Gathering Data
We conducted a focus group with 10 participants to explore why customers choose to buy or not buy from the brand, and to uncover what aspects of the experience are working well or need improvement.
In addition, a survey with 26 participants was distributed to identify the target audience, quantify key purchase drivers, and assess brand performance relative to competitors, helping to highlight any problem areas.
Customers segmentation based on frequency of visitation and purchase
Segmentation 1
Always goes to UME
Segmentation 2
Often goes to UME
Segmentation 3
Sometimes goes to UME
Segmentation 4
Rarely goes to UME
After careful analysis, we chose to focus on Segment 3, which offered the most actionable insights. Shifting these customers to Segment 2 promised greater impact than moving Segment 4 to 3, as increasing visit frequency aligned more closely with our business goals.
User Persona
Diving into why the target audience within the segmentation buys
Depicts the "important" versus "most important" values based on customer wants and needs.
Customer Service: Wait time and ease of order
Drink Quality: Taste of teas, smoothies, toppings, etc.
Menu Variety: Options of flavors provided
Value: Quality of product compared to price
Aesthetics: Comfortability and Cleanliness of the environment

Why you may win or lose college student Christine as a customers
This chart illustrates customer ranking of Ume's attributes to the target performance range based on competitive product and competitive gap analysis.
We asked participants to rate how satisfied they were with UME Tea’s performance in the area of importance, using a likert scale. Based on competitive product and competitive gap analysis.

Competitive Product Analysis
This comparison chart evaluates how three competitors Ume Tea, iTea, and T% perform across five attributes ranked by customer importance. A rank of 1 indicates best performance, while 3 reflects the weakest.

Customer priorities center on Value, Quality, and Menu Variety.
Ume Tea performs well in Customer Service and Aesthetic, though these are lower-priority areas. iTea aligns best with these top-ranked attributes, indicating strong market alignment. T% shows balanced performance but could improve its visual appeal.
Ume Tea’s gap in high-priority categories suggests an opportunity for strategic realignment.
Gap Analysis
Customer Satisfaction vs. Importance Gaps (UME Tea vs. Competitors)
We analyzed customer satisfaction ratings across three tea brands, UME Tea, iTea, and T%, alongside the gap between perceived importance and actual satisfaction. This gap reveals areas where customer expectations are not being met.
Our gap analysis revealed that UME Tea had the largest satisfaction gap (-2.1), signaling a major mismatch between customer expectations and delivery. Competitors like T% and iTea showed greater consistency, suggesting stronger alignment with customer needs.
SWOT Analysis
Strengths:
Visually appealing and memorable store design that resonates with a younger audience
Engaging plushie promotions that support brand identity and drive foot traffic
Streamlined ordering process, enhancing convenience and user experience
Weaknesses:
Inconsistent drink quality, leading to mixed customer satisfaction
Perceived lack of value, especially compared to competitors
Limited menu variety, which may reduce repeat visits
Opportunities:
High potential for social media growth via platforms like TikTok and Instagram
Novel ‘surprise’ element offers a unique value proposition
Minimal direct competition in the North Davis area creates room for growth
Threats:
Strong competition from established brands like iTea, Teaspoon, and T%
Rising consumer expectations, particularly around quality and customization