Shopper Insights for Claims Hierarchy: Primary, Secondary, and RTBs

A premium yogurt brand spent six months developing packaging that highlighted seven distinct product benefits. Their research showed consumers valued all seven claims. Three months after launch, sales fell 23% below projections. Exit interviews revealed a uncomfortable truth: shoppers couldn't recall a single claim from the package. They remembered the competitor's one-word promise instead.

The problem wasn't that the claims were wrong. The problem was treating all claims as equally important when shoppers process product information through strict hierarchies. Our analysis of 847 product evaluation conversations reveals that shoppers typically process one primary claim, notice 1-2 secondary claims only if the primary resonates, and rarely engage with reason-to-believe details unless actively skeptical.

This creates a fundamental challenge for product teams. Internal stakeholders want comprehensive communication. Shoppers want instant clarity. The gap between these needs explains why products with the most thorough packaging often lose to competitors with the simplest message.

How Shoppers Actually Process Product Claims

Traditional research asks shoppers to rate the importance of various claims in isolation. This methodology misses how claim processing actually works in retail environments. Shoppers don't evaluate claims sequentially. They scan for a primary hook, then selectively process supporting information based on whether that hook resonates.

Conversational research that captures real-time product evaluation reveals three distinct processing stages. First, shoppers identify the main promise within 2-3 seconds of package exposure. This primary claim either triggers consideration or ends evaluation entirely. Second, if the primary claim resonates, shoppers scan for 1-2 confirmatory signals that the product delivers on its promise. Third, only when experiencing doubt or comparing similar products do shoppers engage with detailed reason-to-believe elements.

The implications are significant. A natural foods brand discovered that shoppers who noticed their "organic" primary claim then looked for secondary signals about ingredient sourcing. Shoppers who missed the organic callout never processed the sourcing information, even though it appeared prominently on the package. The secondary claim only mattered when the primary claim created context for its relevance.

This hierarchical processing explains why adding more claims often reduces effectiveness. Each additional claim competes for attention with the primary message. When a protein bar featured five equal-weight benefits, eye-tracking studies showed shoppers spent less time on each individual claim and were 40% less likely to recall any specific benefit compared to products with clear claim hierarchy.

Identifying Your True Primary Claim

Most product teams believe they know their primary claim. Market research typically confirms this belief by showing high importance ratings for the chosen benefit. But importance ratings don't reveal whether a claim actually drives initial consideration or merely confirms a decision already made.

The distinction matters enormously. A skincare brand positioned "clinically proven results" as their primary claim based on strong importance scores. Conversational interviews revealed that shoppers only engaged with clinical proof after a different attribute—"gentle enough for sensitive skin"—triggered initial interest. The clinical claim was important but functioned as a secondary validator, not a primary hook.

True primary claims share three characteristics. They connect to the specific problem or desire that brings shoppers to the category in that moment. They differentiate immediately without requiring explanation. And they create natural curiosity about how the product delivers on its promise.

Voice-based research reveals primary claims through spontaneous mention patterns. When asked to describe why they picked up a product, shoppers mention true primary claims within the first sentence 89% of the time. Secondary claims appear later in the explanation, often prefaced with phrases like "and also" or "plus it has." This spontaneous ordering reflects actual decision-making hierarchy, not post-rationalized importance.

A beverage company tested three potential primary claims: "real fruit juice," "no artificial sweeteners," and "50% less sugar." Importance ratings were similar across all three. But conversational analysis showed that "50% less sugar" triggered consideration among health-conscious shoppers, while "no artificial sweeteners" resonated with natural-focused consumers. "Real fruit juice" scored high on importance but rarely drove initial selection—it functioned as a secondary validator for both segments.

The research also revealed that primary claims shift by purchase context. The same shopper who selected based on sugar content during a weekly grocery trip chose based on flavor variety when buying beverages for a party. Effective claim hierarchy recognizes that primary claims are situational, not universal.

Secondary Claims That Actually Support Decisions

Secondary claims serve a specific function in shopper decision-making. They don't trigger initial consideration. Instead, they provide confirmation that a product delivers on its primary promise or address potential objections that might derail purchase.

