What is an additional pain point for a target group?

A target group can get stuck in more than one place. Even when proposals are easy to compare, the time available for implementation may stand in the way of a choice. That second problem deserves attention if it adds something substantial to the main problem.

The Additional pain point field gives this further barrier its own place. Investigate what the problem involves, who experiences it and how it matters within the same choice context. This makes the profile more complete without turning it into a collection of repetitions or unrelated irritations.

In the target group profile, an additional pain point is a second, substantively distinct problem that obstructs a relevant goal or choice alongside the main pain point. Describe the situation, barrier and consequence, with evidence appropriate to this target group and context.

This is Neurofactor’s practical working definition. “Additional” means supplementary within the chosen profile structure, not automatically unimportant or always second in a fixed ranking. The problem may relate to the main pain point, but it must add information of its own.

The distinction between Additional and Other pain point is an editorial convention of this profile model. These are not scientifically established types of problem. If a second barrier also affects trust, choose the most appropriate field, explain the decision in the research note and avoid identical entries in both fields.

Additional pain point is a practical profile label. This article does not attribute it to a single scientific originator. The following sources support aspects of the research and organisation.

Investigating and prioritising needs. Griffin and Hauser distinguish identifying, structuring and prioritising customer needs. In their investigated application, mention counts were not a good substitute for measured importance. Griffin & Hauser, 1993.

Defining themes. Braun and Clarke describe reviewing and refining themes: information within a theme should cohere and themes should be recognisably distinct. Braun & Clarke, 2006.

Considering the choice context. Bettman, Luce and Payne describe how consumers may construct preferences using strategies contingent on the demands of the decision task. Bettman, Luce & Payne, 1998.

The practical application below is Neurofactor’s own. The publications do not establish a universal division into exactly three pain points or validate the profile’s field names.

Place the two problem statements side by side. “Proposals are difficult to compare” and “the differences between proposals are unclear” may describe the same problem. Two formulations do not establish two pain points.

Use three checks:

1. What gets stuck differently here? Can you identify a different task, barrier or relevant consequence?
2. What evidence supports this specific problem? Are there concrete events or data supporting the second description?
3. What might remain if the main problem were sufficiently reduced? The answer helps investigate the distinction, but does not prove that the problems are causally independent.

A cause or consequence of the main problem may, in some situations, also form a relevant additional barrier. Record it separately only when you explain which distinct task or trade-off it obstructs. Note the relationship and do not count the same harm twice.

Use these steps as a practical framework for research and writing.

1. Start with the main problem. Keep the target group, role and choice context visible so that you do not inadvertently combine problems from different groups.
2. Ask openly about other barriers. For example: “What else made this choice difficult?” Avoid first supplying a list of problems you want confirmed.
3. Ask about a concrete event. What happened, what was the person trying to do and what could not be done as a result? Record the original wording.
4. Organise the answers. Separate repetitions, causes, consequences, emotional experiences and possible additional problems. Retain ambiguous cases with an explanation.
5. Investigate relevance and distinctness. Seek situations where the second problem does and does not occur, and ask what it means for the task or choice. Also check its relationship with the main problem.
6. Write with an evidence status. Record the compact problem statement, source, scope and remaining unknowns. Keep an uninvestigated suggestion as a hypothesis.

A useful follow-up question is: “Suppose the comparison works well: what could still make getting started difficult?” This is a thought exercise. Then investigate actual situations where comparison went well to see which barriers really remained.

The field does not need filling simply because space is available. Use these questions to explain your choice.

Interview mentions show what arose in those conversations. Without appropriate sampling and measurement, they do not provide a percentage for the entire target group. A rarely mentioned problem may also merit investigation when its possible consequences are substantial.

If this problem consistently matters more than the current main problem for a subgroup, reconsider the priority or segment boundaries. Do not artificially keep it under “additional” to protect earlier decisions.

Fictional illustration, not a research finding. A marketing lead is preparing a supplier selection. The provisional main problem is limited comparability between proposals. The person also says the team cannot free up time to onboard a new provider.

A provisional profile sentence reads:

> Experiences insufficient room for onboarding hours in the team schedule when preparing a new partnership, making a feasible start date difficult to agree.

The evidence status here remains a fictional hypothesis. In real research, check the schedule, what onboarding hours mean and whether other people experience the problem. Also investigate whether it genuinely occurs alongside the comparison or mainly results from delays to it.

If the scheduling barrier ultimately dominates the choice, it may become the main pain point. Its position in the profile follows the evidence-based assessment.

An associative target group is a defined group of people whose similar associations guide decisions within a specific choice context. Sharing a second problem does not by itself establish such a group.

Two people may have little implementation time, while one associates “support” with relief from work and the other with extra meetings. These are fictional possibilities. Investigate meanings, context and their relationship with trade-offs before concluding that people belong to the same associative segment.

Use the additional pain point to ask more focused questions about the meaning a solution acquires. Do not infer a BIS/BAS score, psychological profile or certain purchase intention from the number of pain points.

• Rephrasing the same problem. Combine statements with equivalent meaning and retain their different wording as supporting material.
• Listing every cause as an additional pain point. First investigate whether the cause also describes a distinct relevant barrier.
• Adopting a buying objection without context. “Too expensive” needs explanation: is it about available resources, perceived value or doubt about this particular offering?
• Mixing problems from different roles. A user’s problem is not automatically the budget holder’s problem.
• Requiring three completed fields. An explicit “not established” is more useful than an invented frustration.
• Using all pain points in communication at once. Select the supported barrier relevant to the purpose and timing of the message.

Use this template:

> Also experiences [concrete barrier] during [task or moment], resulting in [relevant consequence].

Keep a note alongside the sentence with sources, role, period, evidence status and the difference from the main problem. Record a possible cause if known, but do not present a suspected explanation as fact. The absence of a separate cause row for Additional pain point does not mean the research note must omit that information.

If no additional problems have been established, enter “No distinct additional pain point established within the studied context.” If research has not yet been conducted, use “Not yet researched”. These are different statuses: not found is not the same as not investigated.

Describe a second problem only when it is relevant, concrete and substantively distinct. Keep its relationship with the main problem visible and change the ranking when the evidence calls for it. This keeps the target group profile focused on what actually matters.

Want to investigate which additional barriers matter to your target group and which associations are involved? Discuss the target group, choice context and available information with Neurofactor.