Internal vs. Consumer: Where do you stand?

Are your trained panelists 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 sensitive than your consumers ▶️? 𝗘𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 sensitive 🟰? 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀 sensitive ◀️?

Not knowing can really hurt an internal sensory program. Here’s why:

 - 𝗧𝗵𝗲 “𝗙𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗔𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗺” 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸: A panel that is 𝘵𝘰𝘰 sensitive can kill a great cost-saving or reformulation opportunity that consumers would have never noticed

 - 𝗧𝗵𝗲 “𝗤𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗦𝗹𝗶𝗽” 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸: A panel that is 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 sensitive could green light an inferior alternative

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘄𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗹𝘀

We all know the trade-offs. Consumer testing is 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵 but 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 and 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨. Internal testing is 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 and through training, we can 𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴.

𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝗮 𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵:

Using an internal panel without knowing how it relates to consumers makes the considerable and unchecked assumption that the internal panelists are 𝘀𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 and that the program’s 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀

Research and client work over the years have shown that the relationship is seldom 1:1. Panelists can often be found to be 𝟮𝘅 or even 𝟯𝘅 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 than a representative consumer population. 

📊 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸: In a published study (full reference upcoming in the comments), Ishii 𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭. (2007) found that trained panelists were approximately 𝟭.𝟲𝘅 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 than consumers in the ice cream category 🍨🍦.

Even when accounting for the consumer threshold (𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘢𝘶 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘯), knowing your specific "𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿" is the only way to truly manage risk. It isn't just good science, it’s good business. It ensures your risk profile is not grounded only on just lab results but 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆.

Have you investigated the sensitivity gap in your categories?

Do you know where your panel stands compared to your consumers?