Illustrative case study · Healthcare & Life Sciences

The maker planned to fold the name younger scientists prefer.

In academic, biotech and pharma labs, the scientists at the bench choose or specify benchtop equipment. One maker selling under a master brand and a sub-brand was weighing whether to fold the sub-brand into the master brand. We interviewed 300 of those scientists, split by age; the maker had the report in 13 days.

Illustrative scenario

Samplen = 300

Illustrative report

Lab Equipment Brand Health

Can the sub-brand keep a name of its own, or should it fold into the master brand?

Study architecture

Map familiarityAwareness and familiarity for five names, split by age

Gauge preferenceThe preferred brand for the next purchase, and why

Track the shiftHow each view changed over the past two years

Scope

A brand can trail in the total and still lead with the scientists who are starting to choose equipment.

Sample

300

Scientists who choose or specify benchtop equipment in academic, biotech and pharma labs.

Research by

Study typeSub-brand study

ScenarioIllustrative

Benchtop equipment brands · Executive reportExecutive summary

Executive summary

Younger scientists prefer the sub-brand; the maker’s two names hold half of preference at every age

The 300 lab scientists who choose benchtop equipment rated the maker’s master brand, its sub-brand and Brands B to D. The master brand is the second best-known name overall, but scientists under 35 know the sub-brand better and prefer it, 31% to 19%. The master brand still leads with scientists aged 35 and over, at 42%. The two names together hold half of preference in each age group.

64%n = 300

familiar with the master brand

61%n = 140

of under-35s familiar with the sub-brand

31%n = 140

of under-35s prefer the sub-brand

50%n = 140

of under-35s prefer one of the maker’s two names

Figures rounded. Base n = 300 lab scientists unless stated.

Top lines

1Brand B is the best-known name, and the master brand is secondAided familiarity across five names03

2Under 35, the sub-brand is the better-known nameThe brand funnel by age group04

3Each age group prefers a different name, and the two share halfPreferred brand by age group05

4Younger scientists’ views moved toward the sub-brandPerception change by brand and age06

5Sample, screener and quality controlWho we interviewed and how07

AAppendixQuestion flow and data tables09

Sample

300 lab scientists

Segments

140 under 35, 160 aged 35 and over

Method

AI-moderated interviews with a brand funnel

Labs

Academic, biotech and pharma

Illustrative report. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional.

Illustrative report02

Illustrative reportExecutive summary

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

The engagement

Delivered in

days, with the report, the data file and a live readout.

Interviews

300

Scientists who choose or specify benchtop lab equipment.

Audiences

140 scientists under 35 and 160 aged 35 and over.

Method

Brand funnel

Five names from awareness to preference, by age, with the sub-brand shown alone.

The brief

Client

A maker of benchtop lab equipment

Decision

Whether to fold its sub-brand into the master brand

Stage

Brand re-baseline, before the next brand plan

How we ran it

Approach

AI-moderated interviews with a five-name brand funnel

Measured

Awareness, familiarity, preference and perception change

Sample

Scientists in academic, biotech and pharma labs

Headline figures

Under 3561%

of scientists under 35 know the sub-brand, against 42% for the master brand

Preference31%

of scientists under 35 prefer the sub-brand; 19% prefer the master brand

Both names50%

preference for the maker’s two names, in each age group

The question

Should the sub-brand keep its name, or fold into the master brand?

The maker last measured its brands before the sub-brand’s newer benchtop line caught on with younger lab teams. Before deciding whether to fold the sub-brand into the master brand, the brand team wanted fresh evidence from the scientists who choose the equipment, with younger and older scientists compared.

How familiar are lab scientists with the master brand, its sub-brand and Brands B to D?

Which brand do they prefer, and why?

How have their views shifted, and do scientists under 35 see the brands differently?

What we did

How the study ran, start to finish.

