The accuracy question
The first question anyone asks about synthetic buyer interviews is: how accurate is this?
It is the wrong question. Not because accuracy does not matter, but because a single accuracy number misrepresents what the tool does.
BuyerLens does not predict what a specific real person would say. It simulates plausible buyer reactions grounded in personality traits, category context, and RoastIQ evidence. The output is a directional signal — a pressure test, not a measurement.
What we show instead of accuracy
BuyerLens surfaces three indicators of study strength:
1. Theme convergence
When multiple personas independently flag the same objection, the signal is stronger. If 3 out of 3 buyers say the value proposition arrives too late, that convergence suggests a structural issue — not a random output.
When personas disagree, that disagreement is also informative. It tells you the objection is segment-specific, not universal.
2. Context specificity
A BuyerLens study grounded in a RoastIQ result is stronger than one running on defaults. A study with uploaded source documents (briefs, reviews, past research) is stronger still.
We show what context was available: Was the RoastIQ evidence included? Were source documents attached? Was the audience description specific or generic?
3. Coverage breadth
With 3 personas, you get directional objections. With 8-10, you cover more of the buyer landscape. With 15, you approach saturation — the point where additional interviews produce diminishing new themes.
We do not set a minimum. But we make the coverage visible so the user can judge whether the study is strong enough for the decision at hand.
When a study is strong enough to act on
A BuyerLens study is strong enough to act on when:
- Multiple personas converge on the same objection — not just one voice, but a pattern
- The objection maps to a specific RoastIQ KPI — it explains a score, not just a feeling
- The fix direction is specific enough to brief — not just fix the ad but move the product demo to seconds 3-5
- The context was specific — RoastIQ evidence, audience description, and ideally source documents
A study is NOT strong enough when:
- Only one persona raises the objection and others disagree
- The objection is generic (this ad is not engaging enough) rather than specific
- No RoastIQ context was provided
- The audience description was too broad to produce meaningful segmentation
The honest position
BuyerLens is a pressure test. It gives you a directional signal about buyer resistance before you commit to an edit direction. It is not a consumer panel, not a focus group, and not a prediction of market response.
The right way to use it: as one input alongside the RoastIQ diagnostic, the team discussion, and the creative judgment. Not as the final word.