need a moment to adjust if the layout changes too much from paper flyers." (Slightly positive)
- "Simple labels are easy for me to read without needing help from my daughter." (Slightly positive)
- "This looks effortless for someone with my habits, clear and simple. I can read the big numbers next to the price without needing to use my phone." (Neutral)
- "They worry the display might be too small or hard to read with their eyes, so they might still ask staff for help." (Neutral)
**credibility**
- "This seems believable and professional enough for me to take seriously. Given my experience with school administration and budgeting, I trust that official pricing would be accurate and standardized." (Slightly positive)
- "I need to see this in person before I trust it since apps and websites often lag behind real shelf prices. My experience running a business teaches me that advertised numbers don't always match reality." (Slightly positive)
- "This feels highly trustworthy to me—solid, credible, and well put together. Transparency aligns with how I expect serious businesses to operate, like my financial advisors." (Slightly positive)
- "This feels trustworthy because it relies on clear data rather than marketing promises. I tend to trust systems that are transparent about costs, similar to how I manage my crypto investments." (Slightly positive)
- "It feels highly trustworthy to me because it’s a transparent approach that aligns with how I manage my portfolio. Clear numbers give me confidence that the brand isn’t hiding costs." (Slightly positive)
- "Clear pricing data builds trust because it removes ambiguity from my purchasing decisions. I would need to see consistent accuracy across brands to fully rely on the system." (Slightly positive)
- "I'm unsure if the data stays accurate across all brands and stores. I've been burned by price discrepancies before when comparing bulk orders, so I'd need to trust the system more before relying on it fully." (Slightly positive)
- "They are unsure if this would be implemented consistently across all brands or online platforms. Without seeing it working reliably in practice, they remain skeptical about its widespread adoption." (Slightly positive)
- "They are cautious about the numbers being accurate without a clear stamp or official notice they can verify." (Slightly positive)
- "It seems trustworthy because it aligns with official consumer standards they have seen before. They would expect the numbers to be accurate enough to rely on for budgeting." (Slightly positive)
#### BOGO with effective per-item price
**purchase_intent**
- "I wouldn’t buy this as a standalone offering — I’d only use it if it integrated into apps I already track. When I’m busy with the business, I don’t have time to test new features just for a discount view." (Slightly positive)
- "I will not buy this immediately because I prefer to research options thoroughly before committing my limited budget. However, I would add it to my watch list if it appeared on a brand I already trust." (Slightly positive)
- "It pulls me in when I'm already planning a stock-up run, since I can verify the discount instantly without doing the math myself. I'd move forward if the savings actually hit my weekly grocery budget." (Slightly positive)
- "I might buy this someday when my workload settles, but I am not sure it is worth it for me right now. My current focus is on securing a financial legacy for my children rather than optimizing daily grocery spend." (Slightly positive)
- "I would probably buy this because it removes the guesswork on whether a bulk deal is actually worth it. Since I usually research purchases carefully, having the effective price shown upfront would make me move faster." (Slightly positive)
- "I am unlikely to buy this solely because of the promo; my decision depends on whether the item itself fits my needs first. However, seeing the effective price helps me decide if bulk buying is truly worth it for my savings goals." (Slightly positive)
- "I would not feel driven to buy based on this alone since I do not typically respond to bulk promotions or discount chasing. My spending is guided by necessity and quality rather than promotional mechanics." (Neutral)
- "I would try this offer if it aligns with what I need now, especially for items I use regularly. It removes the guesswork that usually makes me hesitate." (Neutral)
- "My intention to act on this is low because I prioritize stability over chasing deals. I would rather plan my purchases around known quality than wait for a temporary price drop." (Neutral)
- "They would buy this without hesitation because it removes the guesswork from promos, making it easier to justify spending on essentials while keeping extra cash for travel." (Neutral)
**relevance**
- "This speaks directly to a real need in their life as a price-driven shopper who values efficiency. It feels made for someone like them who constantly compares deals to maximize value." (Slightly positive)
- "This fits moderately into my routine because I often shop for essentials while balancing work shifts and side hustles. It does not change my core habit of comparing prices across apps like PayMe before deciding." (Slightly positive)
- "This touches on my budgeting habits, but it's not something I think about daily unless I'm stocking up on household essentials. My focus stays more on education and healthcare costs." (Slightly positive)
- "This speaks directly to a real need in my life as I constantly compare costs for my business and home. It feels made for someone like me who values clear financial planning." (Slightly positive)
- "This is somewhat relevant, but it is not a priority in my day-to-day compared to my stock portfolio. Still, it fits well when I shop for flour or ingredients for my baking hobby." (Slightly positive)
- "This feels relevant to how I live or work; I can see myself using it. When I’m planning trips to Seoul, knowing the real per-item cost helps me budget better." (Slightly positive)