1Kickoff
Two names, one brand decision.
Can the sub-brand keep a name of its own, or should it fold into the master brand? The kickoff turned it into three questions: familiarity with each name, which brand scientists prefer and why, and how views have shifted by age.
2Design
Two age groups, a brand funnel.
The screener required a hand in choosing the lab’s benchtop equipment: 140 scientists under 35 and 160 aged 35 and over. An awareness-to-preference funnel covered the maker’s two names and Brands B to D, showing the sub-brand without its parent’s name.
3Fielding
300 scientists rate five brand names.
Scientists spoke by voice or text, quant and qual in one conversation, and said why any brand view had moved; median 28 minutes. The researcher read all 338 and removed 38 who rushed, duplicated another respondent or held the wrong role, leaving 300.
4Analysis
The sub-brand leads under 35.
The researcher set the two age groups’ funnels side by side: the master brand loses scientists under 35 between awareness and familiarity. Under 35, the sub-brand is the better-known name by 19 points; at 35 and over the master brand leads, 83% to 33%.
5Readout
Under 35: sub-brand 31%, master 19%.
The researcher showed the brand team the funnel split by age in a live readout, along with perception shifts, all verbatims, a 32-page report and the full data file. The brand plan now keeps the sub-brand’s name and recasts the master brand as its endorser.

What we found

Four findings from the report.

Summary

The master brand is the second best-known name overall, but the total hides a split by age. Scientists under 35 know the sub-brand better and prefer it, 31% to 19%. Together the maker’s two names hold half of preference in each age group, carried by different names.

Benchtop equipment brands · Executive reportTop line 1

Top line 1 of 4

Brand B is the best-known name, and the master brand is second

¹ Q5. Which of these benchtop equipment brands could you describe, in terms of what they make? Aided, multi-select, n = 300.

² Brand D familiarity by age is directional; see the appendix tables.

Across all 300 scientists, 72% are familiar with Brand B and 64% with the master brand¹. Brand C follows at 58% and the sub-brand at 46%. The master brand’s problem is depth: 28% of scientists have heard of it but cannot say what it makes.

72%n = 300

familiar with Brand B

64%n = 300

familiar with the master brand

46%n = 300

familiar with the sub-brand

28%n = 300

aware of the master brand but unable to describe it

Familiarity with the leading benchtop equipment brands

Familiar with each brand, aided (n = 300)

Master brand awareness and familiarity (n = 300)

FamiliarAware onlyNot aware

Familiar with Brand B, by age

Familiar means able to describe what the brand makes; awareness was asked first, unaided then aided. n = 300 lab scientists: 140 under 35 and 160 aged 35 and over.

Supporting evidence

Most of the sub-brand’s familiarity comes from scientists under 35: 85 of the 138 who know it. § 3.2
Brand D, fifth of five, is known mainly to older scientists: 46% at 35 and over against 32% under 35. § 3.3²

Illustrative report03

Benchtop equipment brands · Executive reportTop line 2

Top line 2 of 4

Under 35, the sub-brand is the better-known name

¹ Q4 and Q5. Awareness, then familiarity, for each brand. Under 35 n = 140; 35 and over n = 160.

² Coded from the follow-up on where each brand was first met; directional.

The age split runs through the funnel. Under 35, 61% are familiar with the sub-brand and 42% with the master brand¹, a gap of 19 points. At 35 and over the order reverses, 83% against 33%. The master brand loses younger scientists between awareness and familiarity: 84% of under-35s have heard of it, and half of them know it.

61%n = 140

of under-35s familiar with the sub-brand

42%n = 140

of under-35s familiar with the master brand

83%n = 160

aged 35 and over familiar with the master brand

19points

the sub-brand’s familiarity lead under 35

The brand funnel among scientists under 35

Funnel stages, scientists under 35 (n = 140)

Familiar with each name, 35 and over (n = 160)

Under-35s aware of the master brand (n = 118)

FamiliarAware only

Stages: aware (unaided or aided), familiar (can describe the brand), would consider for the next purchase. Each stage is a share of the whole age group, so each is at or below the one before.

Supporting evidence

Older scientists who know the master brand’s name know the brand too: 85% convert, against 50% under 35. § 4.2
Scientists under 35 most often met the sub-brand through a lab-mate or a shared core facility. § 4.3²

Illustrative report04

Benchtop equipment brands · Executive reportTop line 3

Top line 3 of 4

Each age group prefers a different name, and the two share half

¹ Q7. Which one of these brands would you prefer for your lab’s next benchtop purchase? Single select.

