Which customer problem should lead the brief?
Turn a small qualitative study into a working audience and a question worth testing.
The question
Alder, a fictional storage brand, is preparing FoldShelf, a freestanding modular shelf that needs no drilling. The team recruited six renters and four homeowners for exploratory interviews. This was a convenience sample, not a representative survey.
- Six rentersAll six described difficulty adding storage when they could not drill. Two also raised price.
- Four homeownersAll four discussed fit and appearance. None described drilling permission as a problem.
“Which customer problem should lead the brief?”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Define what the interviews can support
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Report that 60% of storage buyers need no-drill shelving.
Tempting, but it misses something. Six of ten describes this recruited group, not storage buyers.
Use the repeated renter problem to set a testable brief.
The strong move. This links a need to a product feature while keeping prevalence open.
Write one brief for every household mentioned.
Tempting, but it misses something. A broad brief makes the communication job hard to test.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Treat no-drill storage for renters as a working hypothesis, not an estimate of the whole market.”
Why it works: A convenience sample can reveal a problem without measuring its prevalence.
Step 2: Connect the audience to the feature
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Lead with the no-drilling feature for a renter study.
The strong move. This is specific enough to test.
Promise the lowest price in the category.
Tempting, but it misses something. There is no price comparison in the evidence.
Choose a room image and select the audience later.
Tempting, but it misses something. The creative would come before the customer decision.
See how a strong candidate says it
“For renters who cannot drill, show how FoldShelf adds storage without drilling. Check price acceptance separately.”
Why it works: The proposed audience, problem and product response fit together.
Step 3: Choose the next evidence
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Multiply the interview share by the renter population.
Tempting, but it misses something. The sample does not support a prevalence estimate.
Ask existing brand fans whether they like the concept.
Tempting, but it misses something. That leaves recruitment bias and willingness to pay unresolved.
Use a broader target sample and include a price decision.
The strong move. This addresses the main limits of the brief.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Recruit beyond the current channel and test the need alongside the proposed price.”
Why it works: More people from the same source may repeat the same selection bias.
Step 4: Revise when price becomes prominent
Three more renters, recruited through the same channel, raise price before installation. No representative survey or price test has been run.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Replace the brief with a universal low-price message.
Tempting, but it misses something. Three interviews do not establish that claim.
Test whether the no-drilling benefit is worth the proposed price.
The strong move. This incorporates the new concern.
Exclude price because the brief was already approved.
Tempting, but it misses something. Approval does not resolve contrary evidence.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Keep installation as a hypothesis, but make the price trade-off part of the next study.”
Why it works: Three new comments weaken a single-issue story without proving a new universal need.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Test a renter/no-drilling brief and its price trade-off.
- Because
- The interviews reveal a plausible need, not market prevalence or paid demand.
- What would change it
- A broader sample finds the installation problem unimportant or the price unacceptable.
Common traps
- Turning a convenience sample into a market percentage.
- Treating a repeated comment as proof of paid demand.
Check your answer
- What decision can this sample support?
- Who was recruited and who was missed?
- Which feature answers the need?
- What would change the brief?
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026