Shared research study link

Coconut Skincare Perception Study

Understand how consumers perceive coconut-based skincare and clean beauty positioning

Study Overview Updated Jan 12, 2026

Research question: Understand how consumers perceive coconut-based skincare and “clean beauty” positioning, including reactions to “coconut oil” as a key ingredient, trust in “clean” claims, and whether “paradise” imagery helps or hurts credibility.
Who: Six U.S. consumers (ages 26–36) in the Kopari Coconut Skincare Study from FL, AR, and WA-Hispanic/Latinx voices, hot/humid residents, urban professionals, parents, and an active sports user-providing 18 responses across three prompts.

What they said: Consensus is that “coconut oil” signals a low-cost pantry/home remedy-heavy/greasy and likely comedogenic for the face-fine for body, hair, and dry patches, while tropical cues read as dressing up a filler.
“Clean beauty” is marketing unless proven with full INCI plus plain-English purposes and ranges, third-party verification and batch COAs, explicit fragrance/allergen disclosure with a true unscented option, sourcing/manufacturing transparency, packaging responsibility, fair price-per-ounce, easy returns, and accessible live support (including Spanish labels/WhatsApp).
“Paradise” imagery reduces trust and implies fragrance-forward, greasy textures and markup; the only exception is sunscreens with rigorous technical claims and testing.
Takeaways: De-emphasize coconut as a facial hero or reformulate to lightweight, non-comedogenic esters validated by HRIPT/comedogenicity tests; remove beach visuals from facial PDPs and lead with actives, concentrations, and results; publish a clear Clean Standard with lot-level COAs and fragrance/allergen disclosure; launch true unscented SKUs, small paid testers, transparent price-per-ounce and 30-day returns, plus bilingual labels and WhatsApp/phone support; focus coconut storytelling and value-size pricing on body/hair where it’s welcomed.

Participant Snapshots

Stack all

6 profiles

Alison Gray

Practical, warm-hearted 29-year-old in Little Rock working in public HR programs. E-bikes to work, budgets smartly, loves local coffee, live music, and river trails. Values clarity, community, durability, and transparent, flexible services.

Ashley Young

Rural North Carolina public safety admin, 34, single renter with a rescue dog. Faith-led, frugal, and dependable, she values durability, neighborly service, and clear communication. Decompresses with porch time, bluegrass, and crockpot cooking.

Jaden Diaz

Bilingual 26-year-old Seattleite, faith-driven and community-minded. Ex-health services worker on sabbatical, frugal yet comfortable. Owns home, uses public health coverage, loves soccer, cooking, and volunteering. Chooses ethical, practical products with c…

Khai Rogers

Soft-spoken, resourceful 34-year-old Jamaican in rural north Florida. Divorced, uninsured, no income, cash-oriented. Fixes small engines, cooks simple meals, values fairness and privacy. Trusts word-of-mouth, avoids contracts, dreams of small repair business.

Kayla Puente

28-year-old Dominican-American urban designer in Lynn city, MA. Army veteran, bilingual, renter, no kids. Pragmatic, community-minded, design-forward. Values walkability, durable goods, transparent sustainability, and everyday convenience that works without…

Kyle Dejesus

Rural Florida kitchen lead, 36, Spanish-first single dad of four. Pragmatic, faith-centered, and budget-aware. Chooses durability, clear pricing, and Spanish support. Optimizes for stability, time savings, and community trust.

Alison Gray

Ashley Young

Jaden Diaz

Khai Rogers

Kayla Puente

Kyle Dejesus

Overview 0 participants

Sex / Gender

Race / Ethnicity

Locale (Top)

Occupations (Top)

Demographic Overview No agents selected

Age bucket	Male count	Female count

Participant locations No agents selected

Participant Incomes US benchmark scaled to group size

Income bucket	Participants	US households

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 ACS 1-year (Table B19001; >$200k evenly distributed for comparison)

Media Ingestion

Connections appear when personas follow many of the same sources, highlighting overlapping media diets.

