Quick Guide to This Report
This report combines four sources of data: a quiz, a survey, a brand scorecard, and website traffic, to give you a complete picture of how the Canadian cannabis industry sees [Brand X]. Here's how to read it.
Scores You'll See
| Brand Health Score |
Scored from -100 to +100. Zero means "about average." Higher is better. This is [Brand X]'s first score: it's a starting point. |
| Recommendation Score |
Rated 0 to 10. How likely people are to recommend [Brand X]. There are two versions: one measured after using the education hub, and one measured in a general survey. |
| "n = 138" |
Means we asked a certain number of people that question. Smaller groups (under 10) are early hints, not firm conclusions. |
The 3 Levels of Brand Awareness
| No hints |
They named [Brand X] with zero clues. The strongest signal: this is who truly thinks of you first. |
| With a hint |
They recognized [Brand X] after a category nudge like "name a flower brand." They know you, but you're not the first name that pops up. |
| When shown |
They said "yes, I know them" when shown a list of brands. They've heard of you, but can't recall you on their own. |
Colour Codes
| Strong |
Good news: this area is performing well. |
| Mixed |
Some positives, some gaps: worth watching. |
| Needs Attention |
Needs improvement: this is where to focus. |
Who We Talked To
Every person in this report is a verified BTA member: real budtenders, store managers, and consumers, not random survey respondents. We had 278 people participate across all four data sources during Feb–May 2026. Some people appear in more than one source.
Behind the Numbers: How We Measure Brand Health
This report is built on data from the Brand Health Index (BHI), BTA's standard way of measuring how cannabis brands are perceived by real budtenders and consumers. Here is how it works.
The 7 Factors That Make Up the Score
Each factor measures a different side of brand health. They are weighted by importance in three tiers:
| Awareness |
Do people know the brand? |
Most |
| Familiarity |
How well do they know it? |
Less |
| Trial |
Have they tried it? |
Moderate |
| Recommendation |
Would they recommend it? (0–10) |
Most |
| Sentiment |
How do they feel about it? |
Most |
| Frequency |
How often do they buy/recommend it? |
Moderate |
| Competitive |
Is it better than alternatives? |
Less |
Recommendation and Sentiment carry the most weight. This report shows [Brand X]'s Awareness Index on a -100 to +100 scale: and it is a starting point, not a final verdict.
How Survey Answers Become Scores
When someone answers a question, their choice gets translated into a numerical score. Here is how it maps:
| Familiarity |
Very familiar → 100
Somewhat familiar → 70
Heard of them → 40
Not familiar → 0
|
| Trial |
Yes, multiple times → 100
Yes, once → 60
No → 0
|
| Sentiment |
Very positive → 100
Somewhat positive → 75
Neutral → 50
Somewhat negative → 25
Very negative → 0
|
| Frequency |
Weekly or more → 100
2–3× per month → 80
About once per month → 60
Less than once → 30
Never → 0
|
| Competitive |
Much better → 100
Slightly better → 75
About the same → 50
Slightly worse → 25
Much worse → 0
|
Recommendation is scored on a 0–10 scale (not translated to 0–100). All scores are averaged across the group you are looking at: which is why you will see numbers like "14.74" alongside raw percentages.
The 4 Data Sources in This Report
| Quiz |
Taken after going through the education hub. Measures what people learned and whether their confidence changed. About 1 in 4 respondents took it. |
| Survey |
Covers what is confusing about [Brand X], what drives recommendations, and whether education changes behaviour. Nearly half of all respondents. |
| Scorecard |
The quarterly brand health check-in measuring all 7 factors across different roles and provinces. Over 4 in 10 respondents participated. |
| Website |
Traffic data from [Brand X]'s education hub. Shows pages viewed, time spent, and how deeply visitors explored. |
Some people appear in more than one source. Each source answers a different kind of question.
Who Is in the Panel
Every respondent is a verified BTA member who applied to join. The panel is split roughly 60% budtenders and 40% consumers (19+, purchased cannabis in the past 3 months).
The panel rotates each quarter so no one is over-surveyed. Each wave, a member evaluates at most 4 brands to prevent fatigue. Groups with fewer than 10 people are flagged as early hints.
The BHI methodology is based on established brand-health tracking used by global research firms (Nielsen, Ipsos, Kantar), adapted for Canada's cannabis industry. This is not a one-off survey design — it follows industry standards.
–
Executive Summary
Overview
The Good News
[Brand X] Is Known for Great Value, and Education Is Working
[Brand X] has built a strong reputation for value for money: 52% of retail staff rate [Brand X]'s value as better than competitors. Budtenders give [Brand X] the highest recommendation scores (8.13 out of 10), and nearly half of everyone surveyed (47%) said learning about [Brand X] through BTA's education hub made them more confident to recommend it. The hub is making a measurable difference: 75% of people who started with low familiarity finished with higher awareness after going through the content.
What Needs Work
Store Managers, Western Canada, and the In-House Story
Store managers (the people who decide what goes on the shelf) score much lower on brand awareness (8.40 vs. 16.18 for budtenders). In British Columbia, 89% of people don't see [Brand X] as meaningfully different from other brands. Alberta shows very thin brand awareness (score of 8.57). And [Brand X]'s "100% grown in-house" message (a core production claim) scored the lowest on the knowledge quiz (82%), meaning this key story isn't fully landing with retail staff who need to tell it.
14.74
Overall Brand
Health Score
A solid starting point. Above zero means [Brand X] is performing above average in brand awareness.
7.58
Average Recommendation
Score (Post-Education)
+0.9 above industry average and above the 'strong' threshold of 7 out of 10.
47%
More confident
recommending after education
Nearly half reported increased confidence: a meaningful lift from education alone.
75%
Low-familiarity people
who improved after the hub
3 out of 4 low-familiarity people improved: a clear sign the education hub works.
⚠
A Note on Group Sizes: We only show breakdowns for groups of 10 or more people. Groups with fewer than 10 (like individual province breakdowns for Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and New Brunswick) are early hints: not firm enough for big decisions without more data.
—
The [Brand X] Growth Story
Feb–May 2026
Between February and May 2026, [Brand X] went from a near-invisible brand on the BTA platform to one of its strongest performers. Here is how it happened — and how the education content drove the change.
February 2026 · Starting Point
48.53
Brand Health Score
Almost zero awareness (1.33 index). Negative NPS (-20). More detractors than promoters. A brand people didn't know, and the few who did weren't enthusiastic.
Mar–Apr 2026 · Breakthrough
+25.96
BHI point gain in 60 days
Awareness surged from 1.33 to 30.71. NPS flipped from -20 to +83.33 — a 103-point swing. The content engine kicked in: 1,684 [Brand X]-related content views.
