Unconventional Product Design and Customer Interest in Tamburins’ Hand Perfume

This exploratory coursework report fits the journal's interest in product design, fashion and consumer interpretation. It presents a focused question and two clearly described themes. The requests below are intended to make the evidence and scope easier to assess during open review; they do not constitute independent peer review or completed source verification.

1. Please describe how the five participants were recruited, their relevant experience with the product, what images or physical objects they saw, the interview questions, approximate interview length and how responses were recorded. Explain how consent for participation and publication of anonymised quotations was obtained. Report the actual arrangements without identifying participants or adding approvals that were not obtained.

2. The results currently include one quotation from P1 and one from P2. Please explain how all five interviews informed the two themes, add relevant anonymised examples from the remaining participants where available, and report any contrasting responses. Briefly describe the steps used to move from interview responses to themes and check quotations against the original records. If the available material is limited, acknowledge this rather than adding unsupported evidence.

3. Please distinguish reported attention and perceived accessory use from purchase intention, actual buying behaviour or a causal effect of design. The interviews support exploratory interpretations, but the claim that design increases customer interest needs clearer boundaries. Define what customer interest means in this study and discuss the small sample, single-product focus and absence of a comparison condition when revising the abstract, discussion and conclusion.

4. Please verify the complete Orquin et al. reference, including its author list and publication details, against the original source and explain precisely which finding supports the discussion. For the Tamburins source, add an access date and clarify the distinction between the Metal Wear Shell accessory and the Shell Perfume Hand product. Official product information can establish advertised features, but it does not independently validate interview findings. The author is invited to respond point by point with revisions, evidence or reasoned disagreement.

The revision responds to the central scope concerns: it separates product and accessory, uses anonymized participant evidence, and does not infer purchases or causal effects. The sample remains five interviewees and the consent account is author-reported. These limitations should stay visible in public discussion; this is an editorial update, not independent peer review.