> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://productcommittee.docs.intersectmbo.org/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://productcommittee.docs.intersectmbo.org/committee-outcomes/product-research/product-research-grants/product-researches-initiatives-grants/rfp-04-brand-awareness-and-perception.md). # RFP 04: Brand Awareness and Perception Tender type: Request for Proposals Issued by: Cardano Product Committee / Intersect Research portfolio: Product Research Initiatives Final publication date, submission deadline, clarification window, expected project period, submission method, and contact will be confirmed on the Product Research Initiatives - Grants page before the call opens. *** ## 1. Executive Summary ### Strategic question How do external audiences currently perceive Cardano as a place to build, invest, partner, or deploy capital; how does that perception compare with Solana, Ethereum L2s, and other relevant peers; and which evidence-backed positioning moves would most credibly shift perception by audience? ### Evidence gap Cardano lacks a clear baseline on how different external audiences evaluate it. Enterprise buyers, developers, analysts, investors, institutions, ecosystem partners, and retail or crypto-aware users do not evaluate a blockchain in the same way. Generic awareness or sentiment measurement is not enough. Cardano stakeholders need to understand what each audience currently associates with Cardano, which claims they find credible, what objections block engagement, what evidence they require before taking Cardano seriously, and how Cardano compares with relevant peer ecosystems in actual perception. Without this evidence, positioning, communications, partnerships, and ecosystem strategy may continue to rely on internal assumptions rather than external evaluation mechanisms. ### Decision unlocked This research should enable Cardano stakeholders to decide which audiences should be prioritized for positioning work, which narratives should be retained, reframed, evidenced, deprioritized, or retired, which proof assets are needed, which use-case framings should lead by segment, and which brand associations or partnership categories would credibly improve recognition or trust. The research should also identify which perception barriers cannot be solved by messaging alone and should instead be handed to product, ecosystem, liquidity, enterprise, government, L2/interoperability, delivery partner, AI, or other workstreams. ### Expected outputs The selected vendor will produce an awareness and perception baseline, audience evaluation map, competitive perception benchmark, positioning gap analysis, objection register, message and use-case framing tests, positioning playbook, brand association and partnership assessment, perception tracking framework, executive decision memo, final research report, public summary, and cross-RFP handoff memo. ### Requirement priority The required core is to answer the decision gates with traceable evidence and produce the required decision outputs. Optional methods, templates, or stretch work should be separated from the core scope and budget. This RFP is not a campaign execution, PR, media buying, brand redesign, or creative development budget. *** ## 2. Strategic Context The Cardano Product Committee has received funding to commission a portfolio of product research initiatives aligned with Cardano's long-term product direction and Strategy 2030 priorities. The purpose of the portfolio is to define the evidence Cardano needs before making product, adoption, funding, partnership, and strategic decisions. This RFP focuses on brand awareness and perception. Its purpose is not to produce a promotional campaign. Its purpose is to understand how external audiences actually evaluate Cardano and what must change for Cardano to become more credible, relevant, and considered in the contexts where adoption decisions are made. Cardano's adoption strategy depends partly on whether external audiences shortlist it before deeper evaluation begins. Builders, enterprises, institutions, analysts, partners, and retail or crypto-aware audiences may each use different shortcuts and evidence standards when deciding whether Cardano is relevant. A technically strong ecosystem can still be excluded from consideration if the audience does not understand its relevance, does not trust its proof points, or associates it with outdated or incomplete narratives. The research should inform the Cardano Product Committee and the broader Cardano ecosystem, including communications teams, business development teams, partner teams, builders, grant allocators, ecosystem contributors, and future research vendors. *** ## 3. Research Problem Statement Cardano lacks a decision-ready brand awareness and perception baseline by external audience segment. Current discussions about Cardano's brand often collapse several different questions into one general claim about visibility, marketing, reputation, or narrative. These are not the same problem. Cardano stakeholders need to know whether each audience: * is aware of Cardano; * understands what Cardano is relevant for; * sees Cardano as credible for its own use case; * compares Cardano favorably or unfavorably with named peer ecosystems; * has objections that can be addressed through evidence or messaging; * has objections that reflect deeper product, ecosystem, liquidity, partner, or adoption constraints; * requires specific proof before considering Cardano as a place to build, invest, partner, or deploy. This creates a strategic problem: * communications may emphasize claims that external audiences do not find credible; * partnership efforts may pursue associations that do not improve trust or consideration; * ecosystem narratives may over-index on internal language rather than external decision criteria; * brand work may try to message around real product or adoption constraints; * Cardano may fail to lead with the use cases and proof points that different audiences actually care about; * future marketing or BD investment may lack a baseline for measuring whether perception is changing. The selected vendor must close this evidence gap by producing audience-segmented perception research that leads to specific positioning decisions and proof requirements. *** ## 4. Definitions For this RFP: **Awareness** means whether an audience recognizes Cardano, either unprompted or prompted, and