- "This is somewhat relevant, but it is not a priority in my day-to-day. I usually plan meals in advance rather than shop on impulse." (Slightly positive)
- "It fits into my routine but isn’t a priority since I mostly stick to my usual spots. Helps when I’m grabbing groceries between client meetings though." (Slightly positive)
- "This is somewhat relevant to my shopping habits but not a priority in my day-to-day. I usually rely on quick checks rather than detailed analysis." (Slightly positive)
- "This fits my life well enough, though I do not shop frequently enough for it to be a daily priority. I appreciate the transparency when I do make a purchase." (Neutral)
**uniqueness**
- "They have not often seen this level of transparency in local promotions, which usually highlight the deal without showing the math. This distinction makes it stand out from the standard flyers they receive." (Neutral)
- "Most ads show the deal but not the breakdown, so this stands out as more honest than what I see on Facebook or in flyers. It’s not entirely new, but it’s different from the usual bulk offers." (Neutral)
- "This is the same as what they already see everywhere in shops around Hong Kong. There is nothing new for them compared to the standard labels they know." (Neutral)
- "Most apps already show discounts somehow, so seeing the effective price per item isn't really new to me. It's just another way retailers try to make BOGO look better." (Neutral)
- "This stands out from what I usually see because most places hide the math behind flashy banners. It feels notably different from the standard BOGO ads I scroll past on my phone." (Neutral)
- "The concept feels familiar because I have seen similar breakdowns in financial reports and some retail apps. It does not offer a distinct advantage over tools I already use for budgeting." (Neutral)
- "This stands out from what I usually see as it feels notably different from standard marketing tactics. Most stores hide the math, so showing the comparison directly is a distinct advantage." (Neutral)
- "This stands out from what I usually see; it feels notably different from retailers who try to obscure baseline costs with confusing multi-buys. Having a direct comparison to the last single-item price brings welcome clarity." (Neutral)
- "I have not seen this level of transparency on retail screens before in Hong Kong. It feels distinct from the standard percentage-off labels I usually encounter." (Neutral)
- "Most ads just show the total savings without breaking it down. This feels different because it compares directly to the regular price so I know what I'm really getting." (Neutral)
**usability**
- "The interface looks straightforward enough to fit into their quick shop between HIIT classes. No extra steps mean it won’t slow down their morning routine." (Slightly positive)
- "The layout looks clean enough for my eyes without needing extra zoom. It feels effortless to scan quickly." (Slightly positive)
- "This seems somewhat hard or inconvenient for how I usually do things. I often switch between PayMe and shop apps, so extra steps might slow me down." (Slightly positive)
- "I expect it might take extra time to compare numbers while I’m managing kids’ schedules. I prefer quick decisions at the checkout so I can head home before things get too busy." (Slightly positive)
- "This seems somewhat hard or inconvenient for how I usually do things. Integrating this into my current shopping workflow would require extra steps I am not willing to take." (Slightly positive)
- "I could probably use this with a bit of effort; nothing special. It would integrate smoothly into my existing budgeting spreadsheet if I chose to track it." (Slightly positive)
- "This seems somewhat hard or inconvenient for how I usually do things because scanning discount metrics on cluttered shelves takes extra mental bandwidth. I prefer quick, frictionless checkouts where the final ledger is settled instantly." (Slightly positive)
- "I expect it to add steps to checkout rather than save time during my browsing. I value streamlined flows when I am researching high-ticket items online." (Slightly positive)
- "Adding an extra step to check the effective price adds friction to my shopping flow. I worry it might slow down decisions when I am already busy." (Slightly positive)
- "It looks simple enough on the screen, but they worry about tapping the wrong thing on their phone without help." (Neutral)
**credibility**
- "This feels trustworthy because it shows the actual numbers instead of just saying big savings. It reminds me of the clear pricing I appreciate at brands like Vitasoy." (Slightly positive)
- "This feels highly trustworthy to me — solid, credible, and well put together. I appreciate transparency when I’m tracking my spending on crypto or travel funds." (Slightly positive)
- "I need to trust that the base price they compare against is the real one. Sometimes the deals feel too good to be true, so I’ll double-check before assuming it’s legit." (Slightly positive)
- "They are unsure if the effective price calculation is always accurate across different brands. Trust depends on whether the math holds up when they check receipts later." (Slightly positive)
- "Feels trustworthy because it shows the baseline price alongside the deal, so there’s no guesswork. I appreciate that transparency when I’m managing my gig income budget." (Slightly positive)
- "This feels highly trustworthy to me as it is solid, credible, and well put together. Transparent data builds confidence, especially when I am evaluating long-term value for my family." (Slightly positive)
- "I remain cautious because promotions can change terms unexpectedly. I would need to see consistent application across different products to trust it fully." (Slightly positive)
- "I am skeptical; I would need a lot more proof before believing it. Retailers often adjust base prices to make discounts look better, so I would verify the numbers against my own calculations first." (Slightly positive)
