Case Study: Market Research

This case study guides you through market research by following Ana, a fictional startup founder, as she conducts research for her early-stage venture.

Scenario: Ana lives in Bucharest and has an idea for a meal kit delivery service tailored to Romanian cuisine and local produce. She’s noticed many of her busy colleagues resort to takeout and wants to offer a healthier, home-cooked alternative that saves time. We’ll see how Ana uses market research to validate and refine her concept.

Step 1: Define Objectives & Hypotheses

Ana’s primary objective is to validate that there is demand for a meal kit service in Bucharest and understand her potential customers. She outlines a few key questions: Who would use this? Why would they want it (or why not)? How much would they pay? What dishes or features would appeal to them?

From these, she drafts hypotheses:

• Segment Hypothesis: We believe our early adopters are 25–40 year-old professionals in Bucharest who work long hours and lack time to cook on weekdays.
• Problem Hypothesis: We believe these individuals want convenient, healthy dinner options and are dissatisfied with their current solutions (like fast food or frozen meals).
• Value Proposition Hypothesis: We believe a meal kit (pre-portioned ingredients + recipes) delivering local Romanian recipes weekly will be seen as a compelling solution to save time and eat well.
• Feature Hypothesis: We believe key features that matter will be quick 30-minute recipes and minimal cleanup, more so than say, gourmet variety or dietary customization.
• Price Hypothesis: We believe customers will be willing to pay about 150–200 RON per week for a package of 3 dinners (roughly 50–65 RON per meal serving two people, aligning with mid-range takeout prices).
• Channel Hypothesis: We believe we can reach these customers primarily through social media (Instagram/Facebook) ads and referrals from one friend to another.
• Competitive Hypothesis: We believe that while global players (like HelloFresh) aren’t in Romania yet, indirect competitors (takeout services, restaurants) are our main competition; we assume we can compete on health and convenience.

Ana prioritizes the riskiest assumptions: Is the problem real (demand)? Will they pay ~150+ RON? These two she labels as must-validate. The others are important but secondary (features, channels can be adjusted if core demand exists).

Step 2: Choose Methods

To tackle these hypotheses, Ana plans a mixed-method approach:

• Problem & Demand (qualitative): Conduct ~10 one-on-one user interviews with target professionals to explore their current dinner routines, challenges, and reactions to the meal kit concept. This will reveal if the problem exists and if the concept resonates (or if she’s missing something).
• Demand & Priorities (quantitative): Run an online survey of ~100 people in her target demographic around Bucharest. The survey will quantify how many face the cooking-time problem, how interested they’d be in trying a meal kit, what factors matter most (cost, health, ease, etc.), and get a rough idea of pricing tolerance (by asking what they spend on dinners or if they’d pay X).
• Usability/Concept Testing: Create a simple landing page for “BucateAcasă” (her hypothetical brand) describing the service and maybe allowing sign-ups for a waitlist. This will serve as both a smoke-test (to gauge interest via sign-ups or click-through rate on an “Order Now” button) and a way to test messaging (what questions do people ask? Do they understand the concept?).
• Competitive Analysis (secondary): Research any existing local services (maybe some small catering or grocery delivery doing something similar) via Google, and note pricing and offerings. Also gather stats: She finds a Statista statistic on urban Romanians’ spending on food delivery, and a Eurostat figure on average hours worked per week (to support the “busy lifestyle” angle).
• Focus Group (maybe): She considers if a focus group of 5 colleagues could be useful to brainstorm what meal features are most appealing (local Romanian recipes vs. international, etc.). However, given time constraints, she prioritizes interviews and survey first.

She sketches a timeline: 2 weeks for interviews (including recruitment), overlapping with survey design and launch, then a week to analyze and a decision point by end of month. The landing page she can set up in a day and run ads to during week 2–3 as well.

Step 3: Identify Target Personas & Segments

Ana refines her target persona: “Mihai, 30, a software developer in Bucharest”. Mihai works ~10 hours a day, often stays late at the office or gets home tired. He values good food but isn’t an experienced cook. He and his partner try to eat somewhat healthy but end up ordering pizza or local takeout a few times a week. He has decent income (so can spend on convenience). Pain points: grocery shopping is a chore due to crowds and time, deciding what to cook is mentally taxing, and cleaning up is the worst part after cooking. Goals: wants quick, tasty, not-too-junkfood dinners.

