Step 2 of 3
Tell us about yourself.
Step 1 of 3
Pick a scenario
Step 3 of 3
Compass is on it…
What do you want to do today?
Compass · Answer with receipts
Searched 14 projects across the Drink Co library. 312 video responses reviewed. Here is what the evidence actually says — including what challenges your VP's assumption.
The answer
The TikTok investment is buying awareness, not repeat purchase. But the gap is fixable — and consumers are telling us how.
73%
trial attributed to social-first discovery
29%
of triallists report repeat purchase
51%
cite price, not preference, as the barrier
What the evidence says
- ·Trial is working. Repeat isn't. Consumers describe trying us as "an aesthetic moment." Few describe a second purchase occasion. The awareness investment is landing; the conversion mechanism is missing.
- ·The barrier is price perception, not taste. 51% of non-repeaters cite cost-per-can vs. their old brand — not flavor, not occasion fit. Taste scores remain strong.
- ·What challenges your assumption: Triplers — consumers who bought 3+ times — overwhelmingly discovered us through friends, not TikTok. Word of mouth is a stronger repeat-purchase signal than influencer exposure.
"I tried it because everyone on my For You page had it. It was good. I just never went back to the store and bought it again. I think I forgot it existed by the next week."
— Maya, 24, Atlanta · Project: Gen Z drink habits Wave 3, March 2026
I built three things for you
💬
The message back
Drafted reply to your VP — landing point, evidence, recommendation.
📊
The slide
One slide for the Q3 deck. Headline, evidence, source.
🎬
The showreel
6 consumer clips. 2:14 total. Sendable as a pre-read.
Compass would push back here
Before you send: the dataset under-represents the 35+ segment. If your VP's repeat-purchase concern is concentrated in older buyers, this answer is directionally right but incomplete. Worth flagging that limitation in the reply.
59 more clips, the drafted reply, the slide file, and the showreel are in the full Compass output.
Compass · Answer with receipts
Cross-referenced 6 category studies, 2 brand trackers, and the quant context you uploaded. 287 video responses analysed. Built you a 9-slide presentation and a 3:40 showreel for the buyer meeting.
The position
Their clean-label claim is technically accurate, but it isn't what consumers in this category are actually buying for.
Across 287 buyer interviews, "clean label" ranks 7th among purchase drivers — behind taste, price, ritual, brand familiarity, occasion fit, and pack design. The competitor narrative addresses a problem the consumer hasn't prioritised.
Purchase drivers ranked (top 7 of 14)
"I'm not reading the back of the can. I'm buying it because it tastes good and it costs $2.49. If it didn't taste good I wouldn't care if it was made of organic moonlight."
— David, 41, Dallas · Project: Category purchase drivers Q1
Presentation built (9 slides)
Compass would push back here
One caveat for the meeting: clean label has been climbing as a driver year over year. It's 7th today; it was 11th two years ago. Worth acknowledging the trend even if it doesn't change your position.
The full 9-slide deck, the 3:40 showreel, and 281 source clips are in the full output.
Compass · Answer with receipts
Searched 23 studies spanning two years. 1,104 video responses reviewed. Here is what the evidence says about your hypothesis — and where it pushes back.
The verdict
The segment is real. But it's a third the size you'd guess from the loudest voices.
A premium-and-functional consumer cohort shows up consistently across the last two years — but only at 11% of the addressable category, not the 25-30% your top-of-funnel research might suggest. The opportunity exists. The framing matters.
Three things the evidence confirms
- ✓They're under-served, not under-asked-for. 67% of identified segment members report buying outside the category to meet the need — currently spending with adjacent brands.
- ✓They have a higher LTV signal. Repeat purchase intent among this cohort runs 2.3x category average.
- ✓The narrative writes itself. Their language is distinct, quotable, and consistent across waves — easy to bring into a boardroom.
Two things the evidence challenges
- !Smaller than you'd think. 11% addressable, not 25%. The loud-voice segment over-indexes in social listening but under-indexes in the actual response data.
- !Willingness to pay is conditional. The premium tolerance only holds when functional benefit is delivered. Drop the functional claim and the premium evaporates.
"I'll pay double if it actually does what it says. I will pay nothing extra if it's just nice packaging and a vibe. The vibe alone is not the product."
— Priya, 33, Chicago · Project: Premium category exploration Wave 2
The narrative for the leadership room
Lead with the LTV signal, not the segment size. Skeptics will challenge an 11% addressable opportunity, but a 2.3x repeat-purchase signal moves them. Then offer the functional-delivery caveat as proof you've stress-tested the bet.
The full narrative document, 1,098 source clips, and segment sizing methodology in the full output.
This is one question on demo data.
See what Compass does with your research library, your team, your questions.
Let's run Compass on your data.
You're looking at a sample. The real value shows up when Compass is reading your research library — every study, every video, every report. A Voxpopme strategist will map it to your specific use case.
We'll reach out within 24 hours.