Team: Star, Simran, Anthony, Ryan, Esi

All of our materials including test and learning cards are on this document. Let us know if you need access to anything!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p05LTjJsckQvUIULPxdDLcoVVuTrsuZHsx5TDHNznv4/edit?usp=sharing 

THREE RISKY ASSUMPTIONS

1. We believe vegans/vegetarian want to eat frozen meals
2. We believe customers rather pay more for convenience of fridges
3. We believe vegan/vegetarian consumers are lacking convenient plant-based meal options.

Assumption #1

Names: Simran & Star Assumption: We believe vegans/vegetarian want to eat frozen meals 

TEST CARD

Step 1: Hypothesis:

We believe vegans/vegetarians will eat frozen meals over fresh food if the frozen meals are more convenient and use healthy ingredients. 

Step 2: To verify that, we will:

Ask consumers to select what meals they prefer for the next 5 days  from a set of meal options across the spectrums of price, preparation time, quality of ingredients, and cuisine.

MEAL PLAN BINGO BOARD ON FIGMA

Each option has a different factor 

Frozen meal: takes X time, has organic ingredients, 

Frozen meal, takes Y time, has inorganic ingredients 

Dimensions: price, time to cook, healthy ingredients, cuisine 

Have different options across dimensions 

Step 3: And measure:

The ratio of frozen food to prepared food chosen across the different axes of price, preparation time, ingredient quality, and cuisine. 

Step 4: We are right if:

If at least half (>50%)  of the meals chosen are frozen. 

LEARNING CARD + FIELD NOTES

Step 1: We believed that

vegans/vegetarians will eat frozen meals over fresh food if the frozen meals are more convenient and use healthy ingredients. 

Step 2: We observed that

• 13/21 chosen meals by the tester were frozen, we successfully hit >50% of meals!
• Was more inclined to choose frozen meal if time preparation was 90 min for a meal
• Chose low price + high preparation time, valued low price more
  • “I care about money and sometimes convenience, and taste”
• Didn’t care about organic ingredients, “Eh whatever it doesn’t matter if it’s organic or not”
• Started to change their mind about organic, healthy ingredients: “I guess organic is cool, but is it even?”
• “Bruh everything is fifteen dollars, this sucks. Hmm, i could choose the one that is the least time, but it sounds gross so i wanna choose the yummy one”
• Convenience wins! “I’m lazy sometimes, I’ll take the frozen mac and cheese. I’m a lazy guy” 
• “Frozen food should not take this long. It should be like 2 or three minutes. If it takes more than ten minutes, might as well make real food” 
• Making decisions based on what meals sound yummy

Step 3: From that we learned that

• Tester valued quality of ingredients and price OVER preparation time

• • LOW price mattered more than anything else
• Initially said that they valued quality ingredients but didn’t care about organic ingredients. Started to doubt however whether organic was good or not. Potentially consumers don’t know the value of organic ingredients and how it relates to quality.

• Will pay more for something that sounds like it tastes good (subjective) 

• • Was willing to pay more if the preparation time was high and the meal sounded yummy
• CHOSE frozen meals when it was cheap, under 10 minutes, and ‘sounded yummy’. Based final decisions on a variety of meals.

Step 4: Therefore we will

• DETERMINE competitive pricing for frozen foods, at a lower price point than making a fresh meal
• DECIDE which cuisines sound most appealing to consumers that they can’t make themselves, novelty of meal has a big influence on decision
• PLACE less value on preparation time for some and more on meal novelty
• START educative initiative to convince people that organic ingredients do matter and minimize health problems, rebranding might help with this education

Assumption #2

Name: Esi Assumption: We believe customers rather pay more for convenience of fridges

TEST CARD

Step 1: Hypothesis:

We believe customers (health-focused in-office professionals) will opt for the convenience of accessible fridge food over alternatives, despite the price premium. 

Step 2: To verify that, we will:

Conduct a survey using a Google Form to gauge current meal choices and preferences among health-focused in-office professionals on busy workdays.

Explore price points they consider acceptable for convenient, health-focused fridge options.

Understand decision-making factors for food choices at work, focusing on convenience, health, price, and prep time.

Step 3: And measure:

Analyze preferences across dimensions (e.g., How many respondents prioritize convenience over price?).

Calculate willingness to pay a premium by tallying responses on how much extra they’d pay.

Identify the primary factors influencing food choices (ranking and qualitative responses) to see if convenience justifies a higher price for most respondents.

Determine the frequency of purchase interest by analyzing how often they would use fridge options over other alternatives.

Step 4: We are right if:

At least 60-70% of respondents indicate they would prioritize the convenience of in-office fridge options over cheaper, less accessible alternatives.

A majority (e.g., 50% or more) indicate willingness to pay a premium for the convenience of a healthy fridge option.

Convenience ranks as a top 1 or 2 factor when respondents rank what they consider most important in their meal choice on a busy workday.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe9nKOWbDRqMEijFcdXIyqajLrIDpCTSw433Cveexs8rSsujQ/viewform?usp=sf_link

right click the image, and click ‘open image in new tab’ to see with better quality

LEARNING CARD

What did you observe in testing?

Mixed Preferences on Fridge Use: Some participants saw workplace fridges as a convenient backup option for when they’re too busy to step out. They noted they would use it primarily if they missed a lunch delivery or were in a rush. However, about 40% of respondents said they would still go for more substantial or fresher food choices if time allowed.

