A round-one tester survey is the first time a brand hears from someone who wore the sample in a real class and owes you nothing. Ours came back, as of early July, with four responses from the dozen or so dancers who had samples. Four is a small number and we are treating it that way. But four honest answers taught us more than any amount of internal opinion, and a few of them changed how we run testing. This is what they said, with names left out.
What did the testers praise?
Fit and coverage. Three of the four gave the samples top or near-top scores on the three rating questions we asked, and all three said they would buy the short as it was. One wrote simply that it stays put and covers fully. Given that ride-up was the number one complaint in the research we started from, that was the line we most wanted to hear and the one we are least willing to repeat as a claim until more people say it.
What did they ask us to change?
The fourth tester scored the sample lower across the board and said she would buy it if one thing was fixed: a wider gusset. That is a specific, checkable request, and the gusset is a named line in the next prototype brief.
The other requests were smaller and just as useful. One asked for the back line to sit slightly lower for a flatter shape. One suggested a light elastic in the leg bands. Two asked for more colors or prints, and one asked for a choice between glossy and matte. One tester, an instructor, said she would pay more once wash durability was proven, and not before. We took that last one as a fair standard rather than a complaint.
What did the fabric tell us?
The samples were a velvet, and velvet polarized. One tester said it showed sweat patches. Another asked for a non-velvet black alongside it. The other two did not raise the fabric at all. We are not going to resolve that with a survey of four, and the production fabric is not settled, so nothing in this post should be read as a description of what we will sell. What we learned is narrower: any fabric we choose has to be judged on a sweaty tester, not a hanger.
What did sizing tell us?
That the samples run small. One tester said so directly, and the pattern across the round was that dancers who normally wear a US 2 were wearing our medium or large. That finding became a decision of its own, which we wrote up separately in Why we relabeled our sizes before selling a pair.
What did we change about testing?
Two things, decided in a June team meeting once we saw the response rate.
First, no more free samples. Four responses out of a dozen or so samples is a response rate we cannot build a size chart on. Anyone who receives a sample from now on gives us contact details and a survey commitment first. Dancers who buy a sample can be surveyed too, but we do not hold up a sale for it.
Second, every outstanding survey gets a due date and a follow-up, rather than an open invitation. This is less relaxed than we would like to be with people doing us a favor. It is also the only way four becomes twelve.
Why publish something this small?
Because the alternative is publishing nothing and letting a product page do the talking later. We would rather say now that four people liked the fit, one wants a wider gusset, the fabric split the room and the sizes run small, than say in a few months that the short is loved by dancers. The first is true. The second is the kind of sentence we are trying not to write.
Quick answers
How many testers responded to the round-one survey? Four, from roughly a dozen dancers who had samples, as of early July.
What did they praise? Fit and coverage; three of four would buy the sample as it was.
What did they ask to change? A wider gusset, a slightly lower back line for flatter shapes, light elastic in the leg bands, more colors, a matte option, and proof of wash durability.
What changed as a result? No more free samples without a survey commitment, due dates on every outstanding survey, and a sizing relabel.