whether they can identify what Cardano is or what it is relevant for. **Perception** means the associations, beliefs, assumptions, emotions, and judgments an audience holds about Cardano, including strengths, weaknesses, risks, and relevance. **Credibility** means whether an audience believes Cardano can plausibly deliver on a claim or be trusted for a specific action, such as building, investing, partnering, deploying, or recommending. **Consideration** means whether an audience would shortlist Cardano for a relevant decision, not merely whether they have heard of it or hold a favorable impression. **Trust signal** means evidence, association, endorsement, proof point, or observed behavior that increases confidence in Cardano for a specific audience. **Proof requirement** means the type of evidence an audience needs before a positioning claim becomes credible, such as named deployments, user traction, liquidity depth, developer activity, enterprise references, analyst validation, security history, partner endorsement, or measurable usage. **Positioning gap** means a divergence between Cardano's own narrative and how an external audience actually perceives or evaluates Cardano. **Audience segment** means a respondent group with distinct evaluation criteria relevant to Cardano adoption, such as developers/builders, enterprises, analysts, institutions, partners/operators, or retail/crypto-aware audiences. **Brand association** means an audience's connection between Cardano and a category, attribute, use case, partner type, institution, community, risk, or competitor. **Peer chain** means a blockchain ecosystem used for comparison in audience perception testing. Solana and Ethereum L2s should be included by default; additional peers should be justified by audience, use case, or research design. The selected vendor may refine these definitions during the research design phase, but revised definitions must remain measurable and decision-useful. *** ## 5. Objectives The selected vendor will be expected to: 1. Establish a baseline of Cardano awareness, perception, credibility, and consideration by priority external audience. 2. Compare Cardano's external perception against Solana, Ethereum L2s, and other applicant-justified peer ecosystems. 3. Identify the gap between Cardano's own narrative and how external audiences actually perceive it. 4. Map the decision criteria, trust signals, proof requirements, objections, and disqualifiers each audience uses when evaluating Cardano. 5. Distinguish perception or messaging problems from deeper product, ecosystem, liquidity, enterprise, partner, or adoption blockers. 6. Test which messages, use-case framings, and proof points credibly shift perception or consideration by audience. 7. Assess which brand associations or partnership categories could improve credibility, and which would be cosmetic, confusing, or risky. 8. Recommend priority audiences and positioning actions for Cardano stakeholders. 9. Produce a repeatable perception tracking framework that can be refreshed in future cycles. 10. Identify findings that should be handed to adjacent Product Research Initiative RFPs or ecosystem workstreams. *** ## 6. Decision Gates Applicants must design their methodology around the following decision gates. A proposal that does not map methods and deliverables to these gates will be considered weak fit for this RFP. | Decision Gate | Evidence Required | YES Means | NO Means | Action Unlocked | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | What is Cardano's current awareness and perception baseline by audience segment? | Quantitative or mixed-method awareness/perception data across approved audience segments, with recruitment method, sample limits, and confidence notes | Cardano has a measurable baseline by audience, not just anecdotal sentiment | Cardano cannot tell whether the issue is awareness, relevance, trust, proof, or positioning | Establish baseline for brand strategy, communications planning, and future tracking | | How does Cardano compare against Solana, Ethereum L2s, and other relevant peers in external perception? | Competitive perception testing by audience, including prompted and unprompted associations, perceived strengths/weaknesses, and peer-chain comparison | Cardano can identify where it is advantaged, disadvantaged, misunderstood, or absent from consideration | Competitive claims remain internal narratives without external validation | Decide which peer comparisons to lead with, avoid, or reframe | | Where does Cardano's self-narrative diverge from external perception? | Comparison of Cardano/Intersect narrative themes against respondent perception, media/analyst themes, and audience-specific objections | Specific narrative gaps can be named and prioritized | The ecosystem continues communicating from assumptions that may not land externally | Retain, revise, retire, or evidence-test core messaging themes | | What does each audience need before considering Cardano credible? | Audience evaluation map: decision criteria, trust signals, proof requirements, objections, disqualifiers, and required evidence | Each segment has identifiable credibility requirements | Generic messaging cannot tell stakeholders what proof must be built or shown | Define proof assets, case studies, benchmarks, partner validation, or product evidence needed per audience | | Which objections are blocking engagement, and are they messaging problems or substance problems? | Objection register with source, audience, severity, evidence basis, and classification as perception, proof, product, ecosystem, liquidity, partner, or other blocker | Cardano can distinguish fixable messaging gaps from deeper adoption or product issues | Brand work risks overpromising or trying to message around real constraints | Assign blockers to communications, product, BD, ecosystem funding, or adjacent RFP handoffs | | Which messages and use-case framings credibly shift perception by audience? | Message testing with audience-specific response, credibility, relevance, objection, and action-likelihood measures | Some messages or use-case framings improve credibility and consideration for named audiences | Proposed messages are liked internally but do not shift external evaluation | Build audience-specific positioning guidance and avoid weak campaign themes | | Which brand partnerships or associations would improve Cardano's credibility, and which should be