Customer research call guide

Aim and guardrails

Use six interviews to identify how cancellation happens, not vote on which executive is right. Explore price, repetition and delivery alongside an alternative: subscribers stop cooking the meals, food accumulates, and the subscription loses value.

The cancellation form is weak evidence: “Too expensive” is pre-selected, only one reason is allowed, and comments often suggest overlapping problems. The first-month cooking difference—81% of retained subscribers versus 34% of cancellers cooked at least three recipes weekly—is a useful lead, not proof that cooking prevents churn. Last-four-week cooking counts cannot establish first-month habits.

Recruit these six

Purposefully sample contrasting behaviors and mismatches between selected reasons and comments. Counts below are weeks subscribed / skips in last six weeks / recipes cooked in last four weeks.

Backups, in corresponding order: S-8096, S-8122, S-8209, S-8179, S-8259, S-8151. They preserve the main behavioral contrast, though comments differ.

Invite neutrally: “We’re learning about your experience using and stopping Sprig; this is not a sales call.” Book six 30-minute calls plus replacement availability. Do not screen for agreement with an executive theory. Confirm dates and household context; validate unusual counts rather than treating administrative data as ground truth.

Shared 30-minute interview guide

0–2 minutes: Introduction

“Thanks for joining. We want to understand what happened in your experience, including anything that worked or didn’t. There are no right answers, and we won’t try to persuade you to return. May we record for research notes? You can decline any question.”

2–6 minutes: Expectations and first month

• “What was happening in your life when you signed up?”
• “What did you hope Sprig would replace or make easier?”
• “Walk me through a typical week in your first month: receiving, choosing and cooking meals.”
• “What happened to meals you didn’t cook?”

Establish actual routine before asking whether it changed.

6–16 minutes: Reconstruct the cancellation timeline

• “Take me through your last few weeks with Sprig.”
• “When did you first consider stopping? What happened just before that?”
• “Tell me about the last box you received: what arrived, what you cooked, and what happened to the rest.”
• “Tell me about a week you skipped. What led to that?”
• “What happened on the day you cancelled? Why then rather than earlier?”

Probe for dates, examples, actions and consequences. Separate gradual dissatisfaction from the final trigger. Ask what they tried, including changes to orders, skipping or contacting support.

16–21 minutes: Replacement and trade-offs

• “How are you handling dinners now? Tell me about last week.”
• “What alternatives did you actually consider or use?”
• “What did those cost, and what did you get for that?”
• “What made cancelling preferable to continuing or skipping?”

Distinguish actual competitor switching from general perceptions of cheaper options.

21–27 minutes: Cover gaps, then reconcile the form

Only after the unprompted account: - Price: “How did the cost fit your budget? Did anything change?” - Recipes: “How did recipe choices change over time? Any specific examples?” - Delivery: “How did deliveries fit your plans? Describe any problem and what followed.” - Usage: “What made cooking the meals easier or harder?”

Then: “The form recorded [reason]. How well did that capture your situation? Were other reasons missing?” Clarify whether they actively chose it.

27–30 minutes: Close

Summarize the sequence and ask: “What have I misunderstood? What mattered most that we haven’t discussed?”

Support and synthesis

Run a rehearsal for both new interviewers; pair each with an experienced observer. Use silence and neutral probes—“What happened next?”—not “Was it too expensive?” Never defend Sprig.

Debrief immediately using one template: expectations, usage trajectory, incidents, underlying constraints, cancellation trigger, replacement, supporting quotes and uncertainty. Compare confirming and contradicting cases. Report plausible mechanisms and follow-up tests—not prevalence estimates or a causal verdict from six calls.

Recruit these six

Recruit all six, with the listed cancellation-form reason treated as a clue—not a confirmed cause. “Too expensive” was pre-selected, so it is especially unreliable as a standalone explanation. These interviews are for exploring different churn paths, not estimating how common each one is.

1. S-8004 — 11 weeks subscribed; five skips and no recipes cooked in the last four weeks; selected “Too expensive.” A low-engagement case to explore whether price was the trigger, or whether skipped deliveries and unused food came first.
2. S-8008 — 18 weeks; no skips and six recipes cooked; selected “Too expensive,” with “cheaper at the supermarket” in free text. An active subscriber whose account is more consistent with a price comparison worth probing.
3. S-8006 — 29 weeks; no skips and eight recipes cooked; selected “Too expensive,” but wrote “too much food for two.” Tests whether perceived cost may be tied to household fit or waste, even for a frequent cook.
4. S-8013 — 28 weeks; two skips and three recipes cooked; selected “Recipes got repetitive,” but wrote “didn’t have time to cook.” Explore how recipe experience, time, and skipped weeks related to one another.
5. S-8025 — 50 weeks; one skip and no recipes cooked; selected “Recipes got repetitive,” but wrote “too much food for two.” A long-tenure contrast to S-8013: investigate whether repetition was an experienced problem or a label for a broader mismatch.
6. S-8028 — three weeks; two skips and nine recipes cooked; selected “Delivery problems,” with “kept piling up in the fridge.” A distinct early-tenure, high-cooking case to investigate what happened with delivery and whether delivery was connected to the food backlog.

