{"id":1146,"date":"2026-05-12T07:05:48","date_gmt":"2026-05-12T07:05:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fisgroup.mastersofbrands.co.uk\/?post_type=service&p=1146"},"modified":"2026-05-29T18:12:52","modified_gmt":"2026-05-29T18:12:52","slug":"concept-screening","status":"publish","type":"service","link":"https:\/\/fisgroup.mastersofbrands.co.uk\/service\/create-and-refine\/concept-screening","title":{"rendered":"Concept Screening"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n\n
\n\n

Concept Screening<\/p>\n \n

Concept Screening for food and drink, structured prioritisation before investment commitment<\/h1>\n \n

Structured quantitative concept testing for food and drink innovation, designed to prioritise which concepts go forward into NPD investment, brand development or commercial commitment. Statistically robust methodology, food and drink-specific metrics, senior interpretation throughout. Built specifically as the decision gate between concept development and commercial investment.<\/p>\n \n \n Scope a screening project →<\/span>\n <\/a>\n \n <\/div>\n\n

\n \"\" <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n

What Concept Screening is actually for<\/h2>\n

Most innovation pipelines have more concepts than they can fund. The development pipeline holds twenty, the NPD pipeline can support five, the commercial budget will back two or three. The question is not whether to filter; it is whether to filter against defensible consumer evidence or against internal preference and gut feel. Without the consumer-validated prioritisation, investment decisions get made on whichever concepts have the loudest internal champions, and the pipeline returns suffer from a selection bias the leadership team cannot defend in front of board, finance or investment committee scrutiny.<\/p>\n

The structural problem is that most concept testing is either too qualitative (focus group reactions that cannot scale to investment decisions) or too generic (standard concept-testing methodologies built for FMCG broadly, not for food and drink specifically). Both fail at the same point: the decision-grade evidence needed to commit real investment is not what comes back. Either the sample size is too small, the metrics miss what actually matters for food and drink concepts, or the interpretation is too thin to support commercial recommendations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n

\n

Concept Screening is the structured testing methodology designed specifically to be the decision gate before commercial investment. Quantitative sample sizes that support board and investment committee scrutiny. Food and drink-specific metrics that capture what actually matters for concepts in this sector (occasion fit, brand permission, distinctive ownership, purchase intent in context, not just generic appeal). Senior food and drink interpretation alongside the quantitative work. Output structured for investment decisions rather than for descriptive reporting.<\/p>\n

It is not the right tool for every brief. If the concepts are not yet developed enough to test credibly, Concept Labs is the right precursor: developing the concepts with consumers before they reach screening. If the brief is competitive comparison of many ideas at scale (a wider pool needing tournament-style methodology), Idea Testing is structurally different. If the brief is qualitative consumer reaction rather than quantitative prioritisation, focus groups or Concept Labs are more efficient. Concept Screening sits specifically when developed concepts need defensible prioritisation before investment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n \"\" <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n
\n
\n
\n\n
\n

What we do differently<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n
\n
\n\n
    \n\n \n
  1. \n Step 1<\/span>\n
    Decision-grade methodology, not generic concept research<\/h6>\n

    The structural difference between testing built for commercial decisions and testing built for descriptive reporting. Our screening is scoped backwards from the decision the work has to support: which concepts go forward into NPD development, which propositions get commercial commitment, which directions get brand investment. The sample sizes, the metrics, the cuts and the synthesis are all built around the decision rather than against a generic concept-testing template. The output is procurement-grade and investment-grade rather than analytical.<\/p>\n <\/li>\n

  2. \n Step 2<\/span>\n
    Food and drink-specific metrics, not FMCG generics<\/h6>\n

    Most concept testing applies generic FMCG metrics: appeal, uniqueness, purchase intent, brand fit. They work for some sectors. They miss what makes concepts succeed or fail in food and drink specifically: occasion fit, brand permission within the eating context, distinctive ownership against competitive set, role in the consumption repertoire, purchase intent measured against the actual moment rather than the generic question. Our metric framework is built around food and drink reality, which is why the screening results correlate more reliably with commercial performance in this sector.<\/p>\n <\/li>\n

  3. \n Step 3<\/span>\n
    Senior food and drink interpretation alongside the quantitative work<\/h6>\n