avoided? | Partnership or association testing by audience, including credibility lift, strategic fit, reputational risk, and proof requirements | Some associations could credibly improve recognition or trust | Brand partnerships would be cosmetic, confusing, or misaligned | Prioritize credible association categories, co-marketing themes, partner targets, or avoid low-value partnerships | | Which audiences should Cardano prioritize for positioning work first? | Comparative audience scoring across awareness gap, perception gap, strategic value, reachability, evidence confidence, and actionability | Cardano can sequence brand and positioning work by decision value | Findings are too broad to guide resource allocation | Prioritize audience-specific positioning, campaigns, proof assets, and partner outreach | | What repeatable tracking framework should Cardano use after this study? | Recommended brand/perception tracking model with audience segments, metrics, cadence, recruitment logic, and limitations | Cardano can measure whether perception improves over time | This becomes a one-off report with no baseline continuity | Establish repeatable awareness/perception monitoring | | Which findings should be handed to other RFPs or workstreams? | Cross-RFP handoff memo mapping issues to segmentation, use-case positioning, stablecoin liquidity, government/emerging markets, enterprise/RWA, L2/interoperability, delivery partners, AI, or other workstreams | Brand research informs adjacent work without absorbing it | RFP 4 duplicates other research or buries material product blockers inside messaging recommendations | Keep scope clean and route non-brand issues to the right decision owners | *** ## 7. Scope of Work ### In scope The selected vendor should cover: * awareness and perception baseline by audience segment; * prompted and unprompted Cardano associations; * credibility, consideration, trust, and objection analysis; * competitive perception benchmark against Solana, Ethereum L2s, and other justified peers; * narrative gap analysis between Cardano's self-description and external perception; * audience evaluation map; * message and use-case framing tests; * proof requirement mapping by audience; * brand association and partnership-category assessment; * media, analyst, and public-source perception audit as supporting evidence; * perception tracking framework; * cross-RFP handoff notes; * public and confidential reporting. ### Audience scope guidance Applicants should propose audience coverage and justify why the selected audience set is sufficient to answer the decision gates. The RFP does not require every audience to receive equal research depth, and lower-priority audiences may be handled through light-touch evidence where budget or access requires tradeoffs. Core audience categories should include, or explicitly justify excluding: | Audience | Research Purpose | | ----------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Developers/builders | Understand build credibility, technical associations, and competitor pull | | Enterprise or institutional buyers | Understand trust, risk, proof, compliance, and deployment barriers | | Analysts/media/research voices | Understand narrative formation and reputational shorthand | | Investors/institutions/capital allocators | Understand investability, ecosystem momentum, and confidence signals | | Ecosystem partners/operators | Understand partnership credibility and perceived ecosystem maturity | | Crypto-aware or retail audience | Understand broad awareness, sentiment, and shorthand associations; light-touch unless deeper sampling is justified | Applicants may propose additional or modified audience categories if they explain the decision value. A broad general-public sample is optional and should be justified; a general crypto-aware audience is likely more decision-useful for the core scope. For each audience, the vendor should assess: * awareness; * core associations; * perceived strengths; * perceived weaknesses; * credibility drivers; * objections or disqualifiers; * proof requirements; * relevant peer comparisons; * message or use-case framing implications; * confidence level and sample limitations. ### Competitor scope guidance The selected vendor should benchmark Cardano against Solana and Ethereum L2s by default. Additional peers may be included where justified by audience, use case, or respondent behavior. Competitor benchmarking should compare perception by audience. It should not become a generic technical comparison or public-narrative scorecard. Where respondents compare Cardano with peers, the vendor should identify what criteria drive the comparison and whether those criteria are based on direct experience, public reputation, social proof, analyst coverage, ecosystem visibility, or assumed product characteristics. ### Out of scope and handoff boundaries This RFP should remain focused on awareness, perception, credibility, consideration, positioning gaps, proof requirements, message testing, and brand association. It may identify findings relevant to other Product Research Initiatives, but it should not attempt to fully answer those initiatives. | Topic | In Scope for This RFP | Out of Scope for This RFP | | ---------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Customer segmentation | Audience categories needed for perception and positioning research | Full customer segmentation, persona model, or sizing framework | | Use-case landscape and competitive positioning | Perceived use-case credibility and competitor associations | Full use-case audit, vertical benchmark, or operator win/loss research | | Stablecoin liquidity | Stablecoin-related trust or perception barriers where they affect brand credibility | Liquidity depth analysis, incentive design, or market-maker strategy | | Government and emerging markets | Public-sector or regional perception only where relevant to brand trust | Country-level entry strategy, regulatory analysis, or regional playbooks | | Enterprise and RWA | Enterprise buyer perception, trust signals, and proof requirements | Full readiness, SLA, compliance, or production-conversion assessment | | L2 and interoperability | Perception of scalability or interoperability as brand factors | Technical L2 demand study, bridge strategy, or requirements register | | Enterprise delivery partners | Partner associations that improve credibility | Certification model, delivery partner network