Playbook replay
Media fact sheet
A scannable one-pager with the marketing language stripped, split into what is quotable, what needs verifying, and what is missing.
Run for Lumira, a demo brand we invented for this page. No customer data. Nothing here runs against a live account.
Every session here was run once and saved, against a demo brand or public data. On your own account Naise works from your brand voice, your campaigns and your connected channels, so it reasons about your data instead of a stand-in.
Lumira refill system, fact sheet
At a glance
| What it is | A refill pouch system across Lumira's full skincare range |
| Products covered | 6 SKUs (cleanser, serum, moisturiser, two variants each) |
| Launched | September 2026 |
| Markets | Singapore, Malaysia |
| Where sold | Lumira direct store |
Key features
- Customer retains the original bottle and buys refill pouches.
- Refill pouch fits all six products in the range.
- No change to formulation between bottled and refill versions.
Market context
- Refill systems in consumer skincare are typically limited to a subset of a range. A full-range refill is less common. (Source: not supplied, verify before use.)
Key numbers
| Figure | Value | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| SKUs refillable | 6 of 6 | Sept 2026 | Company |
| Refill price | S$17 | Sept 2026 | Company |
| Bottle price | S$42 | Sept 2026 | Company |
| Refill as % of bottle | 40% | Sept 2026 | Derived |
| Plastic reduction per unit | 82% | Not supplied | Unverified |
No adjectives anywhere above. A fact sheet that describes a product as "innovative" is a fact sheet a journalist stops reading.
Most likely to be quoted: the 40% and the 6-of-6. Both are specific, both are verifiable, and both are the kind of figure that fits in a sentence about the category rather than about you.
Verify before this leaves the building:
- The 82%. It has no date, no methodology and no source. "82% less plastic" compared to what: the bottle, an industry average, a previous version? This is the single most quotable number on the sheet and the least defensible. Either attach the methodology or remove it.
- The market context line. I wrote "less common" from general knowledge, not from data. If you cannot source it, cut it. An unsourced context claim on a fact sheet undermines the sourced numbers next to it.
- Currency on the prices. I have assumed Singapore dollars. If the Malaysian price differs, a single price column is wrong.
What this sheet does not answer, and they will ring you about:
- What the pouch is made of, and whether it is recyclable in the markets you sell in.
- Whether the refill price is introductory.
- What happens to returned pouches.
- Unit sales, which you will not want to give and which they will ask for anyway.
Have an answer ready for the pouch material question specifically. On a sheet claiming 82% less plastic, "we will come back to you" reads as evasion.
Naise created an artifact
Four scannable sections with sourced numbers, and one headline figure flagged as unverifiable as written.
Key numbers
| Figure | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| SKUs refillable | 6 of 6 | Company |
| Refill price | S$17 | Company |
| Refill as % of bottle | 40% | Derived |
| Plastic reduction | 82% | Unverified |
Before it goes out
The 82% has no date, no methodology and no comparison base. It is the most quotable number here and the least defensible. Attach the method or remove it.
Have ready: what the pouch is made of. On a sheet claiming 82% less plastic, "we'll come back to you" reads as evasion.
That was a sample. Run it on your own brand.
Naise reads your brand, your channels, and your market, then does this against your real data.
Run this playbook free