Testing the segment before we spend
The strategy names a primary consumer segment but holds it honestly as a hypothesis. This kit's job is to test that hypothesis with real homeowners before serious acquisition spend — the same discipline applied to the partner side.
The Market Paper is explicit that the cognitively-loaded segment is held as posture — supported by macro research, but not yet directly evidenced. So the central goal is not to confirm the segment, but to test whether it exists and feels the way the strategy assumes. If the cognitive load doesn't surface strongly in real conversations, that's a finding, not a failure.
This is acquisition research: the segment, the proposition, the price, the mental category. It deliberately does not test member experience or post-join comms — those are owned by the Comms Spec. The proposition is described using only committed claims (£9.99, cost price); the unconfirmed saving is not used.
What the kit is built to answer
Does the cog-loaded segment exist as described?
The core thesis, held as posture. Tested by letting the mental load surface unprompted, not by asking if it exists.
Which propensity signals predict interest?
The signals are working hypotheses, to be validated against real data. Used here as screen + correlation test.
What is the proposition worth — is £9.99 right?
A named pilot question; the cost-conscious segment is "at threshold". £9.99 is committed.
What do people think Homesy is?
The mental-category risk — homeowners first read it against insurers, not Costco. The live execution problem, and directly testable.
The homeowner conversation guide
30–45 minutes, in person or video. Depth over breadth — this is where the cog-load thesis is genuinely tested, because a conversation lets the mental load surface (or not) in the homeowner's own words.
A · Your home and how you run it — "Who tends to look after the practical side — repairs, the appliances?"Warm-up; lets cog-load surface naturally. Don't lead.
B · What you do now — "Think of the last time an appliance broke — walk me through what you did."Current behaviour and spend; surfaces the incumbent relationship.
C · The load — "Is there anything about managing the home you wish you didn't have to think about?"Tests the thesis; do not fish. If it doesn't surface, record that — it's a finding.
D · Reaction to the idea — "What's your gut instinct about what kind of thing this is?"Asked LAST. The mental-category test: listen for "oh, like insurance".
Interviewer discipline. The whole value is in sections A–C surfacing the load (or not) before the idea is described in D. A homeowner who shrugs and says managing the home is no trouble is telling you something the strategy needs to hear.
The online survey
For breadth and a quantified read. ~12 questions, mostly tap-to-answer. Screens for the segment using the propensity signals, then tests behaviour, the load, the proposition, price and the mental category.
One question captures unprompted expectation before revealing £9.99; the next captures the reaction to the real figure. Asking both, in that order, is far more reliable than a single "would you pay £9.99" — which produces polite yeses or reflexive nos. Treat both as directional, not precise.
The mental-category question — "in a word or two, what do you think this is?" with options including "a type of insurance" — quantifies the single biggest execution risk the Market Paper names.
The hard part — they have no single venue
Unlike engineers, who cluster in trade groups, cog-loaded homeowners have no single venue. The Market Paper notes the segment "isn't directly visible from outside." So the propensity signals become the way you find them.
Employs a cleaner, owns more than one property, already pays for cover, app-comfortable. Screen in on these and you concentrate the sample — then test which signals actually correlate with interest.
The cleanest route to volume — a panel can screen to the profile and deliver a sample to spec. There's no free gated community to post in.
Tempting because it's warm and reachable. But the Zest base is predominantly cost-conscious and approaching-retirement — not the cog-loaded segment. Using it to test the cog-load thesis would test the wrong population. Legitimate for the fast-follow segment questions, clearly tagged — never pooled with cog-loaded responses.
Reading the results well
The cog-load thesis is the thing under test, not an assumption to confirm. Write nothing, and read nothing, that fishes for it. If the load surfaces weakly — if homeowners largely shrug — that is the most valuable finding the research can produce, because it would mean the primary segment thesis needs revisiting before acquisition spend, not after.
- On price
Stated willingness-to-pay is unreliable, more so post-cost-of-living. Treat it as directional; the real answer comes from live conversion. What the survey can tell you is whether £9.99 sits inside people's intuitive range.
- On the mental category
A large "it's insurance" share quantifies the risk — and tells the campaign work how much distancing-from-insurance the early copy must do.
- Read sources separately
Panel, social-recruited and legacy-book responses are different populations — never pool them, and never use legacy-book for the cog-load thesis.
- Incentives
Survey: a capped prize draw (general voucher). Depth interviews: a £30–£50 thank-you — a dozen good interviews are the single most valuable output here.