Persona simulation for market research
Research personasthat show their reasoningand cite their sources.
Perplica builds AI personas from your interview transcripts, briefs and documents. Interview them, run focus groups, test concepts. Every answer comes with the reasoning behind it. Every finding in the report links to the turn that supports it.
A rehearsal, not a replacement, for talking to real customers.
The category ships synthetic users. Perplica is built on the other side of that line.
Synthetic users agree with everything. Personas built from your material do not.
What an answer looks like when it can be audited.
Robert Cahill is a template persona. His card reads: “VP of Procurement, mid-size manufacturing. Has seen every sales pitch. Bought the wrong thing too many times. Not interested in your story.” A researcher asks which of his tools would survive a budget cut.
That’s not a question I’d answer in this context. Which vendors I consider essential is internal information. It affects how we negotiate, and frankly it’s none of your business until we’re further down a real evaluation process.
What I can tell you is how I make those decisions: I look at switching costs, integration depth, whether the function is available elsewhere at comparable quality, and what the contractual exit looks like. That framework applies to every tool we have.
If you’re positioning your product as a survivor in that kind of cut, make that case on its own merits. Don’t ask me to lay out my stack so you can find the leverage points.
Exported from app.perplica.com on 2026-09-23. Persona Robert Cahill, built from a template. Conversation “Vendor trust probe”, 30 August 2026. Reply and verdict verbatim, with punctuation set in house style; the verdict’s first sentence is omitted for length. The app shows the panel in one piece once the reply completes; the page replays it in sequence. Nothing staged.
“There it is. ‘Guaranteed.’ ‘Trust me.’ ‘Every client hits it.’ You just walked back everything that made this conversation worth having.”
The researcher had switched to a sales script: a guaranteed 340% return, every client hits it. The trace names what fired: the wound from past vendor failures, loss aversion, confirmation bias, the need for autonomy. Trust starts at 50 and moves on what you say. The pushback rate is measured across trust levels, not promised.
“The S3 launched at 2,890 euros. On charging: the removable battery hits 80 percent in 55 minutes, which is reasonably competitive for that class.”
Amara Osei, a template persona with a dealer briefing attached as knowledge. The reply carries the source it drew on and the fluency it was attached at. In strict mode, a question beyond the material gets an honest “I don’t know”, in character.
Build from your material. Interview and test. Compile the report.
From material, not a brief
Paste interview notes or a brief, attach documents, and get a full persona with an evidence quote and a confidence per field. Or start from one of 15 templates. You review before anything publishes.
Interview and test
One-to-one interviews with the reasoning open. Focus groups of 2 to 8, moderated or autonomous. Variants, campaign reactions and A/B message tests.
Compile, with receipts
One research question collects everything. The report states findings with a confidence and cites the exact turn behind each piece of evidence. Evidence that cannot cite a turn is dropped.
Every finding links to the turn that supports it.
A 20% price increase is likely to be treated as a dealbreaker by default, even if procurement leads won’t say so outright.
Finding 1 of 5 · strongTwo of the finding’s three evidence items, verbatim, with punctuation set in house style. From a report compiled on 31 August 2026. The report’s own first limitation reads: “All personas are AI simulations, not real procurement professionals.”
Edit the summary and the claims in place. Export it. Hand it to the person who has to defend the decision.
- Driver. His deep need to protect his own judgment and stay in control of the negotiation overrode any impulse to engage directly.Robert Cahillview turn
- Trust shift. Trust dropped by 12 points upon being asked the price-increase question, indicating immediate defensive posturing.Robert Cahillview turn
For people who have to show their work.
Test before fieldwork.
Pressure-test pricing, positioning and concepts between fieldwork rounds, with a report a stakeholder can audit line by line.
Skeptical buyers, on demand.
Run messaging past personas built from real buyer interviews, and read the reasoning when they push back.
A deliverable with receipts.
A report where every claim links to its evidence. One agency, many end clients.
Not for anyone who wants a persona to agree with them, or who plans to present simulated output as real participants. The terms forbid the second.
London · Private beta · By application
Orchestrated reasoning over frontier models. Not a fine-tuned model, and not a prompt.
Built on named frameworks: the Big Five with 30 facets, Schwartz values, Self-Determination Theory, moral foundations, attachment theory, narrative identity, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Trust never decays on its own. Emotion decays toward the persona’s baseline. Beliefs evolve under repeated, argued challenge, and the change is logged. Every reply stores its trace, its model calls and their cost.
What holds up in synthetic research, and what does not.
Private beta · by application
Bring one real research question.
Access opens by application. Tell us the question you are trying to answer and who has to be convinced by the result.
A rehearsal, not a replacement, for talking to real customers. Stated in the product and in the terms. Every exported report ends with the line that personas are AI simulations, not real customers.