Transcript Coverage
15/354 of 9 brands have review evidence
RGC Assessment Module
RGC Retail Intelligence Dashboard
Consumer voice, product context, and brand positioning signals
Processed dataset
130 transcripts35 products9 brands15 reviewed products
Overview
Retail intelligence from evidence-backed signals
Rates are normalized across n=130 transcript-backed reviews. Catalogue-only brands remain visible as competitive context.
Average Rating
4.2Based on n=130 transcript-linked reviews
Would Buy After Trying
84%Purchase intent from review metadata
Positive Sentiment
84%Sentiment skews positive; inspect frustrations too
Top Positive Signal
Strong flavour appeal79 mentions - 61%
Top Frustration
Bitter, tart, or sour edge25 mentions - 19%
Consumer Signal Distribution
n=130Share of reviews mentioning each signal group
Positive99% - 128 mentions
Frustrations45% - 58 mentions
Occasions87% - 113 mentions
Market Context44% - 57 mentions
Top Positive Signals
Strong flavour appeal
Good fizz
Refreshing taste
Prefers high fizz
Top Frustrations
Bitter, tart, or sour edge
Expectation gap
Taste rejection
Too sweet
Top Occasions
Health routine
Relaxation or wind-down
Mixer with spirits
Served with ice or garnish
Market Context
Preference or winner language
Explicit comparison
Alternative or substitute framing
Schweppes
Brand Signal Comparison
Reviewed brands and catalogue-only context
| Brand | Role | Reviews | Positive | Frustrations | Occasion | Market | Avg Rating | Would Buy | BTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fix8 | Reviewed brand | 45 | 96% | 53% | 89% | 51% | 4.4 | 88% | 29.3 |
| Double Dutch | Reviewed brand | 35 | 100% | 49% | 89% | 57% | 4.1 | 80% | 31.8 |
| SKIP | Reviewed brand | 25 | 100% | 16% | 76% | 32% | 4.2 | 90% | 8.4 |
| UNAI | Reviewed brand | 25 | 100% | 52% | 92% | 24% | 4.1 | 80% | 4.1 |
| Trip | Competitive context | 0 | No transcript evidence | No transcript evidence | No transcript evidence | No transcript evidence | No data | No transcript evidence | 45.1 |
| DASH | Competitive context | 0 | No transcript evidence | No transcript evidence | No transcript evidence | No transcript evidence | No data | No transcript evidence | 41.4 |
| Hip Pop | Competitive context | 0 | No transcript evidence | No transcript evidence | No transcript evidence | No transcript evidence | No data | No transcript evidence | 39.7 |
| Agua de Madre | Competitive context | 0 | No transcript evidence | No transcript evidence | No transcript evidence | No transcript evidence | No data | No transcript evidence | 37.3 |
| Dalston's | Competitive context | 0 | No transcript evidence | No transcript evidence | No transcript evidence | No transcript evidence | No data | No transcript evidence | 31.6 |
Commercial Opportunity Signal
Priority score 0.7Positioned but under-discussed
Positioned but under-discussed
Double Dutch shows a Low sugar / clean label gap between catalogue positioning and reviewer language.
Reviewer mention rate is 3% across n=35 linked reviews.
Structured positioning score is 100%, versus a reviewed-category baseline of 28%.
Structured product evidence: Cucumber & Watermelon, Refreshing Lemonade, Ginger Beer.
- Brand
- Double Dutch
- Dimension
- Low sugar / clean label
- Delta vs PositioningReviewer mention rate minus structured positioning score. Negative means the brand is positioned around this idea more than reviewers mention it; positive means reviewers mention it more than the catalogue positioning suggests.
- -97%
- Delta vs Category
- -26%
Transcript evidence...e never tried this one before, so it'd be really interesting to see what we think of this one. Not too sweet at all. I actually think it could be a little bit sweeter. The flavors do come through quite nice, quite light and refreshin...