Questions and Responses

Stack all

3 questions

Response Summaries

Stack all

3 questions

Word Cloud

Persona Correlations

Overview

Across this mini-batch, coconut oil is consistently read as a familiar, low-cost pantry/home‑remedy ingredient rather than a credible facial "hero." Sensory concerns (heavy, greasy, comedogenic) strongly reduce willingness to use coconut-based products on the face, while acceptance remains for body, hair, and targeted dry-spot use. "Clean" and tropical/paradise positioning are broadly distrusted without verifiable evidence; respondents request ingredient transparency (full INCI and functions/percentages), third-party verification and batch COAs, plain/unscented formulations, straightforward pricing, and Spanish-language disclosure where relevant. Climate, cultural background, and lifestyle materially shape reactions: hot/humid residents and active consumers reject occlusive textures; Hispanic/Latinx respondents bring intergenerational credibility but still demand clear labeling and proof; higher-education/professional urbanites treat "clean" as a technical claim requiring documentation. Price/value clarity and plain packaging are cross-cutting priorities.

Total responses: 18

Key Segments

Segment	Attributes	Insight	Supporting Agents
Hot/humid locale residents	Residents of hot or humid states (e.g., FL, AR, NC); rural/suburban settings; occupations include chef, administrative roles, some unemployed; ages early-30s to mid-30s.	Strong negative sensory reaction to coconut oil for facial use: occlusive/greasy textures are intolerable in warm climates and are read as likely to exacerbate sweat and breakouts. These consumers prefer unscented, lightweight, non-occlusive formulas and plain, trust-forward packaging.	Alison Gray, Khai Rogers, Kyle Dejesus, Ashley Young
Hispanic / Latinx cultural familiarity	Hispanic/Latinx respondents referencing intergenerational use (abuela, aceite de coco, tía); ages mid-20s to mid-30s.	Coconut oil carries authentic, intergenerational credibility for hair and body remedies, which can be a trust cue - but that credibility does not automatically translate to premium facial skincare. These respondents specifically request Spanish-language labeling and clear, plain explanations to validate claims.	Jaden Diaz, Kayla Puente, Kyle Dejesus
Higher-education, professional urbanites	Graduate-educated professionals (project coordinators, administrative roles); urban locales; late-20s.	Treats 'clean' as a technical, evidence-based claim. These consumers demand published definitions of 'clean,' full ingredient lists with functions/percentages, third-party audits, batch COAs, and lifecycle/supply-chain details - they prefer documentation over vibe-driven marketing.	Kayla Puente, Alison Gray
Practical/pragmatic purchasers across incomes	Varied incomes and occupations (chef, unemployed, administrative assistants); household/family responsibilities.	Price and value transparency are decisive. Coconut oil is perceived as a commodity; buyers expect straightforward price-per-ounce, modest pricing, small tester sizes, and easy returns. Tropical branding that implies markup reduces perceived value.	Kyle Dejesus, Khai Rogers, Ashley Young, Alison Gray
Active / sports-oriented younger adults	Younger, active consumers (mid-20s), male example engaged in sports, urban locales.	Active lifestyles magnify negative reactions to occlusive oils: sweat combined with heavy oils is linked to breakout risk and rapid sensory rejection. For this segment, coconut-based facial claims must prove non-comedogenic, lightweight texture, and quick-absorbency to be acceptable.	Jaden Diaz