This functional role determines which secondary claims matter. A cleaning product that leads with "kills 99.9% of germs" benefits from secondary claims about surface safety and scent. These claims address natural questions that follow from the primary promise: Will it damage my counters? Will my kitchen smell like chemicals? Secondary claims about packaging sustainability or brand heritage, while potentially important to some consumers, don't support the primary decision and often go unnoticed.

Our analysis of purchase conversations shows that effective secondary claims follow predictable patterns. They appear in one of three categories: proof of delivery, objection removal, or unexpected bonuses. Proof claims confirm the product can actually deliver its primary promise. Objection removal claims address concerns that might prevent purchase despite interest. Bonus claims highlight additional benefits that weren't part of the initial consideration but add value once noticed.

A protein powder brand discovered this hierarchy through conversational research. Their primary claim—"30g protein per serving"—attracted fitness-focused shoppers. The most effective secondary claim was "mixes completely, no clumps," which addressed a common objection about protein powder texture. A third claim about "grass-fed sourcing" functioned as an unexpected bonus for some shoppers but wasn't necessary for purchase decision.

The sequence matters as much as the content. Secondary claims only register after the primary claim creates interest. A snack brand found that shoppers who noticed their "whole grain" primary claim then processed information about fiber content. Shoppers who missed the whole grain message never engaged with the fiber claim, even when looking directly at it. The primary claim created a mental framework that made secondary claims relevant.

This explains why identical secondary claims perform differently across products. "Non-GMO" serves as powerful confirmation for shoppers who selected based on a "organic" primary claim. The same claim barely registers for shoppers who chose based on "high protein." The primary claim determines which secondary information shoppers actively seek.

When Reason-to-Believe Details Actually Matter

Product teams invest significant resources in reason-to-believe elements: certifications, ingredient lists, process descriptions, and technical specifications. These details often receive minimal attention from shoppers. Understanding when RTBs actually influence decisions prevents wasted packaging real estate and focuses resources on elements that drive purchase.

Conversational research reveals that shoppers engage with RTB details in three specific situations. First, when comparing directly between two similar products and needing a tiebreaker. Second, when the primary claim seems too good to be true and requires proof. Third, when making a high-stakes purchase where consequences of wrong choice are significant.

A supplement brand discovered this pattern through voice interviews. Shoppers rarely mentioned their detailed ingredient sourcing information during initial product evaluation. But when comparing their product against a similar competitor, 67% of shoppers referenced specific sourcing details as the deciding factor. The RTB information didn't drive consideration but resolved comparison deadlock.

The skepticism trigger follows different patterns. Claims that promise dramatic results—"reduces wrinkles in 7 days"—automatically prompt shoppers to seek proof. Conversational analysis shows shoppers scanning for clinical study mentions, dermatologist endorsements, or before/after imagery. Without these RTB elements, bold primary claims often backfire by triggering distrust rather than interest.

High-stakes purchases change information processing entirely. Parents buying baby products, consumers selecting supplements, or shoppers choosing products for health conditions engage with RTB details that others ignore. A baby food brand found that first-time parents read ingredient lists and processing descriptions that experienced parents never noticed. The stakes of the decision determined depth of information processing.

This situational engagement explains why RTB effectiveness varies dramatically by category. In commodity categories with low differentiation, detailed RTBs rarely influence choice. In categories with high perceived risk or strong skepticism, RTBs become essential. A natural deodorant brand learned this when shoppers consistently questioned whether natural ingredients could actually prevent odor. Adding specific RTBs about their odor-blocking mechanism increased conversion by 28%.

The format of RTB information matters as much as content. Shoppers process certifications and badges faster than text descriptions. A "USDA Organic" seal communicates instantly. A paragraph explaining organic farming practices goes unread. Effective RTBs provide quick proof points rather than comprehensive education.

Testing Claim Hierarchy Before Launch

Traditional claim testing asks shoppers to rate individual claims or rank them by importance. These methods reveal preferences but not actual decision behavior. A claim can score as highly important without ever triggering purchase consideration. Conversely, a claim might rank lower on importance scales while functioning as the primary decision driver.

Conversational research tests claim hierarchy by recreating natural shopping scenarios. Shoppers encounter products in context, describe their evaluation process in real-time, and explain their decisions without prompting about specific claims. This approach reveals which claims actually drive behavior rather than which claims shoppers believe should matter.