- "Showing the baseline price alongside the promo builds trust because it prevents inflated reference pricing. This honesty aligns with what I look for when evaluating financial claims in other contexts." (Slightly positive)
- "It feels trustworthy if the data is sourced directly from the merchant without manipulation. I have seen promotions that obscure real savings, so transparency is key for my confidence." (Slightly positive)
#### Historical / target-price alert (OPW-style)
**purchase_intent**
- "I would buy this without hesitation because it aligns with my goal to accumulate capital for a flat. The ability to set target prices means I can act when deals appear without constant manual checking." (Slightly positive)
- "I would move forward with this if it integrates smoothly with my current shopping routine. The ability to monitor price drops supports my goal of optimizing monthly savings." (Slightly positive)
- "If it works across the major grocers I already use, I'm adding it to my phone right now. It removes the guesswork I hate when I'm rushing home from the office." (Slightly positive)
- "I am willing to try it if it integrates with my current iOS setup, but I will not commit until I see it working reliably across the major grocers I already use." (Slightly positive)
- "I might try this if it simplifies my monthly grocery planning, but I need to see proof that it saves me real effort compared to my current checks." (Slightly positive)
- "I might buy this someday if it actually lowers my grocery bill significantly, but right now I'm waiting to see if it integrates with PayMe." (Slightly positive)
- "They might consider it later if family helps set it up" (Neutral)
- "They are unlikely to adopt this because their spending is already tight and focused on essentials, so hunting for small price drops isn’t a priority. They prefer to buy what they need without worrying about tracking trends." (Neutral)
- "They feel no pull to adopt this service as they prefer comparing prices physically at local markets rather than setting digital alerts. Their saving habits rely on routine visits to familiar stores where they can see the goods directly." (Slightly negative)
- "They are unlikely to try it because navigating the app menus feels more trouble than saving a few dollars on rice. If it worked like a newspaper flyer they could hold, maybe they would consider it." (Slightly negative)
**relevance**
- "Given my focus on financial literacy and minimal spending, this fits perfectly into my routine of tracking expenses carefully. It aligns with how I already research prices before committing to a purchase." (Slightly positive)
- "Given my minimalist approach to savings and frequent grocery runs, this fits directly into how I manage daily expenses. It addresses the specific pain point of monitoring prices across multiple platforms manually." (Slightly positive)
- "This fits my habit of researching prices before buying staples since I live alone. It addresses the need to manage expenses without wasting time scrolling through apps." (Slightly positive)
- "This fits my need to manage family expenses carefully, especially as I balance savings for my child's education with daily household needs." (Slightly positive)
- "This hits home because I’m constantly comparing unit prices across different HK grocers before committing to a cart. It fits right into my research-heavy shopping style." (Slightly positive)
- "This speaks directly to my need to optimize daily spending while maintaining quality for family meals. It fits well alongside my current research-heavy shopping style." (Slightly positive)
- "This is somewhat relevant since I buy food regularly, but it is not a priority compared to my morning stretching or family time." (Neutral)
- "This fits their habit of watching costs closely but misses the simplicity they rely on daily. They already track essentials like rice and oil by memory" (Neutral)
- "This concept misses their daily routine since they mostly shop for herbal soup ingredients at wet markets instead of online grocers. Their focus remains on traditional methods of purchasing staples that fit their established family rhythms." (Slightly negative)
- "This misses their routine since they buy groceries at the wet market or corner store where prices are visible upfront. They do not see where tracking online highs and lows fits into their daily life in Sha Tin." (Slightly negative)
**uniqueness**
- "This stands out from what I usually see as it feels notably different from standard grocery apps. The historical data aspect brings a level of analysis I do not typically find in retail." (Neutral)
- "This stands out from what I usually see because it combines historical data with alerts in one place. Most apps I have tried only show current prices without giving me a sense of value over time." (Neutral)
- "This stands out from what I usually see since most apps do not offer target alerts across multiple platforms. It feels notably different because it combines historical data with proactive notifications in one place." (Neutral)
- "This stands out because most apps just show current prices without historical context. I have not seen a tool that tracks unit prices across multiple grocers this way." (Neutral)
- "Most apps just show the current price. Seeing the high/low history feels distinct—it’s like the chart I look at for my investments." (Neutral)
- "I have not encountered a localized solution that tracks unit pricing across multiple Hong Kong grocers in this manner. Most alternatives I use are either too broad or lack historical data visualization." (Neutral)
- "I’ve seen similar price checks on some apps, so nothing feels truly new here. It’s familiar enough that I don’t expect a big change in how I shop." (Neutral)
- "It feels similar to the paper catalogues they used to read, just on a screen which makes it harder to trust. They have seen many digital tools come and go without actually helping ordinary families." (Neutral)
