Example verdict

This is what you get.

A real study we ran for a UK matcha brand (anonymised).

Ad creative test Real data

We tested three ad designs with real UK shoppers.

The question

Which of the three would convert best, before any budget went behind it?

Comparison ad, blurred for confidentiality — Comparison ad

Lifestyle routine ad, blurred for confidentiality — Lifestyle routine ad

Ingredient-led ad, blurred for confidentiality — Ingredient-led ad

Creatives blurred to protect the client.

Creative	Would buy	Appealing	Would click	Believable	Verdict
Comparison ad	66%	80%	58%	50%	Ready to run
Lifestyle routine ad	48%	60%	52%	48%	Fix first
Ingredient-led ad	37%	57%	47%	51%	Rebuild

The answer

Put paid budget behind the comparison ad. Two-thirds of people who saw it would buy (66%), a clear margin above the other two, and it is the only one ready to run now. The side-by-side format gave people a concrete reason to choose the brand, and that clarity converted. Believability is the shared ceiling across all three (roughly half in each case), so that is what to shore up next, not what separates the winner.

By creative

What worked, what didn't, and what to do, for each one.

Comparison adReady to run

Put paid budget behind this one immediately. 66% would buy and 80% find it appealing, the strongest numbers in the test. Run it now and fix the small execution niggles in parallel.

WorkedThe side-by-side comparison gave people a concrete reason to choose the brand, lower calories, lower cost, more benefits, and the clear, uncluttered layout let them absorb it fast.

Didn'tBelievability sits at 50%. A meaningful minority flagged the claims as exaggerated or the comparison as unfair, and a smaller number were put off by the headline styling.

Do thisAdd one credibility proof-point (for example third-party sourcing or a real customer line) and refine the headline treatment.

"I like the clear benefits and the comparison to the typical matcha, so I can see why I would choose one over the other."

Lifestyle routine adFix first

Don't spend behind this yet. 48% would buy, held back not by looks (60% appeal) but by a cluttered layout and thin information that leave people interested but unconvinced. Fix the execution, then test again.

WorkedThe visual design stops the scroll. Most people called it eye-catching and punchy, and a discount code gave a subset an extra nudge to try it.

Didn'tA meaningful minority found it cluttered and hard to navigate, with overlapping elements, and nearly as many wanted concrete facts rather than benefit labels.

Do thisStrip back the overlapping elements, lead with the concrete stats, and align the tagline so the layout feels as calm as the product claims to be.

"The advert on a whole is cluttered and has thrown so much in one place, so the elements are overlapping in places. The claims made are pretty vague and seem like click bait."

Ingredient-led adRebuild

Don't spend behind this. Only 37% would buy, and the visual concept actively works against conversion by burying the drink behind ingredient imagery people find overwhelming and hard to believe.

WorkedThe ingredient arrangement drew genuine aesthetic appreciation, and the core idea landed as a clear, interesting proposition for a subset of people.

Didn'tThe most-raised barrier is scepticism about the ingredient-heavy claim ("too good to be true"), compounded by the product being nearly invisible amid the imagery, so several couldn't tell what was being sold.

Do thisKeep the ingredient story but rebuild the layout with the product dominant, the ingredient list secondary, and a simple credibility anchor.

"The surrounding images are very large compared to the drink, the drink needs to stand out more. Can hardly see it."

How we ran it

Who149 real UK consumers, recruited through a vetted UK research panel and screened to the target audience: UK adults 18 to 35 who buy the category.

QualityReal UK humans, not synthetic or AI-generated respondents.

HowEach person saw only one creative (a monadic design), so the verdicts aren't skewed by comparison order or fatigue. 49 to 50 respondents per creative.

MeasuredFor every creative: would buy, appeal, would click and believability, plus open-text on the why behind each score.

Client name, brand marks and creative artwork have been withheld, and identifying product details generalised, for confidentiality. All reported metrics are unchanged.

Start your study →