NEGATIVE REVIEW ANALYSIS REPORT

Product Category: Scented Candles (Soy Wax)
Analysis Period: March 2026 – August 2026
Data Source: Amazon US, Brand Website, Etsy
Total Reviews Analyzed: 1,847
Negative Reviews (1-3 stars): 312 (16.9% of total)
Report Date: September 11, 2026
Prepared By: Product Quality & Customer Experience Team

1. Executive Summary

This report presents an analysis of 312 negative reviews (1-3 stars) received over a six-month period for the brand's scented candle line. The reviews were categorized by complaint type, and root cause analysis was performed for each category.

Key Findings:

Observation: The top three complaints (weak scent, tunneling, damaged in transit) account for 71.8% of all negative reviews. All three are supply chain or packaging related.

2. Complaint Category 1: Weak Scent Throw (94 Reviews, 30.1%)

Representative Reviews:

"The candle smells great in the jar, but when I burn it, I can barely smell anything. Very disappointed." – 2 stars

"No scent throw at all. I have to put my nose right next to the candle to smell it. Not worth the price." – 1 star

"I've bought this brand before and it was much stronger. This batch is weak. Did they change the formula?" – 3 stars

Analysis:

The scent throw is determined by three factors:

1. Fragrance oil load (percentage of fragrance in the wax)

2. Wax type (soy wax has a lower scent throw than paraffin or coconut wax)

3. Burn temperature (wick size affects melt pool temperature)

The brand's specification calls for 8% fragrance oil load. The wax is a 100% soy wax blend. The wicks are cotton, sized for a 3-inch diameter jar.

Laboratory Testing:

Observation: The fragrance load has decreased from 8.1% in March to 6.9% in June. The scent throw rating has decreased from 7.2 to 4.8.

Root Cause: The fragrance oil supplier changed the fragrance formulation without notifying the brand. The new formulation has a lower concentration of aroma compounds. To achieve the same scent throw, the fragrance load would need to increase to 9.5%. The factory did not increase the load. The factory used the same 8% specification, but the fragrance was weaker.

Supplier Response:

"The fragrance oil meets the specification. The specification is for the oil, not for the scent throw in the finished candle. If the brand wants a stronger scent, they should increase the fragrance load."

Brand Response:

The brand is now requiring the fragrance supplier to provide a scent throw test certificate for each batch. The brand is also requiring the factory to test the finished candle for scent throw before shipment.

3. Complaint Category 2: Tunneling / Uneven Burn (78 Reviews, 25.0%)

Representative Reviews:

"The candle tunneled. The wax on the edges didn't melt. I wasted half the candle." – 2 stars

"Burns straight down the middle. The outside wax is still there. Poor quality." – 1 star

"This candle has a tunnel. I've tried trimming the wick, but it still tunnels. Very frustrating." – 2 stars

Analysis:

Tunneling occurs when the melt pool does not reach the edge of the jar. The melt pool diameter is determined by:

1. Wick size (larger wick = larger melt pool)

2. Wax hardness (harder wax = smaller melt pool)

3. Fragrance load (higher fragrance = softer wax = larger melt pool)

4. Burn time (longer first burn = larger melt pool)

The brand's specification calls for a wick sized for a 3-inch diameter jar. The wax is a soy wax with a melting point of 52°C.

Laboratory Testing:

Observation: The wick size was changed from ECO-6 to ECO-4 in May 2026. The wax melt point increased from 52°C to 54°C. The melt pool diameter decreased from 66-68mm to 50-52mm. The jar diameter is 75mm. The melt pool should be 75mm for a complete burn.

Root Cause: The factory changed the wick size from ECO-6 to ECO-4 in May 2026. The change was made to reduce costs. The smaller wick produces a smaller melt pool. The smaller melt pool does not reach the edge of the jar. The tunneling is the result.

Supplier Response:

"The wick change was made to reduce soot and mushrooming. The smaller wick burns cleaner. We did not realize it would cause tunneling."

Brand Response:

The brand has specified ECO-6 wicks for all future orders. The brand is also requiring the factory to test the first burn melt pool for each batch.

Note: The August 2026 batch shows ECO-6 wicks and a melt pool of 67mm. The factory has corrected the wick size. The tunneling complaints should decrease in future months.

4. Complaint Category 3: Candle Arrived Damaged (52 Reviews, 16.7%)

Representative Reviews:

"The jar was broken when it arrived. Wax everywhere. I had to throw it away." – 1 star

"The lid was cracked and the candle was chipped. Packaging is not adequate." – 2 stars

"Arrived with a broken jar. Customer service was good, but the packaging needs to be improved." – 3 stars

Analysis:

Damage during transit is caused by:

1. Insufficient packaging cushioning

2. Glass jar fragility

3. Rough handling during shipping

The brand's packaging specification calls for a corrugated box with molded pulp inserts. The jar is a standard glass jar with a metal lid.

Packaging Review:

Observation: The packaging was changed from molded pulp to bubble wrap in May 2026. The damage rate increased from 4.2% to 8.1%. The packaging was changed back to molded pulp in July 2026. The damage rate decreased to 4.0%.