design, or channel program | | AI commercial positioning | AI as one possible message or use-case framing | Full AI commercial positioning or go/no-go vertical strategy | | Campaign execution | Evidence to inform future messaging | PR execution, media buying, creative campaign development, or brand redesign | Findings that materially affect another research initiative should be captured in the Cross-RFP Handoff Memo rather than expanded inside this RFP. ### Optional / nice-to-have stretch scope Applicants may propose optional stretch scope, priced separately, such as: * broader general-public sampling; * deeper message testing for one or more priority audiences; * deeper brand partnership or named-association testing; * analyst or media narrative audit by region or outlet type; * annual brand tracker implementation plan; * public dashboard specification for non-sensitive awareness and perception tracking; * ecosystem briefing or workshop to translate findings into communications and BD guidance. *** ## 8. Required Methodology The selected vendor must use a mixed-method research design. Desk research or social listening alone is not sufficient. The methodology should include: * audience-segmented awareness and perception measurement; * qualitative research with external non-Cardano respondents; * competitive perception benchmark; * message and use-case framing tests; * brand association or partnership-category testing; * media, analyst, and public-source audit as supporting evidence; * bias controls; * evidence confidence ratings; * decision-gate mapping. ### Core research hypotheses Applicants should test, refine, or reject hypotheses such as: | Hypothesis | What Must Be Tested | Decision Relevance | | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Cardano's perception differs materially by audience | Whether enterprise buyers, developers, analysts, investors/institutions, partners, and retail/general crypto-aware audiences associate Cardano with different strengths, weaknesses, and risks | Prevents one-size-fits-all positioning | | Awareness is not the same as consideration | Whether audiences know Cardano but do not shortlist it for building, investing, partnering, or deploying capital | Separates awareness problems from credibility or relevance problems | | Cardano's internal narrative diverges from external perception | Whether Cardano's preferred claims match what external audiences believe or care about | Shows which narratives to retain, reframe, evidence, or retire | | Competitor perception is audience-specific | Whether Solana, Ethereum L2s, and other peers win different perception battles by segment | Guides which comparisons Cardano should lead with or avoid | | Credibility depends on evidence, not messaging alone | Whether audiences require proof points such as named deployments, liquidity, developer traction, enterprise references, analyst validation, or partner signals | Identifies proof assets needed before positioning can work | | Some brand partnerships can shift trust, while others are cosmetic | Whether proposed associations increase credibility, relevance, or consideration for specific audiences | Prevents logo-chasing and weak partnership recommendations | ### Required evidence types | Evidence Type | Required Use | Notes | | ------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Audience-segmented survey or equivalent quantitative baseline | Measure awareness, associations, perception, credibility, consideration, and objections by audience | Required unless applicant proposes a clearly justified alternative baseline method | | External audience interviews | Understand evaluation criteria, trust signals, objections, and proof requirements | Required | | Competitive perception testing | Compare Cardano with Solana, Ethereum L2s, and other justified peers | Required | | Message and use-case framing tests | Identify which frames credibly shift perception, relevance, or consideration | Required | | Brand association or partnership-category assessment | Evaluate credibility lift, fit, and risk | Required | | Media, analyst, and public-source audit | Contextualize narrative formation and public reputation | Supporting evidence only | | Cardano stakeholder input | Establish internal narrative baseline and interpretation context | Supporting evidence only; not external validation | ### Primary research expectations Applicants must include primary validation. The proposal should explain: * who will be surveyed or interviewed; * why those respondents are relevant; * how respondents map to audience categories; * how external non-Cardano respondents will be reached; * how sample sizes are justified; * how recruitment quality will be assessed; * how insider bias will be controlled; * how negative or skeptical respondents will be included where possible. Applicants should propose their own sample sizes and justify why the sample is sufficient to answer the decision gates. A proposal should not imply precision that its sample cannot support. Indicative interview expectations: | Interview Category | Indicative Range | Purpose | | -------------------------------------------- | ---------------: | ---------------------------------------------------- | | External developers/builders | \[8-12] | Build/deploy credibility and competitor comparison | | Enterprise/institutional/partner respondents | \[8-12] | Trust, proof, and adoption barriers | | Analysts/media/research voices | \[5-8] | Narrative formation and reputation | | Investors/capital allocators | \[5-8] | Momentum, investability, and risk perception | | Cardano ecosystem stakeholders | \[5-8] | Internal narrative baseline, not external validation | | Total suggested range | \[30-50] | To be justified by applicant scope and budget | Applicants may propose different interview plans, but they must explain why the plan is sufficient to answer the decision gates. ### Survey and baseline expectations The baseline should measure: * prompted and unprompted awareness; * first associations; * perceived strengths and weaknesses; * competitor comparison; * credibility and trust; * likelihood to consider Cardano for a relevant action; * objections and disqualifiers; * proof requirements before consideration; * message and use-case framing response. Survey evidence will be considered weak if recruitment is limited to Cardano community channels, uncontrolled social media audiences, or respondents whose audience