Q2 2026 · Elite Territory
73.67
Brand Health Score
91.7% aided awareness. NPS +75. Zero detractors. 75% of evaluators are promoters. A complete brand health transformation in under 4 months.
The Content That Powered the Growth
These are the specific content pieces that drove [Brand X]'s awareness and education on the BTA platform between February and May 2026.
| Content |
Views |
Avg Time |
Engagement |
| [Brand X] Brand Page | 902 | 6m 24s | 82.1% |
| Brand Insight Study: [Brand X] | 200 | 3m 44s | 94.8% |
| [Brand X] Quiz | 160 | 2m 29s | 92.2% |
| The Floor Report · [Brand X] Edition · Q2 2026 | 108 | 6m 48s | 100% |
| The History of the Blunt (blog) | 114 | 3m 33s | 95.2% |
| Regional Cultivation Practices (blog) | 90 | 2m 57s | 92.6% |
| What is Cold Cured Resin? (references [Brand X]) | 64 | 2m 43s | 90.9% |
| What Differentiates Extracts (references [Brand X]) | 46 | 5m 33s | 100% |
| Total [Brand X]-related content views | 1,684 | | |
🚀
Key Takeaway: The education content is directly converting to recommendation on the floor. [Brand X]'s brand page holds people for over 6 minutes — among the highest on the platform. Brand Insight Study engagement sits at nearly 95%. The Floor Report achieved 100% engagement. This is not passive traffic — it is active learning that translates to real-world recommendation behaviour. Budtenders who go through this content became [Brand X]'s strongest advocates at +18 NPS.
01
Who We Talked To & How We Got the Data
Verified Members
We gathered information four different ways: a quiz, a detailed survey, a brand scorecard, and website traffic data. Every participant is a verified BTA member: real budtenders, store managers, and consumers who go through an application process to join. We used attention checks and timers to make sure people were actually paying attention.
1
Education Quiz
11 questions measuring what people learned, whether their familiarity improved, and whether they'd recommend [Brand X] after going through the education hub. About 1 in 4 panelists took the quiz.
2
Brand Survey
In-depth survey covering what's clear vs. confusing about [Brand X], what drives recommendations, and whether education changes behaviour. Nearly half of all respondents.
3
Brand Scorecard
Quarterly check-in measuring 7 factors of brand health: from awareness and familiarity to recommendation likelihood and how [Brand X] stacks up against competitors. Over 4 in 10 respondents participated.
4
Website Traffic
Data showing how many people visited [Brand X]'s education hub, how deeply they explored, and how long they spent engaging with the content.
Job Role
Based on 138 respondents
Where They're From
Based on 138 respondents
Store Type
Based on 138 respondents
Years in the Industry
39% of quiz takers have 5+ years in the industry: [Brand X]'s education is reaching experienced professionals whose opinions carry real weight. 18% have under 2 years of experience, confirming the hub attracts both veterans and newcomers. 18% of quiz takers did not share their experience level.
Based on 76 quiz participants (62 gave data)
Age Groups
Based on 178 respondents
02
Brand Health Score: Starting Point
Feb–May 2026
The Brand Health Score is based on 7 factors: from awareness and familiarity to how likely people are to recommend [Brand X]. Scores range from -100 (poor) to +100 (excellent), with 0 meaning "about average." This is [Brand X]'s first measurement, so these numbers are your starting point. Recommendation likelihood and overall sentiment carry the most weight in the final score.
14.74
Overall Brand
Health Score
scale -100 to +100
A positive score means [Brand X] is above average. A solid starting baseline.
① No hints (named [Brand X] with zero clues)
2.1%
② With a hint (remembered after a small nudge)
4.1%
③ When shown the name (recognized from a list)
42.3%
What Makes Up the Score: 7 Factors
The Brand Health Score combines 7 different factors, with recommendation and overall sentiment carrying the most weight. Here's how [Brand X] scored on each one in this first measurement.
Based on 192 respondents
| Factor |
Importance |
How [Brand X] Scored |
| Do they know the brand? |
Most |
No hints: 2.1%
With a hint: 4.1%
When shown: 42.3%
|
| How well do they know it? |
Less |
Very Familiar 54%
Somewhat 33%
Heard of Them 11%
Not Familiar 2%
|
| Have they tried it? |
Moderate |
Yes, Multiple Times 67%
Yes, Once 22%
No 11%
|
| Would they recommend it? |
Most |
Avg Recommendation: 7.18 / 10
Budtender 7.76 · Consumer 6.64 · Store Manager 6.21
Compare: Post-education quiz recommendation = 7.58 / 10
|
| How do they feel about it? |
Most |
Very Positive 31%
Somewhat Positive 46%
Neutral 18%
Negative 5%
|
| How often do they buy/recommend it? |
Moderate |
Purchase: Never 32% · Less Than Monthly 32% · Monthly 29% · 2–3×/Mo 7%
Recommend: Weekly+ 29% · 2–3×/Mo 19% · Monthly 18% · <Monthly 18% · Never 15%
|
| Is it better than alternatives? |
Less |
Much/Slightly Better 40%
About the Same 56%
Slightly Worse 4%
|
💡
What This Means for [Brand X]
The 7 factors reveal a brand with solid fundamentals and two clear growth levers. Familiarity and trial are strong: 54% of respondents know [Brand X] well and 67% have tried it multiple times. Sentiment is healthy: 77% feel somewhat or very positive about [Brand X]. Recommendation scores are above the strong threshold of 7 out of 10.
But two signals point to the biggest opportunities. Awareness has a sharp gap: 42% recognize [Brand X] when shown the name, but only 2% think of it first and only 4% recall it with a hint. This is the "known but not top-of-mind" problem. Competitive positioning is weak: 56% say [Brand X] is "about the same" as alternatives, meaning the brand is not standing apart in people's minds.
The playbook is clear: awareness and differentiation are the two levers to pull. The recommendation and sentiment foundations are already in place.
How Scores Break Down by Group
The same awareness score varies significantly depending on who you ask. Below is how [Brand X] scores across roles, provinces, and age groups.
| Category |
Group |
People |
No Hints % |
When Shown % |
Score |
What This Means |
| Overall |
All respondents |
178 |
2.1% |
42.3% |
14.74 |
Starting Point |
| By Job Role |
| Role |
Budtender |
110 |
3.6% |
45.5% |
16.18 |
Strong |
| Role |
Consumer |
32 |
0% |
56.3% |
20.63 |
Recognized, Not Recalled |
| Role |
Store Manager |
50 |
0% |
28.0% |
8.40 |
Needs Attention |
| By Province (groups of 10+ people) |
| Province |
Ontario |
104 |
3.8% |
38.5% |
14.81 |
Near Average |
| Province |
British Columbia |
46 |
0% |
52.2% |
15.65 |
Recognized, Not Recalled |
| Province |
Alberta |
28 |
0% |
21.4% |
8.57 |
Needs Attention |
| By Age Group (groups of 10+ people) |
| Age |
35–44 (largest segment) |
66 |
3.0% |
45.5% |
16.67 |
Strong Awareness |
| Age |
25–34 |
60 |
0% |
46.7% |
15.00 |
Fair |
| Age |
19–24 |
20 |
10.0% |
30.0% |
16.00 |
Recalled, Not Recognized |
| Age |
45–54 |
22 |
0% |
27.3% |
8.18 |
Needs Attention |
| Age |
55+ (fewer than 10 people: early hint only) |
10 |
0% |
20.0% |
6.00 |
Very Low (small group) |
Familiarity: How Well Do They Know [Brand X]?