Root Cause: The packaging change was made to reduce costs. The bubble wrap was cheaper than molded pulp. However, the bubble wrap did not provide adequate protection. The glass jar broke more frequently.

Supplier Response:

"The bubble wrap was a cost-saving measure. We did not realize the damage rate would increase."

Brand Response:

The brand has specified molded pulp packaging for all future orders. The brand is also requiring the factory to perform a drop test on each batch.

5. Complaint Category 4: Candle Burned Too Fast (41 Reviews, 13.1%)

Representative Reviews:

"The candle burned down in 20 hours. It was supposed to last 40 hours. Very disappointed." – 2 stars

"Burns too fast. I've had candles that last twice as long. Not worth the money." – 2 stars

Analysis:

Burn time is determined by:

1. Wax density

2. Wick size

3. Fragrance load

4. Burn conditions (draft, wick trimming)

The brand's specification calls for a burn time of 40 hours for an 8oz candle.

Laboratory Testing:

Observation: The wax density decreased from 0.92 to 0.87 in May 2026. The burn time decreased from 42 hours to 31 hours. The wax density returned to 0.91 in July 2026.

Root Cause: The wax density decreased due to a change in the wax supplier. The new wax supplier provided a wax with a lower density. The lower density wax burns faster. The burn time decreased.

Supplier Response:

"The wax meets the specification. The specification is for the wax type, not for the density. The density variation is normal."

Brand Response:

The brand has added a wax density specification to the purchase order. The brand is also requiring the factory to test the burn time for each batch.

6. Complaint Category 5: Wick Issues (28 Reviews, 9.0%)

Representative Reviews:

"The wick mushroomed and smoked. I had to trim it every 30 minutes." – 2 stars

"The wick drowned in the wax. The candle wouldn't stay lit." – 1 star

"The wick was off-center. The candle burned unevenly." – 2 stars

Analysis:

Wick issues are caused by:

1. Wick quality (cotton type, coating)

2. Wick size relative to wax

3. Wick centering during production

Laboratory Testing:

Observation: The wick type changed from waxed cotton to unwaxed cotton in May 2026. The unwaxed wick mushroomed and smoked. The wick was also off-center. The wick returned to waxed cotton in July 2026.

Root Cause: The wick change was made to reduce costs. The unwaxed wick was cheaper. The wick centering was also not controlled. The wick was placed manually. The manual placement caused the off-center issue.

Supplier Response:

"The unwaxed wick was a trial. We did not realize it would cause mushrooming. The wick centering was a training issue. We have corrected both."

Brand Response:

The brand has specified waxed cotton wicks. The brand is also requiring the factory to use a wick centering fixture for all production.

7. Summary of Root Causes

Observation: Four of the five root causes are supply chain issues (fragrance oil, wax density, packaging, wick type). One is a factory process issue (wick centering). All five are preventable with proper specifications and testing.

8. Recommendations

8.1 For the Brand

1. Add scent throw testing to the batch release criteria. Require the factory to test scent throw (1-10 scale) for each batch. Minimum acceptable: 7.0.

2. Specify wick size in the purchase order. Do not allow the factory to change wick size without approval. Specify ECO-6 for all 8oz candles.

3. Specify packaging in the purchase order. Require molded pulp inserts. Perform drop tests on each batch.

4. Add wax density specification to the purchase order. Require density of 0.90-0.94 g/cm³. Test burn time for each batch.

5. Specify wick type and centering. Require waxed cotton wicks. Require wick centering fixture.

6. Require supplier change notification. Any change in fragrance oil, wax, wick, or packaging must be notified in writing and approved before use.

8.2 For the Factory

1. Do not change components without customer approval. All component changes must be submitted for approval.

2. Implement first article inspection for each batch. Test wick size, wax density, fragrance load, and scent throw before production.

3. Implement wick centering fixture. Manual centering is not acceptable. Use a fixture.

4. Implement packaging drop test. Test one box per batch for drop resistance.

5. Maintain batch records. Record the component batch numbers for fragrance, wax, wick, and packaging.

9. Cost Impact

10. Conclusion

The 312 negative reviews were caused by five root causes. Four are related to unapproved component changes by the supplier. One is related to a factory process control issue.

The corrective actions in this report address all five root causes. The brand has revised its purchase specifications to include scent throw, wick size, packaging, wax density, and wick centering. The factory has agreed to implement the required testing and process controls.

The negative review rate is expected to decrease to below 8% within two quarters.

Prepared By:
Sarah Chen, Product Quality Manager
September 11, 2026

Reviewed By:
Michael Zhang, Supply Chain Director
September 11, 2026

Approved By:
David Liu, General Manager
September 11, 2026

This report is confidential and intended for internal use only. Distribution to third parties is prohibited without the written consent of the Quality Department.

We pulled every negative review from six months of sales. We categorized them. We found five problems. Four are supply c

1,847 reviews analyzed. 312 complaints. Five root causes identified. Four are supply chain issues. One is customer expectation. Full analysis report.

Jangan direproduksi tanpa izin：Blog-Pulviso » Negative Review Analysis: 1,847 Reviews, 312 Complaints, 5 Root Causes – What Scented Candle Buyers