She also considers a second persona: “Andreea, 34, a lawyer and mother of a 4-year-old”. Andreea is extremely busy juggling work and family. She cares about her child eating healthy home-cooked meals, but often doesn’t have the energy to cook from scratch every day. However, she is more price-sensitive (family budget) and worried whether her child will eat certain foods. This persona might be more challenging to satisfy, but could have high need.

Ana decides to focus recruitment primarily on people like “Mihai” (young professionals, either single or couples without kids) as her early adopter segment, since they have more disposable income and flexibility. She will include a couple of “Andreea”-type working parents in interviews to see if they express interest, but she’s aware they might have additional concerns.

Screener criteria: Age 25–40, living in Bucharest (or immediate area). Works full-time (40+ hours). Cooks dinner at home at least occasionally (not someone who never cooks, because if they truly never cook, a meal kit might be too high a behavior change). Ideally, people who do feel pain around dinner: she includes a screener question “How much do you agree: ‘I struggle to find time to cook on weeknights’ (1–5)?” – she’ll prioritize those who answer 4 or 5 (agree). Also a question “Have you ever tried a meal kit or meal delivery service?” – if yes, she definitely wants to talk to them for comparative insight; if no, that’s fine (most in RO haven’t, since not common).

For the survey targeting, she will use Facebook ads with filters: age 23–45, Bucharest radius, interests like “food delivery, fitness, busy lifestyle, technology” (rough proxies). Also, she plans to share the survey link in a local Facebook community for young professionals and ask coworkers to pass it along.

She lines up 12 potential interviewees: some through friends (a friend group of engineers), two through LinkedIn cold messages (young professionals who posted about busy work), and two working parents via a moms’ Facebook group who volunteered. She’ll schedule about 10 of them, expecting maybe 8–10 to actually happen.

Step 4: Recruit Participants

Ana posts in the “Girls Gone International – Bucharest” Facebook group (popular among expats and locals) briefly describing she’s looking to chat with busy professionals who struggle with cooking – she gets a few interested comments and messages. She also asks a friend at a big tech company in Bucharest to share an internal Slack message recruiting interviewees (offering a 50 RON food voucher as thanks). This yields a handful of volunteers. She uses Google Forms for a quick screener as planned. From 20 responses, she filters down to 12 that fit well (and a few that were outside criteria, which she politely thanks and notes for possibly later – e.g. someone older who was very keen, etc.).

She reaches out and schedules 30-minute Zoom interviews in the evenings (since they work daytime). For scheduling, she uses Calendly to make it easy – blocking 7–9pm on a few weeknights and letting participants pick slots. She also schedules two interviews on a Saturday morning for those who prefer weekend.

For the survey, she creates a Google Form (or Typeform for nicer UX) with ~15 questions (multiple-choice and Likert mostly). She then sets up a Facebook Ad campaign with a small budget (say $30 over a week) targeting her demographic, with ad copy like: “Busy after work? No time to cook? Help us with a 3-minute survey about weeknight dinners and get a chance to win a 100 RON Uber Eats voucher.” This incentive and the targeting help drive clicks. She also posts the survey in the “Bucharest Tech Professionals” LinkedIn group and asks people to share.

Within a week, she gets about 120 responses. She closes the survey after reaching a nice round number and randomly picks a winner for the voucher to keep her promise (and announces it to participants).

Meanwhile, she set up a quick landing page using a tool like Launchrock or Carrd. It explains: “BucateAcasă – We deliver fresh ingredients and traditional recipes to your door. Cook a healthy dinner in 30 minutes, no planning needed!” with a nice food image. It has a sign-up form: “Get early access and a discount when we launch – enter email.” She drives a separate small ad campaign to this page to gauge conversion. Additionally, she includes the link at the end of the survey (“Would you like to sign up for early access?”). Over two weeks, 50 people enter their emails (some from survey, some from ads). That’s an encouraging sign of interest.