- "They see this as similar to price comparison sites they’ve already ignored, offering little new value over existing apps. It feels like another tool in a crowded market rather than a distinct solution." (Neutral)
- "They perceive this as similar to existing online ads they already encounter without finding it truly distinct. The idea of price tracking feels familiar but not different enough to change how they currently buy groceries." (Slightly negative)
**usability**
- "The interface seems straightforward enough to fit into a busy schedule without adding friction. I expect it to work smoothly alongside my existing payment methods like PayMe." (Slightly positive)
- "I expect some friction if the tool requires switching between multiple grocer apps to validate the alerts. My preference is for a single dashboard, but I can manage it if the setup is straightforward." (Slightly positive)
- "The interface appears straightforward for someone accustomed to data dashboards, but I worry about notification fatigue during busy work weeks. Simplicity is key if I am to adopt it." (Slightly positive)
- "I worry it might add another step to my routine, and I'm already juggling multiple apps for work and family management." (Slightly positive)
- "Looks straightforward enough for my iPad setup. I won't struggle navigating the alerts with my current tech habits." (Slightly positive)
- "The interface seems straightforward enough for my current level of digital proficiency, and I expect to navigate it without confusion." (Slightly positive)
- "From their experience, small icons and touch menus are confusing on their entry level phone. They worry about misclicking or getting lost in settings while trying to buy milk." (Slightly negative)
- "From my experience, navigating screens with small text would be confusing or frustrating to use for someone like me." (Slightly negative)
- "They view the price alert idea as useful in theory but not urgent given their fixed income and simple shopping needs. After decades of checking market prices manually" (Strongly negative)
- "From their experience with smartphones, they anticipate this would be confusing or frustrating to navigate comfortably. They worry about managing alerts on a device they barely use beyond messaging family on WhatsApp." (Strongly negative)
**credibility**
- "The detailed historical data gives me confidence that the alerts are based on real trends rather than marketing. I trust it because it mirrors the analytical approach I already use for my finances." (Slightly positive)
- "The data feels trustworthy because it mirrors the transparency I expect from financial instruments. If the pricing logic is clear, it will be credible enough for me to rely on during budget planning." (Slightly positive)
- "Trust depends on data transparency and vendor partnerships, which are not immediately clear from the concept alone. I value verifiable sources given my background in auditing." (Slightly positive)
- "Seeing historical data gives me confidence that the alerts are based on real trends. It feels credible because it aligns with how I already monitor prices manually." (Slightly positive)
- "The data needs to be accurate to trust it with my spending decisions. I would look for sources from major grocers to ensure the price history is reliable." (Slightly positive)
- "It feels trustworthy because the data comes from major grocers rather than third-party sources. I would verify the numbers against one or two stores to be sure." (Slightly positive)
- "This seems believable and professional enough for me to take seriously, as long as the prices are accurate." (Neutral)
- "This seems believable and professional enough for them to take seriously at first glance. They have seen too many promises come and go" (Neutral)
- "They are skeptical about the data accuracy and would need significant proof before trusting the price comparisons. Past experiences with online claims make them cautious about relying on automated tools for household budgeting." (Neutral)
- "They are skeptical that the alerts would be honest without proof, given how prices change in shops. They would need to see it work for a month before believing it saves real money." (Neutral)
#### Larger pack as default better value
**purchase_intent**
- "I will not buy this immediately because I need to verify the unit price myself before committing my savings. My husband and I double-check costs for our household budget, so this assumption is not enough for me." (Neutral)
- "They are unlikely to buy this offer immediately because they need to verify the cost per unit against their monthly grocery budget. Without clear numbers, they prefer sticking to the smaller sizes they know from the market." (Neutral)
- "They hesitate to commit immediately, preferring to wait for clear price comparisons before deciding. Their impulse shopping habits often lead to regret when bulk buys do not match actual consumption rates." (Neutral)
- "They would likely move forward with buying if it aligns with brands they already trust like Vitasoy. The promise of value pulls them in, but they prefer to check the shelf price first." (Neutral)
- "I am unlikely to buy this because it does not fit how I usually shop or spend my resources. I need to see clear evidence that the larger pack will be used before I commit my savings to it." (Neutral)
- "I will wait until I see actual unit pricing to confirm the savings before adding this to my cart. Right now, the assumption feels too risky for my current budget planning." (Neutral)
- "I will not commit to buying this without verified cost comparisons against smaller options. My habit of researching before spending makes this assumption too risky for my budget." (Neutral)
- "I will not buy this unless I can verify the unit price myself, because I need certainty before committing family resources. My next step is to compare actual costs rather than trust the default suggestion." (Neutral)