² Coded from the follow-up on why each brand is preferred; directional.

Preference splits the same way. Under 35, 31% prefer the sub-brand and 19% the master brand¹; at 35 and over, 42% prefer the master brand and 8% the sub-brand. Together the maker’s names hold half of preference in each age group, well ahead of Brand B. Three fifths of the younger share sits with the sub-brand.

31%n = 140

of under-35s prefer the sub-brand

19%n = 140

of under-35s prefer the master brand

42%n = 160

aged 35 and over prefer the master brand

50%each group

prefer one of the maker’s two names

Preferred benchtop equipment brand, by age group

Preferred brand, under 35 (n = 140)

Preferred brand, 35 and over (n = 160)

Master brandSub-brandBrand BOther or none

The maker’s two names together

Single select among the five names for the lab’s next benchtop purchase; shares are rounded and sum to 100 in each age group. At 35 and over, Brand C takes 16%, Brand D 5% and 3% have no preference.

Supporting evidence

Brand B is the strongest rival in both groups, 22% under 35 and 26% at 35 and over. § 5.2
Under-35s who prefer the sub-brand rarely connect it to the master brand. § 5.3²

Illustrative report05

Benchtop equipment brands · Executive reportTop line 4

Top line 4 of 4

Younger scientists’ views moved toward the sub-brand

¹ Q8. Over the past two years, has your view of each brand improved, stayed the same or worsened? Single select per brand.

² Lab purchase history is self-reported; directional.

Asked how their view of each brand changed over the past two years, 38% of under-35s say the sub-brand improved, and 6% say it worsened¹. The same group moved away from the master brand: 9% improved and 24% worsened. At 35 and over the master brand gained ground, 22% improved against 9% worsened, while the sub-brand moved less.

38%n = 140

of under-35s say the sub-brand improved

24%n = 140

of under-35s say the master brand worsened

22%n = 160

aged 35 and over say the master brand improved

6%n = 140

of under-35s say the sub-brand worsened

Change in view over the past two years, by brand and age

View improved over the past two years

Sub-brand, under 35 (n = 140)

ImprovedUnchangedWorsenedNo view

Master brand, under 35 (n = 140)

ImprovedUnchangedWorsenedNo view

Self-reported change over the past two years, single select per brand; “no view” includes scientists who do not know the brand.

Supporting evidence

Under-35s whose view of the master brand worsened most often name slow service on older units. § 6.2
Views of the sub-brand improved most where a lab had added its newer benchtop line. § 6.3²

Illustrative report06

Top line 1 of 4 · page 03Illustrative report · top line 1 of 4 · swipeIllustrative report

Question 1 · Familiarity

Brand B is the best-known name, and the master brand is second.

72% of scientists are familiar with Brand B and 64% with the master brand. Brand C follows at 58%, and the sub-brand reaches 46%. Most of the sub-brand’s familiarity comes from scientists under 35.

Brand B72%

Master brand64%

Brand C58%

Sub-brand46%

Familiar with each brand · aided · n = 300

Question 1 · By age

Under 35, the sub-brand is the better-known name.

Among scientists under 35, 61% are familiar with the sub-brand and 42% with the master brand, a gap of 19 points. At 35 and over the order reverses: 83% know the master brand and 33% the sub-brand.

Sub-brand, under 3561%

Master brand, under 3542%

Master brand, 35 and over83%

Sub-brand, 35 and over33%

Familiar with each brand · under 35 n = 140, 35 and over n = 160

Question 2 · Preference

Each age group prefers a different name, and the two share half.

Under 35, 31% prefer the sub-brand and 19% the master brand. At 35 and over, 42% prefer the master brand and 8% the sub-brand. Together the two names hold 50% of preference in each age group.

31%prefer the sub-brand, under 35

19%prefer the master brand, under 35

Preferred brand for the next purchase · under 35 · n = 140

Question 3 · The shift

Younger scientists’ views moved toward the sub-brand.

