Humanoid robot companies have some work to do if they’re going to persuade people to accept, like, or even purchase a humanoid robot. A staggering 78% of people are detractors, according to standard Net Promoter Score methodology, while only 10% are promoters. Interestingly, however, that changes dramatically when people have their first experience with a humanoid robot.

Humanoid robot companies have raised tens billions of dollars on the premise that we’ll soon have general-purpose robots in our factories, stores, and eventually our homes. I’m currently tracking 380 humanoid manufacturers and 861 robots at HumanoidMegaHub , and wanted to find out what the rest of us – the people who are supposed to live alongside these humanoid robots – think about all this.

So I surveyed 1,000 adults in the U.S. and U.K. Here’s what they said:

  1. Overall feelings: 33% positive, 40% negative, 27% neutral
  2. Net Promoter Score: very low at -68 (10% promoters, 78% detractors)
  3. Top concerns: safety and job loss
  4. Top use cases: hazardous work, entertainment, and personal assistance

Overall purchase intent is low at 36% on average, including 28% for people who’ve never used a robot, and people generally find humanoids more threatening than beneficial, more unnecessary than essential, and more unsafe than safe.

That’s a rough start for an industry that needs consumers to buy in. Most humanoids are aimed at commercial markets for industrial or logistics use, but many are being built for the home as well. Neo from 1X is explicitly for home use, although it will have other uses as well. And Figure 04, the coming robot from Figure AI, is clearly intended largely for homes as well: the company is spending billions training its robots on how to clean homes.

One thing flips the script: if people have engaged with humanoid robots personally. When they do, there’s a dramatic shift.

While only 7% of people interact regularly with humanoid robots – understandably, they’re not commonly available yet – 88% of those who do are positive about the experience, and their purchase intent is almost triple that of those who haven’t seen or engaged with humanoids.

The key then, for robot manufacturers, is to get their robots out of the factory and into the world where people can see them.

“What stands out for me is that cost isn’t what’s holding people back ... trust is,” said Tony Robinson, CEO of Next Events & Conferences, and my partner in HumanoidMegaHub. “That’s a solvable problem, but it gets solved in public, in retail floors and hospitality settings and live demonstrations.”

40% said they have negative attitudes toward humanoid robots. Only 33% are positive, and the rest are neutral. Asked whether they’d recommend humanoid robots to a friend, respondents produced a Net Promoter Score of -68: 78% detractors versus just 10% promoters.

Familiarity, in other words, doesn’t breed contempt. At least in this case, it breeds desire.

A caveat: of course this is correlation, not causation. People who are already comfortable with technology are probably more likely to seek out robots in the first place, or to work in jobs where they encounter them. Each of those makes them likely more open and interested in owning their own humanoid. But the gap is large enough that it’s hard to ignore, and it lines up with what I hear from robotics executives who say the first reaction to a humanoid in a warehouse or store is often nervousness, and the tenth is indifference.

I recently talked to Dar Sleeper, who leads product and design for 1X. He’s one of the few people in the world so far that have lived with an advanced humanoid robot in their homes. I asked him how long it takes people to acclimatize to having a functioning humanoid in their home, and how guests feel when they see it for the first time.

“The time to normalize, believe it or not, is no more than a few minutes,” Sleeper told me. “I think people don’t credit humans enough with how adaptable we are. We are extremely adaptable.”

Interestingly, Sleeper added that his friends’ girlfriends took the longest to adapt to it. That correlates well with the survey findings: men are far warmer to humanoids than women. 43% of men are positive versus 24% of women, and men’s average purchase likelihood is 45 out of 100 is much higher than women’s at 29. Women are also nearly twice as likely to be negative (47% versus 31%).

Why that is the case is probably an important unsolved question for future research.

People are pretty clear, however, than they want robots to do the dull and dangerous jobs. Hazardous work is number one, and it makes me wonder if I can eventually get a humanoid robot that will clean my gutters and roof. But robots are also good for entertainment, people said, likely because of viral robot dancing videos out of China.

Elder care is also on the list, and that matters to anyone with an elderly relative, or someone who is getting on in years themselves and would like to safely age in place rather than move into a care home.

Interestingly, Brits are somewhat friendlier to humanoids than Americans: 39% of U.K. respondents are positive, versus 28% in the U.S. And age matters too. Among 18- to 34-year-olds, 43% are positive and purchase intent averages 42. But for people 55 and older, just 19% are positive, only 3% are “very positive,” and purchase intent drops to 24.

However, regardless of whether they like them or not, people generally think the future is arriving despite their wishes. The median person expects humanoids to be a common sight in everyday life within 10 years, while 42% say within five years.

Only 4% of survey respondents think it will take 50 years or more.

At the same time, respondents land on the skeptical side of neutral on every perception measure. On a 1-to-5 scale, they rate humanoids 2.8 between threatening and beneficial, 2.7 between unsafe and safe, and 2.6 between unnecessary and essential.

So: inevitable, but not necessarily wanted.

That’s not a death sentence for the humanoid industry. The single largest attitude bloc is neutral, which means a lot of people haven’t made up their minds. And if the exposure data holds up, the path to winning them over probably isn’t better marketing. It’s putting robots where people can see them working safely: in stores, hotels, hospitals, public demonstrations, and eventually on the street.

The robots, in other words, might have to sell themselves.