- "I might buy this someday if the math checks out, but right now I’m hesitating because I don’t want to tie up capital in inventory I don’t need. I’ll wait until I can verify the savings match my budgeting spreadsheets." (Neutral)
- "I am unlikely to buy this offer immediately because I need to verify the savings before I commit my spending. My habit is to compare prices across stores, so a default assumption does not pull me in." (Neutral)
**relevance**
- "This concept fits their habit of saving money but misses their need to avoid waste in a household of one. They often buy enough for a week of meals, so bigger bottles might sit too long." (Slightly positive)
- "This does not fit my life well since I live with my son's family and we eat small portions. I need flexible sizes for the morning tea and cooking we do daily." (Slightly positive)
- "This does not fit my current routine since I shop at the wet market or familiar supermarkets where I calculate value myself. I focus on food and household staples, not abstract pricing rules." (Slightly positive)
- "This is somewhat relevant, but it is not a priority in my day-to-day. I mostly stick to my usual brands like Vitasoy for consistency." (Neutral)
- "It fits my coffee brewing habit but not really my daily shopping since I juggle so many categories from groceries to tech. I'm more focused on asset allocation than bulk household goods right now." (Neutral)
- "This is somewhat relevant, but it is not a priority in my day-to-day since I already manage my household supplies carefully. It misses the mark on what actually matters to me when I plan my purchases." (Neutral)
- "This is somewhat relevant to my budgeting goals but it is not a priority in my day-to-day routine. I manage my household expenses through spreadsheets rather than relying on packaging assumptions." (Neutral)
- "This is mostly irrelevant to me because I can barely see where it would fit in my minimalist lifestyle. My spending goes towards experiences and tools, not bulk household goods." (Neutral)
- "This offer misses my current lifestyle since I live alone and do not have the storage space for bulk items. It feels like a solution designed for families rather than a single professional managing a compact living environment." (Neutral)
- "This might help casual shoppers, but I prioritize transparency over assumptions given my current savings goals. It misses how I manage finances while balancing freelance work and personal projects." (Neutral)
**uniqueness**
- "This feels very similar to options they already know, as supermarkets often push larger sizes without clear savings. It is hard to tell apart from the usual promotions they see on the shelf." (Neutral)
- "This feels familiar because shops already offer different sizes, but I still check the price myself. It does not tell me anything new about saving money that I do not already know." (Neutral)
- "They see this as a common approach they have encountered at local supermarkets before. There is nothing new here, just a familiar way of shopping that they know well." (Neutral)
- "It feels familiar, like the usual grocery logic they see everywhere. Nothing new stands out compared to how supermarkets already organize shelf space." (Slightly negative)
- "This stands out from what I usually see; it feels notably different because most retailers show unit prices now to build trust. I am used to seeing detailed breakdowns, so assuming size equals value feels outdated to me." (Slightly negative)
- "This stands out from what I usually see since most retailers show unit prices. It feels notably different but also less transparent than my usual research." (Slightly negative)
- "It stands out because most brands let me compare options freely instead of pushing the largest size. That feels different from what I see on Instagram or in local cafes." (Slightly negative)
- "This is the same as what I already see everywhere in supermarkets, where bulk options are common but not always cheaper per unit. There is nothing distinct here that differentiates this offer from standard retail practices I encounter regularly." (Slightly negative)
- "This stands out from what I usually see; it feels notably different because most stores still let me compare options instead of pushing one default size." (Slightly negative)
- "This is a bit different from alternatives where I calculate prices myself, but not in a memorable way that changes my behavior." (Slightly negative)
**usability**
- "This looks effortless for someone with my habits since it simplifies the choice to just picking the bigger item. However, I still need clear text on the shelf to feel confident." (Slightly positive)
- "They expect it to be straightforward, matching their simple shopping routine. Clear defaults help avoid confusion during quick weekly trips." (Neutral)
- "Choosing larger packs can feel inconvenient when storage space in their cozy apartment is limited. They worry about the weight and bulk when carrying groceries home from the market." (Neutral)
- "This looks effortless for someone with their habits since bigger packs are standard on shelves. However, carrying heavy items from the store to the public estate flat can be difficult for them." (Neutral)
- "This seems somewhat hard or inconvenient for how I usually do things since I value having exactly what I need without excess clutter. Managing larger inventory adds friction to my minimalist setup." (Slightly negative)
- "This seems somewhat hard or inconvenient for how I usually do things, since I prefer having the data to make my own judgment. The lack of visible unit pricing creates friction in my decision process." (Slightly negative)
- "From my experience, this would be confusing or frustrating to use when I need quick clarity. I prefer interfaces that show hard numbers upfront rather than expecting me to guess." (Slightly negative)