Over the past two years, 38% of under-35s say their view of the sub-brand improved and 6% say it worsened. For the master brand the same group moved the other way: 9% improved and 24% worsened.

Sub-brand improved38%

Sub-brand worsened6%

Master brand improved9%

Master brand worsened24%

Change in view over two years · scientists under 35 · n = 140

“I know the newer line because the bench next to mine runs on it. I had no idea it came from the same company as the older instruments down the hall.”

Research scientist · Illustrative quote

Illustrative quotes

Three themes behind the numbers.

Two names

“The old name is the one my lab director trusts. The newer one is what my cohort talks about. They feel like two different companies.”

Graduate researcher

Familiarity

“I see that name in every catalog, but I couldn’t tell you what they make best. Nobody in my lab uses them.”

Lab scientist

Shifting views

“Service on our older units got slower, and that colors how I see the whole brand. The newer line has gone the other way.”

Lab manager

What the equipment maker did

Three moves made with the report.

1The architecture · from finding 3

Kept the sub-brand’s name.

Under-35s prefer it to the master brand, 31% to 19%, so the sub-brand keeps its name and the master brand stands behind it as endorser. The plan to fold the two was dropped.

2The gap · from finding 2

Took the master brand into core facilities.

Under-35s most often met the sub-brand through a lab-mate or a shared core facility, so a program there aims to close the master brand’s 19-point familiarity gap.

3The service · from finding 4

Put service on older instruments first.

Under-35s whose view of the master brand worsened most often named slow service on older units, so response times on older instruments became a target in this year’s plan.

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

Bring us your next brand question.

A senior researcher designs and presents every study.

Talk to our team

More healthcare & life sciences studies

Decision timing study

The maker planned to fold the name younger scientists prefer.

Should the sub-brand keep its name, or fold into the master brand?

How the study ran, start to finish.

1Kickoff

Two names, one brand decision.

Can the sub-brand keep a name of its own, or should it fold into the master brand? The kickoff turned it into three questions: familiarity with each name, which brand scientists prefer and why, and how views have shifted by age.

2Design

Two age groups, a brand funnel.

The screener required a hand in choosing the lab’s benchtop equipment: 140 scientists under 35 and 160 aged 35 and over. An awareness-to-preference funnel covered the maker’s two names and Brands B to D, showing the sub-brand without its parent’s name.

3Fielding

300 scientists rate five brand names.

Scientists spoke by voice or text, quant and qual in one conversation, and said why any brand view had moved; median 28 minutes. The researcher read all 338 and removed 38 who rushed, duplicated another respondent or held the wrong role, leaving 300.

4Analysis

The sub-brand leads under 35.

The researcher set the two age groups’ funnels side by side: the master brand loses scientists under 35 between awareness and familiarity. Under 35, the sub-brand is the better-known name by 19 points; at 35 and over the master brand leads, 83% to 33%.

5Readout

Under 35: sub-brand 31%, master 19%.

The researcher showed the brand team the funnel split by age in a live readout, along with perception shifts, all verbatims, a 32-page report and the full data file. The brand plan now keeps the sub-brand’s name and recasts the master brand as its endorser.

Four findings from the report.

Summary

Benchtop equipment brands · Executive reportTop line 1

Top line 1 of 4

Brand B is the best-known name, and the master brand is second

¹ Q5. Which of these benchtop equipment brands could you describe, in terms of what they make? Aided, multi-select, n = 300.

² Brand D familiarity by age is directional; see the appendix tables.

72%n = 300

familiar with Brand B

64%n = 300

familiar with the master brand

46%n = 300

familiar with the sub-brand

28%n = 300

aware of the master brand but unable to describe it

Familiarity with the leading benchtop equipment brands

Familiar with each brand, aided (n = 300)

Master brand awareness and familiarity (n = 300)

FamiliarAware onlyNot aware

Familiar with Brand B, by age

Familiar means able to describe what the brand makes; awareness was asked first, unaided then aided. n = 300 lab scientists: 140 under 35 and 160 aged 35 and over.

