Same website, two customers, two verdicts
The first prototype audit, run on intoleris.com, a Swiss app for food intolerances. Chosen target: people sensitive to gluten, in the United States and in French-speaking Switzerland.
| Ohio, United States | Lausanne, French-speaking Switzerland | |
|---|---|---|
| Promise | Adopted | Tolerated |
| Proof | Tolerated | Tolerated |
| Price | Adopted | Rejected |
| Language | Adopted | Adopted |
| Data | Adopted | Tolerated |
| Payment | Tolerated | Rejected |
The two points of view
She shops for a family of four, on her phone. She relies on reviews, ratings and recognised labels. A 4.99 dollar subscription doesn’t worry her if the trial is clear.
Followed by his dietitian, he often has friends over for dinner. He is wary of wellness promises, thinks in Swiss francs, wants to know where his health data goes and looks for serious credentials.
Three gaps between the two markets
Proof
Jen expects social proof: reviews, testimonials, labels. Laurent expects institutional proof: a patients’ association, a dietitian, an identifiable Swiss company.
Price
Prices in dollars suit Jen perfectly. To Laurent they signal an American service, with no visible VAT or TWINT.
Framing
Jen is drawn in by a symptom-led headline. Laurent, who cooks for his coeliac daughter, wants to know straight away whether the tool is for her.
The Markoleris reading
Without any change, the website is tolerated by the American customer, who mainly misses social proof. The Lausanne customer finds it tolerable but not yet trustworthy for his daughter: he misses framing, the local currency and institutional proof. The priorities differ, and that is exactly what a generic audit doesn’t show.
The personas are fictional and their reactions are hypotheses, backed by public sources cited in the report. Intoleris is a project by the same publisher as Markoleris.