All interviewees showed up except one no-show (which she replaced with another person from the waitlist). She ended up with 9 interviews (30–40 min each). She gave each a 50 RON supermarket e-gift card as a thank you via email afterward (they were pleasantly surprised, building goodwill).

Step 5: Conduct the Research

During interviews, Ana follows her discussion guide. She starts with “Tell me about your typical evening on workdays – what do you do for dinner?” This opens them up. She listens as they describe their routines. She asks follow-ups like “How do you feel about cooking after a long day?” and “What are the biggest challenges for you with weeknight meals?” Without fail, time and fatigue come up. One quote: “By the time I’m home, it’s 8pm… honestly, I just want something quick or I’ll skip dinner or snack on bread.”

When introducing her concept, she is careful not to “sell” it. She phrases it neutrally: “There are services where you get a box with recipes and ingredients to cook at home. Have you heard of that? (some have via US or hearsay, many haven’t). How do you think something like that might fit into your life, if at all?” She gets a variety of responses: Some say that sounds great (“I like cooking but hate the prep and shopping, so that could be ideal”). Others are hesitant (“Depends on price… if it’s too expensive, I might as well order ready food”). She notes down objections like cost, portion size (a single guy worried about kits usually being for 2 people), and whether recipes might be too hard.

She also does a mini concept test in the interview: showing a sample menu or recipe card design on screen to gauge reactions. One participant lights up at seeing a favorite Romanian dish (sarmale) offered as a 30-min version: “Oh, if I could make sarmale that fast, I’d love it!” Another says they actually prefer simpler grilled chicken-type meals on weekdays, nothing fancy.

Throughout, Ana practices the Mom Test principles – she doesn’t lead with “Would you buy my service for X?”, she instead asks “What do you usually spend on dinner when you cook vs. order?” and later “If a service like this delivered 3 dinners a week for, say, 150 RON per week – what’s your reaction to that price?” Some people compare it to their grocery spend (“I spend maybe 100 RON a week on groceries for dinners, so 150 is higher but maybe for convenience… hmm”), others compare to eating out (“If it’s 50 RON per meal, that’s about what I pay for takeout, so not bad if it’s good quality”).

She diligently takes notes, flagging exact phrases. She notices multiple interviewees mention lack of planning: “The hardest part is deciding what to cook and having all the stuff – I often realize I’m missing an ingredient.” This is validation for the value of meal kits (they remove planning/shopping).

After interviews, she has a good feeling – the problem is real for almost all of them, interest level varied but mostly positive if price/quality are right.

The survey data rolls in and she monitors key results:

• 78% of respondents say they agree or strongly agree that “I struggle to find time or energy to cook on weekdays” – confirming her core problem statement is widespread.
• Only 12% have ever tried a meal kit (as expected, since it’s new locally), but 64% say they would be interested in trying one if available. When asked why, the top selected reasons are “to save time on meal prep” (70%) and “to eat healthier home-cooked meals” (50%). This aligns with her hypothesis that time and health are key drivers.
• Biggest concerns from a list: “cost might be too high” (60% selected), “might not like the recipes” (45%), “still have to cook and clean” (30%). Interesting insight: the cooking/cleaning is still a concern for some – meaning even with meal kits, some would rather have fully prepared food. But most seem to accept cooking as okay if it’s easy; cost is a more universal concern.
• Desired features: The survey asked “What would be most important if you were to use a meal kit?” and allowed multiple picks. #1 was “Affordable price” (no surprise), #2 “Recipes that are quick (under 30 min)”, #3 “High quality fresh ingredients”, #4 “Traditional Romanian options” – notably, 40% picked Romanian recipes as a plus, indicating local cuisine is appealing (perhaps people are bored with only pasta/pizza options from other services). Only 10% picked “exotic new recipes” – a sign that her audience might prefer familiar meals over adventurous cooking on weekdays.
• Willingness to pay: She included a question “What’s the maximum you’d pay for 3 dinner kits (2 servings each) per week?” with ranges. The most common choice was “100–149 RON” (about 50% chose this). About 30% chose “150–199 RON”. Very few chose “200+” and some chose “<100” (perhaps thinking per month, or just very price-sensitive). So it looks like the sweet spot might be a bit lower than her initial 150–200 assumption; she might need to aim closer to 120–150 RON range for wider acceptance.