Supporting evidence

Most of the sub-brand’s familiarity comes from scientists under 35: 85 of the 138 who know it. § 3.2
Brand D, fifth of five, is known mainly to older scientists: 46% at 35 and over against 32% under 35. § 3.3²

Illustrative report03

Benchtop equipment brands · Executive reportTop line 2

Top line 2 of 4

Under 35, the sub-brand is the better-known name

¹ Q4 and Q5. Awareness, then familiarity, for each brand. Under 35 n = 140; 35 and over n = 160.

² Coded from the follow-up on where each brand was first met; directional.

61%n = 140

of under-35s familiar with the sub-brand

42%n = 140

of under-35s familiar with the master brand

83%n = 160

aged 35 and over familiar with the master brand

19points

the sub-brand’s familiarity lead under 35

The brand funnel among scientists under 35

Funnel stages, scientists under 35 (n = 140)

Familiar with each name, 35 and over (n = 160)

Under-35s aware of the master brand (n = 118)

FamiliarAware only

Stages: aware (unaided or aided), familiar (can describe the brand), would consider for the next purchase. Each stage is a share of the whole age group, so each is at or below the one before.

Supporting evidence

Older scientists who know the master brand’s name know the brand too: 85% convert, against 50% under 35. § 4.2
Scientists under 35 most often met the sub-brand through a lab-mate or a shared core facility. § 4.3²

Illustrative report04

Benchtop equipment brands · Executive reportTop line 3

Top line 3 of 4

Each age group prefers a different name, and the two share half

¹ Q7. Which one of these brands would you prefer for your lab’s next benchtop purchase? Single select.

² Coded from the follow-up on why each brand is preferred; directional.

31%n = 140

of under-35s prefer the sub-brand

19%n = 140

of under-35s prefer the master brand

42%n = 160

aged 35 and over prefer the master brand

50%each group

prefer one of the maker’s two names

Preferred benchtop equipment brand, by age group

Preferred brand, under 35 (n = 140)

Preferred brand, 35 and over (n = 160)

Master brandSub-brandBrand BOther or none

The maker’s two names together

Supporting evidence

Brand B is the strongest rival in both groups, 22% under 35 and 26% at 35 and over. § 5.2
Under-35s who prefer the sub-brand rarely connect it to the master brand. § 5.3²

Illustrative report05

Benchtop equipment brands · Executive reportTop line 4

Top line 4 of 4

Younger scientists’ views moved toward the sub-brand

¹ Q8. Over the past two years, has your view of each brand improved, stayed the same or worsened? Single select per brand.

² Lab purchase history is self-reported; directional.

38%n = 140

of under-35s say the sub-brand improved

24%n = 140

of under-35s say the master brand worsened

22%n = 160

aged 35 and over say the master brand improved

6%n = 140

of under-35s say the sub-brand worsened

Change in view over the past two years, by brand and age

View improved over the past two years

Sub-brand, under 35 (n = 140)

ImprovedUnchangedWorsenedNo view

Master brand, under 35 (n = 140)

ImprovedUnchangedWorsenedNo view

Self-reported change over the past two years, single select per brand; “no view” includes scientists who do not know the brand.

Supporting evidence

Under-35s whose view of the master brand worsened most often name slow service on older units. § 6.2
Views of the sub-brand improved most where a lab had added its newer benchtop line. § 6.3²

Illustrative report06

Top line 1 of 4 · page 03Illustrative report · top line 1 of 4 · swipeIllustrative report

Question 1 · Familiarity

Brand B is the best-known name, and the master brand is second.

72% of scientists are familiar with Brand B and 64% with the master brand. Brand C follows at 58%, and the sub-brand reaches 46%. Most of the sub-brand’s familiarity comes from scientists under 35.

Brand B72%

Master brand64%

Brand C58%

Sub-brand46%

Familiar with each brand · aided · n = 300

Question 1 · By age

Under 35, the sub-brand is the better-known name.