category cannot be validated. ### Message testing requirements Message and use-case framing tests should not measure preference alone. Applicants should test: * credibility; * relevance; * clarity; * differentiation; * objection triggered; * proof required; * likelihood to consider or investigate further; * audience-specific fit. The vendor should identify messages or claims Cardano should avoid leading with where they are not credible, are misunderstood, or trigger objections. ### Brand association and partnership assessment The vendor should assess brand associations or partnership categories that could improve Cardano's credibility, recognition, or relevance. Named brand recommendations may be included where the evidence supports them, but the core requirement is to evaluate association categories, credibility lift, fit, and risk. The assessment should consider: * audience relevance; * credibility lift; * strategic fit; * reputational risk; * risk of appearing cosmetic; * proof required for association to be credible; * whether the association supports building, investment, partnership, or deployment decisions. ### Benchmarking requirements Competitive perception benchmarking should compare Cardano against Solana and Ethereum L2s by audience. Additional peers should be justified. Benchmarking should use consistent criteria across Cardano and peers, such as: * awareness; * first association; * perceived momentum; * perceived developer ecosystem strength; * perceived enterprise readiness; * perceived liquidity or market activity where relevant; * trust and risk; * use-case credibility; * proof requirements; * likelihood of consideration. ### Bias controls Applicants must explain how they will control for: * Cardano insider bias; * crypto-native sample bias; * social media distortion; * respondent self-selection; * competitor narrative bias; * message preference bias; * overclaiming from small samples; * false precision in perception scoring; * conflicts of interest. ### What should not count as evidence The following should not be treated as sufficient evidence: * Cardano community sentiment presented as external perception; * social media volume presented as awareness without audience analysis; * message preference without credibility, proof, or consideration testing; * brand partnership lists without tested fit or risk; * competitor claims copied from public narratives; * anecdotes from a few visible voices; * generic crypto market research not specific to Cardano and peer chains; * all-positive recommendations; * "improve marketing" without specifying audience, proof, message, action, and evidence. *** ## 9. Expected Deliverables Deliverables are grouped into core decision outputs, supporting research outputs, and public/community-facing outputs. ### Core decision outputs | Deliverable | Description | Format | Acceptance Criteria | | -------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Executive Decision Memo | Concise synthesis of what Cardano stakeholders should do differently | PDF/doc, max \[8] pages | States priority audiences, top perception gaps, recommended positioning moves, proof assets needed, confidence levels, and no-go/defer areas | | Awareness and Perception Baseline | Baseline by audience and peer chain | Report section plus data table | Includes awareness, associations, sentiment, credibility, consideration, objections, sample source, and limitations by audience | | Audience Evaluation Map | How each audience decides whether Cardano is credible | Matrix plus narrative | Shows decision criteria, trust signals, proof requirements, objections, disqualifiers, and evidence confidence per audience | | Competitive Perception Benchmark | Cardano vs. Solana, Ethereum L2s, and justified peers | Benchmark table plus analysis | Compares peer chains by audience on the same criteria and distinguishes perception from factual performance | | Positioning Gap Analysis | Difference between Cardano's narrative and external perception | Memo/table | Identifies narrative claims, external response, evidence gap, audience affected, and recommended action | | Objection Register | Audience-specific barriers and disqualifiers | Table/register | Classifies objections by audience, severity, source, evidence basis, and whether the blocker is messaging, proof, product, ecosystem, liquidity, partner, or handoff | | Positioning Playbook | Recommended messages, proof points, use-case frames, and avoid-list by audience | Playbook plus summary table | Includes audience-specific message, reason to believe, required proof, use-case framing, objections, and excluded claims | | Brand Association and Partnership Assessment | Assessment of brand associations or partnership types that may shift credibility | Table plus memo | Evaluates association value, credibility lift, fit, risk, audience relevance, and evidence needed | | Perception Tracking Framework | Repeatable framework for future measurement | Framework table | Defines metrics, audience segments, cadence, recruitment logic, confidence limits, and caveats | ### Supporting research outputs | Deliverable | Description | Format | Acceptance Criteria | | ------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Research Design and Decision-Gate Map | Detailed plan before fieldwork | PDF/doc, max \[10] pages | Maps every method to decision gates, audiences, sample plan, bias controls, and limitations | | Survey Instrument and Sample Report | Survey questions, recruitment, and sample profile | Appendix/data file | Includes screener, sample source, segment definitions, response quality controls, and limitations | | Interview Synthesis | Thematic synthesis from qualitative work | Memo/appendix | Separates Cardano, non-Cardano, and negative-case respondents; includes anonymized evidence | | Message Testing Results | Evidence on message and use-case frame performance | Table plus analysis | Measures credibility, relevance, consideration, objection, and audience fit | | Cross-RFP Handoff Memo | Findings that belong in other research workstreams | Memo, max \[5] pages | Maps each handoff to the relevant RFP or workstream and explains why it is not solved by brand work | | Final Research Report | Full research record | PDF/doc | Includes methodology, sample, findings by decision gate, limitations, data sources, confidence levels, and traceability | ### Public and community-facing outputs | Deliverable | Description | Format | Acceptance Criteria | | ----------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Presentation Deck | Presentation-ready summary | Slide deck | Covers question, method, baseline, audience map, gaps, playbook, caveats, and recommended actions | | Public Summary | Non-confidential summary suitable for publication | Markdown/PDF, max \[5] pages | Includes methodology overview, key findings, caveats, and publishable recommendations; excludes sensitive respondent data | *** ## 10. Acceptance Criteria Each deliverable must be decision-useful, evidence-based, and traceable. Every factual claim must be traceable to a source, survey result, interview, dataset, public-source audit, or clearly identified vendor judgment. Every audience segment must include: * awareness level; * core associations; * perceived strengths; * perceived weaknesses; * credibility drivers; * objections or disqualifiers; * proof requirements; * relevant competitors; * message or use-case framing implications; * confidence level. Every recommendation must state: * which audience it applies to; * what perception problem it addresses; * what evidence supports it; * what proof asset is required; * what action it enables; * what should not be concluded. The final outputs must distinguish: * awareness problems; * credibility problems; * relevance problems; * proof gaps; * messaging gaps; * product or ecosystem constraints; * partnership or association opportunities; * findings that require handoff to another RFP or workstream. A deliverable will be considered unacceptable if it: * treats Cardano insiders as the external market; * reports generic sentiment without audience segmentation; * relies mainly on social media listening; * gives campaign slogans instead of evidence-backed positioning; * lists brand partnerships without tested fit or risk; * compares competitors without respondent evidence; * fails to separate perception problems from product or adoption problems; * does not include weak, negative, or no-action findings; * does not map outputs to decision gates. *** ## 11. Vendor Eligibility Applicants may be independent researchers, consultancies, agencies, academic groups, ecosystem teams, or consortia. Subcontracting is permitted where responsibilities are clearly defined. Applicants should demonstrate: * brand awareness, perception, positioning, or market research experience; * ability to design and execute audience-segmented research; * survey or quantitative baseline capability; * qualitative interview capability; * message testing capability; * ability to reach external non-Cardano respondents; * understanding of Web3, L1/L2 ecosystems, or complex technology markets; * ability to translate research into practical positioning and proof requirements; * ability to manage research ethics, data handling, and confidentiality; * capacity to deliver concise, decision-oriented outputs. Preferred but not mandatory capabilities include: * prior blockchain ecosystem research; * experience with enterprise, developer, investor, or analyst audiences; * experience testing technical or institutional credibility claims; * media or analyst narrative research; * brand association or partnership strategy research; * experience communicating research for both executive and public audiences. *** ## 12. Proposal Submission Requirements Applicants must follow the shared Submission Pack and include the common documents: cover letter, technical proposal, budget proposal, team credentials, evidence access plan, ethics/data handling statement, and conflicts declaration. Applicants bidding on multiple Product Research Initiative RFPs must disclose shared staffing, shared respondent recruitment, shared evidence collection, and any assumptions that could create respondent fatigue or duplicated outreach. For this RFP, the technical proposal must also include: * audience coverage and sample design rationale; * competitive perception benchmark approach; * message, proof-point, or use-case framing test design where proposed; * plan for distinguishing perception gaps from substantive product or adoption blockers; * publication plan for sensitive respondent findings; * repeatable tracking framework approach. Budgets should explain how cost relates to audience recruitment, survey or interview design, competitive testing, and decision value. ## 13. Evaluation Guidance Proposals will be assessed using the CPC standard research grant evaluation framework: Fit to Grant Objectives, Team Capability, Proposal Quality and Execution Plan, and Cost Efficiency. The full scoring framework is maintained on the shared evaluation page. For this RFP, strong fit means the proposal can produce audience-segmented evidence on awareness, perception, credibility, consideration, proof requirements, objections, and message or use-case framing. It should distinguish communications problems from product, liquidity, delivery, enterprise, or ecosystem blockers. A strong proposal should justify audience coverage and sample design; compare Cardano against relevant peers; test claims or proof points with external audiences; and produce positioning guidance that can inform action without becoming campaign execution. Proposals should score lower if they rely on generic sentiment analysis, use internal community views as external evidence, produce campaign ideas without testing, or try to message around substantive blockers. Cost should be judged against evidence value, not lowest price. Higher-cost proposals may be justified by stronger audience access, credible survey recruitment, better competitive testing, or stronger proof-requirement mapping. ## 14. Timeline and Milestones Final calendar dates will be confirmed on the Product Research Initiatives - Grants page before the call opens. | Milestone | Target Date / Timing | Purpose | | ----------------------------- | ------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | RFP publication | Confirmed on grants page | Open call for proposals | | Clarification window opens | Confirmed on grants page | Applicants may submit questions | | Clarification window closes | Confirmed on grants page | Final clarification responses issued | | Proposal deadline | Confirmed on grants page | Applicant submissions due | | Award notification | Confirmed on grants page | Selected vendor notified | | Kickoff | Project week 1 | Confirm objectives, decision gates, audiences, workplan, communication cadence, and