- "This seems somewhat hard or inconvenient for how I usually do things because I prefer to verify costs myself. Adding an assumption creates friction in my established process for managing household budgets." (Slightly negative)
- "From my experience, assuming larger is better creates friction when I need to verify actual value against my specific consumption rate. I expect this approach to be confusing when I try to justify the upfront cost to myself." (Slightly negative)
- "I find this somewhat inconvenient as it adds pressure to purchase more than I need at once. Managing storage space in our apartment is already a challenge with my home organization efforts." (Slightly negative)
**credibility**
- "This seems believable and professional enough for me to take seriously, provided the brand is one I trust like Vitasoy. Without a known name, I would remain skeptical about the savings claim." (Neutral)
- "They remain skeptical that the larger option is always cheaper without clear unit pricing. Having managed household finances for decades, they prefer to verify claims rather than take them on faith." (Neutral)
- "They are unsure if the claim is always true, as they have seen cases where bulk packs were not cheaper. They need to check the label carefully before believing the savings are real." (Neutral)
- "I believe larger packs are often cheaper, but I still want to see the numbers to be sure. Trust comes from checking the label, not just assuming the bigger one is the best deal." (Neutral)
- "This feels highly trustworthy to me — solid, credible, and well put together as a general shopping principle. It aligns with how I already try to stretch my budget without overspending." (Slightly negative)
- "I remain skeptical that size always guarantees better unit value without seeing the actual math. My analytical nature requires visible proof before I trust such general claims." (Slightly negative)
- "I am skeptical and would need more proof before believing that larger always means better value. In my experience, marketing assumptions often require validation through actual numbers." (Slightly negative)
- "I’m skeptical without actual unit price data because marketing assumptions don’t always hold up in real scenarios. I need proof before I trust that the larger pack is genuinely the better deal." (Slightly negative)
- "I am unsure — it might be credible, but I am not convinced yet because assumptions without data feel risky. In my business, I always check the numbers before scaling, and I expect the same rigor from consumer products." (Slightly negative)
- "I remain skeptical because the claim lacks supporting evidence or standardized verification. Trust requires transparency, which this concept does not currently provide." (Slightly negative)
#### Classic BOGO badge only
**purchase_intent**
- "I might grab it if I'm feeling stressed and need a quick treat, but I'll check if it actually saves money first." (Slightly positive)
- "They might try it once if the product aligns with a community presentation need, but they will check unit prices first to avoid overspending." (Slightly positive)
- "Given my budget and habits, I would not buy this — it's a clear no for me because I need to know the exact cost upfront." (Neutral)
- "I might pick this up if it fits my weekly grocery run, but the lack of unit price makes me hesitate." (Neutral)
- "I'll pass for now since I can't verify the actual savings against my usual benchmarks. It doesn't feel worth the mental overhead when I'm already juggling my weekly crypto rebalancing." (Neutral)
- "I am unlikely to proceed because the lack of explicit cost breakdown makes planning difficult for my household budget. Without knowing the true value, I hesitate to commit funds." (Neutral)
- "I would hesitate to click on this because I don’t know if the item fits my budget without checking the original price first. My parents expect me to be careful with money, so I need clear numbers." (Neutral)
- "I am unlikely to buy this immediately because I prefer seeing the exact unit price to compare against my budget. I will wait until I can calculate the true cost per item for myself." (Neutral)
- "I would not proceed with buying this today because I cannot calculate the true value without a clear unit price tag. I prefer to wait until I have full transparency on the cost per item before adding it to my cart." (Neutral)
- "I might grab it if it’s something I already use, but I won’t go out of my way just for a badge. Timing matters more when I’m balancing school newsletters and family dinners." (Neutral)
**relevance**
- "This speaks to their habit of watching every dollar, yet the lack of detail misses their need for clarity. They find it hard to integrate into their careful shopping routine." (Slightly positive)
- "This feels relevant to how I live since I shop for food daily and need to watch every dollar carefully. In Sha Tin, I often see these promotions but I always ask the vendor for the regular price first." (Neutral)
- "This does not fit my daily routine since I prioritize quality and transparency over vague promotions. In my current phase of building savings for real estate, I am more deliberate about every transaction." (Neutral)
- "It doesn’t fit how I shop since I prefer transparent pricing for my monthly expenses. I spend most of my time in the library or cafe, so quick, clear deals matter more than vague promos." (Neutral)
- "While saving money is always relevant to my family budget, this format does not fit my current habit of verifying prices against my financial spreadsheets. It is too vague for the kind of careful planning I do for our household." (Neutral)
- "This fits my life only as a occasional deal rather than a priority. I focus on value stability while budgeting for my children’s education costs." (Neutral)
- "This does not fit my routine as I already track prices carefully for my family’s needs. It misses what matters to me, which is transparent and predictable costs." (Neutral)
