SmartSweets

How SmartSweets Tested Which Claims Earn the Front of the Pack — and Made Every Answer Prove Itself

SmartSweets ran its BluePill pilot on one rule: no answer gets used until it has earned trust. Before testing anything new, the brand team checked its consumer twins against their recent product launches. The twins reproduced them. Then the team tested its claims one line at a time, and got a clear call on which one should lead the pack, with the reasons behind it.

The Goal

SmartSweets — the better-for-you candy brand

SmartSweets wanted to know which claims on the packaging would drive attention and purchase decisions.

Its range shares one claim family: no added sugar, fiber, no artificial colors or ingredients. The open questions were practical ones: which functional ingredient gives a shopper a reason to buy, which wording of a clean-label promise lands harder, and whether adding a claim makes a pack stronger or just busier.

SmartSweets wanted to know which claims on the packaging would drive attention and purchase decisions.

The Challenges

Every claim is true, and they compete for the same space. With a full claim family and one prime spot on pack, the choice tends to come down to internal preference.

A pack is more than its words. The team expected a test to read the whole pack, design included. A read of the copy alone would miss half the decision.
One-line changes need an explanation, not just a winner. When two packs differ by a single callout, the team wanted to know why one should win at all.
A simulated answer has to earn trust. Before acting on any result, SmartSweets asked the question every insights team should ask: is this trustworthy?

Every claim is true, and they compete for the same space. With a full claim family and one prime spot on pack, the choice tends to come down to internal preference.

A pack is more than its words. The team expected a test to read the whole pack, design included. A read of the copy alone would miss half the decision.
One-line changes need an explanation, not just a winner. When two packs differ by a single callout, the team wanted to know why one should win at all.
A simulated answer has to earn trust. Before acting on any result, SmartSweets asked the question every insights team should ask: is this trustworthy?

Our Solution

Twins Proven on SmartSweets' Own Past Launches

BluePill grounded the SmartSweets twins in in-depth interviews with candy shoppers: what they look for on a pack, which claims make them choose one candy over another, and how they rank product ideas. SmartSweets' first use of the twins was to check them against recent launches and their outcomes. The twins reproduced the results, including the ranking of all four products.

Claims Tested One Line at a Time

With the audience in its own accounts, the brand team ran pack tests directly in BluePill's packaging-variant tool: two wordings of the same clean-label promise, and a fiber callout against a second sugar message on otherwise identical packs. Each run returned a winner, a score for each pack and a claim-by-claim read of what drove choice. The team also compared functional ingredients and doses in a quick concept test, using chat with the twins to see why one dose edged ahead. Across the reports, one picture held: shoppers believed SmartSweets' claims, and what moved them was clean-label reassurance and a reason to buy that the pack didn't already give.

A Clear Recommendation, With Its Reasons

The fiber report gave a direct call: ship the fiber pack as it is. It used its front-of-pack space for a new benefit instead of repeating a sugar message the pack already carried, and the report advised against stacking another sugar claim. It was just as clear about the trade-off: it named the shoppers most likely to prefer the sugar message, those tracking sugar closely, and the next test worth running, other functional add-ins in the same spot.

4 of 4

Same rank order as real shoppers

<10 days

To produce a ship-ready recommendation

10 min

Per claim test

We didn't want to act on anything we couldn't trust, so we checked the twins against work we'd already done first. Once they matched, we could test claims one line at a time and get a clear call, with the reasons behind it.

Roanna Wang, Director, Brand Management, SmartSweets

Results

Proven First, Then Trusted

Past Studies Reproduced

Twins matched SmartSweets' earlier pack studies

A Clear Claim Call

Ship the fiber pack as it is

Reasons, Not Just Rankings

Every winner explained claim by claim

Trade-Offs Named

Which shoppers a winning claim could lose

The Impact

With BluePill, SmartSweets was able to:

Check the twins against its own past research before relying on them

Choose front-of-pack claims with evidence, not internal debate

Compare claim wordings and functional ingredients with one audience

Test one-line pack changes and see why one version wins. See which shoppers a winning claim could lose before it ships

Ask the twins follow-up questions in chat when a result needs explaining

What We Learned

Prove the twins on answers you already have

Matching SmartSweets' own past pack studies is what made the first new result worth reading.

A claim's value depends on the pack around it

The same fiber claim helped one pack and made another look like a supplement. Test each claim on its own pack.

A winner needs its reasons

Every report explained its winner claim by claim and named who it might lose. That is what made the fiber call one the team could act on.

Conclusion

SmartSweets tested the tool along with its claims. It checked the twins against its past studies, then tested claims one line at a time. It came away with a clear lead claim, plus the reasons and trade-offs. Choosing a claim is now a repeatable process: check the twins against what you already know, then test.

Try BluePill

Simulate your target audience and get real-world insights in minutes.

Book 15‑Minute Demo

Start for free