Shared Mindsets

Trait	Signal	Agents
Skepticism of 'clean beauty' as marketing	Across demographics, 'clean' is insufficient on its own - respondents want concrete evidence such as INCI lists, lab/batch data, third-party audits, and clear definitions rather than marketing language.	Alison Gray, Kayla Puente, Jaden Diaz, Khai Rogers, Kyle Dejesus, Ashley Young
Coconut oil perceived as pantry/home‑remedy (not facial hero)	Coconut is consistently framed as an abuela/DIY remedy appropriate for hair, heels, and cuticles but not as an everyday facial ingredient or premium active.	Alison Gray, Jaden Diaz, Kayla Puente, Khai Rogers, Kyle Dejesus, Ashley Young
Texture/comedogenic concern	Vivid sensory language (greasy, sticky, donut-glaze) drives rejection for facial application; comedogenic risk is a primary barrier unless formulations demonstrate otherwise.	Alison Gray, Ashley Young, Khai Rogers, Kyle Dejesus, Jaden Diaz
Tropical / paradise imagery reduces credibility	Beach or palm-tree packaging is widely read as mood-selling and often signals fragrance, cheap oils, and markup, decreasing trust across segments.	Alison Gray, Kayla Puente, Jaden Diaz, Kyle Dejesus, Khai Rogers, Ashley Young
Preference for plain, unscented, short-ingredient products	Respondents use plain packaging and short, unscented ingredient lists as credibility shortcuts; these cues increase perceived honesty and reduce suspicion of marketing spin.	Ashley Young, Kyle Dejesus, Khai Rogers, Alison Gray

Divergences

Segment	Contrast	Agents
Hispanic / Latinx cultural familiarity	Sees coconut oil as authentic and familiar (trust cue for hair/body) versus higher-education urbanites who view 'clean' and natural cues skeptically and demand technical proof - cultural familiarity provides historical credibility but does not replace the need for lab-backed evidence.	Jaden Diaz, Kayla Puente, Kyle Dejesus, Alison Gray
Hot/humid residents vs. general/practical purchasers	Hot/humid residents reject oily textures on principle for daily facial use due to sweat and climate interaction, while practical purchasers (across incomes) may tolerate coconut for body/hair if price and packaging are honest; climate, not price, primarily drives facial rejection.	Alison Gray, Khai Rogers, Kyle Dejesus, Ashley Young
Active / sports-oriented younger adults vs. pantry-remedy believers	Active consumers emphasize performance and non-comedogenic quick-absorption, making them less forgiving of traditional pantry uses; some pantry-remedy believers accept coconut for hair/body despite acknowledging facial limits.	Jaden Diaz, Alison Gray, Kyle Dejesus
Education/credential-driven skeptics vs. value-driven skeptics	Higher-education respondents request formal documentation (INCI, COAs, audits), while pragmatic/value-focused respondents emphasize transparent price/oz and packaging; both are skeptical but prioritize different signals of trust (technical proof vs. straightforward pricing/packaging).	Kayla Puente, Alison Gray, Kyle Dejesus, Khai Rogers

Recommendations & Next Steps

Overview

Consumers read coconut oil as a basic commodity that is heavy/greasy and likely to clog pores on the face. "Clean beauty" is treated as marketing unless backed by receipts: full INCI + plain-English purposes (ideally with concentration ranges), third-party audits and batch-level COAs, fragrance disclosure and a true unscented option, supply-chain transparency, fair price-per-ounce, easy returns, and live support. Tropical/paradise visuals reduce trust and imply fragrance-forward, padded formulas with a markup. Action: de-emphasize coconut as a facial hero, pivot it to body/hair/dry-spot use or reformulate facial SKUs to lightweight, non-comedogenic textures; replace vibe-led creative with results + numbers; ship an accessible transparency stack; and implement pragmatic ops signals (price/oz, testers, easy returns, bilingual labels, WhatsApp/phone support).

Position coconut where it’s accepted (body/hair), prove light textures for face if retained.
Define "clean" with thresholds; publish INCI + purposes + ranges.
Launch public lot-lookup COA and disclose fragrance/allergens; offer true unscented.
Replace tropical imagery on facial PDPs with claim-first creative.
Operational trust: price/oz, 30-day easy returns, small paid testers, Spanish labels, WhatsApp.

