A user research tool that shows what people actually say.

Search public communities for source-linked customer language, real pain, current workarounds, desired outcomes, positioning gaps, and hooks worth testing.

Research your usersSee Builder access

Illustrative artifact

User voice → decision trace

The report keeps sourced language, interpretation, and product implications visibly separate.

Illustrative user research evidence trace
RecordEvidence retainedDecision use
Verbatim accountExact wording, source URL, role, situation, and dateKeep as evidence; do not generalize from one account
Repeated patternIndependent sources describing the same blocked progressName the pain cluster and state the sample boundary
Contradictory accountA relevant user rejects the urgency, premise, or need to payNarrow or challenge the ICP and positioning hypothesis

Positioning use

Use the language users repeat—not invented category jargon

Evidence gap

Interview the buyer when public user accounts cannot show willingness to pay

No market claim is presented here as verified evidence. Generated claims remain sourced or labeled as assumptions.

Eight questions behind a useful customer research report

The report moves from who the user is to language, pain, alternatives, outcomes, positioning, and hooks without turning research into finished marketing execution.

  1. 01

    Who is the user?

    Define the role, situation, trigger, emotional state, current behavior, and buying authority without collapsing different users into one persona.

  2. 02

    What do users actually say?

    Keep exact user language next to its source URL, speaker context, and date instead of rewriting it into polished marketing copy.

  3. 03

    What is the real pain?

    Separate surface complaints from the blocked progress, consequences, and deeper causes supported by the evidence.

  4. 04

    What do they use today?

    Map direct tools, adjacent products, services, manual workflows, delaying the task, tolerating the problem, and doing nothing.

  5. 05

    What language keeps recurring?

    Build a reusable language bank from recurring nouns, verbs, metaphors, complaint sentences, and desired-outcome phrases.

  6. 06

    What does solved look like?

    Describe the user-visible outcome without product names, feature language, or implementation details.

  7. 07

    How should the product be positioned?

    Compare current claims with sourced customer language and turn supported gaps into a clearer narrative, ICP, differentiation, and trust anchor.

  8. 08

    Which hooks may earn attention?

    Derive testable hooks from evidenced pains and tensions, while keeping every untested hook labeled as a hypothesis.

Voice of customer research without manufactured certainty

A polished report is dangerous when its confidence is fake. Every conclusion should show what supports it, what contradicts it, and what remains unknown.

Quotes stay traceable

Verbatim wording keeps its source URL and context. If the exact wording cannot be checked, the report paraphrases it without quotation marks.

Patterns need more than one voice

One account proves a view exists. A pattern requires independent support and a clear statement of the sample boundary.

Contradictions remain visible

Evidence that weakens the ICP, urgency, willingness to pay, or product premise stays in the report instead of being filtered out.

Evidence and inference stay separate

Observed facts, secondary evidence, interpretation, and untested hypotheses are labeled so confidence never outruns the research.

From online customer research to a source-linked user research report

Start from the validated audience

Reuse the idea, ICP hypothesis, alternatives, assumptions, and evidence already collected in the workspace.

Search where users describe the job

Look across community discussions, reviews, interviews, support conversations, and critical accounts outside the category bubble.

Cluster language after collection

Let recurring situations and wording form the pain clusters instead of forcing evidence into a predefined framework.

Save a decision-ready report

Keep the sources, evidence gaps, challenged assumptions, positioning implications, and hooks together in one shareable artifact.

User research questions

The report covers the user and their situation, exact user language, real pain, current alternatives and workarounds, recurring vocabulary, desired outcomes, positioning implications, and evidence-derived hooks. It also includes methodology, challenged assumptions, evidence gaps, and sources.

Research can use public community discussions, reviews, interviews, support conversations, founder or buyer postmortems, and materials you provide. Direct user accounts are preferred; company pages and analyst summaries provide context but do not replace user voice.

No. Exact quotes must remain traceable to a source URL. Unverified wording is paraphrased and labeled, and a recurring pattern is claimed only when independent evidence supports it. Contradictory evidence remains visible.

No. Public evidence can reveal language, pain, alternatives, and gaps worth investigating. Interviews and behavioral tests are still necessary for private workflows, buying authority, willingness to pay, and decisions that public sources cannot show.

Continue with the validated context

Startup Idea Validator

Pressure-test the idea and identify the customer assumptions that need deeper research.

Startup Idea Validator

AI Competitor Analysis

Compare user pain and workarounds with the products and substitutes already available.

AI Competitor Analysis

Hear the user before you write the answer for them.

Start from the validated idea. RoastIdea will trace real user language into pains, alternatives, positioning implications, and evidence gaps.

Validate an ideaSee pricing