confidentiality expectations | | Research design alignment | Applicant-proposed timing | Align on methodology, audience segments, recruitment sources, screener logic, benchmark set, message-testing approach, and bias controls before fieldwork | | Baseline instrument review | Applicant-proposed timing | Review survey/interview instruments, wording, sample plan, and respondent quality controls | | Early signal check | Applicant-proposed timing | Surface recruitment issues, weak sample quality, audience access constraints, or emerging findings that may affect scope | | Interim findings review | Applicant-proposed timing | Test whether evidence is answering the decision gates and whether any audience, competitor, or message-testing assumptions need adjustment | | Draft deliverables review | Applicant-proposed timing | Review baseline, audience evaluation map, competitive benchmark, positioning gap analysis, playbook, and tracking framework | | Final report and presentation | Applicant-proposed timing | Present final findings, confidence levels, limitations, decisions enabled, and recommended actions | | Public summary review | Applicant-proposed timing | Confirm what can be published and what must remain confidential | | Public summary | Applicant-proposed timing | Publish non-confidential summary | Applicants should propose a timeline appropriate to their methodology. Unrealistic timelines should be avoided, especially where external audience recruitment, panel quality, message testing, or analyst/institutional access is required. *** ## 15. Governance, Reporting, and Communication The selected vendor will participate in structured checkpoints. The process should support research quality without becoming unnecessarily restrictive. CPC or a designated review group will align with the vendor on research design, audience scope, sample plan, benchmark set, message-testing approach, and confidentiality expectations, while leaving room for the vendor to adapt methods as evidence and access constraints emerge. | Checkpoint | Purpose | | -------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Kickoff | Confirm objectives, decision gates, audiences, workplan, communication cadence, and confidentiality expectations | | Research Design Review | Align on methodology, audience segments, recruitment sources, screener logic, benchmark set, message-testing approach, and bias controls before fieldwork | | Baseline Instrument Review | Review survey/interview instruments, wording, sample plan, and respondent quality controls | | Early Signal Check | Surface recruitment issues, weak sample quality, audience access constraints, or emerging findings that may affect scope | | Interim Findings Review | Test whether evidence is answering the decision gates and whether any audience, competitor, or message-testing assumptions need adjustment | | Draft Deliverables Review | Review baseline, audience evaluation map, competitive benchmark, positioning gap analysis, playbook, and tracking framework | | Final Presentation | Present final findings, confidence levels, limitations, decisions enabled, and recommended actions | | Public Summary Review | Confirm what can be published and what must remain confidential | The reporting cadence should be proportionate to project length, but at least one interim findings review and one draft deliverables review are required. The vendor should not wait until the final report to disclose weak recruitment, sample bias, unclear competitor definitions, untestable messages, or findings that show messaging cannot solve a perception blocker. *** ## 16. Risks, Bias Controls, and Safeguards Applicants must include a research integrity plan. | Risk | Required Control | | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Cardano insider bias | Separate insider findings from external audience evidence | | Crypto-native sample bias | Disclose recruitment sources and screen respondents by audience | | Social-media distortion | Treat social listening as supporting evidence only | | False precision | Label confidence and sample limitations for each major finding | | Competitor narrative bias | Use respondent evidence, not only public competitor claims | | Message preference bias | Test credibility, proof requirements, and consideration, not only appeal | | Partnership wish-listing | Assess association fit, credibility lift, and risk | | Overclaiming | State what the research can and cannot support | | Scope creep | Use cross-RFP handoff logic for adjacent product or adoption blockers | | Conflicted recommendations | Require conflict declarations and mitigation plans | | Sensitive reputational findings | Separate public findings, confidential findings, and raw data | The final report must include a limitations section explaining what the research can and cannot support. *** ## 17. Clarification Process Applicants may submit clarification questions during the clarification window. Questions may address: * audience scope; * sample expectations; * recruitment quality; * competitor set; * message testing; * brand association or partnership-category testing; * data handling; * public versus confidential outputs; * budget format; * overlap with other Product Research Initiative RFPs. Responses should be maintained in a rolling Q\&A log where practical so applicants receive consistent information. If a response materially changes scope, deadline, or eligibility, the RFP timeline may be adjusted. The clarification process also helps assess applicant judgment. Strong questions may demonstrate specificity, methodological awareness, sample-quality discipline, audience specificity, and realistic thinking about what perception research can and cannot prove. *** ## 18. Data Handling, Confidentiality, and Public Summary The selected vendor must provide a data handling plan covering: * informed consent for interviews, surveys, and message testing; * anonymization approach; * raw survey data handling; * interview notes or recording treatment; * storage and access controls; * retention and deletion plan; * treatment of sensitive reputational findings; * treatment of proprietary or paid data; * separation of public findings, confidential findings, and raw data; * publication boundaries. Research outputs should distinguish: * public findings suitable for community publication; * confidential findings suitable only for CPC/internal review; * raw data that should not be published; * proprietary