Quick Wins (next 2–4 weeks)

#	Action	Why	Owner	Effort	Impact
1	Publish full INCI + plain-English purposes (add ranges where feasible)	Directly addresses "clean = marketing" skepticism and meets demands from multiple respondents for ingredient clarity.	Regulatory/QA + Product	Low	High
2	Add a true unscented option for top SKUs and disclose fragrance allergens	Fragrance is a trigger for migraines/irritation; unscented is a fast trust lever.	Product + R&D	Med	High
3	Show price-per-ounce on PDP and packaging	Counters "markup" perception and aligns with value signals (e.g., Walmart price anchor).	Ecomm + Brand/Design	Low	High
4	Print batch #, manufacture location, and support phone/WhatsApp on labels	Concrete, verifiable traceability and accessible support are immediate credibility cues.	Ops + CX + Design	Low	High
5	Replace beach/palm visuals on facial PDPs with claim-first creative	Tropical imagery lowers trust; leading with results and numbers improves conversion.	Brand/Design + Growth	Low	Med
6	Introduce small paid testers and a 30-day no-questions return policy	Hands-on proof combats skepticism and reduces trial risk, especially for sensitive skin.	CX + Ops + Finance	Med	High

Initiatives (30–90 days)

#	Initiative	Description	Owner	Timeline	Dependencies
1	Transparency Stack: Clean Standard + COA Portal	Publish a clear Clean Standard (in/out list with thresholds and rationale), full INCI with plain-English purposes and concentration ranges, plus a public lot-lookup portal with batch COAs (PFAS, heavy metals, micro, preservative challenge/stability summaries). Include third-party audit summaries.	Regulatory/QA + Engineering + Legal	0–90 days for v1; 90–180 days for full lot-lookup and third-party audit summaries	Qualified labs for testing, CMS/engineering for portal, Legal review of disclosures
2	Facial Line Reformulation or Repositioning	If coconut remains in facial SKUs, shift to lightweight, non-comedogenic textures (e.g., CCT, squalane, esters) and validate with comedogenicity panels and HRIPT. Otherwise, reposition coconut to body/hair/dry-spot products and lead facial line with proven actives. Kill tropical scent cues; offer a true unscented.	R&D + Product	Discovery 0–60 days; pilot batches/testing 60–150 days; launch 150–210 days	Raw material sourcing, Clinical/testing vendors, Stability timelines
3	Supply Chain Traceability and Labor Standards	Map suppliers to origins; publish sourcing narratives; implement living-wage and no-deforestation palm policies; add facility certifications and audit cadence to site.	Supply Chain/Ops + ESG	90–180 days for mapping and policy publication; ongoing audits	Supplier cooperation, Auditing partners, Legal/policy
4	Packaging Responsibility and Refill/Take-Back	Disclose exact PCR%; provide region-specific recyclability guidance; pilot mail-back or refill pouches for high-volume SKUs with clear instructions and cost transparency.	Ops/Packaging + CX	Scope 0–60 days; pilot 60–150 days; scale 150–300 days	Packaging suppliers, Reverse logistics partner, LCA guidance
5	Pricing Architecture and Value Sizes	Align price/oz to commodity perception: introduce value-size body SKUs (e.g., 8 oz), maintain fair corridors for 2 oz facial SKUs, and remove "green tax" optics.	Finance + Product + Ecomm	0–90 days for rollout	COGS modeling, Inventory planning, Packaging availability
6	Bilingual Labeling and Live Support	Standardize Spanish/English labels and PDPs; launch WhatsApp and phone support with SLAs; create plain-language FAQs explaining trade-offs without fear-mongering.	CX + Brand/Design + Legal	0–60 days MVP; 60–120 days full rollout	Translation/localization, Telephony/WhatsApp setup, Regulatory label checks