30-minute interview guide

Before the calls: Use the same guide for all six. Don’t tell participants which executive theory you’re testing. One PM moderates and the other takes notes; rotate roles so each new interviewer leads three calls. Record exact examples and the participant’s wording, not just interpretations. Don’t defend Sprig, pitch a save offer, or rush to fill silences.

0–2 min | Welcome > “Thanks for speaking with me. I’d like to understand your experience with Sprig and what led you to cancel. There are no right answers, and we’re not trying to persuade you to come back. Is it okay if I take notes?”

2–8 min | Let them tell the story > “Could you walk me through how Sprig fit into your routine, from when you joined through when you decided to cancel?”

Follow up neutrally: “What happened next?” “Can you give me a specific example?” “When did you first notice that?”

8–15 min | Reconstruct recent behavior > “Think about your last few weeks as a subscriber. What did a typical week look like?”

Ask what arrived, what they cooked, skipped, or didn’t use, and what was happening in their household or schedule. If relevant: “Can you tell me about the last delivery you remember?” Don’t assume a skip, delivery issue, or uneaten food had a particular cause.

15–23 min | Explore the cancellation decision > “When did cancelling first feel like the right choice? What was happening then?”

> “What were the main things that went into that decision?”

After the open account, ask about specifics that have come up naturally: price and alternatives; recipe choice or repetition; delivery timing or condition; cooking time; household size; food left over; and how often they skipped. Ask for concrete examples and how each factor affected the decision.

23–27 min | Check their form response > “The cancellation form shows [selected reason]. How well does that capture what was going on for you? Was anything more important?”

If they selected “Too expensive,” note that it was pre-selected; don’t treat the selection as confirmation. Ask what they compared Sprig with and what “expensive” meant in practice, without suggesting an answer.

27–30 min | Close > “If one thing had been different, might you have made a different choice—or was cancelling still the right decision?” > “What haven’t I asked that would help me understand?”

Thank them. After each call, the PMs should separately note the apparent trigger, contributing factors, and unresolved questions before comparing notes.

Aim and guardrails

Understand the sequence leading to cancellation, not ask subscribers to vote on executives’ theories. Test price, repetition, and delivery alongside an alternative: subscribers never established—or lost—a workable cooking routine, making unused food feel expensive.

The cancellation form is weak evidence: price is first and preselected, only one answer is allowed, and comments sometimes conflict with selections. The first-month cooking gap—81% of retained subscribers versus 34% of cancellers cooking at least three recipes weekly—is an important association, not proof of causation. Last-four-week cooking counts cannot identify first-month activation.

Recruit these six

Use purposive contrasts, not a representative sample. Counts below mean weeks subscribed / skips in last six weeks / recipes cooked in last four weeks.

Contact primaries immediately; approach backups if unavailable or declining. Offer the same fixed incentive regardless of feedback. Invite them to discuss “your experience using and stopping Sprig,” without naming hypotheses. Confirm they managed the subscription or cooking; do not screen for agreement with a theory.

Before calls, verify metric definitions, subscription dates, and available delivery history. Skipping reduces opportunities to cook; raw cooking counts are not cooking rates. Schedule three calls Tuesday, three Thursday, with debrief time.

Shared 30-minute interview guide

0–2 minutes: introduction

“We’re learning how Sprig fitted into your life and what led you to stop. This isn’t a sales call; honest criticism is useful. You can skip questions or stop. May we record for research notes?”

2–6: expectations and early use

• “What was happening in your life when you signed up?”
• “What did you hope Sprig would replace or make easier?”
• “Walk me through an early delivery: who cooked, what got cooked, and what happened to the rest?”
• “How typical was that during your first month?”

6–15: reconstruct the change

• “Walk me through your last few weeks with Sprig.”
• “Tell me about the last box you received—from arrival to what happened to each meal.”
• “When did you first consider stopping? What happened just before that?”
• “Was there a time it worked better? What changed?”
• “Tell me about a week you skipped, if any. What drove that decision?”

Anchor memories to deliveries or calendar events; accept “I don’t remember.”

15–20: cancellation and alternatives

• “Tell me about the day you cancelled. Why then?”
• “What had you already tried?”
• “What options did you consider, including skipping?”
• “What have you actually done for meals since?”

20–27: test explanations, only after the unaided story

Ask everyone: - “How did the cost fit your budget and what you got from it?” Probe actual alternatives, prices or discounts used—not hypothetical willingness to pay. - “How did recipe choice change over time?” Request specific examples and timing. - “How did deliveries fit your plans?” If problems arose: promised versus actual arrival, consequences, frequency, and attempted resolution. - Then show their selected reason/comment: “How well does this capture what happened? What’s missing?”

27–30: confirm

Summarize the sequence, separating ongoing frustrations from the final trigger. “What have I misunderstood? What else mattered?”

Support and synthesis

Pair each novice with an experienced observer; rehearse Monday. Use silence and “Tell me about a specific time,” not suggested answers. Never defend Sprig or pitch fixes.

After each call, record timeline, supporting examples, contradictions, and unknowns separately from interpretation. Friday, compare cases across all explanations, explicitly noting disconfirming evidence. Report mechanisms and next validation steps—not churn percentages or causal conclusions from six interviews.