The landing page test: out of roughly 300 ad clicks, 40 signed up (a ~13% conversion). Given not everyone who clicked is target (ads can misfire), it’s not bad. It shows some real interest – 40 potential early customers. She notices many sign-ups came after she added a line “Introductory price ~ from 120 RON/week” on the page – possibly addressing the price question helped conversion.

Step 6: Analyze & Synthesize Findings

Ana now has a wealth of information. She uses an affinity mapping approach for the qualitative interview data:

She writes down key quotes and observations on sticky notes (in Miro). For instance:

• “By the time I get home at 8, I’m too tired to cook” (User 3)
• “I mostly order pizza or Chinese during the week” (User 5)
• “I hate grocery shopping, I’d pay to not have to do it” (User 2)
• “150 RON a week… hmm maybe if it saves me time, but it’s a bit high” (User 7)
• “If it’s Romanian food, that’s cool – I miss home-cooked meals” (User 1, a single guy who lives alone)
• “My wife and I would try it if it’s healthy, but our kid is picky – that’s an issue” (User 6, a parent)
• “I tried something similar in the US on a business trip, it was fun but portions were small” (User 4)
• “The recipes – I’d want to see them first, what if I don’t like the dishes?” (User 8)
• “Cleaning up is still on me – but at least less chopping maybe” (User 9)

She clusters these into themes:

1. Time & Convenience: Almost everyone mentioned being too busy or tired to cook often. Many explicitly said they want to save time (this aligns with 70% survey selecting time-saving). This theme validates the core problem and value prop (Theme label: “No time to cook – need convenient solution”).
2. Shopping/Planning Pain: Lots of remarks about hating grocery shopping and planning meals. E.g., the note about paying to avoid shopping, or missing ingredients problem. This indicates meal kits solving the planning & shopping headache is a strong selling point to emphasize.
3. Price Sensitivity: Many comments around price – people consistently react that ~150 RON is somewhat high, and survey data quantifies that expectation around ~120 RON is more comfortable. Theme: “Price must be reasonable (comparable to grocery or slightly above, otherwise concern).”
4. Local Food Desire: A few notes (and survey stat 40%) highlight interest in traditional or familiar meals. The guy who said he misses home-cooked Romanian meals stands out. This suggests a potential differentiator: offering Romanian favorites could be a selling point in this market (whereas global kits often emphasize international recipes).
5. Quality & Health: Implied in some responses (“healthy” mention, wanting fresh ingredients). People do care that it’s healthy, home-cooked – that’s part of the appeal over fast food. The survey also had quality as a top 3 factor. So ensuring quality produce and marketing the health aspect is important.
6. Remaining Pain Points: Cooking and cleaning aren’t completely eliminated by meal kits. Some noted that as a drawback (“still have to cook/clean”). So maybe positioning needs to acknowledge “you still cook, but it’s simpler and faster, and no meal planning.” Also maybe the service could do something like minimize dishes (one-pan recipes, etc.) to tackle the cleanup pain.
7. Family/Picky Eaters: In the few parent interviews, an extra challenge emerged: kids’ tastes. That is an insight: if targeting families later, need to have kid-friendly options. For now, maybe she’ll focus on singles/couples, but it’s noted.
8. Portion size & Satisfaction: One person with prior experience said portions were small. That’s a hint to ensure the portions are filling or at least manage expectations. It also might correlate with why singles might like it (if portions for 2, a single person can get two meals out of one kit, making it more value for them).
9. Need to see recipes/choice: A pattern she noticed: some want to choose their meals or at least know if they’ll like them. In the survey, she also asked if people prefer a set menu vs choice – about 65% said they’d want to pick from options rather than a fixed set. This means her model should allow some customization or preview of menu to address that concern (people don’t want to pay for meals they might not enjoy).

