May the best idea win

Scale and depth. Concept testing is structured testing of a focused concept set (typically eight to fifteen developed concepts) for decision-grade prioritisation, with detailed per-concept scoring across the food and drink-specific metric framework. Idea Arena is tournament testing of a wider pool (typically twenty to fifty or more ideas) for filtering rather than for final prioritisation, with comparative methodology that surfaces priorities through tournament structure rather than through absolute scoring. The two are complementary at different stages of the same innovation flow. Idea Arena filters the wide pool down to the priority set; concept testing tests the priority set at depth. Many major programmes commission both in sequence.

Twenty to thirty ideas in a focused Arena, thirty to sixty in a standard Arena, sixty or more in a multi-stage Arena. The pool size determines the methodology choice: smaller pools fit single-stage tournaments with focused comparison, larger pools need sequential rounds because the comparative methodology cannot credibly handle very wide pools in a single stage. We recommend the right format at scoping based on the actual pool size and the comparison depth the brief requires.

Instead of scoring each idea on its own, consumers compare ideas against each other, head to head, round by round. Every one of those match-ups feeds the engagement score, which is what ranks the pool. The score is built from three things: win rate, how often an idea beats its rivals; response speed, the reaction time that shows how instinctively people back it; and a revival flag for the dark horses that lost early but kept pulling people back in. Because the ranking comes from how ideas perform against each other rather than from an absolute rating, it sorts a wide pool quickly and surfaces genuine priorities rather than a row of polite sevens. The comparisons are anchored on food and drink dimensions that matter commercially, not generic preference, and the tournament structure is shaped at scoping around your pool size and the brief.

For filtering decisions, yes. Arena is built specifically for the decision “which of these many ideas are worth deeper investment,” and the methodology produces defensible comparative evidence on that question. For final commercial decisions (NPD investment, brand commitment, commercial casing), Arena is the filtering layer rather than the final test: the priority set from Arena typically goes into Concept Screening for the deeper per-concept evaluation that final commitment decisions require. We will tell you straight at scoping whether your decision requires Screening depth or whether Arena filtering is sufficient on its own.

Yes, and this is the most common commissioning structure for wide-pool innovation programmes. The natural sequence is Arena first (filtering the wide pool to the priority set), Screening second (testing the priority set at depth). Some programmes commission both as one integrated engagement scoped at the start; others sequence them. We will scope the right combination at the scoping call based on the pool size and the commercial decision the work has to support.

The filtered priority set with the senior interpretive layer, plus the full tournament data for the wider pool. Specifically: the priority idea set with rationale for the filtering decisions, the full tournament rankings (so dropped ideas can be defended if challenged later), the patterns across the priority set (where winners cluster, where losses concentrate), recommendations for the next phase (typically Concept Screening of the priority set, but sometimes direct development or re-ideation depending on what the tournament reveals). Format agreed at the start so the work lands in the meeting it needs to land in.

Four to six weeks from scoping call to filtered priority set for focused Arena work. Standard Arena typically runs six to eight weeks; multi-stage Arena eight to twelve weeks. Compressed timelines are possible where the methodology is straightforward (single-market, single-audience, focused comparison framework) and the fieldwork can run on existing panel infrastructure. We give realistic timelines at proposal stage.

Yes. We run Idea Arena across the UK, mainland Europe, the US and the UAE, with sample structure and methodology adapted for each market. International Arena has higher operational complexity than single-market work because the tournament methodology has to handle cross-market comparability (for global filtering decisions) or market-specific calibration (for local decisions). We recommend the right approach at scoping.

Project-based, scoped against the format (focused, standard, multi-stage), the pool size, the geographic scope, the depth of comparative analysis required and the audience for the deliverable. Focused single-market UK Arena is the lowest entry point; multi-market multi-stage Arena is the highest. We give a clear, all-in quote at proposal stage with no hidden extras, and we will tell you straight if your pool is small enough that going directly to Concept Screening would be more efficient than commissioning Arena first.