Tidewell is weighing its current can against two redesigns. 450 sparkling water buyers each saw one design only, 150 per design. First task: find Tidewell Pink Grapefruit on a simulated shelf of 12 products, with a 20 second limit. We recorded whether they found it, how long it took, and what they clicked by mistake. The test can was rotated across four shelf positions.
The shelf · 12 SKUs Illustrative
Press Try the task to shuffle the shelf and find Tidewell Pink Grapefruit yourself, against the clock.
Share found, by second Measured
Shoreline is found faster at every point on the clock. Half of those who found it did so within 4.1 seconds. The current can took 6.8.
Where the wrong first clicks went Measured
| Clicked instead | A · Current | B · Shoreline | C · Fruit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ostra Blackberry navy can | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| Fenley Grapefruit pink can | 5 | 3 | 9 |
| Marlo Spring Original cream can | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Pellwick Raspberry | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Any other SKU | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| Total wrong first clicks | 21 (14%) | 8 (5%) | 14 (9%) |
Counts out of 150 per design. The current navy can is mistaken for Ostra. Fruit Forward is mistaken for the other pink can on the shelf.
Time to find · distribution Measured
| Seconds | A · Current | B · Shoreline | C · Fruit |
|---|
Respondents per time band, out of 150 per design. Not found means the 20 second limit ran out.
Next, each respondent saw their design on its own, full size, and clicked the first thing that caught their eye. The heat maps below are smoothed from those click positions. Shares are grouped into four areas of the can: logo, flavor name, claim and imagery, plus clicks that landed anywhere else.
First click by area Measured
Shoreline splits first looks between the logo and the flavor name. Fruit Forward wins attention with its imagery, but more than half of first clicks go to the fruit and only 15% reach the logo.
Brand named unaided after the shelf task Measured
Asked with no prompt: "Which brand was the pink grapefruit you found?" The design that pulls the eye to the fruit is the one whose brand people forget.
First click counts Measured
| Area | A · Current | B · Shoreline | C · Fruit |
|---|
All 450 respondents rated ten candidate on-pack claims, shown in random order, on two scales: how appealing each one is, and how believable. Scores are the share choosing the top two boxes of a five point scale. A reach analysis (often called TURF) then asks a different question: which small set of claims gives the most people at least one claim they find appealing?
Claims tested
10
rated by all 450
Most appealing
58%
Zero sugar, zero sweeteners
Most believed
88%
0 calories
Best reach, 3 claims
83%
vs 71% for the top 3 by appeal
Claims ranked by appeal Measured
Top two box, n=450. Green labels mark the three claims in the best reach set.
Appeal vs believability Measured
Upper right is where a front-panel claim belongs. "Bold flavor you can actually taste" appeals to almost half of buyers, but fewer than half believe it. Dashed lines mark the average of the ten.
Reach as claims are added Modeled
Reach is the share of respondents who find at least one claim in the set appealing. The top three by appeal mostly reach the same people: the clean-label buyer. The best set adds a flavor claim and a hydration claim that reach different buyers.
Three ways to pick three claims Modeled
The recommendation brings the three tasks together. Every row in the scorecard is measured on 150 people per design, and the last two columns say whether a gap is large enough to trust. Significant means 95% confidence on a two-sample test of proportions or medians. Directional means it could be noise.
The recommendation
Move to Shoreline.
Lead with zero sugar.
Shoreline is found more often and faster than the current can, is mistaken for a competitor about a third as often, and is the design whose brand people remember [shelf and heat map, measured]. Fruit Forward is liked slightly more, but the gap is within noise and it costs 22 points of brand recall. On pack, run zero sugar, electrolytes and extra-fine bubbles [claims, reach modeled].
Design scorecard Measured
| Measure | A · Current | B · Shoreline | C · Fruit Forward | B vs current | B vs C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Found within 20 seconds | 81% | 93% | 89% | Significant | Directional |
| Median time to find | 6.8 s | 4.1 s | 5.0 s | Significant | Directional |
| Wrong first click | 14% | 5% | 9% | Significant | Directional |
| Brand named unaided | 58% | 71% | 49% | Significant | Significant |
| First click on logo | 29% | 34% | 15% | Directional | Significant |
| First click on flavor name | 21% | 38% | 17% | Significant | Significant |
| Purchase intent, top two box | 38% | 46% | 49% | Directional | C ahead, directional |
Green marks the best score in each row. n=150 per design.
The design
B · Shoreline
A navy band carries a larger wordmark, and a coral band carries the flavor name in capitals. It keeps the wave mark current buyers know, moved under the logo. Wins or ties on every shelf and attention measure.
The claims, in panel order
Appeal / believable, top two box, n=450. Together: 79% reach.
Trade-offs we are accepting
Before the design goes to print
The retest borrows the one thing Fruit Forward does best and checks it does not cost Shoreline its brand recall.