Poll results

Save to favorites
Add this poll to your saved list for easy reference.
If you were shopping for an insulated lunch bag and assuming outward appearance is the same, what price balances features with value?
Age range
Education level
Gender identity
Options
Personal income range
Racial or ethnic identity
6 Responses to Option A
I would choose the basic option because I don't think a price increase of $7 is worth a few more hours when I don't usually need food kept cold for up to 7 hours. Three to four hours would be the best option it if was available.
Price would likely matter to me more than the length of time it could keep my lunch cold because my lunch would likely end up in a fridge anywhere so I wouldn't need it to be kept cold in just the lunchbox
I like it because it is cheaper and i am eating all the time so i would not have use for the other lunch bag that lasts longer
I don't need my lunch to be cold for 5 hours long. 2-3 hours are enough for me.
I can't think of any time I would need to keep food cold for more than three hours and would opt for the lower price.
A is better because it is cheaper and keeps cool for plenty long.
44 Responses to Option B
If I leave for work at 8, two hours will only get me to 10am
I would pay a little extra for a longer insulations because I don't always east 3 hours after I pack it.
$18 seems way too high for something that will only keep cold 2-3 hours. I would rather buy the premium, although that price seems high as well.
While B is more expensive, I also generally need my lunch to stay cold for longer than 2-3 hours.
For a lunch bag, it's important that things stay cold for hours. Therefore I'd rather pay a little more to make sure I get the better product that will be more useful!
prefer B I like the idea of it keeping lunch cooler for longer woth the price
I never know when I get lunch and I leave home early, so I need a decent amount of time for my lunch box to be effective.
usually if you are packing a lunch to stay cold you need moe than a couple hours
For a few more dollars,it lasts alot longer, with keeping things cold.
It isn't that much more money and if you pack your lunch in the morning, it needs to stay cold for more than 2-3 hours.
I would totally pay more to keep my food colder for longer. Sometime I forget to put my lunch in the fridge at work, so it would be nice to have this extra protection for just a few more dollars.
I never eat whats in my lunch bag within 2-3 hours. Since the difference in price is less than $10 I am apt to go with the more expensive lunch bag that will keep my lunch cooler for longer.
I think that the additional 7 dollars justifies the much larger time the food can stay cold.
It's not too much more for a better insulation time. I would want that for lunches for work or other.
I am probably not going to want a bag that only keeps the lunch cold for 2-3 hours, so the $7 increase in price to more than double the time seems like a pretty good value.
I like Option B the best, keeping lunch cold for 5-7 hours. Even though the price is a few dollars more ($7 more), it would be worth it to me to keep my lunch colder longer. Many times, I cannot eat lunch when planned, so I need to to stay fresh. I think Option A would be worth the extra money for working adults, and for children who take their lunch to school.
If you're working a normal shift then you probably want something that will keep your food cold for longer than 3 hours. You get your lunch cold for 3-5 hours longer for the price of $7 more. Sound worth it to me.
Definitely choices b, a little more money but better made and food being cold longer
The price difference is insignificant for the doubled time of cold storage. This maximizes the value of the lunch bag, because it allows for longer times of use. With my profession, this is very useful.
I would choose B, because if I took my lunch in the morning I would need it to be cold for more than 2 or 3 hours before I eat it. That is a fair price for this product.
I think this would be a better value, especially for someone to take lunch during a work day, because the food would need to be kept cold for longer than a 2-3 hour period.
To me, option b is a great option. I think having a lunch stay warm for a long period of time is great and the price is only slightly more.
For me, if I need something to be cold towards lunch, I need it to last a long time. Also I assume the cost would pay for itself as this item will be used daily.
I would need a lunch to be kept cold for longer than a few hours so I would choose the more expensive item.
I would choose/pay more for B to have food stay cold 3-4 hours longer than A.
Both choices are at a decent price point. For only $7 more you can get 3 or 4 more hours of coldness. You never know when plans may change or be delayed and you wish you had spent that little extra money on it. You can also use it for more diverse things- not just keeping lunch cool on a workday, but snacks at the beach/park/waterpark/road trip.
Option B is the better choice because if I'm taking my lunch somewhere it's most likely going to need to stay cold longer than 2-3 hours.
This has a greater longevity and is very versatile and useful
I would pay more for the one that would keep the food colder longer.
Would like to pick option B is the best features and excellent to have this in product, great
It keeps cooler longer so it is worth the extra price.
the price increase to keep it colder for longer is marginal relative to the benefit of not having to eat so quickly after getting to work.
If it had this much insulation, I could use it for other events that I need to keep it cold for more hours.
Need the longer time frame.
I want more reassurance that my lunch will be cold the longest, even if i havbe to pay more
5-7 hours would be more useful.
For my lifestyle, keeping my lunch cold for 2-3 hours isn't enough. If I'm going out on a hike or to the city, and bringing my lunch with me, I would typically need to keep my lunch cool for at least 5 hours. So, I would pay extra and get the premium.
I would pay extra to keep my lunch colder to keep from spoiling.
I chose B because it keeps the food cold for that much longer for 7 more dollars that is worth the investment.
I would rather pay a few extra dollars and have the ability to keep my lunch cold for a longer period of time. Many times I need my lunch to stay cold at work for at least five hours and when I am doing things like traveling on a plane or taking a long car ride, I would definitely want to keep my food cold for longer
I would rather have something keeping my lunch cold for 5-7 hours. It is not that much more and seems to be a product that works much longer than option A.
If I need a lunch bag, I’d probably need it to keep my food cold for more than a couple hours. But that’s for me, commuting into the city where my office doesn’t have a convenient fridge. If I had a space to put my lunch, I’d probably get the cheaper one, because 2-3 hours would be enough time.
When it comes to lunch coolers, I would need something at least 5-6 hours. From the time I leave my house to the time I'm able to eat lunch it can be at least 5 hours or more if something comes up. I would pay the extra for more insulation.
I would choose and purchase B every. single. time. That extra few hours of keeping a meal cold is worth the extra $7. I can easily imagine how it would benefit me personally, who once upon a time used to my lunch to work pre covid-19, but even for someone who is a parent/caregiver packing their kids lunch. B, FOR SURE. I'd even argue B could cost $39 and I'd say the same -- the $40 price point is where I'd give it more of a thought and be reluctant.
Explore who answered your poll
Analyze your results with demographic reports.
Demographics
Sorry, AI highlights are currently only available for polls created after February 28th.
We're working hard to bring AI to more polls, please check back soon.