CPG Concept Testing Discussion Guide Template

This is a ready-to-use discussion guide template for CPG concept testing interviews, structured for 30-minute conversations with verified CPG category purchasers. The CPG spine is built around stimulus exposure mechanics (concept board / packaging mockup / on-shelf framing), a 13-question five-section guide, and a post-interview coding sheet that quantifies appeal level, barrier severity, price perception, and shelf-displacement target. The template works for both monadic and sequential designs and can be moderated by a human researcher or by an AI moderator running hundreds of conversations in parallel. For the agency variant organized as a five-phase laddering framework optimized for cross-client portability and Level 5 identity reasoning, see the agency concept testing discussion guide template.

The guide is field-ready as written. Replace the bracketed fields in the pre-interview setup with study-specific inputs (research objective, concept format, presentation method, screening criteria), then run it. For the full methodology behind why this structure works, see the complete concept testing guide. For broader context on running AI-moderated qualitative research, see the complete guide to AI customer interviews.

Pre-Interview Setup

Configure these fields before launching fieldwork:

• Research objective: [State the specific decision this test informs]
• Concept format: [Concept board / packaging mockup / text description / video prototype]
• Presentation method: [Show on screen / read description / show physical sample]
• Design: [Monadic (one concept per participant) / Sequential (multiple concepts)]
• Target sample: [N] verified [category] purchasers who [screening criteria]
• Screening filters: Category purchase in last 30 days, primary household shopper, category spend tier
• Stimulus order: [If sequential, list rotation pattern to control order effects]

The pre-interview setup is where most concept tests are won or lost. A discussion guide cannot rescue a study that recruits the wrong respondents or presents stimulus the participant cannot evaluate. Spend more time here than feels comfortable.

How long should the discussion guide be?

Thirty minutes is the sweet spot. Shorter interviews skip the laddering that surfaces why behind the what. Longer interviews fatigue respondents and degrade response quality after the 35-minute mark. The five-section structure below allocates time deliberately: 5 minutes for category context, 5 for initial reaction, 10 for detailed evaluation, 5 for purchase consideration, and 5 for improvement and closure.

If you need to compress to 20 minutes, drop the category context section and start with concept exposure. If you have 45 minutes, expand the detailed evaluation section with additional laddering depth rather than adding new questions elsewhere.

Section 1: Category Context (5 minutes)

Purpose: Establish the competitive context and current purchase behavior before concept exposure. This grounds the evaluation in real behavior rather than hypothetical preferences.

Q1. “Walk me through your typical buying pattern in [category]. How often do you buy, where do you shop for it, and what influences your choice?”

Probing paths:

• If habitual buyer: “How long have you been buying that brand? What keeps you coming back?”
• If variety seeker: “How do you decide which brand to buy on any given trip?”
• If price-sensitive: “How do deals and promotions affect what you choose?”

Q2. “What is your go-to product in [category] right now? What makes it your go-to?”

Probing paths:

• “What would your go-to need to do differently to lose its spot?”
• “Have you switched go-to products in the past year? What caused it?”

Coding note: Record current brand, purchase frequency, channel, primary decision driver.

Section 2: Initial Reaction (5 minutes)

Purpose: Capture uncontaminated first impressions before structured evaluation pulls the respondent into rational mode.

[Present concept]

Q3. “Tell me your initial reaction to this in your own words.”

Probing paths:

• “What was the very first thing you noticed?”
• “What does this remind you of?”
• “If you had to describe this to a friend in one sentence, what would you say?”

Q4. “What do you think this product is trying to be? Who do you think it is for?”

Probing paths:

• “What makes you say that?”
• “Do you see yourself as someone this is for? Why or why not?”

Coding note: Record spontaneous language, perceived category, perceived target. Flag any misalignment with intended positioning.

Section 3: Detailed Evaluation (10 minutes)

Purpose: Evaluate appeal, differentiation, and barriers with laddering depth that moves from attribute to functional benefit to emotional benefit to personal value.

Q5. “What is the single best thing about this concept?”

