Hero Finding
69% of the incumbent retailer's store customers would consider switching to a comparable-service challenger at a lower checkout price. Only 12% ruled it out.
The switching question carried specific terms: a comparable store footprint, comparable service levels, comparable credit terms, and a lower paid price at checkout. Among the 143 buyers who currently purchase from the incumbent's stores, 69% said they would consider the move, 20% were unsure, and 12% ruled it out. That sizes the contestable core of the incumbent's customer base before a single store exists.
Switching consideration among the incumbent's store customers · n=143 · single select
Key Findings
What the concept test surfaced.
Six signals sized the contestable core of the incumbent's customer base, located the conversion sweet spot, and settled which pricing construct actually moves intent.
69% of the incumbent's store customers would consider switching; only 12% ruled it out.
Among the 143 buyers who currently purchase from the incumbent specialty retailer's stores, 69% said they would consider switching to a new chain offering a comparable footprint, service levels, and credit terms at a lower paid price at checkout, and 20% were unsure. Framed across the full sample, 160 of 225 buyers (71%) expressed switching intent on at least one of the three staged measures.
Switch openness peaks in the professional middle market, at 76 to 82% consideration.
Professionals spending $10K to $250K a year on paint were the most contestable cohort: consideration reached 76% in the $10K to $50K tier and 82% in the $50K to $250K tier, against 54% among professionals spending under $10K. By end market, residential repaint contractors (83%) and small GC and handyman operators (81%) were the most open.
The largest accounts stay anchored: 48% consideration, with a third unsure.
Accounts spending over $250K a year dropped to 48% consideration. The machinery holding them is visible in the criteria data: credit and payment terms matter to roughly 40% of high-spend professionals against 13% of light spenders, exactly the account-level terms the incumbent's negotiated relationships already deliver.
A simple lower checkout price outdraws a transparent tiered construct, 69% to 57%.
When the offer was reframed as tiered-but-transparent pricing with the discount tier printed on the receipt, consideration fell from 69% to 57% and the unsure share rose to 25%. Buyers in this category already operate inside negotiated discounts and job quotes, and transparency alone read as a weaker draw than a straightforwardly lower price.
Quality governs brand choice for 94% of buyers; marketing registers at 4%.
Paint quality and performance governs brand choice for 94% of buyers, far ahead of range and color choice (59%), price, promos and rebates (58%), and availability at the preferred channel (44%). Channel choice runs on location and footprint (62%), price (61%), and convenience (59%). A challenger converts by carrying brands buyers already trust at a better realized price in a convenient location, with no need to outspend the incumbent on marketing.
The signal holds on both sides of the incumbent's customer base.
68% of buyers said the concept would completely or mostly address needs their current brands and stores do not meet. Buyers outside the incumbent's stores responded too: 61% were very or somewhat likely to move some or all purchases to the concept. By region, the Northeast (75%) and West (74%) led while the Midwest lagged at 56%.
Switch openness is an inverted U across spend tiers, peaking in the professional middle market and falling to 48% among the largest accounts.
A volume-led read of the category would put the largest accounts first on the target list. The data pointed the other way. Consideration peaked at 76 to 82% among professionals spending $10K to $250K a year and fell to 48% among accounts spending over $250K, where credit and payment terms and negotiated pricing already hold the relationship. The reading reframed both the store economics and the go-to-market sequencing behind the thesis: the challenger's realistic early revenue sits with mid-spend professional buyers.
I mean, why not? If they're offering all the same services at a convenient location, at a convenient price, and they have paint in stock and what we need, why wouldn't you wanna do business with them and establish a working relationship?
Commercial property professional · Midwest
Study Design
N=225US paint purchasers
105 professional + 120 DIY
4 US regions
Quant + qual in one instrument
Fieldwork ran five days in July 2026. Three recruitment channels produced 372 completed interviews; per-interview QC scoring removed 147 (39.5%) before the base locked at 225, reconciled per channel at closeout. One instrument carried the criteria batteries with forced ranking, respondent-sourced brand and retailer ranks, a blinded three-part pricing battery, and the staged concept exposure, with adaptive probing looped on each respondent's own top criterion, brands, and stores.