- "This doesn't fit my routine since I usually plan meals around budget and calories. It's just another promo I'd scroll past while commuting on the MTR." (Neutral)
- "This feels secondary to their usual research-heavy shopping style, where value is calculated rather than assumed from a badge." (Slightly negative)
- "This misses their daily rhythm, which is focused on virtual communities rather than physical retail promotions." (Slightly negative)
**uniqueness**
- "This feels very similar to options they already know, making it hard to tell apart from standard promotions. It does not stand out compared to familiar deals in their neighborhood." (Slightly negative)
- "They see this as a standard promotion found everywhere, offering nothing distinct from what they already know." (Slightly negative)
- "This feels very similar to options I already know from the wet market where they shout promotions loudly. It is hard to tell apart from other deals because the calculation is not shown clearly on the screen." (Slightly negative)
- "This stands out from what I usually see; it feels notably different but in a confusing way that doesn't match my shopping habits." (Slightly negative)
- "This approach mirrors the standard promos I encounter in Hong Kong, offering nothing distinct from what I already see. There is no innovation that separates it from the usual marketing tactics." (Slightly negative)
- "This stands out from what I usually see; it feels notably different. Most stores now show the effective price per item upfront on their screens." (Slightly negative)
- "This is the same as what I already see everywhere in Hong Kong retail, so there is nothing new for me here. It feels interchangeable with other promotions I have encountered before." (Slightly negative)
- "The badge feels identical to promotions I have seen everywhere over the years. There is nothing new here to justify changing my established habits or paying closer attention." (Slightly negative)
- "While different from standard pricing, it feels familiar as a common tactic that lacks substance. I have seen similar vague promotions that do not deliver genuine savings." (Slightly negative)
- "This is the same as what I already see everywhere at supermarkets and convenience stores, so there is nothing new for me here. I expect better differentiation from a digital shopping experience that claims to be helpful." (Slightly negative)
**usability**
- "The badge is simple enough for them to read quickly without needing to navigate digital interfaces." (Neutral)
- "From my experience, this would be confusing or frustrating to use without clear unit prices. I’d have to do the math myself, which slows me down when I’m shopping after work." (Neutral)
- "Hard to track without a unit price; I end up counting items manually which slows me down at checkout." (Neutral)
- "They expect extra friction trying to calculate the real savings without visible unit costs on the label. This slows down their decision process when they are browsing quickly between gigs." (Neutral)
- "This seems somewhat hard or inconvenient for how I usually do things since I prefer clear data. Calculating the real value adds friction to my quick shopping routines." (Slightly negative)
- "From my experience, this would be confusing or frustrating to use during a busy work week. I prefer straightforward labels that do not require mental math." (Slightly negative)
- "It's inconvenient because I have to calculate the per-item cost in my head. I prefer when the app shows the effective price upfront so I can decide quickly." (Slightly negative)
- "From my experience, this would be frustrating to use when I am trying to track expenses quickly on my phone. I expect to see the actual prices listed directly on the item." (Slightly negative)
- "From my experience, this would be confusing or frustrating to use. I spend too much time calculating the real discount when I just want to finish shopping." (Slightly negative)
- "This seems somewhat hard or inconvenient for how I usually do things. I need clear numbers to integrate into my planning sheets." (Slightly negative)
**credibility**
- "They remain skeptical and would need more proof, such as historical prices, to trust the value claimed." (Neutral)
- "I am skeptical; I would need a lot more proof before believing it, especially when there's no historical price to compare against." (Neutral)
- "They remain skeptical about the true value since historical pricing data is absent from the promotion. They would need proof that the regular price isn't inflated before trusting the deal." (Neutral)
- "They are unsure if the offer is fully transparent or just a marketing tactic. Without historical prices, they cannot verify if the deal is genuine." (Neutral)
- "I am skeptical because marketing claims often mask higher base prices when no historical data is provided. I would need a lot more proof and transparent records before trusting this offer fully." (Slightly negative)
- "I'm skeptical because without numbers it feels like a marketing trick. I need proof of the actual discount to believe it's worth it." (Slightly negative)
- "I am skeptical of this offer because it lacks the proof I need to trust the claim. Before I believe it, I require detailed historical pricing or official documentation to verify the savings." (Slightly negative)
- "I am skeptical; I would need a lot more proof before believing it is truly a good deal for my wallet. Without historical context, the offer feels over-claimed to me." (Slightly negative)
- "I do not trust this at all since the missing data makes the offer feel low quality and potentially misleading. Based on my experience with financial data" (Slightly negative)
- "I'm skeptical because I know these deals sometimes mask higher base prices, so I'd need proof before trusting them." (Slightly negative)

## Charts
### Panel mix
Directional panel mix from synthetic respondent profiles — not a census.