    The technical difficulty of concept screening is reading what the scores actually mean for commercial decisions rather than taking the scores at face value. A concept that screens at the top on appeal might fail at launch for reasons the appeal score did not capture. Senior food and drink specialists interpret the screening data against the real commercial reality of the sector, which is the layer that separates useful screening from a chart pack of scores. We do not deliver decks of numbers without the interpretation that translates them into commercial direction.<\/p>\n <\/li>\n

  4. \n Step 4<\/span>\n
    Output structured for investment decisions, not for descriptive reporting<\/h6>\n

    Every screening project closes with output scoped for the decision the work has to support: concept prioritisation against commercial criteria, defensible rationale for the recommendation, sizing implications, recommended sequencing for the priority concepts, transparent flagging of concepts that did not pass the screening bar. The deliverable is built for board, finance and investment committee scrutiny rather than for analytical internal consumption. The work pays for itself in the investment decision, not in the consumer evidence.<\/p>\n <\/li>\n \n <\/ol>\n \n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n

    \n
    \n
    \n\n
    \n

    What we use Concept Screening for<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n

    Prioritising developed concepts for NPD investment<\/h4>\n

    You have a set of developed concepts (typically from Concept Labs or from internal NPD work) and need defensible prioritisation before commercial investment is committed. Concept Screening tests the concepts at scale and delivers the prioritised set ready for NPD investment, with the rationale defensible against board or investment committee scrutiny.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

    \n
    \n

    Validating ideation output before commercial commitment<\/h4>\n

    You have ideation output from Creative Workshops or Hothouse work and need to screen the concepts at scale before commercial commitment is made. Where the concepts are already developed enough to test directly (rather than needing Labs development first), Screening provides the consumer validation that closes the decision gate before investment.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

    \n
    \n

    Brand and campaign proposition screening<\/h4>\n

    You are developing brand or campaign propositions and need consumer validation at scale to identify which propositions resonate most with the target audience before commercial commitment to direction. The screening surfaces the proposition winners and the rationale, in a form brand strategy and creative teams can build against.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

    \n
    \n

    Range concept screening for portfolio development<\/h4>\n

    You are developing a product range across a portfolio brand and need range-level screening that handles both the individual concepts and the range coherence. The screening methodology surfaces both: which concepts work as individual propositions and which work as a coherent range, with the implications for range architecture explicit in the output.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

    \n
    \n

    Pre-investment evidence build for board or finance audiences<\/h4>\n

    Your concepts need consumer-validated evidence before board, finance or investment committee will support the investment case. Concept Screening provides the structured evidence build, scoped for that audience: defensible sample sizes, transparent metrics, clear prioritisation logic, sizing implications grounded in consumer data rather than internal assumption.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

    \n
    \n

    Competitive concept screening (your concepts versus market alternatives)<\/h4>\n

    Your concepts need to be tested not just against each other but against current market alternatives or competitive concepts. Competitive screening structures the testing to include the competitive set, with the prioritisation logic accounting for where your concepts win, where they tie, and where the competitive set has the structural advantage. The output supports investment decisions that account for competitive context rather than concept performance in isolation.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n

    \n
    \n\n
      \n\n
    1. \n

      How a Concept Screening project runs<\/h2>\n

      From developed concepts to defensible prioritisation<\/h5>\n <\/li>\n \n
    2. \n Step 1<\/span>\n
      Scoping call.<\/h6>\n

      Twenty minutes on a call. You tell us the concepts to screen, where they came from (Concept Labs, ideation work, internal NPD, brand agency), the investment decision the screening has to support, the audience for the deliverable (board, NPD committee, brand leadership) and the timeline. We tell you whether Concept Screening is the right tool, what sample size makes sense, what metrics the brief implies, and roughly what it will cost. Where the concepts need Labs development before they can be screened credibly, or where Idea Testing would suit the brief better, we will recommend that honestly.<\/p>\n <\/li>\n

    3. \n Step 2<\/span>\n
      Screening design.<\/h6>\n

      The senior team designs the screening methodology specifically against the decision the work has to support: sample sizes, audience profiles and cuts, the food and drink-specific metric framework, the competitive context (where relevant), the cuts and the analytical approach. The design is signed off by the client before fieldwork starts, so the methodology is transparent and the analytical structure is agreed against the investment case the work feeds.<\/p>\n <\/li>\n

    4. \n Step 3<\/span>\n
      Fieldwork.<\/h6>\n

      Quantitative research through specialist food and drink panels and trusted recruit partners. Sample sizes scoped to deliver decision-grade evidence (typically four hundred to one thousand consumers per concept depending on the cuts required, larger for sub-cut robustness or international work). Concept stimulus presented at appropriate fidelity for the screening question. Full quality checks throughout.<\/p>\n <\/li>\n