How well respondents know the brand, from having never heard of it to knowing the products well.
| Category | Group | People | Very Familiar | Somewhat | Heard of | Not Familiar | Signal |
|---|
| By Job Role (groups of 10+ people) |
| Job Role | Budtender | 72 | 53% | 33% | 11% | 3% | Well-known |
| Job Role | Consumer | 20 | 30% | 50% | 20% | 0% | Well-known |
| Job Role | Store Manager | 38 | 53% | 37% | 11% | 0% | Well-known |
| By Province (groups of 10+ people) |
| Province | AB | 26 | 31% | 54% | 8% | 8% | Well-known |
| Province | BC | 26 | 46% | 46% | 8% | 0% | Well-known |
| Province | ON | 74 | 57% | 30% | 14% | 0% | Well-known |
| Province | SK | 4 | 50% | 0% | 50% | 0% | Moderate |
| By Age Group (groups of 10+ people) |
| Age Group | 19-24 | 14 | 43% | 43% | 0% | 14% | Well-known |
| Age Group | 25-34 | 38 | 63% | 26% | 11% | 0% | Well-known |
| Age Group | 35-44 | 42 | 38% | 43% | 19% | 0% | Well-known |
| Age Group | 45-54 | 12 | 17% | 50% | 33% | 0% | Moderate |
| Age Group | 55+ | 10 | 60% | 40% | 0% | 0% | Well-known |
Trial: Have They Tried [Brand X]?
Whether respondents have personally tried the brand's products, and how often.
| Category | Group | People | Multiple Times | Once | No | Signal |
|---|
| By Job Role (groups of 10+ people) |
| Job Role | Budtender | 72 | 64% | 22% | 14% | High trial |
| Job Role | Consumer | 20 | 60% | 30% | 10% | High trial |
| Job Role | Store Manager | 38 | 68% | 21% | 11% | High trial |
| By Province (groups of 10+ people) |
| Province | AB | 26 | 69% | 23% | 8% | High trial |
| Province | BC | 26 | 46% | 31% | 23% | Good trial |
| Province | ON | 74 | 70% | 22% | 8% | High trial |
| Province | SK | 4 | 50% | 0% | 50% | Low trial |
| By Age Group (groups of 10+ people) |
| Age Group | 19-24 | 14 | 71% | 14% | 14% | High trial |
| Age Group | 25-34 | 38 | 79% | 16% | 5% | High trial |
| Age Group | 35-44 | 42 | 48% | 33% | 19% | Good trial |
| Age Group | 45-54 | 12 | 17% | 50% | 33% | Low trial |
| Age Group | 55+ | 10 | 80% | 20% | 0% | High trial |
Sentiment: How Do They Feel About [Brand X]?
Overall sentiment, from very positive to very negative.
| Category | Group | People | Very Positive | Somewhat Positive | Neutral | Negative | Signal |
|---|
| By Job Role (groups of 10+ people) |
| Job Role | Budtender | 72 | 36% | 47% | 17% | 0% | Very positive |
| Job Role | Consumer | 20 | 20% | 50% | 20% | 10% | Mostly positive |
| Job Role | Store Manager | 38 | 16% | 47% | 21% | 16% | Mostly positive |
| By Province (groups of 10+ people) |
| Province | AB | 26 | 23% | 54% | 23% | 0% | Mostly positive |
| Province | BC | 26 | 23% | 62% | 15% | 0% | Very positive |
| Province | ON | 74 | 32% | 43% | 16% | 8% | Mostly positive |
| Province | SK | 4 | 0% | 0% | 50% | 50% | Mixed/Low |
| By Age Group (groups of 10+ people) |
| Age Group | 19-24 | 14 | 29% | 43% | 29% | 0% | Mostly positive |
| Age Group | 25-34 | 38 | 37% | 32% | 16% | 16% | Mostly positive |
| Age Group | 35-44 | 42 | 19% | 57% | 19% | 5% | Mostly positive |
| Age Group | 45-54 | 12 | 0% | 67% | 33% | 0% | Mostly positive |
| Age Group | 55+ | 10 | 40% | 60% | 0% | 0% | Very positive |
Competitive: How Does [Brand X] Compare to Alternatives?
Whether respondents believe [Brand X] is better, about the same, or worse than similar brands.
| Category | Group | People | Much Better | Slightly Better | About Same | Worse | Signal |
|---|
| By Job Role (groups of 10+ people) |
| Job Role | Budtender | 72 | 8% | 36% | 53% | 3% | Moderate |
| Job Role | Consumer | 20 | 0% | 30% | 60% | 10% | Not standing out |
| Job Role | Store Manager | 38 | 11% | 16% | 68% | 5% | Not standing out |
| By Province (groups of 10+ people) |
| Province | AB | 26 | 8% | 31% | 62% | 0% | Moderate |
| Province | BC | 26 | 0% | 15% | 85% | 0% | Not standing out |
| Province | ON | 74 | 11% | 35% | 46% | 8% | Moderate |
| Province | SK | 4 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% | Not standing out |
| By Age Group (groups of 10+ people) |
| Age Group | 19-24 | 14 | 14% | 14% | 57% | 14% | Not standing out |
| Age Group | 25-34 | 38 | 0% | 32% | 63% | 5% | Not standing out |
| Age Group | 35-44 | 42 | 10% | 24% | 62% | 5% | Not standing out |
| Age Group | 45-54 | 12 | 0% | 33% | 67% | 0% | Not standing out |
| Age Group | 55+ | 10 | 40% | 20% | 40% | 0% | Competitive |
Purchase Frequency: How Often Do They Buy [Brand X]?