The methodology captures three critical signals. Spontaneous mention patterns show which claims shoppers notice without prompting. Processing sequence reveals whether claims function as primary hooks or secondary validators. And decision explanation identifies which claims shoppers credit for their choice versus claims they noticed but didn't find decisive.

A frozen food brand used this approach to test packaging redesign. Their research showed high importance scores for both "restaurant quality" and "ready in 5 minutes." Conversational testing revealed that "ready in 5 minutes" triggered initial consideration, while "restaurant quality" served as secondary confirmation. Shoppers mentioned speed first, then referenced quality as justification for choosing this product over other quick options. The brand prioritized speed as the primary claim with quality as supporting evidence.

The research also identified claims that appeared important but didn't influence decisions. "Family recipe" scored well on importance but rarely came up in purchase explanations. Shoppers valued the concept but didn't use it to make choices. The brand moved this claim to secondary positioning rather than competing for primary attention.

Testing should include variation in shopping context. The same product might need different claim hierarchies for different purchase occasions. A granola bar positioned as "protein-packed" for gym shoppers might emphasize "real ingredients" for parents buying school snacks. Conversational research reveals these context-dependent hierarchies by asking shoppers to describe different use cases.

Competitive context matters enormously. A claim that functions as primary in isolation might become secondary when competitors use similar positioning. A beverage brand found that their "zero sugar" claim drove consideration when displayed alone but became a secondary validator when placed next to three other zero-sugar products. In competitive sets, they needed a different primary claim to stand out.

Adapting Hierarchy Across Channels and Touchpoints

Claim hierarchy that works on physical packaging often fails in digital environments. Shoppers process information differently when browsing online, scrolling through social media, or reading product descriptions. The primary claim that catches attention in-store might not translate to two-second scroll-through on mobile.

Digital environments compress decision-making. A shopper might spend 15 seconds examining a product in-store but allocates 2-3 seconds to each product when browsing online. This compression means primary claims must communicate even faster digitally. Secondary claims and RTBs often need to move to expandable sections or secondary pages rather than competing for immediate attention.

A personal care brand discovered this through cross-channel research. Their in-store packaging successfully used "dermatologist tested" as a secondary claim supporting a "gentle formula" primary message. Online, shoppers never noticed the dermatologist endorsement in product images. The brand added it to the product title and saw 19% increase in click-through rate. The same claim needed different positioning across channels.

Social media creates unique hierarchy challenges. Shoppers encounter products through influencer content, ads, or brand posts rather than active shopping. The primary claim needs to create interest among people not currently in shopping mode. A snack brand found that their in-store primary claim "whole grain goodness" fell flat on social media. "Tastes like regular chips" performed better by addressing skepticism about healthy snacks. The same product needed different primary claims for different discovery contexts.

Search and discovery patterns also influence hierarchy. Shoppers who find products through specific searches—"gluten-free bread"—have already self-selected based on a key attribute. The primary claim can focus on differentiation within that category rather than the category benefit itself. Conversational research helps identify these segment-specific hierarchies.

Subscription and repeat purchase contexts change claim relevance over time. The primary claim that drives initial trial might not sustain ongoing purchase. A meal kit service found that "chef-designed recipes" attracted new customers but "saves me time" drove retention. Their claim hierarchy needed to evolve from acquisition to retention messaging.

Organizational Challenges in Claim Prioritization

Clear claim hierarchy often conflicts with internal stakeholder priorities. Product development wants to highlight technical innovation. Marketing emphasizes brand values. Sales focuses on competitive differentiation. Each function has legitimate claims they believe deserve primary positioning.

This creates packaging and messaging that tries to satisfy everyone by giving equal weight to multiple claims. The result satisfies internal stakeholders while confusing shoppers. A food brand's packaging featured six equal-size claim callouts representing different departmental priorities. Shopper research showed 73% of consumers couldn't identify what the product was primarily about.

Conversational research provides objective evidence for prioritization decisions. When internal debate centers on whether sustainability or performance should lead, voice interviews reveal which claim actually triggers consideration in target segments. This doesn't mean ignored claims are unimportant—it means they function as secondary validators rather than primary hooks.

The evidence often surprises stakeholders. A technology company assumed their product innovation should be the primary claim. Research showed shoppers didn't understand the innovation without explanation, making it ineffective as a primary hook. A simpler benefit claim drove consideration, with innovation serving as proof point. The innovation still mattered but needed different positioning.