    5. \n Step 4<\/span>\n
      Senior synthesis and interpretation.<\/h6>\n

      The senior team runs the analytical work and develops the interpretive layer: which concepts pass the screening bar, the rationale for prioritisation against the food and drink-specific metrics, the implications for development sequencing, the concepts that did not pass and the reasons why. The interpretation is what makes the screening commercially useful rather than just analytically complete, and is led by senior specialists who can read what the scores actually mean for commercial performance.<\/p>\n <\/li>\n

    6. \n Step 5<\/span>\n
      Decision-ready readout.<\/h6>\n

      A working readout session walking the team through the prioritisation and the rationale, followed by the full deliverable: prioritised concept set, screening detail per concept, defensible rationale, sizing implications where relevant, recommended sequencing, transparent flagging of concepts that did not pass. The deliverable is built for the decision audience (board, NPD committee, brand leadership, finance) and lands within three weeks of fieldwork completion.<\/p>\n <\/li>\n \n <\/ol>\n \n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n

      \n
      \n
      \n\n
      \n

      Five food and drink-specific screening metrics<\/h2>\n

      Five metrics. The framework that makes concept screening predict commercial performance in food and drink. Generic FMCG metric frameworks miss what actually matters for food and drink concepts. The five metrics below are the framework we screen against, designed specifically around what predicts commercial performance in this sector. Some briefs add additional cuts (range fit, channel-specific intent, competitive comparison); the five below are the foundation.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n

      \n\n
      \n\n
      \n
      \n

      Concept appeal and distinctive ownership<\/h2>\n

      Concept appeal<\/strong>
      The broad consumer interest signal: does the concept attract attention, does it have intuitive appeal, does it land in the consumer’s frame quickly. The foundation metric, but never used alone because high appeal without distinctive ownership or occasion fit predicts commercial under-performance more often than it predicts success.<\/p>\n

      Distinctive ownership<\/strong>
      Whether the concept owns a clear, distinctive space rather than competing on the same ground as everything else in the category. The metric that separates concepts that can build commercial defensibility from concepts that get absorbed into broader category noise. Particularly important for food and drink where category crowding limits the headroom for undifferentiated concepts.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n

      \n \"\" <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n<\/section>\n\n
      \n\n
      \n\n
      \n
      \n

      Occasion fit and brand permission<\/h2>\n

      Occasion fit<\/strong>
      How well the concept fits the specific eating or drinking moment it is designed for: breakfast routines, lunch behaviours, snacking patterns, evening meals, social occasions. The metric that captures whether the concept is built around real food and drink behaviour rather than category-level abstraction. The lens generic FMCG concept testing consistently misses.<\/p>\n

      Brand permission<\/strong>
      Whether the brand has credibility for the concept in the consumer’s mind, not as a generalised brand attribute but specifically in the occasion and proposition context the concept addresses. The metric that flags concepts that are good ideas attached to the wrong brand, and concepts that need brand work before they can be commercialised.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n

      \n \"\" <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n<\/section>\n\n
      \n\n
      \n\n
      \n
      \n

      Purchase intent in context<\/h2>\n

      Purchase intent measured against the actual purchase moment the concept addresses (the specific channel, the specific occasion, the specific consumption context), not as a generic willingness-to-buy question. The metric that correlates most reliably with commercial performance in food and drink, because purchase intent in context strips out the abstract favourability that inflates standard purchase intent scores.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n

      \n
      <\/div>\n \"\" <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n<\/section>\n\n
      \n
      \n
      \n\n
      \n

      Food and drink is all we do<\/h2>\n

      We are not a generalist research agency that takes the occasional food brief. Food and drink is the only sector we work in. Our senior team knows specifically how concept testing correlates with commercial performance in this sector, which categories the standard FMCG metrics work for and which they miss, and where the interpretation needs to push against the surface scores. Generic concept testing can deliver scores; sector specialists can read what the scores predict for commercial decisions.<\/p>\n

      That focus is why we work with 11 of the UK’s top 40 food and drink brands.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n \n

      \n Meet the Team<\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n
      \n
      \n
      \n\n
      \n

      Other ways to create and refine ideas<\/h2>\n

      Concept Screening is one tool in the broader Create and Refine Ideas toolkit. Depending on the brief, one of these might be a better fit, or a stronger partner alongside the screening work.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n