How often respondents personally purchase [Brand X] products.
| Category | Group | People | 2-3x/Mo | Monthly | Less Than Monthly | Never | Signal |
|---|
| By Job Role (groups of 10+ people) |
| Job Role | Budtender | 72 | 8% | 39% | 28% | 25% | Regular |
| Job Role | Consumer | 20 | 0% | 40% | 40% | 20% | Regular |
| Job Role | Store Manager | 38 | 5% | 32% | 32% | 53% | Occasional |
| By Province (groups of 10+ people) |
| Province | AB | 26 | 0% | 46% | 16% | 38% | Regular |
| Province | BC | 26 | 0% | 46% | 46% | 8% | Regular |
| Province | ON | 74 | 8% | 43% | 22% | 27% | Regular |
| Province | SK | 4 | 50% | 0% | 0% | 50% | Regular |
| By Age Group (groups of 10+ people) |
| Age Group | 19-24 | 14 | 14% | 29% | 14% | 43% | Regular |
| Age Group | 25-34 | 38 | 11% | 42% | 42% | 32% | Regular |
| Age Group | 35-44 | 42 | 0% | 38% | 38% | 33% | Occasional |
| Age Group | 45-54 | 12 | 0% | 17% | 17% | 67% | Infrequent |
| Age Group | 55+ | 10 | 0% | 60% | 20% | 20% | Regular |
Recommendation Frequency: How Often Do They Recommend [Brand X]?
How often respondents actively recommend [Brand X] to customers or peers.
| Category | Group | People | Weekly+ | 2-3x/Mo | Monthly | Less | Never | Signal |
|---|
| By Job Role (groups of 10+ people) |
| Job Role | Budtender | 72 | 36% | 22% | 19% | 14% | 8% | Active recommenders |
| Job Role | Consumer | 20 | 0% | 10% | 40% | 40% | 10% | Rarely |
| Job Role | Store Manager | 38 | 16% | 21% | 21% | 21% | 21% | Occasional |
| By Province (groups of 10+ people) |
| Province | AB | 26 | 8% | 15% | 38% | 38% | 15% | Rarely |
| Province | BC | 26 | 8% | 46% | 15% | 15% | 15% | Active recommenders |
| Province | ON | 74 | 38% | 14% | 19% | 14% | 16% | Active recommenders |
| Province | SK | 4 | 0% | 0% | 50% | 50% | 50% | Rarely |
| By Age Group (groups of 10+ people) |
| Age Group | 19-24 | 14 | 43% | 14% | 14% | 0% | 29% | Active recommenders |
| Age Group | 25-34 | 38 | 21% | 32% | 26% | 26% | 11% | Active recommenders |
| Age Group | 35-44 | 42 | 19% | 24% | 24% | 19% | 14% | Occasional |
| Age Group | 45-54 | 12 | 0% | 0% | 33% | 33% | 33% | Rarely |
| Age Group | 55+ | 10 | 40% | 20% | 40% | 40% | 0% | Active recommenders |
Recommendation (NPS): Would They Recommend [Brand X]?
Net Promoter Score (NPS) from -100 to +100. Promoters (9-10) minus Detractors (0-6). Positive NPS is good; above 0 means more promoters than detractors.
| Category | Group | People | Promoters | Passives | Detractors | NPS | Signal |
|---|
| By Job Role |
| Job Role | Budtender | 72 | 36% | 39% | 25% | 18 | Strong |
| Job Role | Consumer | 20 | 10% | 40% | 50% | -40 | Negative |
| Job Role | Store Manager | 38 | 11% | 42% | 47% | -37 | Negative |
| By Province |
| Province | AB | 26 | 15% | 54% | 31% | -15 | Negative |
| Province | BC | 26 | 15% | 46% | 38% | -23 | Negative |
| Province | ON | 74 | 32% | 35% | 32% | 0 | Neutral |
| Province | SK | 4 | 0% | 0% | 100% | -100 | Negative |
| By Age Group |
| Age Group | 19-24 | 14 | 29% | 29% | 43% | -14 | Negative |
| Age Group | 25-34 | 38 | 26% | 37% | 37% | -11 | Negative |
| Age Group | 35-44 | 42 | 19% | 43% | 38% | -19 | Negative |
| Age Group | 45-54 | 12 | 0% | 50% | 50% | -50 | Negative |
| Age Group | 55+ | 10 | 40% | 60% | 0% | 40 | Strong |
📊
What the Breakdowns Reveal
Store managers are the critical gap. They score 8.40 — half of budtenders' 16.18. Since store managers control shelf placement and reorder decisions, their low awareness creates a downstream effect: if they don't know [Brand X], they are less likely to carry it or train their teams on it. Closing the store manager awareness gap should be the top priority for the next quarterly check-in.
Alberta has very little presence. At 8.57 with only 21% recognition when shown the name, the brand has not yet built awareness in this market. Combined with BC's struggle to stand out, [Brand X]'s western story clearly needs attention.
The 19–24 age group are organic fans. They are the only group with double-digit spontaneous recall (10%). This group is [Brand X]'s most natural word-of-mouth channel — and their voice is currently underrepresented in the panel.
BC knows [Brand X] but does not see it as different. 52% recognize the brand but the score sits at 15.65 — recognition without distinction. The cultivation story and concentrate innovation are the right tools to fix this.
Bottom Line
Most people recognize [Brand X] when reminded, but almost nobody thinks of it first. Closing that recall gap — especially among store managers and in Alberta — is the single biggest opportunity. The 19–24 age group (10% spontaneous recall) is [Brand X]'s most natural fanbase and should be amplified.
03
What's Confusing About [Brand X]?
Brand Survey · Feb–May 2026
"What parts of [Brand X]'s brand or product story are unclear, forgettable, or easily confused?" 278 people participated across all our data sources.
What People Find Confusing
Concentrate Differentiation16%
Pricing / Value Positioning14%
Important: 48% said "nothing feels unclear", but BTA panel members may be more familiar with [Brand X] than the average retail employee. Newer staff and people in western Canada show much more confusion.
What Comes to Mind First About [Brand X]
Locally Grown / Independent34%
Flavour-forward cultivars5%
Price and geography are what people remember most. [Brand X]'s cultivation story and concentrate innovation aren't naturally coming up: that's a gap between what [Brand X] wants to be known for and what people actually recall.
Who's Most Confused About [Brand X]?
Value-Focused Shoppers18%
New consumers are most frequently identified as the least-informed audience. Notably, 9% cited budtenders themselves: a sign that even retail advocates have knowledge gaps to close, particularly in western provinces and newer staff.
Does [Brand X] Stand Out From Other Brands?
Overall
1 – Not distinct at all11%
British Columbia (n=18, early hint)
BC is a serious concern: 89% of BC respondents don't see [Brand X] as meaningfully different from other brands. Ontario fares better but still has 21% in the "not distinct" camp. [Brand X]'s cultivation story and concentrate expertise need to do more work differentiating the brand: especially outside Ontario.
