Updated 15 July 2026. Quick answer: A user-supplied May 2026 Birmingham expo report contained 103 FEOBA Slim responses and reported an NPS of 52, 59% promoters and 99% top-two-box overall experience. Flavor, smooth draw and easy use were frequent positive responses. Among lower-scoring respondents who supplied reasons, insufficient cloud, weak draw and design feel appeared most often. These are directional event-sample findings, not a VapeRisk product score, hands-on test or UK demand forecast.
Evidence disclosure: VapeRisk did not run the fieldwork and has not performed a hands-on, puff-count, leak, charging, nicotine-delivery or long-use test on FEOBA Slim. The retained source record does not publicly establish who commissioned the report, how respondents were recruited or screened, whether incentives were used, the exact question wording and order, weighting, fieldwork vendor, brand review, or the number answering every follow-up question. The underlying report is not publicly linked from this page. Treat every percentage as a signal inside this event sample.
At a glance
| Field | What VapeRisk can say |
|---|---|
| Product | FEOBA Slim |
| Format in the report | 2 ml pod-format vape, positioned around a 1,000-puff use case |
| Reported price target | GBP 4-5 SRP target in the research material |
| Field sample | 103 FEOBA Slim respondents in a Birmingham expo setting |
| Competitive frame | Disposable and pod buyers comparing options such as Lost Mary and SKE |
| Fieldwork status | Event convenience sample; recruitment, screening, incentives, commissioning and weighting are not established in the public record |
| Article status | VapeRisk analysis of a supplied report; not a VapeRisk product test or national market survey |
Current UK public-source check
An exact UK search for FEOBA Slim on 15 July 2026 returned retailer pre-order pages and multiple UK MHRA e-cigarette database results for named FEOBA SLIM cartridges, including 20 mg/mL entries and FEOBA PREFILLED 1000 wording. No first-party FEOBA product or support page appeared on the first results page. Search the MHRA e-cigarette database for the exact product and cartridge name.
An MHRA database entry is a notification record, not proof of current retail availability, product approval, performance, fieldwork independence or every specification. Retailer pre-order copy is commercial context, not a substitute for an official manual or controlled test.
What 103 responses can and cannot show
The report provides a positive first-use signal around flavor, draw smoothness and simple operation. It also records a 2 ml pod-format positioning and a GBP 4-5 SRP target. Those are dated report fields, not current VapeRisk-verified specifications, price or retail availability.
The sample cannot establish repeat purchase, batch consistency, long-use draw performance, national UK demand or a product ranking. The most useful gap to investigate next is draw satisfaction because insufficient cloud and weak draw were the most frequent usage complaints among the lower-scoring reason responses.
Field-feedback evidence summary
| Reported signal | Result | Safe interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Recommendation | NPS 52; 59% promoters; 34% passives; 7% detractors | Directional event-sample recommendation signal; not national demand or market share. |
| Overall experience | 99% top-two-box | High reported first-use result in this sample; no repeat-use evidence. |
| Flavor delivery | 98% top-two-box | The clearest positive dimension reported. |
| Vaping experience | 92% top-two-box | Positive overall, while lower-scoring reasons still identify draw and cloud concerns. |
| Pod installation | 95% top-two-box | Positive ease-of-use signal in the report; no independent compatibility test. |
| Value for money | 91% top-two-box | Based on the report’s dated price context, not current retail verification. |
What the Birmingham feedback says
The report separates recommendation drivers from the reasons some respondents stopped short of a higher recommendation response. The absolute percentages should be read beside the event setting and missing fieldwork details.
| Metric | Result | VapeRisk read |
|---|---|---|
| NPS | 52 | A positive trial-room signal, not a market-share prediction. |
| Promoters | 59% | A majority were willing to recommend after trial feedback. |
| Passives | 34% | The biggest conversion pool is satisfied but not strongly convinced. |
| Detractors | 7% | Low negative share, but the reasons are important. |
| Overall experience T2B | 99% | High reported first-use result in this event sample. |
| Flavor delivery T2B | 98% | The most defensible positive product story. |
| Vaping experience T2B | 92% | Still high, but weaker than flavor and overall experience. |
| Value for money T2B | 91% | Good, but not the main reason to overclaim the product. |
What respondents said they liked
Among promoter reason responses, flavor delivery, smooth draw and simple use appeared most often. The denominator for each reason question is not established in the public record, so these percentages should not be treated as shares of all 103 respondents.
- 75% of promoter reason responses cited good flavor delivery.
- 71% cited smooth vaping or draw experience.
- 61% cited easy use.
- 56% cited value for money.
- 46% cited attractive design.
The safest summary is that the report associates FEOBA Slim’s positive recommendation signal with flavor, draw smoothness and ease of use rather than price alone.
What held people back
The caution is just as important. Among the lower-scoring users who gave reasons, the top issues were not abstract brand awareness. They were physical-use signals.
- 27% cited not enough cloud.
- 21% cited weak vaping or draw.
- 18% cited unappealing design.
- 12% cited harsh vaping or draw.
- 12% cited poor flavor delivery.
- 9% said it felt cheap or plastic.