#### Respondent age range
Type: bar
n = 357. Synthetic panel age mix among successful respondents.
Labels: 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55+
- **Respondents**: 54, 67, 56, 83, 97

#### Respondent income category
Type: bar
n = 357. Region-adjusted relative income labels from synthetic profiles (not actual household income). 2 not categorised.
Labels: Student/Unemployed, Low, Lower-middle, Middle, Upper-middle, Suppressed
- **Respondents**: 97, 25, 61, 72, 98, 2

#### Shopping style
Type: bar
n = 357. Shopping style among successful respondents.
Labels: Research Heavy, Brand Loyal, Social Influenced, Price Driven, Second Hand, Suppressed
- **Respondents**: 243, 34, 28, 22, 14, 16

#### Tech adoption
Type: bar
n = 357. Tech adoption among successful respondents.
Labels: Early Majority, Early Adopter, Late Majority, laggard, innovator
- **Respondents**: 154, 90, 71, 22, 20

### Word cloud
- price (1659)
- unit (1575)
- see (1542)
- already (1406)
- prices (1318)
- value (1219)
- fits (1194)
- clear (1178)
- shopping (1172)
- data (1013)
- household (862)
- savings (811)
- routine (793)
- real (790)
- usually (775)
- trust (739)
- time (727)
- pricing (727)
- math (704)
- apps (698)
- enough (692)
- grocery (673)
- unit pricing (304)
- larger pack (250)
- effective price (176)
- mental math (141)
- historical price (119)
- pack size (95)
- price alert (64)
- per-item price (53)
- target price (45)
- data accuracy (44)
- household budgeting (30)
- bulk savings (14)
- price transparency (13)
- bogo deal (10)
- shelf price (8)
- promotional badge (4)
- bulk value (3)
- budget management (2)
- i'm (464)
- unit prices (569)
- they already (482)
- habit of (539)
- i usually (449)
- they see (497)
- habits (627)
- bulk (577)
- this fits (512)
- i already (444)
- larger (457)
- aligns with (486)
- see the (471)
- new (600)
- current (578)
- tracking (529)
- costs (566)
- day (400)
- familiar (560)
- proof (550)
- the real (416)
- standard (557)
- it fits (434)
- friction (550)
- shop (515)
- expect (523)
- work (504)
- seen (538)
- makes (511)
- transparency (508)

#### Aspect gap — Historical / target-price alert (OPW-style) vs Unit price on every shelf and page
Type: horizontal_bar
Highlights the usability gap between leading historical alerts (c3) and universal unit pricing (c1).
Labels: Usability, Credibility
- **Mean difference**: -0.74, -0.06

#### Top themes — Historical / target-price alert (OPW-style)
Type: horizontal_bar
Identifies primary drivers and friction points shaping adoption for the winning concept.
Labels: Price, Usability, Trust, Fit For Me, Novelty
- **Mentions**: 348, 344, 322, 272, 154

#### Mean purchase intent by country
Type: heatmap
Geographic segment breakdown of mean SSR scores.
Labels: Historical / target-price alert (OPW-style), Unit price on every shelf and page, BOGO with effective per-item price, Larger pack as default better value, Classic BOGO badge only
- **HKG**: 3.89, 3.87, 3.55, 2.55, 2.52

## Actions
- Prioritize Historical / target-price alert (OPW-style) for further validation, then run a pricing pulse on the winning concept.
- Address usability feedback on Historical / target-price alert (OPW-style) before launch.
- Consider launching the product market fit scenario analysis next.

## Why they chose
We asked why: 357 people who made a choice. Percents are of these 357, so you can compare them to other runs.

### Most shared reasons
- **45%** clear unit price tags → brands are comparable → accuracy worth effort → choose Unit price on every shelf and pag
- **19%** 30 day price history → current price low → wait or buy now → choose Historical / target-price alert (
- **14%** sticker unit price → promos might mislead → proof before buy → choose Unit price on every shelf and pag
- **11%** target price alert → automation helps budget → tech aids saving → choose Historical / target-price alert (
- **5%** effective per item price → actual deal size → discount depth matters → choose BOGO with effective per-item pric
- **3%** price per 100g → no math needed → speed over savings → choose Unit price on every shelf and pag
- **1%** standard unit labels → sellers transparent → trust in system → choose Unit price on every shelf and pag
- **1%** price high low range → spend control → budget over want → choose Historical / target-price alert (
- **1%** BOGO with price breakdown → bulk savings visible → volume vs storage → choose BOGO with effective per-item pric
- **1%** Other reasons

Path percents are not market share. They are the share of people we asked why who stated that reason.