Based on 160+ survey respondents
"more variety and make it more regionally themed people dont know what [Brand X] means unless i tell them"
Budtender · BC · Independent · 5+ yrs
"[Brand X] has come a long way since 3 years ago think people still have the same memories"
Budtender · ON · Corporate Chain · 5+ yrs
"more product options on the market in bc there are only 2 14g options and thats it"
Store Manager · BC · Independent · 5+ yrs
"i dont carry this brand and know very little about them once upon a time they had a standout product that was amazing"
Budtender · BC · Franchise · 5+ yrs
Bottom Line
[Brand X]'s cultivation story isn't coming through. People remember the price and the region, not how the product is made. In BC: Canada's most competitive cannabis market: 89% of people don't see [Brand X] as standing out.
04
What Makes People Recommend (or Drop) [Brand X]?
Brand Survey · Feb–May 2026
"What actually triggers a budtender or consumer to recommend [Brand X] over a competitor, and what makes them stop?"
The #1 Reason People Recommend [Brand X]
What Tips the Scale vs. Another Brand
Confidence in brand consistency30%
What Makes People Stop Recommending
Consumer feedback (negative)23%
Better pricing elsewhere14%
Stronger flavour experience11%
Higher potency alternative9%
Better retailer edu support7%
How [Brand X]'s Value Compares to Competitors
52% rate [Brand X]'s value as stronger than competitors: a strong position. Only 7% rate it as weaker. Value for money is [Brand X]'s most durable advantage right now.
📊
Who's Hardest to Convince: Store managers are the hardest group to win: they score 6.25/10 for recommendation after education, and 6.21/10 in general surveys (vs. 8.13 and 7.76 for budtenders). Running out of stock is the #1 reason people stop recommending (27%): keeping shelves full may matter as much as any marketing campaign.
"its popular for the wrong reasons many people who get [Brand X] are only doing so because of price and thc"
Store Manager · ON · Corporate Chain · 5+ yrs
"good quality for the price quality is usually on par but convincing people to try something new at a higher price point is the challenge"
Store Manager · AB · Independent · 5+ yrs
What Drives People to Choose [Brand X]
When asked what makes them pick [Brand X] over alternatives, here is what evaluators ranked highest. These are the reasons that actually drive brand choice at the shelf.
| Driver |
% Citing |
Strength |
| Good value for money | 62.32% | #1 |
| Consistent quality | 46.38% | #2 |
| Positive customer feedback | 37.68% | #3 |
| Local / Canadian producer | 27.54% | #4 |
| Appealing packaging or design | 26.09% | #5 |
| Budtender recommendation | 24.64% | #6 |
| Widely available / easy to find | 20.29% | #7 |
| Strong brand story / authenticity | 18.84% | #8 |
| Sustainable or organic practices | 8.70% | #9 |
By role: Budtenders cite consistent quality at 53.85% — significantly above the 46.38% average and above consumers (36.36%) and store managers (36.84%). For budtenders, [Brand X]'s value proposition is simple: affordable quality that customers love. Value for money leads across all three groups: 66.67% for budtenders, 54.55% for consumers, 57.89% for store managers.
Bottom Line
Running out of stock is the single biggest threat to [Brand X]'s retail relationships: bigger than price or quality concerns. 52% say [Brand X]'s value beats competitors, which is a strong foundation to build on.
How [Brand X] Compares to the Rest of the Industry
BTA's panel also tracks how other brands are doing: so you can see where [Brand X] fits in the bigger picture. These are the top brands by recommendation score (from people who've evaluated at least 5 brands).
Cross-Brand Recommendation Rankings
Average recommendation scores among brands with 20+ evaluated responses (0–10 scale, all-time data):
| 1. Simply Bare | n=94 | 9.49 |
| 2. Pistol & Paris | n=96 | 9.02 |
| 3. Carmel | n=74 | 8.86 |
| 4. [Brand X] | n=146 | 7.19 |
| 5. Spinach | n=120 | 7.15 |
What This Means for [Brand X]
[Brand X]'s recommendation score (7.19) sits 2 points below the top tier (Simply Bare 9.49, Pistol & Paris 9.02, Carmel 8.86) but lands alongside Spinach (7.15) in the accessible/value tier. [Brand X] has the largest sample size among all comparison brands (n=146), which means this score carries the most statistical weight.
Key pattern: the top three brands are unified by a strong craft identity and cultivation story: Simply Bare's organic living soil, Pistol & Paris's small-batch hash, and Carmel's pheno-hunting. The recommendation gap for [Brand X] is not about product quality (quiz knowledge is strong at 95% on key questions) but about narrative differentiation at shelf: the same signal that surfaced in the clarity analysis (Section 03) where cultivation approach was one of the least clear story elements.
[Brand X]'s strongest cross-brand asset: price-value perception. 52% of [Brand X] respondents rate it stronger than competitors on value. Spinach (7.15) shows that being in the accessible tier does not cap recommendation scores: the opportunity is to pair [Brand X]'s value anchor with a more cohesive production and origin story.
05
Does Learning About [Brand X] Actually Change Behaviour?
Brand Survey + Education Quiz
"Does structured education actually make people more likely to recommend [Brand X], or does it just increase product knowledge without changing what they do?"
47%
Recommend more
confidently post-education
Nearly half saw a confidence boost from the education hub
16%
Knowledge gain only
(no behaviour change)
Knowledge improved but actions didn't change: the knowing-doing gap
16%
No change
reported
No measurable shift from education
9%
Still do not
recommend [Brand X]
A small group who remain unconvinced
12%
Not sure /
Other
Remaining respondents who did not specify a change
Education's Effect by Job Role
Budtenders (n=60)
No change / still won't17%
Store Managers (n=28)
Does the Education Boost Confidence?
91% say education influences their confidence at least "Moderately." The content is clearly impactful, but the main effect is building confidence, not starting brand-new recommendation habits. The gap between knowing and doing is the key thing to unlock.
Most Requested Education Type
Differentiation vs. Competitors#1
Consumer Use-Case Examples#2
Cultivation / Process Transparency#3
Retail / Commercial Clarity#4
Format-Specific Selling Guidance#5
Knowledge Before vs. After the Education Hub
75% of people who started with low familiarity improved after going through the hub. 37% improved by at least one familiarity level. 4 people showed a decline: a hint that the content doesn't fully meet everyone's expectations.
Based on 76 quiz participants
What People Got Right on the Quiz: Strengths & Gaps
95%
Whole Flower Input
Correctly Identified
95%
Cold Cured Resin
Advantage Correctly Identified
82%
100% Grown In-House
Correctly Answered
Core [Brand X] knowledge is landing well. Both "whole flower input" and "cold cured resin advantage" scored 95% accuracy: the education hub is doing its job communicating these key points. The weaker area is the "100% grown in-house" message at 82%, suggesting this production story deserves more prominent positioning.
💡
Important nuance: Getting 95% on a multiple-choice quiz about cold cured resin is one thing. Actually explaining it to a customer at the counter (without being prompted) is another. We don't yet know if budtenders can do the latter. With continued data collection, BTA can test real-world explanation skills, not just quiz recall.
