What does evidence mean in a target group profile?

You can know exactly which benefit someone seeks and still know too little about what they need to assess a promise. Do they want to see a demonstration, speak to a comparable customer or examine the research design? The Evidence field makes that information need specific.

Here, a target group profile describes which substantiation the group considers relevant and credible. Separately, you assess whether the available material actually supports the claim concerned. Both questions matter: a persuasive presentation does not make a weak claim better substantiated.

In a target group profile, evidence describes the information, sources and verifiable experiences people need and consider credible when assessing a claim within a specific choice context. This is Neurofactor’s practical working definition of the field.

The field concerns the recipient’s evidence requirements. A useful entry specifies the claim or uncertainty, the desired substantiation and the conditions that make it relevant. “Wants to see evidence” is too general. “Wants to assess how it works using their own data, with exceptions visible” gives research a direction.

In this article, evidence means substantiation with a defined scope. The field does not declare something conclusively proven. Also record when the requirement has not yet been researched.

A customer statement can describe an experience, but “this customer says so” and “this effect applies generally” are different assertions. An objection identifies a question or uncertainty. The Evidence field describes what information is needed to assess it. The product promise remains the provider’s claim; the profile records the group’s requirement.

Evidence is not a marketing term with a single identifiable inventor. Research into source credibility and persuasion, and publications on substantiating value, are relevant to this field.

In their student experiment, Hovland and Weiss (1951) found greater immediate opinion change when the same message came from a source considered credible. That concerns persuasion, not a test of the message’s truth. Original publication.

Petty, Cacioppo and Goldman (1981) found among students that argument quality had a stronger influence under high personal relevance and source expertise under low relevance. This does not establish two fixed buyer types. Original research.

In their management publication, Anderson, Narus and Van Rossum (2006) emphasise that providers should demonstrate and document customer value. Original HBR publication.

The definition, tables and research steps in this article are Neurofactor’s practical application. These publications do not automatically validate the profile or a particular group’s preferences.

Match the form to the claim and the recipient’s question. The table below is a practical overview, not a universal evidence ranking.

A familiar customer logo without further context does not show what was delivered or achieved. Ask which information the recipient expects behind that logo. Match the substantiation to that question.

These steps are Neurofactor’s practical research guidance.

1. Specify the claim. Investigate one clear assertion so that answers about different promises are not merged.
2. Ask about a recent assessment. “What did you check before proceeding?” helps reconstruct concrete actions and consulted sources.
3. Ask what was missing. Which uncertainty remained, and what information could have helped? Let the respondent offer their own examples first.
4. Compare forms of substantiation. Use the same claim where possible. Check whether responses concern content, source, recognisability or presentation.
5. Investigate limits. When would this case, demonstration or source fail to convince? Ask what might lead someone to a different conclusion.
6. Record the decision step. Is the information sufficient for a follow-up conversation, trial, internal approval or purchase? These steps are not interchangeable.
7. Preserve differing answers. Record role, context and experience; do not present a preference as a general group rule without appropriate data.

An expressed preference for “scientific evidence” does not yet describe what someone actually checks. Ask about criteria, examples and the moment when the information was used. Keep reported behaviour separate from behaviour you have observed.

Keep two distinct statuses alongside the concise profile sentence.

These statuses do not form an automatic quality ladder. Observing a click on a case, for example, does not prove the content was understood or determined the choice.

Is there no product yet? Describe the required substantiation for a clearly specified hypothetical approach. Keep its scenario status visible. You do not need to invent an existing customer case, certification or research result.

Fictional case. A project lead wants to know whether an approach makes differences between supplier proposals visible. The offered demonstration uses tidy sample files. The relevant uncertainty is whether it remains useful when their own proposals are incomplete.

This case illustrates an evidence requirement; it does not describe a measured group or an existing service. A demonstration can clarify the next research question without already substantiating every desired effect.

An associative target group is a bounded group of people whose similar associations guide decisions within a specific choice context.

Investigate what people associate with an evidence source. In a fictional example, an extensive report might evoke thoroughness, but also opacity. A recognisable practical case might evoke familiarity, while the same case increases someone else’s demand for independent checking.

Valuing the same report does not establish that people decide through the same associations. Ask about meaning and its implications for the assessment. A shared association also does not guarantee the same eventual choice: other conditions may continue to matter. Assess the substantive evidential strength separately from these associations.

• Naming a format without a question. “Cases and figures” says little without the claim and uncertainty they should help assess.
• Using popularity as effect evidence. Having many customers is a different claim from delivering demonstrable results.
• Equating credibility with correctness. A persuasive source does not remove the need for substantive examination.
• Transferring a result from another context. Explain why circumstances are or are not comparable.
• Presenting a calculation as a measurement. Keep assumptions, forecasts and observed results separate.
• Recording a desired source as available. A group’s requirement says nothing yet about what the provider can show.

Use this working template: “Before [decision step], wants to assess [claim or uncertainty] through [substantiation], with [relevant condition] visible.”

Fictional example: “Before a trial, wants to see it work with their own sample data and check how missing information is handled.” If the requirement has not been researched, record the same idea as a hypothesis with that status.

Alongside the sentence, retain the claim being examined, the source of the group insight, role, context, date and differing findings. Maintain a separate inventory of available evidence material and its assessed scope. This keeps the profile concise while making its basis verifiable.

A useful Evidence entry identifies which information the group needs to assess a particular claim, in which form and before which decision step. Investigate perceived credibility and separately examine what the material substantively supports. This connects the information need with suitable, bounded substantiation.