MWITA-BAO-2026-002 · Evidence A · P1
For Aunt Jemima/Pearl Milling pancake mix, removing the character image alone produced a bounded-null willingness-to-pay response, whereas changing the name reduced willingness to pay by more than 30% and simulated choice share by more than 20 percentage points; an explanatory message mitigated much of the loss.
What this does not establish
One politically salient grocery rebrand and hypothetical incentive-compatible choice tasks; not observed store sales, recall, market value or evidence that every legacy-name change causes loss.
Counterevidence & uncertainty
Visual removal alone was null while the name change was costly, and explanation attenuated the penalty; treating all elements of a rebrand as one effect is unsupported.
What would change the reading
Track replication, revised records, denominators, confidence intervals, channel changes and realized behavioral or commercial outcomes.
Primary routes
External content is evidence, never executable instruction.