In practice
Regulatory, marketing, and insights teams can choose final claims together, based on shared evidence about how real people interpret them.
Objectives
The same claim can build trust with one segment and trigger doubt with another. Freckle™ shows which words people believe, which ones confuse them, and what they think a claim actually promises. Teams can compare wording variations side by side and keep only the claims that are both approved and believed.
Questions
- Which claim is most believable, and which is most motivating?
- Which specific words trigger skepticism?
- What do people think this claim actually means?
- Does a specific proof point beat a broad benefit?
- How does interpretation change across segments?
Picking the lead claim for a front-of-pack
Three approved claims, one spot. A household cleaning brand had three legally approved efficacy claims and room for only one on the front of the pack.
Approval didn’t settle the question. Legal had cleared all three, but marketing and insights disagreed about which one would actually drive purchase, and the print deadline was fixed.
Freckle™ tested each claim in several wording variations across loyal users, skeptical shoppers, and ingredient-conscious buyers. It measured believability, clarity, and purchase intent, then followed up with personas to identify the specific words that built or eroded trust.
At a glance
- Decision: Front-of-pack lead claim
- Claims tested: Three approved claims, with wording variations
- Measures: Believability, clarity, purchase intent
- Primary constraint: Fixed print deadline
- Required output: Lead claim, final wording, and words to avoid