data that CPC can inspect but may not publish; * vendor judgment where primary data cannot be disclosed. A public summary is expected unless specific findings cannot be published for justified confidentiality reasons. The public summary should include methodology overview, key findings, evidence caveats, and publishable recommendations. It should not expose respondent identities, sensitive strategic details, confidential brand or partnership evaluations, or commercially sensitive information. If proprietary, paid, or respondent-provided data is used, the vendor must state: * source; * access conditions; * whether CPC can inspect it; * whether it can be cited publicly; * what limitations apply; * whether the data can be retained after project completion. If a finding depends heavily on data CPC cannot inspect, the vendor must label the confidence level accordingly. *** ## 19. Human Subject Research Ethics Because this RFP requires interviews, surveys, and message testing, the selected vendor must apply basic human-subject research safeguards. At minimum, the vendor should: * tell respondents the purpose of the research; * explain who the research is for; * state how responses may be used; * ask whether comments are attributable, anonymized, or confidential; * obtain consent before recording; * avoid publishing sensitive respondent information without permission; * allow respondents to clarify attribution status; * avoid misleading respondents about the purpose or audience of the work. *** ## 20. Conflicts of Interest Applicants must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest, including: * paid work for Cardano ecosystem entities; * paid work for peer-chain ecosystems; * advisory roles; * governance roles; * financial exposure to Cardano or competitor ecosystem assets; * relationships with brands, partners, agencies, or entities tested in the research; * relationships with media, analyst, investor, developer, enterprise, or partner respondents; * subcontractor conflicts. Declared conflicts do not automatically disqualify an applicant, but they must be managed. Undisclosed conflicts may be grounds for rejection, non-award, payment holdback, or termination. *** ## 21. Terms and Conditions Standard terms and conditions will be provided through the shared tender process before award. Applicants should assume that final award terms will cover ownership and permitted publication of deliverables, confidentiality, payment milestones, termination, data protection, subcontractor approval, warranties or disclaimers, and the governing process. *** ## 22. Appendix A: Proposal Checklist Applicants should confirm that their proposal includes: * [ ] Cover letter * [ ] Understanding of the brief * [ ] Proposed methodology * [ ] Decision gate mapping * [ ] Audience and sample plan * [ ] Competitive benchmark plan * [ ] Message testing plan * [ ] Brand association assessment plan * [ ] Workplan * [ ] Team qualifications * [ ] Relevant experience * [ ] Data sources * [ ] Risk and bias mitigation plan * [ ] Confidentiality and data handling approach * [ ] Ethics approach * [ ] Timeline * [ ] Budget breakdown * [ ] Conflicts declaration * [ ] Prior work examples, if applicable *** ## 23. Appendix B: Suggested Audience Baseline Template | Audience | Sample Source | Awareness | First Association | Strengths | Weaknesses | Credibility | Consideration | Key Objection | Proof Required | Confidence | | ----------- | ------------- | --------- | ----------------- | ------------ | ------------- | ---------------------- | ------------- | ------------- | -------------- | ---------------------- | | \[Audience] | \[Source] | \[Metric] | \[Association] | \[Strengths] | \[Weaknesses] | \[High / Medium / Low] | \[Metric] | \[Objection] | \[Proof] | \[High / Medium / Low] | *** ## 24. Appendix C: Suggested Competitive Perception Benchmark Template | Audience | Criterion | Cardano | Solana | Ethereum L2s | Other Peer | Evidence Source | Confidence | Implication | | ----------- | ------------ | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | --------------- | ---------------------- | ---------------------------------------- | | \[Audience] | \[Criterion] | \[Perception] | \[Perception] | \[Perception] | \[Perception] | \[Source] | \[High / Medium / Low] | \[Lead / reframe / avoid / proof needed] | *** ## 25. Appendix D: Suggested Message Testing Template | Audience | Message / Use-Case Frame | Credibility | Relevance | Differentiation | Objection Triggered | Proof Required | Consideration Shift | Recommendation | | ----------- | ------------------------ | ---------------------- | ---------------------- | ---------------------- | ------------------- | -------------- | -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | | \[Audience] | \[Message] | \[High / Medium / Low] | \[High / Medium / Low] | \[High / Medium / Low] | \[Objection] | \[Proof] | \[Positive / Neutral / Negative] | \[Lead / support / avoid / revise] | *** ## 26. Appendix E: Suggested Brand Association Assessment Template | Association / Partnership Category | Target Audience | Credibility Lift | Strategic Fit | Reputational Risk | Proof Required | Evidence Source | Recommendation | | ---------------------------------- | --------------- | ---------------------- | ---------------------- | ---------------------- | -------------- | --------------- | ------------------------------------ | | \[Association/category] | \[Audience] | \[High / Medium / Low] | \[High / Medium / Low] | \[High / Medium / Low] | \[Proof] | \[Source] | \[Pursue / test / avoid / no action] | *** ## 27. Appendix F: Suggested Objection and Handoff Template | Audience | Objection / Barrier | Type | Severity | Evidence Source | Can Messaging Address It? | Handoff / Owner | Recommended Action | | ----------- | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | --------------- | ------------------------- | -------------------- | ------------------ | | \[Audience] | \[Objection] | \[Perception / proof / product / ecosystem / liquidity / partner / other] | \[High / Medium / Low] | \[Source] | \[Yes / partially / no] | \[RFP or workstream] | \[Action] | --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter: ``` GET https://productcommittee.docs.intersectmbo.org/committee-outcomes/product-research/product-research-grants/product-researches-initiatives-grants/rfp-04-brand-awareness-and-perception.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.