These responses identify questions for a future controlled test: vapor output, draw consistency, harshness and perceived build. They do not prove that every unit or every user will experience those issues.
Best flavor signals from the report
The strongest flavor read is not raw trial count. It is whether a flavor converted trial into a favorite without also becoming a frequent least-favorite.
| Flavor | Tried | Favorite conversion | VapeRisk read |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lemon & Lime | 15 | 67% | 10 favorites among 15 reported trials; small denominator. |
| Blueberry Sour Raspberry | 12 | 50% | 6 favorites among 12 reported trials; no least-favorite signal in the retained table. |
| Grape Ice | 14 | 50% | 7 favorites among 14 reported trials. |
| Sour Blue Dust | 10 | 50% | 5 favorites among 10 reported trials. |
| Blue Razz Cherry | 11 | 45% | 5 favorites among 11 reported trials. |
| Mr. Blue | 18 | 39% | 7 favorites among 18 reported trials, with a higher least-favorite signal than the cleaner positives. |
Lemon & Lime had the highest favorite conversion among the listed groups with at least 10 trials. Blueberry Sour Raspberry and Grape Ice each reached 50% in similarly small groups. These are exploratory flavor signals, not stable rankings or population estimates.
What the feedback tentatively suggests
The report’s positive responses cluster around flavor, simple operation and smooth draw, while the negative reasons cluster around cloud, weak draw and design feel. That pattern makes FEOBA Slim a candidate for controlled follow-up testing rather than a proven recommendation for a buyer segment.
Who still needs more evidence?
Readers comparing vapor output, draw strength, puff count, nicotine delivery, leak resistance, charging, pod consistency or long-term flavor stability still need exact-model documentation and controlled use evidence. The expo report does not answer those questions.
Comparator context in the supplied report
The source material mentions brands such as Lost Mary and SKE as category context. It does not provide a controlled head-to-head product test, matched prices, current availability or equivalent respondent samples. VapeRisk therefore does not use the report to declare a winner or transfer specifications between products.
What remains unverified?
VapeRisk has not verified FEOBA Slim’s puff count, nicotine delivery, leak resistance, charge behavior, pod consistency or long-term flavor stability. The report does not prove national UK demand. Its retained demographic summary says Midlands respondents were overrepresented because of the Birmingham venue, while the public record does not establish recruitment, screening, incentives, weighting, commissioning or fieldwork independence. The correct interpretation is directional product feedback with material method gaps.
Related VapeRisk reading
- Lost Mary MT15000 Turbo Review
- Lost Mary MT35000 Turbo Review
- Off-Stamp SW9000 Review
- Foger Switch Pro 30K Review
- How to Read a Vape Lab Report
- VapeRisk Testing Methodology
- VapeRisk Editorial Policy
- VapeRisk Sponsorship Standards
FAQ
How many FEOBA Slim responses were in the report?
The retained FEOBA Slim section records 103 respondents in a May 2026 Birmingham expo setting. The number answering every follow-up reason or flavor question is not established in the public record.
What does the FEOBA Slim NPS of 52 mean?
The supplied report records 59% promoters, 34% passives and 7% detractors, producing an NPS of 52. It is a directional recommendation signal inside this event sample, not proof of UK-wide demand or market share.
What is the strongest FEOBA Slim flavor from the field report?
Lemon & Lime had 10 favorites among 15 reported trials, a 67% favorite conversion. Blueberry Sour Raspberry and Grape Ice each reached 50% in groups of 12 and 14. These are small exploratory groups, not stable flavor rankings.
What is the biggest FEOBA Slim weakness?
The clearest unresolved usage issue is draw satisfaction. Among lower-scoring reason responses, insufficient cloud, weak draw and design feel appeared most often. A controlled exact-model test is needed before treating those as product-wide defects.
Did VapeRisk lab test FEOBA Slim?
No. This article is a sourced editorial review of a Birmingham expo feedback dataset. VapeRisk has not run lab tests or long-use testing on FEOBA Slim.
Is the FEOBA Slim feedback representative of the whole UK market?
No. The sample is useful for spotting buyer drivers and friction points, but it should not be used as a UK-wide market forecast. The Birmingham venue also means Midlands users were overrepresented.
Who commissioned or sponsored the FEOBA Slim fieldwork?
The current public record does not establish the commissioner, fieldwork vendor, respondent incentives or brand-review process. VapeRisk does not infer independence from missing disclosure. Any future paid research or advertising relationship must be labelled under the site’s sponsorship standards.
Corrections and independent research enquiries
FEOBA, fieldwork participants and other readers may submit dated source corrections through VapeRisk Contact. Manufacturers seeking clearly labelled independent testing, audience research or advertising can review Advertising and Partnerships and the Sponsorship Standards. Payment does not buy a score, ranking, result or conclusion.
Sources reviewed
- User-supplied FEOBA Slim Birmingham expo field-feedback report, May 2026, reviewed by VapeRisk. The underlying report is not publicly linked from this page.
- VapeRisk Testing Methodology – internal interpretation standard for claims, samples, and source-backed review limits.
- VapeRisk Editorial Policy – separation of evidence, claims, corrections and commercial relationships.