Join EyeSee’s seniors for a webinar session on Behavioral decision trees and how virtual shopping enables us to uncover true consumer behavior with extreme reliability. Presenting the results of a meta-study comparing survey and virtual shopping accuracy on over 35000 respondents and offering practical advice to use this solution for deep category learnings and beyond!
Watch the recording to learn:
How are Behavioral decision trees different from standard DT studies?
How to extract the biggest ROI from decision tree research and who benefits the most from these studies?
Why trusting what consumers say is much more dangerous than you might think
The world is finally seeing mass roll-outs of the long-awaited COVID-19 vaccines. Yet, skepticism around vaccination is prevalent. From appealing to emotions, sticking to logical arguments, mentioning families, the economy, or national safety – there are many types of messaging governing bodies can use to promote vaccination, but which ones are the most effective? EyeSee conducted a behavioral study to explore how different messaging affects the public attitude towards vaccination.
Can the right messaging help us reach herd immunity?
To achieve herd immunity in a community, we need around 80% of the population to be vaccinated. There are different communication strategies governments, organizations, and individuals can employ to swing these attitudes to a more positive one. For example, using logic and facts to address fear and misinformation. Still, behavioral science and advertising experience show us that emotions might work better in getting people to resonate with a message. That’s why our researchers set out to determine which messaging can prompt the vaccine-hesitant population to change their minds.
Study design: 4 types of statements, and the framing effect
The US-based study took place in the last week of February 2021, with 1500 respondents of different ages, genders, political parties, education levels, and areas of residence, and used survey and Reaction time measurements – a combination of behavioral and conventional methods to tap into the true attitudes of the respondents.
The study included 20 claims promoting vaccination, all of which were positioned on two axis – emotional-rational and personal-social. These represented four different quadrants of arguments in favor of the vaccine.
On top of this, we added a framing variable to see how the context or the underlying tone used to communicate information impacts the public attitude. We tested: a positive frame (focusing on the vaccination benefits), a negative frame (displaying adverse consequences of not getting the vaccine), and a neutral frame (staying completely middle-of-road).
A traditional survey was followed by a Reaction time measurement or RTM task. This behavioral method provides insight into how strong are the subconscious links between an attitude/belief and a certain attribute or statement. By measuring how fast the communicated info about a particular belief is being processed, we are able to understand the implicit, emotional certainty of the respondent. The quicker the response, the stronger the emotional certainty of the stated attitude. If a respondent takes a while to consider whether they like a statement saying they will be able to go back to concerts, maybe it is missing what is truly their motivation – protecting their loved ones.
Results: Emotions work best; stay away from negative framing
This study’s results show that promoting vaccination is best done withan appeal for protecting loved ones, and secondly, with a good rational argument on vaccine safety. Simpler and slightly vague statements with an emotional appeal and a call to action appear to work best.
When it comes to framing, in general, negatively framed messages fared the worst, especially so among respondents who are already anti-vaccination. Arguments presented in a positive or neutral light strongly resonated with people as well, regardless of their stance on vaccination – so sticking to a positive/neutral frame is the way to go.
Finding a statement that people agree with, be it with a gut feeling or logical reasoning, is vital. Trying to convince people by using statements that oppose their convictions is inefficient. Rational arguments work only with respondents who are not inclined to believing in broader conspiracy theories but are only concerned if this vaccine is tested enough.
Demographic differences and splits: Politics do make a difference
When we look at the demographic factors, affiliation to a political party is the strongest attitude driver. Apart from the split based on political ideologies, area of living and education level also influence one’s attitude towards immunization, while age and gender have a somewhat lower impact. Here are some key differences:
Republicans are on avg. 15% less likely to get vaccinated than Democrats
People living in rural areas are on avg. 10% less likely to get vaccinated than people from urban areas
Level of education can affect the attitude towards vaccination up to 25%, with less-educated people being more skeptical about the vaccine
Age can affect attitude towards the vaccination up to 9%: younger people are less worried about vaccine validity and less likely to believe in conspiracy theories
Gender affects only around 5% attitude towards the vaccination: women are more concerned with vaccine safety and a lack of information, while men are less worried about the danger of the virus and more focused on vaccination as an opportunity to take advantage of people.
So, what makes a winning statement?
Any promotional action should be proactive and positive and remind people of protecting the things they cherish the most. Aside from this, uncontroversial rational statements might also have a good effect on people who are not prone to believing in conspiracy theories but doubt and fear vaccines due to their novelty. On the other hand, anti-vaxxers are hard to win over, but they also favor the same type of messaging as vaccine-positive respondents. Negative framing was by far the worst received by this group, which also makes sense since these messages remind them about the things they perceive they have lost due to an “imaginary, made-up threat.”
These are the top 5 statements based on likeability:
Let’s protect the ones we love
Eliminating COVID is possible – Vaccinate to protect yourself and your family
Vaccines save 3 million lives each year. It can save yours, too.