KPIs to Track

#	KPI	Definition	Target	Frequency
1	COA Coverage Rate	Percentage of shipped lots with publicly accessible batch COAs (PFAS, heavy metals, micro)	>= 95% of lots within 6 months	Monthly
2	Transparency Completeness	Share of SKUs with full INCI + plain-English purposes + concentration ranges and fragrance/allergen disclosure	100% of active SKUs within 90 days	Biweekly
3	Fragrance-Related Complaints	Customer-reported irritation/migraine tickets per 1,000 orders	-40% vs baseline in 90 days	Monthly
4	Return Rate (30-Day)	Percentage of orders returned within 30 days	-25% vs baseline post testers/unscented rollout	Monthly
5	PDP Conversion Uplift (Facial SKUs)	Conversion rate change after replacing tropical imagery with claim-first creative	+15% within 60 days	Weekly
6	WhatsApp/Phone Support SLA and CSAT	Percent of messages answered in <2 minutes and post-contact satisfaction score	SLA >= 90%; CSAT >= 4.5/5	Weekly

Risks & Mitigations

#	Risk	Mitigation	Owner
1	Higher costs and timelines for testing (COAs, challenge, stability) may strain margin and speed.	Prioritize top-volume SKUs, negotiate bundled lab rates, and phase testing by lot risk.	Regulatory/QA + Finance
2	Publishing concentration ranges could create legal/competitive exposure.	Use tight ranges for actives, redact trade secrets where justified, and add legal disclaimers.	Legal + Regulatory
3	Supplier resistance to traceability and labor disclosures.	Incentivize via preferred-supplier status and multi-year contracts; develop alternates for non-compliant sources.	Supply Chain/Ops
4	Creative shift away from tropical may reduce short-term click-through for scent-led shoppers.	A/B test creatives, retain mood-led assets for body-only SKUs, and highlight benefits-first for face.	Brand/Design + Growth
5	Operational complexity and cost from testers and liberal returns.	Limit testers to high-intent SKUs, require small fee, and monitor abuse with policy controls.	CX + Finance + Ops
6	Reformulation delays could cause revenue gaps or inventory write-offs.	Stagger releases, run sell-through promos on legacy stock, and pre-announce unscented/updated SKUs.	Product + R&D + Ops

Timeline

0–30 days: Quick wins live (INCI+plain-English, price/oz, label updates, creative swap on facial PDPs).
30–90 days: Launch unscented variants, testers + 30-day returns, MVP Clean Standard page, WhatsApp/phone support, Spanish labels on new runs.
90–180 days: COA portal with lot lookup, initial third-party audits, reformulation pilots with comedogenicity/HRIPT data, packaging PCR disclosures and refill/take-back pilot.
6–12 months: Scale audited supply-chain disclosures, expand value-size body SKUs, full COA coverage (>=95%), retire remaining tropical creatives on face products.

Research Study Narrative

Coconut Skincare Perception Study: Objective and Context

Objective: Understand how consumers perceive coconut-based skincare and “clean beauty” positioning to guide formulation, branding, and go-to-market choices for Claude.

What We Heard (Cross-Question Learnings)

Coconut oil = pantry staple, not facial hero. Across all respondents, coconut oil reads as a basic commodity with strong nostalgia (“abuela” remedies) and a sensory red flag for the face: heavy/greasy and likely comedogenic. Alison Gray: “marketing trying to sell me tropical when it’s really a basic filler.” Jaden Diaz: “on my face it’s a breakout waiting to happen.” Kyle Dejesus anchored value at “8 oz… $5.” Accepted uses: body, hair, dry spots; not cheeks/T-zone.
“Clean beauty” is marketing until proven otherwise. Default stance is skepticism (Khai Rogers: “Everybody says it. I don’t trust it right away.”). Proof demanded: full INCI with plain-English purposes and concentration ranges (Kayla Puente), third-party verification and batch-level COAs for contaminants (Alison Gray), explicit fragrance disclosure and a true unscented option (Ashley Young), and supply-chain/labor transparency. Operational cues matter: price-per-ounce clarity, easy returns, small paid testers, live phone/WhatsApp support, and bilingual labels (Kyle, Khai).
“Paradise” imagery lowers trust for efficacy. Palm trees signal “vibe over substance,” fragrance risk, and greasy textures. Khai: “you selling a vibe, not a fix.” Kyle: “Beach pics scream perfume and sticky oil.” Practical concerns include climate usability (“grease in Arkansas humidity” – Alison) and perceived “vacation markup.” One exception: technically framed sunscreen where test data outranks lifestyle imagery (Kayla).

