Case study: Deodorant category
What is an aluminum-free claim really worth?
Sapien measured how eight common deodorant claims change consumer choice, estimated the premium each claim supports, and compared those premiums with pricing observed on the shelf. The results separate the claims that carry real value from the ones the category overprices.
What we found
Sapien estimated that an aluminum-free deodorant claim supports a +$0.42 premium, compared with a human conjoint estimate of +$1.97.
Observed shelf pricing suggests an effective market premium of approximately +$0.30 per equivalent stick. Against that commercial benchmark, Sapien came substantially closer to the value brands appear able to capture in the market.
Sapien’s estimate was only $0.12 above the observed premium, while the human conjoint estimate was $1.67 above it. On an absolute-error basis, Sapien was approximately 14× closer to observed shelf pricing.
Aluminum-free premium, dollars per equivalent stick
Human research measured a strong theoretical preference. Sapien more closely approximated the value the market actually captured.
The figures
Interpreting the result
The benchmark human study measured the value of aluminum presence as −$1.97. Because Sapien tested the attribute as aluminum-free, the equivalent human willingness-to-pay benchmark is +$1.97. Sapien estimated the same claim at +$0.42.
At first glance, this appears to be a substantial understatement relative to the human study. Shelf pricing, however, suggests that the human estimate overstates the premium consumers actually pay. Stated-preference research is known to inflate willingness to pay: respondents spend hypothetical money under controlled trade-offs, with none of the friction of a real purchase.
Across comparable mainstream deodorant products, aluminum-free variants frequently sell at the same package price as conventional alternatives, sometimes with a smaller package size. After accounting for these differences, a reasonable estimate of the realized shelf premium is approximately +$0.30 per equivalent stick.
Sapien’s +$0.42 estimate therefore came within $0.12 of observed market pricing. The human estimate was $1.67 higher than the market benchmark.
This does not necessarily mean the human estimate is incorrect. Conjoint research measures the value consumers assign to an attribute under controlled trade-offs, while shelf pricing also reflects competition, retailer strategy, production costs, brand positioning, and promotions. But when the commercial question is how much of a claim’s value currently appears in market pricing, Sapien was much closer to reality.
Sapien versus human research
Across the attributes tested in the underlying research, Sapien and human conjoint agreed on the direction of every effect: positive claims stayed positive, negative concepts stayed negative. Magnitudes diverged in both directions, which is why direction and ranking are the reliable outputs, and exact premiums call for a market benchmark.
Willingness-to-pay estimates in dollars. Every point shares its sign across both methods.
The other claims tested
Aluminum-free was one of eight claims tested against the same simulated population. The full report ranks every claim by willingness to pay and states the premium each one supports.
Relative willingness to pay. Full ranking in the report
Commercial takeaway
Human research suggested that aluminum-free deodorant could support a premium of +$1.97. Observed shelf pricing suggests the market currently captures closer to +$0.30. Sapien estimated +$0.42, placing it only $0.12 away from the observed market premium and approximately 14× closer than the human conjoint estimate on an absolute-error basis.
Human research measured a strong theoretical preference. Sapien priced the claim the way the market does.
Get the full analysis
Every figure, the full comparison with human research, and where the premium actually sits.
Tell us where to send it. The full analysis PDF arrives in your inbox within minutes.