Bottom Line
Education clearly boosts confidence: 47% of people feel more confident recommending [Brand X] after learning about it. But the jump from quiz knowledge to real-world recommendation still needs work, especially for store managers.
06
Priority 1: Product Range & Availability
Content Effectiveness
What We Found
Assortment breadth was cited as a clarity gap by 2% of survey respondents: the smallest explicit mention. However, open-text responses tell a richer story: respondents in BC specifically noted very limited product option options (only 2 × 14g products listed), and multiple western respondents said they simply "don't carry this brand" or haven't had access to core [Brand X] formats. The issue is not that the assortment story is confusing: it's that the assortment itself is physically absent in key markets.
The strain name association question in the hub quiz shows key cultivars from the portfolio as dominant in memory: 97% of quiz takers correctly identified a limonene-forward sativa from [Brand X]'s portfolio. Newer staff may still benefit from strain-format clarity training.
What [Brand X] Should Do
- Create a "[Brand X] Assortment at a Glance" education card within the BTA hub: format-by-format, strain-by-strain, with availability by province
- Add a "Which [Brand X] format is right for this customer?" decision-tree module to the brand hub
- Deploy a follow-up check-in survey specifically targeting BC and AB to measure assortment comprehension vs. availability perception
- Track assortment comprehension as a discrete quiz dimension in the next quarterly check-in
What Formats People Are Most Interested In
Based on what panelists said they are most curious about trying next:
How [Brand X] Is Priced in People's Minds
The price range people most commonly associate with [Brand X]:
[Brand X] is overwhelmingly seen in the $21–$40 range, firmly establishing a mid-tier price position. This aligns with "Good value for money" being the #1 reason people choose [Brand X].
07
Priority 2: Standing Out From Competitors
Cold Cured Resin · Hash · Blunt Format · Cultivation-First
This is [Brand X]'s highest-priority gap. "Differentiation vs. competitors" was the single most-requested education topic. While cold cured resin knowledge tests at 95% on a multiple-choice quiz, the real challenge is getting budtenders to explain it naturally at the counter. In BC ([Brand X]'s closest western market) the brand gets some of its lowest standout scores, and the "100% grown in-house" message is the lowest-scoring quiz question (82%).
What We Found
- Differentiation vs. competitors is the #1 education type requested across both budtenders and store managers
- BC standout factor: 67% Neutral, 22% Not Distinct: the home of premium cannabis craft culture, yet [Brand X] is invisible as a differentiator
- Cold Cured Resin: 95% quiz recall: strong basic knowledge. The gap is not "have they heard it?" but "can they explain it at shelf?"
- "Cultivation-first philosophy" does not appear in spontaneous recall; price and geography dominate: pointing to a gap in how [Brand X]'s differentiated manufacturing and production practices are communicated at retail
- Whole-flower input is well understood (95%) but is also a more basic claim: the "100% in-house" message (82%) and the process depth story (Cold Curing methodology) are the next knowledge layers to unlock
What [Brand X] Should Do
- Evolve cold cured resin education from "what is it?" to "how to sell it": create retail scenario modules where budtenders practice explaining Cold Cured Resin benefits to different customer profiles
- Create a "[Brand X] vs. Category" comparison framework for budtenders: what makes cold cured resin hash different from solvent-extracted, what the terpene story means at shelf
- Add open-ended or scenario-based cold cured resin questions to the next BHI check-in to track applied knowledge lift (currently 95% multiple-choice but untested in open format)
- Commission a BC-specific brand education sprint: test whether more targeted differentiation content changes the 67% Neutral standout factor rate within 60 days
08
Priority 3: Key Selling Points
In-House Growing · Value · THC · Consistency · Retail Clarity
What's Landing
- 100% in-house: 82% quiz accuracy: this message is understood but lags behind other core claims. Consider more prominent positioning in hub content.
- Whole flower only: 95% accuracy: a strong foundation
- Value positioning: 52% rate [Brand X] as stronger than competition: price-value perception is robust
- Batch-to-batch consistency: "Supply consistency" cited as #2 recommendation driver (14%) and "confidence in brand consistency" is the #1 competitive decision driver (30%)
Where Selling Points Aren't Converting
- Retail-friendly clarity: 5% explicitly cited packaging clarity as a recommendation driver: well below potential. Open text reveals packaging opacity (opaque bags, no visible product) is a recurring friction point, especially for new consumer conversions
- High THC genetics: 11% list it as their first association, but potency gap vs. competitors is cited as a switch trigger. THC narrative needs to be contextualized, not just stated
- "[Brand X]" brand name: Multiple open-text responses noted consumers and even staff don't know what the name means: brand origin story needs consistent retail storytelling support
📦
Packaging Transparency Gap: At least 8 open-text respondents across ON, BC, and AB specifically requested window packaging or clearer product visibility. Comments like "those big beautiful buds deserve to be showcased" and "Clear packaging!! (×3 responses)" suggest [Brand X]'s opaque packaging is suppressing trial at the moment of decision: particularly with new consumers. This is a commercial insight BTA can help [Brand X] quantify in the next research cycle.
09
How Many People Used the Education Hub?
Website Traffic · Feb–May 2026
These numbers show how many people visited [Brand X]'s education hub on the BTA platform during the pilot period. All figures are estimates.
552
Pages
Viewed
Solid volume for a single-brand hub
138
People Who
Visited
138 unique people visited: a focused group
4.0
Pages per
Person
4 pages per person: visitors read, not bounce
6m 21s
Average Time
Spent
Among the highest on the platform
1,500
Total Actions
Taken
1,500 interactions: clicks, scrolls, and quiz answers
📈
People who find the hub spend meaningful time there: 4 pages per person and 6 minutes of reading are strong signs that the content is engaging. The main gap is getting more people to visit in the first place: only a modest number of BTA members visited the hub so far. With continued data collection, the focus should be on getting more store managers to the hub, since they currently show the lowest brand awareness.
Overall Platform Traffic (Feb 15 – May 15)
| Total Sessions | 4,990 |
| Total Users | 2,715 |
| Total Page Views | 18,661 |
Where Traffic Comes From
| Direct | 61.7% |
| Organic Search | 21.9% |
| Referral | 5.3% |
| Organic Social | 4.0% |
Direct traffic dominates at nearly 62% — members are coming straight to the platform, indicating strong platform loyalty. Organic search at 22% validates ongoing SEO efforts.