Persona Correlations and Nuances

Hot/humid residents: Reject occlusive textures; prefer unscented, lightweight formulas and plain packaging (Alison, Khai, Kyle, Ashley).
Hispanic/Latinx familiarity: Coconut holds authentic hair/body credibility (abuela/aceite de coco), but still requires Spanish labels and simple explanations for facial claims (Jaden, Kayla, Kyle).
Professional/educated skeptics: Treat “clean” as technical; expect published definitions, INCI with purposes/% ranges, COAs, and supply-chain detail (Kayla, Alison).
Pragmatic value seekers: Want price/oz honesty, testers, and easy returns; tropical branding implies markup (Kyle, Khai, Ashley).
Active/sports adults: Heightened breakouts with heavy oils; demand non-comedogenic, fast-absorbing textures (Jaden).

Implications and Recommendations

Reposition coconut away from facial “hero.” Lead coconut in body/hair/dry-spot SKUs. If retained in facial, reformulate to lightweight, non-comedogenic esters (e.g., CCT, squalane) and validate via comedogenicity panels + HRIPT; offer a true unscented variant.
Replace vibe with verifiable proof. Publish a clear Clean Standard (what’s in/out and why), full INCI + plain-English purposes + ranges, batch-level COAs (PFAS, heavy metals, micro), fragrance/allergen disclosure, and supply origins/labor practices. Add price-per-ounce on PDP/packaging, batch number, manufacture location, and live phone/WhatsApp.
Creative and packaging shifts. Remove palm/beach cues from facial PDPs; lead with claims, actives, and numbers. Keep tropical mood only for body SKUs. Address heat/usability (Kyle’s leakage anecdote) with packaging testing and PCR transparency; pilot refills/take-back.
Value architecture. Introduce value-size body SKUs (e.g., 8 oz) aligned to commodity perception; maintain fair corridors for 2 oz facial to avoid “vacation markup.”

Risks and Mitigations

Testing cost/timelines (COAs, HRIPT): Prioritize top-volume SKUs; bundle lab rates; phase by lot risk.
Legal exposure from concentration ranges: Use tight ranges; redact trade secrets; add legal disclaimers.
Supplier pushback on traceability: Incentivize with preferred status; develop alternates.
Creative shift reduces short-term CTR: A/B test; retain tropical for body; claims-first for facial.
Operational load from testers/returns: Limit to high-intent SKUs; small fee; monitor abuse.

Next Steps and Measurement

0–30 days: Publish INCI + plain-English (add ranges where feasible); display price/oz; add batch/manufacture/support info to labels; swap facial PDPs to claim-first creative.
30–90 days: Launch unscented variants; roll out small paid testers and 30-day easy returns; publish MVP Clean Standard; enable phone/WhatsApp; add Spanish labeling on new runs.
90–180 days: Launch public lot-lookup COA portal; begin third-party audits; pilot reformulated facial textures with comedogenicity/HRIPT data; disclose PCR and pilot refills/take-back.
6–12 months: Scale audited supply disclosures; expand value-size body SKUs; retire remaining tropical creatives on facial.

KPIs: COA coverage ≥95% lots (6 months); 100% SKUs with full INCI + purposes + ranges + fragrance/allergens (90 days); −40% fragrance-related complaints (90 days); −25% 30-day returns post testers/unscented; +15% facial PDP conversion after creative swap.