She tallies quant data and integrates with these themes:

• Demand Validation: High interest (64% would try) and problem acknowledged by ~78%. Conclusion: Demand exists among target segment. Hypothesis that busy pros want this is supported strongly .
• Value Prop (Time-saving) Validation: Both qual and quant confirm time-saving is key. One interview quote: “I’d pay to not shop” and survey top reason saving time . So unique value is indeed convenience. Her initial hypothesis about convenience being compelling is validated.
• Price Hypothesis Adjustment: She hypothesized 150–200 RON/week might be fine; data says target is more like 100–150. So she will need to see if she can offer a plan around 130 RON perhaps. Or consider smaller 2-meal plans for <100 RON as entry level. Price hypothesis as initially stated is partially invalidated – needs adjustment.
• Segment Focus Confirmation: The interviews with singles/couples were mostly positive, whereas the parents showed more hesitance (price and kids issues). Survey also showed interest was a bit lower among those who indicated having 1+ child (she had a question on household). So her instinct to focus on young professionals first seems right. The “Mihai” persona is validated as a strong early adopter: good income, time-starved, already ordering takeout (so spending money on food).
• Feature Preferences: Quick recipes (under 30min) is critical – validated by 2nd highest factor and interview comments. So she must ensure all recipes meet that. Local/traditional recipes appeal – that could be a USP against international competitors if they ever enter. Health is important but might be a given expectation in home-cooking.
• Channels: She hypothesized reaching people via social media and referrals. The fact that she successfully recruited via Facebook and got survey respondents that way shows social can reach them. Not much direct data on referrals yet, but one interviewee said “I heard of HelloFresh from a friend abroad.” So word-of-mouth will likely be important once she has customers. No contradicting evidence; she’ll keep that hypothesis.

She uses a competitive matrix to place herself vs alternatives: e.g. columns for “Home-cooking (DIY)”, “Takeout/Delivery”, “Meal Kit (us)”, and rows like “Time required”, “Healthiness”, “Cost per meal”, “Variety”, “Effort”, etc. From research: Home-cooking = healthy, variety as you want, but high time/effort. Takeout = low effort, but can be unhealthy/expensive. Meal Kit aims to sit in the middle: moderate effort, healthy, moderate cost, convenience of not shopping. This helps her articulate her positioning clearly.

Step 7: Draw Conclusions and Next Steps

Conclusions:

• There is a real need and interest in a meal-kit service among young professionals in Bucharest. This validates moving forward with the concept.
• The core value proposition (convenience + home-cooked meal) is confirmed. Marketing should heavily emphasize “save time – no grocery or planning” because that resonated most .
• Price sensitivity is higher than initially thought. To succeed, the service likely needs to be priced closer to what people already spend on food. Many are unwilling to pay a large premium just for convenience. Thus, next step: re-evaluate cost structure to hit ~50 RON/meal or less. Possibly start with 2-meal or 3-meal weekly plans around 120–150 RON. Also consider strategies like introductory discounts to get people to try.
• Target Segment focus: The primary target should be single professionals and young couples without kids, who have disposable income and fewer complexities. Secondary segment (families) might require adaptations (kid-friendly recipes, lower pricing) and can be addressed later. This focus will refine marketing and product development (e.g. portion sizes optimized for 2 servings works well for singles (leftovers) or couples, but for families you’d need 4-serving kits).
• Menu and Product: Emphasize quick, easy recipes – promise “ready in 30 minutes” as a key feature. Incorporate local favorite dishes alongside some variety; this local touch could differentiate the brand and increase emotional appeal (several people loved the idea of getting traditional dishes conveniently). Also, allow customers to choose their meals each week or at least exclude ones they don’t like – personalization will improve satisfaction.
• Marketing Messaging: Use language that mirrors what people said. E.g. “No time to cook? Hate grocery shopping? Try BucateAcasă – we do the planning and shopping for you, so you can cook a healthy meal in 30 minutes.” Include testimonials from concept test or early trial: e.g. “It felt like a home-cooked Romanian meal, without the usual hassle.” Highlight pain point resolution (time, planning) and benefit (healthy, home-made). Also address the common objection upfront: mention pricing in a positive light (“from just 40 RON per serving” or “cheaper than takeout, healthier than fast food”) to frame it vs alternatives.
• Product Adjustments: Since cleaning was mentioned, maybe include tips to minimize cleanup (like provide a disposable baking sheet or ensure most recipes use one pot). It’s a small operational detail but could delight customers who notice the service truly tries to make cooking easier in all aspects.
• Pilot Program: As a next step, Ana decides to run a small pilot with 10-20 users to further test the concept with real product. Many interviewees expressed interest; she can follow up with those who gave emails (from landing page or interviews) to be beta users at a discount. The pilot will let her validate operational aspects and get feedback on actual meals, which can then be iterated.
• Metrics to watch: She will treat sign-ups and retention of those pilot users as a proof of concept. Research indicated interest, but will people stick beyond a week or two? She’ll gather their feedback in another round of interviews or surveys after a couple of deliveries.