Among scientists under 35, 61% are familiar with the sub-brand and 42% with the master brand, a gap of 19 points. At 35 and over the order reverses: 83% know the master brand and 33% the sub-brand.

Sub-brand, under 3561%

Master brand, under 3542%

Master brand, 35 and over83%

Sub-brand, 35 and over33%

Familiar with each brand · under 35 n = 140, 35 and over n = 160

Question 2 · Preference

Each age group prefers a different name, and the two share half.

Under 35, 31% prefer the sub-brand and 19% the master brand. At 35 and over, 42% prefer the master brand and 8% the sub-brand. Together the two names hold 50% of preference in each age group.

31%prefer the sub-brand, under 35

19%prefer the master brand, under 35

Preferred brand for the next purchase · under 35 · n = 140

Question 3 · The shift

Younger scientists’ views moved toward the sub-brand.

Over the past two years, 38% of under-35s say their view of the sub-brand improved and 6% say it worsened. For the master brand the same group moved the other way: 9% improved and 24% worsened.

Sub-brand improved38%

Sub-brand worsened6%

Master brand improved9%

Master brand worsened24%

Change in view over two years · scientists under 35 · n = 140

Three themes behind the numbers.

Two names

“The old name is the one my lab director trusts. The newer one is what my cohort talks about. They feel like two different companies.”

Graduate researcher

Familiarity

“I see that name in every catalog, but I couldn’t tell you what they make best. Nobody in my lab uses them.”

Lab scientist

Shifting views

“Service on our older units got slower, and that colors how I see the whole brand. The newer line has gone the other way.”

Lab manager

Three moves made with the report.

1The architecture · from finding 3

Kept the sub-brand’s name.

Under-35s prefer it to the master brand, 31% to 19%, so the sub-brand keeps its name and the master brand stands behind it as endorser. The plan to fold the two was dropped.

2The gap · from finding 2

Took the master brand into core facilities.

Under-35s most often met the sub-brand through a lab-mate or a shared core facility, so a program there aims to close the master brand’s 19-point familiarity gap.

3The service · from finding 4

Put service on older instruments first.

Under-35s whose view of the master brand worsened most often named slow service on older units, so response times on older instruments became a target in this year’s plan.

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

Should the sub-brand keep its name, or fold into the master brand?

How familiar are lab scientists with the master brand, its sub-brand and Brands B to D?

Which brand do they prefer, and why?

How have their views shifted, and do scientists under 35 see the brands differently?

How the study ran, start to finish.

Two names, one brand decision.

Two age groups, a brand funnel.

300 scientists rate five brand names.

The sub-brand leads under 35.

Under 35: sub-brand 31%, master 19%.

Four findings from the report.

Brand B is the best-known name, and the master brand is second.

Under 35, the sub-brand is the better-known name.

Each age group prefers a different name, and the two share half.

Younger scientists’ views moved toward the sub-brand.

Three themes behind the numbers.

Three moves made with the report.

Kept the sub-brand’s name.

Took the master brand into core facilities.

Put service on older instruments first.

Bring us your next brand question.

Lab Capital Instrument Buyer Journey

AI Demand Across Life Science R&D

Sequencing Services Vendor Choice

Should the sub-brand keep its name, or fold into the master brand?

How familiar are lab scientists with the master brand, its sub-brand and Brands B to D?

Which brand do they prefer, and why?

How have their views shifted, and do scientists under 35 see the brands differently?

How the study ran, start to finish.

Two names, one brand decision.

Two age groups, a brand funnel.

300 scientists rate five brand names.

The sub-brand leads under 35.

Under 35: sub-brand 31%, master 19%.

Four findings from the report.

Brand B is the best-known name, and the master brand is second.

Under 35, the sub-brand is the better-known name.

Each age group prefers a different name, and the two share half.

Younger scientists’ views moved toward the sub-brand.

Three themes behind the numbers.

Three moves made with the report.

Kept the sub-brand’s name.

Took the master brand into core facilities.

Put service on older instruments first.

Bring us your next brand question.

Lab Capital Instrument Buyer Journey

AI Demand Across Life Science R&D

Sequencing Services Vendor Choice