Vaccines have protected us for over 200 years – let’s get immunization going
Collective world effort delivered us a safe and fast vaccine.
Closing the (immunity) gap with effective messaging
Research like this is invaluable in appealing to different social groups and convincing them to get a COVID-19 shot. Like in other communication areas, the same message can have very different effects on different people, and in globally pivotal moments like these, devising specific strategies for each and testing to find the right approach is warranted.
Here, we see that statements that are hopeful in tone and calling on unity, solidarity and security resonated with people the most – both in the pro- and anti-vaccination part of the sample. Setting the stage with a solid emotional message concerning loved ones, followed by a more rational proof of its efficacy, might be just the right strategy for tipping the scale in favor of science.
After joining forces with Twitter to explore how adjacency to controversial or divisive social media content impacts brand performance, we bring you the key insights and outtakes from the session. Twitter’s research analysts Kelsey Capobianco and Isabel Suede shared the study findings, while EyeSee’s CTO Vuk Pašković discussed the new tech that’s changing the future of remote market research. Make sure you give the full webinar a listen!
Why is brand safety a top priority for Twitter?
Even before social distancing protocols and lockdowns, Twitter was the place to be – users are open to sharing their unfiltered and raw opinions, while also being receptive to brand content on their feeds. And while this is why Twitter has reached its popularity both for users and brands, it also raises the question – is it safe for brands to advertise on Twitter?
“At Twitter, we are determined to make the service a safe place for everyone. To that end, we are committed to policies that lead, products that protect, and partnerships that drive industry-wide change” said Isabel Suede, pointing out the importance of ensuring both brand safety and fulfilling their purpose of serving the public conversation.
This is what nudged the Twitter team to further their understanding of how brands should think about the sensitive content in social media feeds and if it affects their brand – with the help of remote behavioral research.
Simulating feeds for perfect experimental conditions
Using a newly developed tool, EyeSee recreated over 150 controlled Twitter timelines, which allowed strategic positioning of both the sensitive content and tested ads.
“We partnered with EyeSee to better understand how adjacency to controversial or divisive content may impact brand performance. EyeSee’s ability to offer neurometrics within a closed timeline environment was key to the success of our study,” remarked Kelsey Capobianco.
The study was divided and conducted into 2 phases. Tweets from five different categories were internally sourced and categorized as Political, Sensitive News, Misinformation, Offensive, or NSFW. They were then rated based on the level of offensiveness and the negative emotions they evoke. The top 5 most controversial Tweets were then used in phase 2, during which the respondents were exposed to simulated Twitter feeds and tasked to scroll through, while their facial expressions and eye gaze were measured. After the behavioral part of the study was completed, the respondents filled out a survey of various brand metrics.
So, does adjacent content affect brand reputation?
Across the five tested categories of Tweets, brand favorability and consideration were not significantly impacted by the presence of controversial content surrounding its ads! However, driving these lower-funnel brand metrics often relies on more than one impression to make a significant impact, meaning that each impression contributes to a stronger brand lift. With this in mind, it is highly unlikely that multiple ad impressions appear next to or close to sensitive content in busy social media feeds – it’s a 1 in 2.5 billion chance to have 6 impressions adjacent to a controversial Tweet. For brands, this means that Twitter is a safe place for advertising.
In a previous study, Twitter explored whether its users wanted to hear from brands and marketers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Study findings showed that during challenging times, people look for a steady and familiar voice – and that’s exactly where an opportunity for brands to be that voice lies. These insights stayed consistent during the height and throughout the health crisis – making it clear that brands can feel confident embracing the conversation occurring on social media timelines. People on Twitter want to hear brands stand up and support key events regardless of whether they personally impact them.
How did this study inspire ground-breaking new tech?
Tech truly has the power to change research as we know it! New elements and approaches are constantly being invented and added into market research toolkits across industries – from AI, social listening to data science and behavioral methods!
“Technology is one of the integral parts of EyeSee’s DNA”, EyeSee’s CTO Vuk Paskovic added – “there is an underlying desire to get the most and the best out of tech!” Our long-lasting partnership with Twitter has proven to be a true catalyst for growth that pushes us to develop new solutions – and this project was no different.
In this study, in particular, the interaction of content and context was essential. This meant that over 150 Twitter feeds had to be entirely simulated! Enabling full control of the stimuli content, experimental conditions, while also being time effective was crucial for the project – and this is what led to the development of a completely new solution that would enable exactly this. This innovation cut down the study setup time by 80%, and the same tool can be applied to all other social media research as well – on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, or any other website.
Typically, there are a few ways brands can test behavior on social media – from desktop or mobile studies to blended approaches, and from existing apps to CMS platforms. But regardless of the path, the key element is recreating that digital environment and making the context look as realistic as possible to achieve natural and smooth content exploration. And 2020 made it clear – remote in-context research is here to stay for good.