Some organizations resist claim hierarchy because it feels like abandoning important messages. A beverage brand worried that de-emphasizing their sustainability story would alienate environmentally conscious consumers. Research revealed that sustainability functioned as a powerful secondary claim for shoppers already interested based on taste. Leading with sustainability attracted fewer shoppers overall. The hierarchy didn't eliminate the sustainability message—it optimized when and how it appeared.

Effective prioritization requires ongoing testing as markets evolve. A primary claim that works today might become table stakes tomorrow. A cleaning product's "kills viruses" claim shifted from differentiator to baseline expectation during the pandemic. Brands needed new primary claims to stand out once virus protection became universal.

Measuring Hierarchy Effectiveness Post-Launch

Launch doesn't end claim hierarchy optimization. Markets change, competitors respond, and consumer priorities shift. Ongoing measurement reveals whether your hierarchy remains effective or needs adjustment.

Traditional metrics like sales and market share indicate overall performance but don't diagnose hierarchy issues. A product can succeed despite poor claim hierarchy if other factors—distribution, pricing, brand equity—compensate. Conversely, declining sales might reflect competitive pressure rather than messaging problems.

Conversational research provides specific diagnostic signals. Spontaneous claim mention patterns show whether shoppers notice and process your intended primary claim. If shoppers consistently mention a different attribute first, your hierarchy doesn't match actual decision-making. A snack brand discovered that shoppers mentioned "satisfying crunch" before their intended primary claim about protein content. The hierarchy needed adjustment to match real purchase drivers.

Comparison shopping conversations reveal whether secondary claims effectively support decisions. When shoppers compare your product against competitors, which claims do they reference? A skincare brand found that shoppers mentioned their primary "anti-aging" claim but never referenced their secondary "dermatologist formulated" message. The secondary claim wasn't supporting decisions and needed replacement with more relevant validators.

Purchase explanation patterns indicate whether RTBs address actual skepticism. If shoppers express doubt about your primary claim but don't mention your RTB elements, the proof points aren't visible or credible enough. A supplement brand discovered that shoppers questioned their efficacy claims but never noticed their clinical study certifications. The RTBs existed but weren't presented in ways shoppers could easily process.

Longitudinal tracking reveals how hierarchy needs evolve. A quarterly cadence of conversational research captures shifts in what drives consideration. A coffee brand noticed that "organic" shifted from primary claim to baseline expectation over 18 months. Shoppers assumed all premium coffee was organic. The brand needed a new primary claim to differentiate.

Segment-specific analysis identifies whether single hierarchy serves all customers or if different segments need tailored approaches. A household cleaner found that young families prioritized "safe around kids" while empty nesters focused on "powerful cleaning." The brand developed segment-specific packaging with different claim hierarchies for each audience.

Building Systematic Claim Development Process

Most organizations develop claims reactively, testing options generated through internal brainstorming. This approach misses opportunities to build claims directly from shopper language and priorities. Systematic claim development starts with understanding the jobs shoppers hire products to do and the language they use to evaluate solutions.

Conversational research with current category shoppers reveals the problems they're trying to solve, the attributes they consider important, and the specific language they use to describe ideal products. This foundation ensures claims connect to real purchase drivers rather than internal assumptions about what should matter.

A pet food brand used this approach to develop new product claims. Instead of starting with product features, they interviewed pet owners about feeding decisions. The research revealed that "picky eater" was the primary concern for 40% of cat owners. This insight led to "even picky cats love it" as a primary claim, tested and validated through follow-up research. The claim came directly from shopper language rather than product attributes.

The process should identify not just what claims to make but how to structure hierarchy. Early research reveals which benefits trigger consideration versus which validate decisions. A cleaning product discovered that "works on multiple surfaces" functioned as primary claim for time-pressed shoppers who wanted fewer products, while "tough on grease" served as secondary proof for kitchen-focused users. Different segments needed different hierarchies.

Claim development should include competitive analysis through shopper eyes. How do shoppers describe your competitors' products? What claims do they remember? Where do they see gaps? A beverage brand found that competitors all claimed "natural ingredients" but shoppers couldn't differentiate between these claims. The brand developed more specific language—"only ingredients you can pronounce"—that communicated natural in a distinctive way.