10
Who's Paying Attention, and Who's Not
Role · Province · Age · Store Type
How Different Job Roles See [Brand X]
| Role |
BHI Score |
Quiz Rec |
BHI Rec |
Primary Signal |
| Budtender |
16.18 |
8.13 |
7.76 |
Most engaged, highest edu impact |
| Consumer |
20.63 |
7.17 |
6.64 |
High aided, 0% spontaneous recall: push/pull gap |
| Store Manager |
8.40 |
6.25 |
6.21 |
Critical gap: ordering influence risk |
Store managers who don't know [Brand X] are less likely to prioritize shelf placement, reordering, and training their teams to recommend it. 29% of store managers reported no change in behaviour after education, vs. 17% of budtenders.
Brand Score by Province
Manitoba (n=4, early hint)30.0
SK (n=8, early hint)15.00
Alberta's score of 8.57 and 21% recognition when shown the name makes it the province most in need of brand building. Saskatchewan and Manitoba show strong early hint scores despite very small sample sizes: suggesting [Brand X] does well where it's actually available. Alberta appears to have both stock and awareness challenges.
Brand Score by Age
55+ (n=10, early hint)6.00
19–24 year olds show the only spontaneous recall spontaneous awareness (10%): this group may be [Brand X]'s organic brand ambassadors. 45+ awareness drops sharply. Consider whether this reflects panel composition, regional distribution, or a genuine generational gap in brand exposure.
Store Type Patterns
| Store Type |
n |
Key Signal |
| Independent |
68 |
Largest segment: most likely to request budtender samples, merch; highest open-text engagement |
| Corporate / Chain |
38 |
Most likely to cite supply consistency and "popular for wrong reasons" (price-only drivers) |
| Franchise |
10 |
Small sample: early hint. One distributor access complaint (SK/FIKA) |
| Not Specified |
28 |
Includes consumers and retail staff with unclassified store type |
Distribution access issue flagged: One SK independent respondent explicitly noted inability to order [Brand X] directly due to FIKA distribution requirements: resulting in the store discontinuing the brand. This is a structural distribution gap BTA data can help [Brand X] quantify in future cycles.
Does Industry Experience Change How People See [Brand X]?
5+ yrs
39% of quiz panel
Veterans show the highest pre-familiarity scores and highest recommendation scores. This group includes [Brand X]'s most loyal advocates: many reference historical brand evolution ("from their early days"). Their recommendations carry the most cultural weight.
1–2 yrs
13% of quiz panel
Newer staff show lower pre-familiarity and are more likely to need education before recommending. This group is most responsive to BTA's hub content: the 75% low-familiarity lift likely skews heavily toward this group and the under 6-month group.
Under 6m
Small but critical
The most under-served by current content, and the fastest-growing retail staffing group. Onboarding-focused education modules and new-staff welcome flows would directly address this gap.
Member Archetypes: Who Is on the Platform
BTA members fall into four broad archetypes based on their platform behaviour. Understanding which group is engaging with [Brand X] helps focus education efforts where they will have the most impact.
| Archetype |
% of Members |
Description |
| Engaged Budtender |
45.4% |
High recommendation influence, strong platform advocacy. The largest and most valuable group. |
| Moderate Participant |
38.7% |
Consumers with lower overall engagement. More passive brand followers. |
| Loyal Platform Participant |
14.0% |
High survey completion rates, high points accrual. Deeply invested in the platform. |
| Niche High-Context |
1.9% |
Deep decision context, low future reliance. Specialized and selective. |
Why this matters for [Brand X]: [Brand X]'s strongest segment — budtenders — aligns directly with the Engaged Budtender archetype, the largest group on the platform at 45.4%. Education efforts targeting this group reach the broadest, most high-impact audience. When budtenders learn about [Brand X], they influence purchasing decisions across the entire retail floor.
11
The 10 Most Important Things to Do Now
Ranked by Impact Potential
These are ranked by how much difference they could make, and how well BTA can both help you implement them and measure the results over the next 90 days.
01
Close the Recall-to-Recommendation Gap for Cold Cured Resin
The [Brand X] hub quiz shows 95% accuracy on Cold Cured Resin advantage: confirming the message lands when presented in a multiple-choice format. But BC standout factor scores (89% Neutral or below) and the fact that "cultivation-first" does not surface in spontaneous brand associations suggest that cold cured resin knowledge isn't translating into retail storytelling. The gap is not "have they heard it?" but rather "can they explain it at shelf and does it change their recommendation?"
BTA Implementation: Evolve cold cured resin education from recall-based (multiple-choice quiz) to application-based (retail scenario modules, open-ended explainer practice). Add open-ended cold cured resin questions to the next BHI check-in to measure applied knowledge: not just recognition. Target: 40%+ of budtenders able to explain cold cured resin benefits in their own words within 90 days. Track correlation between cold cured resin explanation confidence and standout factor scores in BC and AB.
Worth Doing
02
Store Manager Activation Program
Store managers score a negative NPS of -37 — meaning more actively detract from [Brand X] than promote it. Only 11% of store managers are promoters, while 47% are detractors. This is the worst NPS of any segment. Combined with their low Brand Health Score (8.40 vs. 16.18 for budtenders), store managers represent a critical gap: they control shelf placement, reorder decisions, and team education priorities. A store manager who doesn't value [Brand X] creates a downstream cascade of missed recommendations and reduced shelf presence.
BTA Implementation: Design a Store Manager-specific content stream within BTA: shorter, commercially-framed, focused on ordering/positioning ROI rather than product features. Add SM-specific recommendation tracking. Target: raise SM Brand Health Score to 12.0+ after two more quarterly check-ins and move SM NPS from -37 to at least -10.00 within 6 months. Test whether dedicated SM education closes the 6.25 vs 8.13 recommendation gap vs. budtenders.
Urgent
03
Alberta Brand Development Campaign
Alberta's Brand Health Score of 8.57 and 21% recognition when shown the name (vs. 45% for Ontario) suggests very thin market penetration. Alberta's Brand Health Score of 8.57 and NPS of -15 compare unfavorably to Ontario's 14.81 and NPS of 0. AB respondents skew toward store managers and independents: exactly the decision-makers who need direct brand education to stock and recommend [Brand X]. Distribution access issues may compound this.
BTA Implementation: Run an AB-targeted BTA notification campaign to drive hub engagement. Commission an AB-specific mini-check-in (15 questions, n≥25) to understand whether the gap is distribution, awareness, or perception. Track AB Brand Health Score quarterly. Partner with [Brand X] sales team on AB distribution intelligence.
Worth Doing
04
Convert "Known But Not Recalled" into Top-of-Mind
42% aided awareness vs. 2% top-of-mind is a classic recognition-without-recall gap. [Brand X] is not forgotten. It's just not the first name that surfaces. This affects both consumer purchasing (no demand pull) and budtender recommendation flow (requires prompting, not natural suggestion).
BTA Implementation: Introduce a "quick recall" training module: mnemonic anchors for [Brand X]'s 3 core differentiators. Add spontaneous recall tracking as a discrete quarterly metric. Test whether micro-quiz reinforcement (Article micro-quizzes) increases spontaneous recall rates over 2 cycles. Target: 5%+ spontaneous recall after two more quarterly check-ins.
