Sample report
A Foydy report gives you a verdict on repurchase and price, which of your claims held, and what to fix first. Behind that sits everything people reported over two weeks of real use: their ratings, their own words, photos where they agreed to share them, and the criticism, ranked. Below are highlights from a sample report, with a fictional brand and illustrative numbers.
The product
- Brand and product
- Wenthara Naturals · Vitamin-C Glow Serum (30 ml)
- The decision
- Is it ready to list on quick commerce?
- Who took part
- Women aged 22 to 45 in Delhi-NCR, matching the brand’s buyer
- Completed
- 52 people, against 50 contracted
The verdict
The read
The product holds up. The data does not support ₹649.
Three decisions this supports. The numbers are the findings; the recommendations are our judgment, and you are free to reject them.
Do not list at ₹649.
Fewer than one in four would buy at that price after two weeks of use. Price inside ₹399 to ₹499, and choose within that range on margin.
Fix the dropper before listing.
21% (11 of 52) reported the dropper leaking when the bottle was stored on its side, the most serious complaint. Put the revised pack back into homes before launch.
Lead with texture, not with visible glow.
“Non-sticky and lightweight” was the thing people said most often without being asked: 62% (32 of 52). The “visible glow in 7 days” claim lost ground after use, and the fragrance splits people.
At a glance
The numbers at a glance
58%
would buy it again (30 of 52)
56%
would buy it (29 of 52)
+8
Net Promoter Score
Price
What it is worth to the people who used it
Put 100 shoppers in front of the shelf:
| Price | Would still buy | Money from 100 shoppers |
|---|---|---|
| ₹399 | 62% | ₹24,738 |
| ₹449 | 54% | ₹24,246 |
| ₹499 | 46% | ₹22,954 |
| ₹649 (planned price) | 23% | ₹14,927 |
At ₹649 the brand earns about 40% less money than at ₹399, because the higher price does not make up for the buyers it loses. Between ₹399 and ₹499 the differences are small enough to be chance, and the report says so.
Claims
Which claims held
Earned in use
“Absorbs in seconds, no stickiness”
More believable after use. The claim the product earns.
Lost ground
“Visible glow in 7 days”
Less believable after use. The claim most likely to produce disappointed reviews.
“I did not see a glow in seven days. I am still using it, but that line set me up to expect something it did not do.”
These are consumer perception findings, not laboratory or clinical evidence; substantiating claims in market stays with the brand.
Criticism
The criticism, ranked
Every report includes this section, and it cannot be removed.
- Complaint: Dropper leaks on its sideRaised by 21% (11 of 52)Seriousness (our judgment): High
- Complaint: Fragrance reads medicinalRaised by 17% (9 of 52)Seriousness (our judgment): Medium
- Complaint: Cap is stiff to openRaised by 13% (7 of 52)Seriousness (our judgment): Medium
- Complaint: Dosage guidance unclearRaised by 12% (6 of 52)Seriousness (our judgment): Low
- Complaint: Sticky in humid weatherRaised by 10% (5 of 52)Seriousness (our judgment): Low
“Found it leaked into my drawer twice.”
“I never worked out how many drops I was supposed to use.”
24 of 52 reported no problem. 22 would not buy again, and the two loudest complaints cannot explain all of them, which is worth knowing before fixing only the dropper.
Full report
What a full report adds
These are highlights. A full report carries your own product and decision, every rating from first use to the end, people’s own words on what they liked and what they would change, photos where they agreed to share them (faces blurred, location removed), who took part, and how many answers were excluded for quality, and why.