Recommended Follow-up Questions Updated Jan 12, 2026

Which ingredient label names most increase versus most decrease your willingness to try a facial skincare product? (MaxDiff across: Coconut oil (unrefined), Coconut oil (refined), Fractionated coconut oil (MCT), Caprylic/capric triglyceride, Cocos nucifera oil, Coconut alkanes, Coconut water, Coconut ferment/bio-ferment.)

maxdiff Quantifies naming effects to guide INCI display and copy, potentially reframing away from "coconut oil" toward face-friendlier nomenclature.
Thinking about your own use of products containing coconut-derived ingredients on your face, which outcomes have you experienced? Select all that apply. (No prior use on face; No noticeable effect; Comfortable, non-greasy moisturization; Improved softness/hydration; Breakouts/clogged pores; Irritation/redness; Felt heavy/greasy; Only works in cold/dry weather; Worsened shine in heat/humidity.)

multi select Validates real-world effects to assess risk for facial SKUs and refine claims, guidance, and targeting.
Which forms of evidence most convince you a brand’s “clean” claim is credible? (MaxDiff across: Full INCI with plain-English purpose; Publish concentration ranges; Independent third-party certification; Batch-level COAs; Full fragrance/allergen disclosure; A true unscented option; Ingredient sourcing/manufacturing detail; Refillable/recyclable program; Bilingual labels (English/Spanish); Live customer support (chat/phone/WhatsApp).)

maxdiff Prioritizes proof investments with highest trust impact to sequence roadmap and budget.
Rank the following creative directions from most to least credibility-building for a coconut-based skincare brand: Clinical/laboratory aesthetic; Dermatologist/chemist-led education; Data-led visuals (ingredient levels, pH, test results); Real-skin before/after with standardized lighting; Sourcing/manufacturing transparency visuals (farms, processing); Minimalist ingredient-focused design; Neutral lifestyle imagery (no beach/tropical cues).

rank Identifies non-tropical creative that strengthens efficacy perception to inform brand identity and asset briefs.
How suitable do you consider coconut-derived ingredients for the following facial product types? Rate each: Very suitable; Somewhat suitable; Neutral/depends; Somewhat unsuitable; Not at all; Not sure. (Oil cleanser (rinse-off); Balm cleanser (rinse-off); Leave-on moisturizer; Serum; Eye cream; Lip balm; Sunscreen/SPF; Spot treatment/acne; Makeup remover.)

matrix Maps category fit to focus R&D on acceptable use cases and avoid misfit leave-on formats.
How much more would you be willing to pay, if all else is equal, for each assurance? Select one per row: 0%; 1–5%; 6–10%; 11–20%; >20%; Not a factor. (Independent third-party “clean” certification; Batch-level COA per lot; Full fragrance/allergen disclosure; A true unscented version of each SKU; Ingredient sourcing/manufacturing transparency; Refillable packaging with mail-back; Dermatologist-run clinicals with published results.)

matrix Quantifies price premium for proof points to set pricing and ROI thresholds for verification initiatives.

These questions quantify naming, evidence, creative, category fit, and price trade-offs to move from qualitative themes to actionable priorities for positioning, portfolio, claims, and pricing.

Study Overview Updated Jan 12, 2026

News & Media

Source	Weight

Coconut Skincare Perception Study

Alison Gray

Ashley Young

Jaden Diaz

Khai Rogers

Kayla Puente

Kyle Dejesus

Alison Gray

Ashley Young

Jaden Diaz

Khai Rogers

Kayla Puente

Kyle Dejesus

Sex / Gender

Race / Ethnicity

Locale (Top)

Occupations (Top)

Summary

Themes

Outliers

Overview

Key Segments

Shared Mindsets

Divergences

Overview

Quick Wins (next 2–4 weeks)

Initiatives (30–90 days)

KPIs to Track

Risks & Mitigations

Timeline

Coconut Skincare Perception Study: Objective and Context

What We Heard (Cross-Question Learnings)

Persona Correlations and Nuances

Implications and Recommendations

Risks and Mitigations

Next Steps and Measurement

Distinct Market Research Groups

Marketing Reports Generated

Digital Twin Synthetic Personas

Questions Answered