Product testing: Choosing the right protocol to generate actionable insights RECO#1

In an environment of constant innovation and increasingly subtle consumer trade‑offs, product testing remains a vital tool for guiding launch, optimization, or repositioning decisions.

But not all tests are created equal. A strong protocol is not simply about “asking for a score,” but about creating a test situation that captures the full reality of the consumer experience — in all its sensory, emotional, and contextual complexity. That’s the belief that guides our approach at Repères.

To do so, several dimensions must be rigorously defined from the outset of the study:

• Test location: in‑hall or at home?

• Protocol: monadic or sequential?

• Presentation mode: blind or branded?

• Measurement strategy: beyond rational evaluation?

Each of these options comes with its own strengths, limitations… and potential biases. In this article series, we explore these key methodological choices, how they shape the quality of your insights, and we share Repères’ recommendations drawn from years of field experience and study design expertise.

Reco #1 — At‑home vs in‑hall testing: where to conduct product tests for genuine consumer feedback?

The location of a product test is never neutral. It determines not only the quality of the data collected, but also its relevance to actual consumer behaviors. At Repères, we advocate for home use tests (HUT) in most cases, while acknowledging the occasional usefulness of central location tests (CLT). Why? Because consumers don’t eat or use products in a lab — they experience them in real life.

In an at‑home setting, the respondent uses the product freely, in their own environment and according to their own routines. This allows for feedback that is deeply rooted in reality: the time of day, hunger or satiety, temperature, usage occasions, and even the influence of household members all contribute to the overall experience. This is a far cry from the abstract, standardized, and sometimes disconnected results generated in a hall.

That said, in‑hall tests do offer advantages — namely faster logistics and standardization. They are useful when the main focus is on visual appearance, or in exploratory phases for simple, low‑involvement products. But their biases must not be ignored: artificial setting, small tasting quantities, and sensory overload can all interfere with a fair assessment.

That’s why we recommend using at‑home testing whenever the product is context‑sensitive (e.g., requires preparation, is shared, or has habitual usage), and reserving hall testing for cases where context is less relevant, or when speed and control are critical.

At Repères, we don’t just test products. We test experiences — and that makes all the difference.

Discover the other articles in our product testing series:

Reco#2 Monadic or sequential: How to structure tests for reliable results?

Reco#3 Blind or branded: Are you testing the formula or the full offer?

Reco#4 Measuring what consumers feel… not just what they say

Testing Sweet Products: How to Avoid Bias and Accurately Measure Consumer Acceptability

Want to learn more about our solutions? Contact the Repères team using the form below.