She also addresses unanswered questions: For instance, she’s curious whether offering a 2 servings vs 4 servings option would change perceived value (some singles might prefer 2, but others liked leftovers). She might experiment in the pilot. Another question: best channels to scale acquisition? Her research suggests Facebook/Instagram ads worked for awareness. She might also try refer-a-friend incentives in pilot to see if users will recruit others (since word-of-mouth is powerful in such products).

Next Steps Action Plan:

1. Adjust business model for pricing: re-calc ingredient sourcing to hit a <150 RON cost. Possibly reduce portion size slightly or negotiate with suppliers.
2. Develop 5-day pilot menu (with local favorites included) and procure ingredients for a test run.
3. Onboard 10-15 pilot users (already have ~40 leads, so recruiting 15 out of them with a special offer should be doable).
4. Build MVP ordering system (could be as simple as a form or emailing menu choices initially).
5. Deliver pilot kits for 2 weeks. Collect feedback after week 1 and week 2 via short survey and follow-up interviews.
6. Iterate on any glaring issues (e.g. if one recipe was too hard or not tasty, adjust).
7. Prepare for official launch or larger beta, using the refined product and messaging.
8. Continue investor discussions armed with this research: highlight validated demand (e.g. “X% of surveyed target users interested, Y people already signed up for pilot”) and show you’ve honed the model (e.g. “We discovered optimal price point and key features through research”).

Step 8: Iterate

After the pilot, Ana will do another round of analysis. Suppose the pilot reveals, say, that users loved the convenience but maybe portion sizes were indeed a bit small for some – she’ll tweak recipes. Or maybe everyone keeps complaining about the cooking time still being 40 minutes – then she knows she needs to simplify recipes further or pre-chop ingredients.

She’ll also keep an eye on market trends: if a big international player announces entry to the market, she might pivot to emphasize local cuisine even more. Or if user research later shows environmental concerns (all that packaging in kits), she might adapt with a recycling program – but these are future iterations.

Crucially, Ana establishes a habit of continuous customer engagement. She sets up a feedback channel (perhaps a Facebook group for her early customers or a feedback form every delivery) to constantly learn. She plans periodic check-ins, like quarterly surveys to all active customers to gauge satisfaction and solicit ideas for new recipes or improvements.

Over time, as her startup grows, she’ll conduct new research for new questions: e.g., exploring expansion to other cities (do people in Cluj or Sofia have similar needs?), or researching the family segment when she’s ready to broaden (maybe running a focus group with parents to design a family-friendly meal kit offering).

In essence, Ana’s startup journey is now intertwined with ongoing research. By systematically conducting market research, she moved from a gut-feel idea to a validated concept with a clear target audience, honed value proposition, and actionable plan. This rigor not only increases her chances of product–market fit but also gives her a compelling, evidence-based story to tell investors: she can show the data behind her decisions and that she’s deeply in tune with her customers.

The case of Ana’s “BucateAcasă” illustrates how each research step informs the next. Your own startup’s research will be different, but the process of hypothesize → test → learn → iterate remains the same. By following these steps, you ensure that your venture is continually guided by the market and customers – which is the surest path to building something people truly want.

‍