Sample by segment
Mix
What the guide covered
- Purchase-criteria batteries with forced importance ranking, for brand choice and for channel choice
- Brand and retailer performance ranks sourced from each respondent's own purchase set
- Blinded three-part pricing battery: full-price incidence, realized discount bands, net price per gallon
- Staged store-concept exposure with three switching-intent measures
- Per-brand and per-retailer strength and weakness open ends with adaptive probes
- Unmet needs with current brands and stores, and concept fit against them
Who qualified
- US interior and architectural paint purchasers active in the last 12 months
- Decision-makers or direct influencers on the paint purchase
- Professional buyers: contractors and pro painters, builders and developers, property managers, small GCs, dealers
- Professionals recruited through expert networks; DIY buyers through a consumer panel
- Annual professional paint spend tiered from under $10K to over $250K
Crosstab · Spend Tiers
Switch consideration by annual professional paint spend.
Consideration among the incumbent's store customers, cut by annual professional paint spend. Cell bases are small and read as directional. Highlighted row = peak consideration tier.
| Would consider switching | Base | |
|---|---|---|
| Under $10K | 54% | n=13 |
| $10K to $50K | 76% | n=29 |
| $50K to $250K | 82% | n=22 |
| Over $250K | 48% | n=27 |
Mid-spend tiers lead at 76 to 82% · Largest accounts hold at 48% with a third unsure · Cells n=13 to 29 · directional
Voice of the Buyer
What paint buyers actually said.
Verbatim excerpts from the interview sample, selected to span professional spend tiers, end markets, and DIY buyers on both sides of the incumbent's customer base.
“I mean, I would assume this new store would offer exactly the same quality. But if it's the same similar paint for a significantly lower price, I see no reason not to switch.”
“Quality paint means fewer callbacks. That's our priority. And then, if the paint is good, typically, there's more coverage, so it saves labor time.”
“Well, I have found that the tiered pricing doesn't always work. If I have a large project, most of my suppliers aggressively price to win that project. When you go to tiered, how does that carry over from project to project across the years?”
“And as we take a look at it, there's a broader negotiation, not just specific price. There's payment terms. There's other things that kinda play into it. So we wouldn't look just from a transparent pricing perspective.”
“I really do appreciate the transparent pricing. So it's an everyday low price, so I'm not, you know, wondering is this, you know, the best time to do it?”
“It may be more convenient than going to the live stores in crowds and having trouble getting service because there are long lines. Hopefully, the store would have more dedicated employees that know what they are doing about the product.”
Implications · what the evidence supports
Three readings from the concept test.
What the deal team took into concept and go-to-market planning, grounded in the data.
The contestable core sits in the professional middle market.
Mid-spend professionals at 76 to 82% consideration, with residential repaint contractors (83%) and small GC operators (81%) the most open end markets, are where conversion is realistic early. The store economics the data supports are modeled on mid-spend conversion, with the largest accounts, at 48% consideration and a third unsure, treated as a longer relationship build.
A straightforwardly lower checkout price is the construct the data supports.
The simple promise of a lower paid price at checkout drew 69% consideration; the tiered-but-transparent variant fell to 57% with the unsure share rising to 25%. Buyers already operating inside negotiated discounts and job quotes read transparency alone as a weaker draw, a direct input to how the concept's pricing model is built and messaged.
Conversion rides on carrying trusted brands at a better realized price.
Quality governs brand choice for 94% of buyers while marketing registers at 4%, and channel choice runs on location (62%), price (61%), and convenience (59%). A new format wins consideration by stocking brands buyers already trust, pricing below realized incumbent levels, and locating conveniently, with no requirement to outspend the incumbent on advertising.
Signals the data flagged
- 69% switch consideration among the incumbent's store customers; 12% ruled it out
- 76 to 82% consideration across mid-spend professional tiers
- 68% say the concept addresses needs current brands and stores leave unmet
- 61% of non-customers likely to move some or all purchases
Risks the data surfaced
| Largest accounts hold at 48% consideration with a third unsure | High |
| Tiered-transparent pricing drops consideration to 57% | Med |
| Midwest lags at 56% switch consideration | Med |
| Stated-intent measures; spend-tier cells directional (n=13 to 29) | Low |