A price notice that is to go out to all customers.
Three questions. Three kinds of profiles.
This is what it can look like when you ask consumers, decision-makers and a community. The examples are constructed.

One price notice. Three customer groups.
- Three customer groups who read the notice
- What got in the way and what weighs most for each group
- Where the groups come apart
- Move the amount higher up
- Add that the customer does not need to do anything
- Test again the same afternoon
One offer. One CFO. What you change.
Automated invoice handling that saves ten hours a week. SEK 130,000 in the first year.
“I say no to a contract now, but I am open to moving forward if the benefit can be substantiated. The seller’s promise of time saved is not a verified effect. What would change my decision is hard figures on the time we spend today.”
- Base the calculation on the customer’s own invoice volume
- Two references with a similar volume
- Propose two weeks of measurement before the contract
Constructed offer. The answer is abridged from a test conversation with the profile.
See the decision-makers →One campaign. One community.
A campaign idea meant to reach Swedish craft beer culture.
- The most likely overall reaction, with a stated level of certainty
- Who acts, who waits and who objects
- What would change the forecast
- Where the community holds together
- Where it comes apart, for example small-scale versus acquired
- Whether the idea belongs in the culture
A consumer example, all the way through.
An illustrative project, constructed but realistic, that shows how a piece of Svava work unfolds. From a question someone does not know how to ask, to an insight they can take to management.
Illustrative example. Profiles and quotes are constructed from the segmentation model. No real customers.
It starts with a question no one can quite answer.
A head of customer insight is sitting on a recurring pattern in the qualitative data, but cannot describe it without getting stuck in pronouns. She does not want more surveys saying that everyone thinks it is important.
Which perspectives must be understood?
The Profile Selector does not start with demographics but with the question: which logics need to be in the room for the difference to become visible? Four perspectives are chosen, not to represent averages, but to create contrast.
The self-evident one
Has used the offer for years. Takes it for granted. Does not reflect on her own threshold.
The curious but uncertain one
Knows that she “should”, but cannot find her place. Looks for permission more than information.
The hesitant one
Is not uninterested, but feels that the offer is talking to someone else, someone more.
The pragmatic one
Cares about results, not belonging. The threshold is logistical, not emotional.
Not depth yet. Contrast first.
Short, structured contrast questions to all profiles that force prioritisation, not open associations. The profiles rank differently. The difference turns out to be about something other than the surface.
Identity moves from last to first depending on the profile. That is where the thread starts to be pulled.
Now we go into the differences.
The In-depth Interviewer takes the profiles that ranked most differently and presses on why to understand the logic behind it, not to collect more opinions.
I have tried, several times. It is not that I do not understand. It is that I do not feel I fit into the room it is made for.The hesitant one · constructed
I do not actually think about it. I just do it. Is it not like that for everyone?The self-evident one · constructed
This is what actually emerges.
When the brand strategist reads the conversations side by side, three tensions emerge, not oppositions of opinion, but in how the groups experience the offer itself.
The threshold does not lie in the subject matter, but in the feeling of who the offer is built for. Communication that explains more solves the wrong problem. What needs to change is the signal about belonging.
Three directions, tested against the profiles.
Three communication directions are generated and tested. One wins the self-evident group but loses the hesitant ones. A third balances, but requires more courage in execution.
Direction A · “It is easier than you think”
Explanatory, lowers the threshold intellectually. Wins the curious one. Reinforces the hesitant one’s picture that she “is not there yet”.
Direction B · “For you, like me”
Signals community. The self-evident one finds it superfluous. The hesitant one feels seen for the first time.
Direction C · “Room for more ways”
Direction B’s feeling with direction A’s accessibility. Credible in both groups, but requires the whole expression to follow the principle.
Chosen direction
Direction C. Requires messages, images and touchpoints all to signal belonging, not just explain.
What we actually learned.
The difference is not about interest. It is about perceived belonging. The threshold is social, not intellectual. Communication that signals “this is built for you too” lands. Communication that only explains more misses.
Traceability: Click on any conclusion → see the profile, the quote and the ranking that led there. No black boxes.
A Svava project is not a report. It is a loop.
The final insight is a new starting point: now concrete messages can be tested, channels tried against the groups, and the whole round run again in minutes, not months. The strategy stays alive, not archived.
Bring your question.
This was a constructed example. In a demo we build the beginning of your own. 30 minutes. No sales slides.
