Creative A
The panel wasn't unanimous. 2 of 7 segments chose Creative B (Aspirational Professional and Impulse Buyer) — 41% of this panel. If your buyers sit in those segments, the headline verdict isn't your verdict.
Read who disagrees, and why →These creatives are 76% similar. The 51% preference for A is a real lean, but the underlying differences are subtle — treat this as directional.
Launch Creative A. Its proof structure reads as thoroughly certified, keeping focus on the product.
→ For these audiences, run Creative B — it wins them clearly.
Who was on your panel.
1,000 synthetic panelists across 6 archetypes. Each persona below is a distinct slice of your audience — see how each one voted.
- 35–44288 · 29%
- 25–34271 · 27%
- 45–60243 · 24%
- 18–24198 · 20%
- Middle290 · 29%
- Upper Middle272 · 27%
- Budget245 · 25%
- Luxury193 · 19%
- Professional260 · 26%
- Student197 · 20%
- Executive158 · 16%
- Healthcare145 · 14%
- Teacher140 · 14%
- Founder70 · 7%
- Other30 · 3%
- Metro744 · 74%
- Tier 2254 · 25%
- Tier 32 · 0%
A's proof architecture lands immediately. Study stats and badges read as thoroughly vetted.
- A's clean layout makes the product the undeniable focal point.
- A's data won the decision. B's tone drew viewers but didn't close.
The one dimension each panelist said tipped them — 960 panelists. Bar color shows which creative won that pull.
Dimensions that also nudged panelists (up to 2 mentions each) — 1187 mentions.
How the two ads compare, by theme
A emphasizes product-centric minimalism with prominent statistical badges and clinical proof; B emphasizes the user experience through skin-focused imagery and emotional connection. Both carry identical core claims but A leads with data while B leads with the face.
B invites viewers into an intimate moment of self-care; A keeps them at a distance observing the product.
A lets the product command the frame through studio clarity; B splits attention between the woman and what she's holding.
Both ground credibility in clinical study results and sun protection; A layers duration claims, B emphasizes skin-feel outcomes.
Both claim long-wear and skin improvement equally; neither shows a visible before state to anchor the promise.
Hidden splits inside segments
Where a cluster looked united but broke apart under the surface.
Older buyers trusted A's straightforward price story. Younger buyers wanted B's lifestyle angle to justify the cost.
Where preference shifts most
Each mini-card shows a slice of your panel — the wider the spread, the sharper the split.
- Aspirational ProfessionalB100%
- Impulse BuyerB100%
- Careful ResearcherA99%
- Value HunterA69%
- Luxury SeekerA90%
- Brand DevoteeA100%
- Family-FirstA100%
- unknownB96%
- awareB73%
- triedA95%
- regularA94%
- loyalA91%
- 18-24B77%
- 25-34B90%
- 35-44A75%
- 45-59A92%
- researchingB60%
- awareB76%
- readyA65%
- repeatA92%
- beginnerB73%
- occasionalA75%
- enthusiastB72%
- expertA91%
- high schoolB84%
- graduateB60%
- post graduateA73%
- budgetB67%
- middleB62%
- upper middleA55%
- luxuryA89%
- femaleA51%
- unspecifiedB83%
Minimal impact: Geography had little effect on preference.
Meet your segments
Click a segment to see the panelists inside it — real profiles, real reactions.
Where the losing creative could close the gap
Place the product unobstructed in the frame's center; let the face hold it but don't let skin eclipse the tube.
Fixes: Product visibilitySimplify the background; reduce visual clutter so the product and result read as one clear story, not competing focal points.
Fixes: Visual clarityAdd a small study badge or efficacy icon near the face to anchor the emotional moment in proof, bridging tone and trust.
Fixes: Trust cuesWhat your synthetic panel said to each other
A staged focus-group transcript — the disagreement is where the insight lives.
“Ad A just has so many badges and numbers. The 16-hour claim, the percentages—I can actually see what I'm buying. That matters when I'm spending money.”
“But like, B shows a real moment. She's touching her face, looking calm—it feels intimate. I can actually picture myself using it, you know?”
“Exactly. In B, you see her glowing skin up close. You can see the result happening. A just puts the product front and center, but where's the proof on actual skin?”
“Wait—both ads have the same stats though, right? The SPF, the 92% efficacy. But A displays them as actual badges with icons. That visual system feels more professional to me.”
“Right, and A mentions the specific study size: 63 participants. B says 92 participants but doesn't emphasize the methodology. The detail matters. I notice it.”
“A's layout is cleaner. One focal point—the product. B has her face, her hand, the background—my eye bounces around. It feels scattered, even if it's emotional.”
“For me it does. I can see her skin glowing and calm. That's proof it works. The badges feel like corporate talk, honestly.”
“But I can't tell if that glow is the product or just good lighting. The badges tell me a real study happened. I need both—proof and the visual.”
“And here's what got me: in A, the tube is clear and centered. In B, it's in her hand, half-hidden by her face. I want to see what I'm buying.”
“I get that, but the product sitting alone on a white surface feels cold. B feels like a person who actually enjoys using it. That's what makes me want it.”
Attention funnel
Emotional response
Pushback
A-preferrers said
B-preferrers said
These are simulated audience reactions from Splitroom's synthetic panel, not campaign performance predictions. Within this panel, Creative A was preferred by 51% for the reasons above.