Worth Doing
05
Packaging Transparency Research Module
8+ unprompted open-text responses cited opaque packaging as a barrier: specifically at the moment of new consumer trial. This is a product decision, not a marketing decision, but the data to support or challenge it needs to be structured. BTA can help [Brand X] quantify this as a commercial signal.
BTA Implementation: Add a structured question to the next research cycle: "Does [Brand X]'s current packaging help or hinder your recommendation at shelf?" with sub-questions on new consumer barriers. Survey both budtenders and consumers. Share aggregated findings with [Brand X]'s packaging team.
Worth Doing
06
Supply Consistency as a Brand Health KPI
Stock-outs are the #1 switch trigger (27%) and supply consistency is the #2 recommendation driver. Meanwhile, consistent quality is the #2 overall driver of brand choice at 46.38% — second only to value for money. These are not marketing metrics, but they directly shape brand health scores. When budtenders cite consistent quality at 53.85% as a top reason for choosing [Brand X], any supply disruption that compromises quality perception directly damages the brand's strongest differentiator.
BTA Implementation: Add a supply/availability satisfaction question to the quarterly BHI check-in. Track correlation between regional stock-out reports and Brand Health Score changes over time. Present findings as a supply chain business case: connecting retail sentiment directly to inventory decision-making. This makes BTA data operationally valuable beyond marketing.
Needs More Study
07
New Staff Onboarding Content Flow
Respondents with under 2 years of industry experience show the lowest pre-familiarity with [Brand X] and the highest education responsiveness. Cannabis retail has high staff turnover: every 6 months, a wave of new budtenders enters the market with no prior [Brand X] exposure. Current content is built for the veteran; a parallel track for newcomers is missing.
BTA Implementation: Design a "[Brand X] in 5 Minutes" new staff orientation module: simple, visual, brand-origin-forward. Track engagement by tenure group. Test whether new-staff content lifts recommendation rates faster than the existing format-for-veterans approach. Measure via 30-day and 60-day follow-up micro-surveys.
Needs New Content
08
BC Distinctness Recovery Plan
89% of BC respondents rated [Brand X] as Neutral or below on standout factor. In BC (Canada's most sophisticated cannabis market and [Brand X]'s logical growth frontier) the brand is essentially invisible as a differentiator. This is a reputational urgency, not just a knowledge gap.
BTA Implementation: Run a BC-targeted campaign within BTA (email, in-portal, notifications) focusing specifically on [Brand X]'s cultivation-first and Cold Cured Resin stories: the elements most absent from BC awareness. Set a 90-day target: move BC standout factor from 11% "Distinct" to 30%+. Measure via a BC-specific check-in survey in the next quarter.
Worth Doing
09
Consumer Use-Case Content: Bridge the Knowledge-to-Trial Gap
"Consumer use-case examples" is the #2 most-requested education type across the survey. Yet [Brand X]'s current hub education is primarily process- and feature-focused. The activation gap (where education increases knowledge but not recommendation behaviour) is directly addressable through consumer scenario content: "When to recommend a sativa-dominant option," "The customer who loves a fruity cultivar is also going to love..."
BTA Implementation: Develop 4–6 "consumer scenario" education cards for the [Brand X] hub. Test this format via A/B split within BTA: measure whether scenario-style content produces higher behavioural impact scores than the current process-focused articles. This also generates data on which use cases resonate by region and role.
Needs New Content
10
Turn the "What Does [Brand X] Mean?" Gap Into a Memorable Brand Story
Multiple budtenders told us outright: "People don't know what [Brand X] means unless I tell them." The "100% grown in-house" story (the most natural explanation of [Brand X]'s brand origin) is the lowest-scoring quiz question at 82%. Only 34% of people spontaneously associate [Brand X] with its independent brand identity. This isn't just a knowledge gap: it's a storytelling gap at the counter. If the people selling [Brand X] can't explain the name, they can't tell the full brand story to a customer.
BTA Implementation: Create a "What [Brand X] Means" micro-module on the BTA hub: a short, visual narrative covering the brand origin, the independent cultivation story, and what the name stands for. Design it so a budtender can reference the key points in 30 seconds at the counter. Add a specific question to the next check-in: "Can you explain what [Brand X] stands for and where it comes from?" Track whether spontaneous recall of [Brand X]'s brand identity recall increases from 34% to 50%+, and whether the in-house quiz accuracy improves from 82% to 90%+.
Needs New Content
12
Why Keep Measuring?
The Case for Continued Partnership
This 90-day pilot gave you a starting point for every dimension of brand health that matters at retail. But a starting point without a follow-up is just a snapshot. The real value of this data is watching scores move over time, connecting changes to specific actions, and giving your team clear levers to pull.
What You Learned From This Data
A Verified Starting Point Across Every Key Dimension
You have a Brand Health Score by role, province, and age group. You know where education is working (47% of people recommend more confidently) and where there are gaps (82% on the in-house story, store manager awareness at 8.40, 89% of BC respondents rating [Brand X] as not distinct). You have real quotes from front-line retail staff who work with your product every day. This is information that didn't exist before this cycle.
What Only Continued Data Collection Can Tell You
Whether Any of Your Actions Are Working
If [Brand X] invests in cold cured resin education, will retail staff start recommending concentrates more confidently? If packaging changes, will new customers try the product more often? If you run a store manager campaign, will their awareness scores improve? Without continuing to collect data with BTA, these questions stay unanswered, and you can't connect your efforts to real retail results.
What to Measure Next Time
Recommended Focus
Measure
Cold Cured Resin applied knowledge lift after new retail-scenario modules: target 40%+ open-ended explanation from 95% multiple-choice baseline
Measure
Store Manager Brand Health Score change after targeted SM education program: target 8.40 → 12.0+
Measure
BC standout factor scores after targeted cultivation-differentiation campaign: target 11% → 30%+ "Distinct"
Measure
Overall spontaneous recall awareness lift: target 2.1% → 5%+ across all roles, with specific tracking for 19–24 group
New Research
Packaging transparency structured survey: quantify how many consumers decline trial due to opaque packaging
New Research
AB-specific mini-check-in (n≥25) to understand whether low awareness is distribution-, perception-, or education-driven
What Success Looks Like: 6-Month Targets
Realistic Goals
| Metric |
Current |
6-Month Target |
| Brand Health Score |
56.97 |
65.00 |
| Awareness Index |
22.01 |
30.00 |
| NPS Score |
-4.35 |
+15.00 |
| Frequency Index |
33.01 |
40.00 |
| Budtender NPS |
+18 |
+30.00 |
| Store Manager NPS |
-37 |
-10.00 |