Probing (ladder up):

• “Why is that important to you?” (Functional benefit)
• “What does that give you that other products do not?” (Emotional benefit)
• “Why does that matter in your life?” (Personal value)

Q6. “What concerns or hesitations would you have about trying this for the first time?”

Probing paths:

• “What would it take to overcome that concern?”
• “Have you had a bad experience trying something new in this category?”
• “Is that a dealbreaker or something you could live with?”

Q7. “How is this different from anything else you have seen in [category]?”

Probing paths:

• “Is that difference important to you? Would you pay more for it?”
• “Does this feel like a real innovation or just a different version of what exists?”

Q8. “What about this concept is unclear or confusing?”

Probing paths:

• “What additional information would you need before buying?”
• “What are you assuming about this product that may or may not be true?”

Coding note: Record primary appeal (attribute, functional benefit, emotional benefit, value level), primary barrier (type and severity), perceived differentiation (unique/marginal/none).

Section 4: Purchase Consideration (5 minutes)

Purpose: Assess realistic purchase intent, price sensitivity, and competitive displacement — the questions that determine whether the concept will sell, not just whether respondents like it.

Q9. “If this product were priced at [price], how does that feel relative to what you normally pay in [category]?”

Probing paths:

• “What would you expect a product like this to cost?”
• “At what price would this be a no-brainer? At what price would you question quality?”

Q10. “Imagine you see this on the shelf next to what you usually buy. What would make you pick it up? What might make you pass?”

Probing paths:

• “What specifically about it would catch your attention versus the brands around it?”
• “What would this product need to change for you to try it?”

Q11. “If you tried this and liked it, what would it replace in your regular rotation?”

Probing paths:

• “What is not quite right about that product that this one could fix?”
• “How many tries would it take before this became your go-to?”

Coding note: Record price perception (high/fair/low), pickup likelihood (high/medium/low), displacement target (brand and reason).

Section 5: Improvement and Closure (5 minutes)

Purpose: Identify optimization opportunities and capture overall assessment in language usable for stakeholder reporting.

Q12. “What one change would make this concept significantly more appealing to you?”

Probing paths:

• “How much of a difference would that change make?”
• “Is there anything else you would change?”

Q13. “On a scale of ‘I would walk right past it’ to ‘I would stop and pick it up,’ where does this land? And what would move it one step higher?”

Coding note: Record overall assessment, primary improvement suggestion, and the specific change that would increase purchase likelihood.

Post-Interview Analysis Coding Sheet

For each interview, code these dimensions consistently across the full sample so that qualitative findings can be quantified and reported.

Consistent coding across all interviews is what lets you report findings as “14 of 20 respondents flagged portion size as a barrier” rather than “respondents mentioned portion size concerns.” The first version drives action; the second invites debate.

Running concept-test discussion guides on User Intuition

Laddering is where a hand-fielded version of this template most often breaks down — Q5’s climb from attribute to functional benefit to emotional benefit to personal value depends on a moderator catching each respondent’s exact phrasing and pulling on it, conversation after conversation, without tiring or improvising. User Intuition’s AI moderator runs that laddering logic identically across every interview in the study: it displays the concept stimulus (board, packaging mockup, or descriptive text), follows the five-section timing, and probes the specific words a respondent uses rather than reading a fixed follow-up. For concept testing work, that consistency is the differentiator — it is what lets the post-interview coding sheet hold up, because every transcript was probed to comparable depth and you can defensibly report “14 of 20 flagged portion size” rather than guessing whether interviewer skill varied across the sample. Concepts that need monadic isolation, sequential rotation, or hundreds of conversations in parallel all run on the same engine, with verified category purchasers recruited per study. The fastest way to see whether the laddering depth meets your bar is to book a demo and watch the moderator probe a live concept.

For the methodology behind monadic versus sequential design choices that shape how this guide is fielded, see monadic vs. sequential concept testing. For sample size guidance, see consumer concept test sample size. For an agency adaptation of this template, see the agency concept testing discussion guide template.

Launch a study or book a demo to field this discussion guide with verified CPG purchasers in your category.