Positive Responses from Remote or Hybrid Workers: Those who go into the office only occasionally were enthusiastic, viewing in-office fridge options as a quick, reliable source without needing to plan for meals. This group valued the flexibility and convenience but would use it infrequently.

Fridge as a “Last Resort”: A significant portion of respondents (30%) described workplace fridges as a “backup” when their primary options (like Uber Eats or a preferred local place) weren’t feasible. They indicated they might use the fridge option more if there were high-quality, nutritious items readily available, but only if priced competitively with outside options.

Varying Perceptions of Price Sensitivity: About 50% of respondents expressed willingness to pay a small premium (e.g., $1-2 more) for convenient fridge access, but only 10% said they’d pay significantly more than they would for delivery or other alternatives.

What did you learn from the test?

Convenience Matters, but Context is Key: Convenience is a top priority for most in-office workers, but other factors like availability of other options, pricing, and company expense policies influence their decisions heavily.

Demand Varies by Proximity and Expense Policies: In cities with fewer healthy options and slower delivery times, employees were more interested in having a convenient, healthy fridge option. In contrast, employees in offices with meal expense policies were less interested in paying out-of-pocket.

Hybrid Workers as a Potential Target: Hybrid and infrequent office-goers showed more enthusiasm for the fridge as a convenient solution, suggesting they may be a viable primary target demographic. ** – doesn’t seem intuitive – unstable customer but worth more investigation

Price Sensitivity is a Barrier: While some are willing to pay a small premium for convenience, most won’t opt for a fridge option if it’s priced significantly higher than local alternatives or delivery.

What will you do next with this information?

Target Hybrid and Remote-Occasional Office Workers: Refine the offering to focus on hybrid workers who might use the fridge option when they come into the office, providing them with reliable, healthy food without needing to plan in advance.

Test Lower Price Points: Experiment with pricing that is more competitive with local lunch options. Consider partnerships with companies to subsidize fridge stocking to offset price sensitivity.

Focus on Underserved Locations: Roll out initial testing in areas with limited nearby healthy food options and slower delivery times. This could create more reliance on the fridge as a primary convenient option.

If your assumption was invalidated, how would you pivot your idea and test that change?

If we find that users won’t pay a premium for the convenience of a workplace fridge, we could:

Shift to a Subscription Model: Partner directly with companies to offer a subscription-based fridge service, where employers cover the costs or subsidize pricing, removing the price barrier for employees.

Focus on Curated, High-Turnover Items: Stock only a small selection of top-demand items to create high turnover, reducing waste and ensuring freshness. This may make it more attractive for spontaneous use.

Integrate with Expense Platforms: Explore integration with popular meal-expense platforms (e.g., Expensify) or meal benefits apps to allow fridge purchases to be expensed by employees, aligning it with existing meal policies.

Assumption #3:

Names: Anthony & Ryan Assumption: vegan/vegetarian consumers are lacking convenient plant-based meal options.

TEST CARD

Step 1: Hypothesis:

We believe vegan/vegetarian consumers are lacking convenient plant-based meal options.

Step 2: To verify that, we will:

visit local grocery stores within a 5-mile radius of Stanford’s campus.

Step 3: And measure:

the number of grocery stores that stock plant-based food options.

Step 4: We are right if:

There are at least five stores that stock more than ten pre-made plant-based food options each.

LEARNING CARD:

Step 1: We believed that

vegan/vegetarian consumers are lacking convenient plant-based meal options

Step 2: We observed

there are over five grocery stores within a five mile radius of Stanford campus that each offer more than ten pre-made plant-based food options

Step 3: From that we learned that

there is not a shortage of convenient plant-based meal options within Palo Alto grocery stores

Therefore, we will 

determine a new differentiating factor that sets us apart from the rest of the competition. We will also being more in-depth market research to determine where existing meals fall short.

Field Notes:

What did you observe in testing, what did you learn from the test, and what will you do next with this information? If your assumption was invalidated, how would you pivot your idea and test that change?

Safeway (Menlo Park Location): Has a lot of pre-made plant-based meals assembled daily. Have fresh fruit salads and a multitude of veggie wraps and salad options. Also carry different kinds of yogurts, tofu dishes, and microwaveable meals. However, meals aren’t the most dynamic and lack variety.

Trader Joe’s: Has numerous vegetarian/vegan options with a lot of variety including chiles rellenos, impossible chicken nuggets, veggie dumplings, veggie casseroles, meatless sausage, veggie gyoza, vegetable rolls, and more. Plant-based options are frozen or microwaveable and convenient. 

Costco: Has a lot of pre-made plant-based meals that are usually sold in bulk. Wide range of cuisine options including a huge selection of frozen and microwaveable vegetarian meals. Also 

Safeway (Palo Alto Location): Has less options than the Menlo Park location, but still a sufficient amount of plant-based meals. Also stocks up on daily pre-made plant-based wraps and salads and carry the same selection of yogurts and microwaveable meals.

Whole Foods: Lots of vegetarian and generally health-conscious food options. A bit on the pricier side. Also have a whole prepared-foods department with a ton of plant-based meal options.

Overall, we determined that there is not a shortage of plant-based meal options within the Palo Alto area. Our next step will be to determine a new differentiating factor that sets us apart from the rest of the competition. We will also begin more in-depth market research to determine where existing meals fall short.