← Grateful Research

Sample report · Wave One

How a wellness and founder community is actually adopting AI

This is an abridged version of what a wave produces, published so you can judge the work before you buy any of it. The findings are real and the numbers are unmodified. What is missing is the part clients pay for: verbatims, the raw anonymised set, and the cross-tabs by profession.

Fielded
5–11 Aug 2026
Completes
58
Completion rate
100%
Instrument
20 fields, self-serve

Method, in full

Self-completion instrument, fielded to the Grateful Giraffes membership over six days with no incentive offered. 58 completes, no partials. Multi-select answers are counted by matching whole option strings, never by splitting stored text on punctuation, since several option labels contain commas and splitting them inflates every share. Where a question is a ladder, we report the furthest rung a respondent selected rather than counting them at every rung. Multi-select shares therefore sum past 100%. Subgroups below 30 are reported as direction, not as precision, and are labelled as such.

The population is a membership community, not a probability sample of any wider market. It is concentrated in Los Angeles. Read it as a deep account of a specific, hard-to-reach population rather than as a national estimate, because that is what it is.

Finding 01
This is not one audience. It is two, sitting in the same room.

Adoption does not taper the way a maturity curve says it should. Four in ten are still circling and three in ten already ship. Anything built for the middle of this distribution serves neither end of it, which is the single most expensive mistake a product can make here.

Curious — mostly asks it questions19%
Dabbling — emails, docs, images22%
Building — workflows they use28%
Shipping — apps, products, agents12%
Teaching — others use what they make19%

n=58. Furthest stage each respondent selected; someone who picked both Curious and Building is counted once, at Building.

Finding 02
Eighty-five percent cap out at five hours a week.

This is the constraint everything else has to fit inside. Any offer, product or curriculum that assumes more than five hours of weekly attention is designed for 15% of this population. The intent is real; the available time is not.

Tops out at 1–2 hours45%
Tops out at 3–5 hours40%
Tops out at 6–10 hours7%
Will go 10+ hours9%

n=58. Highest hours band each respondent selected, so this is a ceiling and not an average. Reported as ceilings because 17 respondents selected more than one band.

Finding 03
Demand is concentrated, and creative work is the floor.

Agents and operations run away with it. A wellness and creative community ranking creative AI last, at less than half the interest in agents, is exactly backwards from what the room looks like — and it is the kind of thing you only ever learn by asking rather than assuming.

AI agents82%
Automating operations76%
Digital products64%
Health + longevity60%
Community building58%
Discernment + judgement42%
Creative work30%

n=43–50 per topic. Share rating each topic 8 or higher on a 1–10 scale. Topic means range from 8.76 (agents) to 5.78 (creative).

Finding 04 · the cross-tab
The further along someone is, the more intensity they want and the less support.

Beginners ask for a teacher and a hand to hold. The people already shipping want to be thrown in a room for a weekend and left there. Only the small-group core holds across both. A topline would have shown none of this — it appears solely when answers are crossed against who gave them, which is the entire argument for a panel with profiles behind it.

Curious + Dabblingn=24Shipping + Teachingn=18
Small group, same people71%67%
Weekend intensives38%61%
Live virtual workshops42%56%
Large class, teacher up front46%28%
One-on-one support54%33%

Early = Curious + Dabbling (n=24). Late = Shipping + Teaching (n=18). Multi-select, shares sum past 100. Small subgroups: direction, not precision.

Finding 05
They are deep into AI and they still want to be in a room.

Only one in six wants this to stay virtual. For a population this far into the technology, the pull toward physical presence is the counter-intuitive result of the wave, and it is the one with the clearest commercial consequence for anyone selling to them.

In person, at least sometimes83%
Virtual only17%

n=58. Share selecting in-person only or the in-person-and-virtual option, against those selecting virtual options exclusively.

What is not on this page

Four things, deliberately. Three of them are the deliverable. One of them is a promise we made to our members.

  • Verbatims

    Every respondent wrote, in their own words, what they are trying to achieve in the next thirty days. 58 distinct answers, no two alike. They are the most useful thing in the dataset and they are shared under NDA, never publicly, because our members wrote them for us and not for the internet.

  • The raw anonymised set

    Every field, every respondent, ready to cut yourself.

  • Cross-tabs by profession

    The same questions crossed against 526 stated professional backgrounds. Practitioners answer differently from founders, and that gap is usually where the commercial decision lives.

  • Voice

    Waves can field as recorded, transcribed and diarised conversations rather than as checkboxes. Text tells you what someone picked. Voice tells you where they hesitated before picking it.

Your questions, this panel, ten days.

A first wave is $7,500 and the full fee is credited against anything annual you do next. If we do not think this population can answer your question, we will say so on the call.

Grateful ResearchWave One · August 2026A Grateful Labs company