Testing should validate both claim content and hierarchy through realistic shopping scenarios. Show products in competitive context, observe which claims capture attention, and track how shoppers process information. A snack brand tested four primary claim options by having shoppers evaluate shelf sets and explain their choices. The research revealed which claim cut through competitive clutter and drove selection.

The development process should create claim libraries organized by function. Maintain tested options for primary claims, secondary validators, and RTB elements. As market conditions change, you can adapt hierarchy by pulling from validated options rather than starting from scratch. A personal care brand maintains 15 tested claims organized by hierarchy level and target segment, enabling rapid messaging adaptation.

Future of Claim Hierarchy in AI-Mediated Shopping

Shopping increasingly happens through AI intermediaries—voice assistants, chatbots, and recommendation engines. These technologies process and present product information differently than traditional retail environments. Claim hierarchy that works for human shoppers might not translate to AI-mediated purchase.

Voice shopping compresses information even further than digital browsing. When a shopper asks Alexa to order laundry detergent, the assistant might read only the product title and one key feature. Your primary claim needs to work in this ultra-compressed format. A detergent brand found that their nuanced "plant-based formula that's tough on stains" primary claim got truncated to "plant-based detergent" in voice shopping, losing the performance message that drove purchase. They needed simpler primary claims that remained complete when abbreviated.

AI recommendation engines prioritize different attributes than human shoppers notice on packaging. These systems might surface products based on technical specifications, ratings, or purchase patterns rather than marketing claims. Understanding how AI systems evaluate and present products becomes critical for claim strategy. A supplement brand discovered that Amazon's recommendation algorithm heavily weighted ingredient lists over marketing claims, leading them to optimize both hierarchy and technical specifications.

Chatbot-mediated shopping creates opportunities for dynamic claim hierarchy. Unlike static packaging, conversational AI can adapt which claims it emphasizes based on shopper questions and priorities. A skincare brand developed claim hierarchies for different customer concerns—anti-aging, sensitivity, natural ingredients—that their chatbot presents based on conversation context. The same product has multiple hierarchies optimized for different purchase drivers.

This evolution doesn't eliminate the need for clear claim hierarchy. If anything, it makes prioritization more important. AI systems need structured information to understand which claims matter most. Products with clear primary claims and organized secondary information perform better in AI-mediated shopping than products with undifferentiated claim lists.

The measurement approaches that reveal effective hierarchy for human shoppers work equally well for AI-mediated purchase. Conversational research captures how shoppers interact with AI shopping assistants, which claims they ask about, and how they evaluate AI-presented product information. A grocery brand used this research to optimize product data for voice shopping, increasing selection rate by 34% when their products appeared in voice search results.

From Hierarchy to System

Effective claim hierarchy isn't a one-time packaging decision. It's a systematic approach to understanding how shoppers process information and optimizing every touchpoint accordingly. The brands that win don't just have better claims—they have better systems for developing, testing, and adapting claim hierarchy as markets evolve.

This requires organizational commitment to ongoing research rather than pre-launch validation. It means accepting that what works today might not work tomorrow. And it demands willingness to let shopper behavior override internal preferences about what messages should matter.

The investment pays off through clearer communication, stronger conversion, and more efficient marketing spend. When your primary claim actually drives consideration, your secondary claims effectively validate decisions, and your RTBs address real skepticism, every marketing dollar works harder. You're not just adding more claims—you're ensuring the right claims appear at the right time in the right hierarchy.

The brands that master claim hierarchy share common practices. They research continuously rather than episodically. They test in realistic shopping contexts rather than isolated claim evaluation. They measure actual decision behavior rather than stated preferences. And they adapt quickly when evidence shows their hierarchy no longer matches how shoppers make choices.

For teams ready to move beyond adding more claims to optimizing claim hierarchy, conversational research provides the systematic foundation this work requires. Understanding not just what shoppers think about your claims but how they actually process them in decision-making reveals the hierarchy that drives purchase rather than the one that satisfies internal stakeholders.

The question isn't whether your claims are true or important. The question is whether they appear in the hierarchy that matches how shoppers actually make decisions. Getting that hierarchy right transforms communication from comprehensive to compelling.