Illustration of a diver examining an iceberg: metaphor for insights beneath the surface of launch decisions.
For brand, product, growth, and media teams

Test the idea
before you spend.

Your market - and the AIs it increasingly trusts - judges your launch first. Test it on twins, verify with real humans, commit with evidence. Every outcome sharpens the next read.

Request early access
Use cases

What will you test first?

Six launch questions teams bring in week one. Each runs the loop - Twins, Humans, Evidence, Market - and ships as a workflow template you can stitch your own steps into.

Use case 01 · Ad & creative pre-flight

Rank the hooks.
Catch the bleed.

“We have 12 hooks and budget for 3 - which deserve production?”

Pre-flight your creative

Twins react to every hook on identical footing, segment by segment - not on averages that hide the differences.

  • Variants that blur into the same idea get flagged as ad bleed - so you stop paying to test one idea six times.
  • Your community votes on the shortlist before production or media spend.
  • The CTR you log after launch grades the read and sharpens the next one.

Template · Ad & creative pre-flight

Hook ranking
12 tested · top 3
“Glow in 7 days”
78%
“Derms hate shortcuts”
74%
“Your skin, decoded”
41%
Ad bleed: #2 blurs with #1 - same promise, same objection
2 of 3 genuinely distinct → verify both with your community
Use case 02 · Pricing & offers

See the price break
before the page ships.

“Does $39/mo with a 14-day trial beat $29/mo without?”

Test a price
$39/mo · 14-day trial
vs $29/mo
Intent by segment
Premium buyers
82%
Gen Z streamers
64%
Family upgraders
41%
Top objection: price anchoring - “$39 is above my impulse line”
Trial beats discount in 2 of 3 segments → confirm with a poll

Price sensitivity is a segment property, not a market property. Watch anchoring, trial value, and switching costs move each cluster differently.

  • Compare price points and offer structures side by side - trial vs discount vs annual.
  • Confirm the winner with a community poll before the pricing page goes live.
  • Log what revenue actually did - the panel learns your market's real price lines.

Template · Pricing & offer test

Use case 03 · Positioning & messaging

Pick the route
before the rebrand.

“Clinical-grade, derm-approved, or family-safe - which wins premium buyers?”

Compare routes

Every positioning route triggers a different objection. See which one each route trips - brand trust, feature confusion, weak differentiation - while changing course is still cheap.

  • Routes judged side by side by the same panel, same moment, same context.
  • Verbatim reactions show the words your market reaches for - and the ones that bounce.
  • Test taglines, value props, and category framing the same way.

Works in Ask Them

Route comparison
premium buyers
Clinical-grade Derm-approved Family-safe
Clinical-grade
72%
Derm-approved
66%
Family-safe
38%
Objection on winner: “prove the clinical part”
Clinical-grade wins - if the claim is backed on the page
Use case 04 · B2B buying committees

Rehearse the room
before the meeting.

“Will the CFO kill this at the security review?”

Build a committee
Committee read
CFO · IT · RevOps
CF
CFO twin Economic buyer -0.2

“Show me payback inside two quarters or this waits for next year's budget.”

IT
IT twin Technical gate +0.3

“Fine on architecture - but SOC 2 needs to be on the first slide, not the appendix.”

RO
RevOps twin Champion +0.6

“This kills three tools. I'll champion it if the CFO math holds.”

Call: iterate - lead with payback, move SOC 2 up front

Deals die on the stakeholder you didn't rehearse. Build a committee panel from roles - or from real prospect data you've opted in - and pressure-test the pitch before it's live.

  • Per-stakeholder objection map: what the CFO resists, what IT gates on, who champions.
  • Pressure-test outbound sequences, proposals, and ABM angles the same way.
  • Log how the deal actually moved - committee reads calibrate like every other read.

Template · B2B committee check

Use case 05 · AI-led interviews

Interviews from a link.
No scheduling.

“Interview 30 churned customers by Friday.”

Run interviews

Send a link - your brand twin runs each interview in your voice, always disclosed as AI. Video, voice, text, or async form, with adaptive follow-ups that chase the objections the synthetic panel predicted.

  • Participants react to the ad, page, or prototype mid-conversation - observed reactions, not recalled opinions.
  • Recorded answers are transcribed automatically; every transcript is scored against the synthetic read.
  • Recruit from your own community first - rent a panel only when you need strangers. Human-led when you prefer.

Brand twins · video, voice, text, forms · WhatsApp & social chat soon

Brand twins
Churn interviews
disclosed as AI
Link sent to 30 churned customers · 22 completed · video & text
RM
Rachel M. Churned · mo 3 -0.4

“I didn't leave over price. I left because onboarding never showed me the one feature I bought it for.”

JT
Jordan T. Churned · mo 1 +0.1

“The trial ended before I'd set anything up. Two more weeks and I'd probably have stayed.”

Agreement with twins 68% · panel missed the onboarding theme - now it won't
Use case 06 · Community pulse

Ask where your market
already talks.

“Ask our Discord which of these three names actually lands.”

Poll your community
Brand twins
Name test
disclosed as AI
Channel results
Slack poll
62%
Discord thread
58%
Reddit post
55%
Agreement with twins 81% · verified read

Your community is the cheapest honest signal you own. Brand twins post the question, moderate the replies, and roll them into a channel-by-channel read.

  • Polls, threads, and DMs across Slack, Discord, and Reddit - in your voice, always disclosed as AI.
  • Replies are scored against the synthetic read: agreement verifies, disagreement teaches.
  • High-stakes calls escalate to interviews - the next verify step in the same workflow.

Brand twins · Slack, Discord, Reddit

Retail & channel copy

TE

"Listing A or B for the family upgrader on Amazon?" Test retailer copy and claims against the segments that buy there.

Message testing

THE

Subject lines, hooks, and social posts - panel first, humans second, save the ones worth shipping.

Repeat-mistake guard

M

"Haven't we tried 50% off before?" Logged outcomes are retrieved when a similar brief returns - a past loss overrides an optimistic call.

Every use case is a workflow: Test it on twins Hear it from humans Evaluate the evidence Measure it in market

What comes back

Watch a launch test
come back.

A premium TV launch tested on a Gen Z + family panel: 12 synthetic consumers, 4 segments, 36 reactions - one clear call, ready to verify with real humans before the buy.

Run a launch test
Sentiment 0.19 · CI95 0.09–0.28

Mild positive across the panel - but watch the price-sensitive segment, which trends neutral with high spread.

Intent 0.45 · CI95 0.40–0.49

Solid intent ceiling - needs a complementary "trade-up" hook to convert the status-driven cluster.

Top objection · price anchoring

"$1,099 feels like an aspirational stretch" - surfaced in 3 of 4 clusters; consider a financing line or anchor product.

Recommendation · ship

Confidence 0.58. Ship variant B and re-test variant A with the financing line for a follow-up read.

Decision
12 personas · 4 segments
Ship 58% confidence
Purchase intent · 95% CI 45%
0.40 to 0.49 · top objection: price anchoring
Intent by segment
Status-driven
61%
Gen Z gamers
52%
Price-sensitive
28%
TB
Tom B. Price-sensitive +0.1

“$1,099 feels like an aspirational stretch - a financing line would change my math.”

Predicted ShipActual Win
Accuracy 74% · 9 outcomes
Decide with confidence, then prove it

Evidence over guesswork, before you spend.

Them AI helps teams choose better messages, pricing, and positioning by Asking Them before budgets are committed. Reactions are predictions, not certainties - so real humans verify the call, and your real results calibrate the panel. That's the proof a generic AI chat can't give you.

Start free