Providing lifelike experiences for the respondents, while having a fully experimental design that researchers can control is by far the biggest advantage of using a behavioral contextual approach.
Want a deeper dive into the study findings? Watch the full webinar here!
The world is finally seeing the mass roll-out of long-awaited COVID-19 vaccines. Yet, skepticism around vaccination is prevalent. From appealing to emotions, sticking to logical arguments, mentioning families, the economy, or national safety – there are many types of messaging governing bodies can use to promote vaccination, but which ones are the most effective? EyeSee experts present findings from a behavioral study on how different messaging affects the public attitude towards vaccination and what it means for the bigger picture.
Listen to the session recording from the IIeX Europe online event by Greenbook!
This year, there were plenty of opportunities for brands to take a stand on different social issues. The big question remains – how do you do it right? With many brands missing the mark on socially conscious advertising, EyeSee researchers wanted to turn to behavioral data and see what it has to uncover about crisis messaging and how it affects brand equity. Read on for a deep dive in the results of one of the most extensive mobile behavioral studies, conducted on 1800 respondents in an Instagram environment.
Great content trumps other disadvantages
Many marketing professionals think that positioning is key for getting noticed – but in fact, your Brand & Content are the most important – think about creative ways to use your brand assets and ensure that your content is relatable. However, you are not at the mercy of positioning – great content has the power to trigger a reaction in a very short amount of time – only around 2.8 seconds. It’s not always crucial that respondents spent a lot of time on your post – you can communicate well if you take care of the creative elements.
The key factor in ad retention is personal relevance. Brands can do this either by talking about relevant topics and showing they care for their consumers, or through different offers and posts that directly concern the consumer in terms of the product or service displayed. Posts that do neither of those perform poorly and are glanced through and not remembered.
Female protagonists, celebrities and CTAs grab attention the most
There are quite a bit of unexpected creative elements that consistently show up in well-performing ads. For example, showing the protagonists in a full body shot is more attention-grabbing and engaging – it increases post visibility in all industries except for beauty, where close-ups of the face are more attractive and relevant. If there’s a famous person, it will increase the viewer’s retention for +7pts compared to shots of ordinary people or posts without any characters. But, there’s a caveat: celebrities can sometimes poorly affect post clarity, likability, brand purchase, and even Instagram fit. This happens because the viewers focus on their faces rather than on the post purpose.
Ads featuring Female protagonists drive more positive emotions and are evaluated as more attractive and transparent, and this stands for Covid-19, Endorsement, and Seasonal ads in particular. We all know that a CTA is a must for grabbing attention! But we did not know just how much: including a ‘Call to action’ or an offer drives a higher focus and a better chance to keep viewers’ attention for longer than 5s.
Honest messaging evokes positive emotions, thumbs down for generic images
Facial coding uncovers what is the emotional impact of each tested post. Things connected with positive emotions are sincere, honest and warm messaging, witty copy and images, footage of animals, depictions of sport and activities. Most notably – talking about relevant topics and communicating that the brand stands against discrimination and racism and contributes to the cause in a specific way. Showing a variety of ethnic backgrounds and cultural diversity. We also saw that brand purchase is driven more strongly if the respondents and the protagonists of the ad are of the same ethnic background.
On the other hand, what causes negative emotions is unclear messaging, especially that is unrelated to the image. Generic images, very long image descriptions and text-heavy posts with a lot of hashtags, evoke similar negative feels. On the more practical side, when an offer is unavailable (unattainable), and giveaways with extremely big prizes – e.g. expensive travels or gifts – respondents find harder to believe they will win, makes these posts less relevant to them. For example, during the pandemic, ads or giveaways for discounts or accessible rewards drive more engagement than lavish presents.
Clarity leads likability and brand purchases
When it comes to Clarity, we see that some posts, like tactical offers or seasonal posts are very upfront, and people ‘get’ what they are about right away. Same thing with COVID-related posts – people are united in this struggle with a common threat. If the story is more complex, such as in some BLM posts, people were unsure about the message. It is difficult for some respondents to connect the post with a campaign, or a real-life impact – they are perceived as signaling. As soon BLM posts clarify what the brand is doing to help, these posts skyrocket in likability as well. Brand usage is also interesting – BLM posts shows great results here, that can affect shopping as well, which again proves that this topic is something that will determine where some buyers spend their dollars. Another category that stands out here are seasonal posts, since they are designed to respond to an acute, seasonal consumer need – such as sunscreen in the summer, so they have a bigger effect on brand usage.
Key takeaway: Don’t be afraid to take a stand, but connect it to your brand
Responding to the BLM or COVID-19 crisis will improve brand perception, especially for industries where long-term relationships and loyalty-building business models are key, such as Financial, services and strong FMCG brands. The biggest takeaway here is that BLM and COVID-19 posts can be more impactful than Emotional posts and Support/CSR posts – so think about meaningful ways to address the crises in a less generic way, more humble, more human, and more relatable to your audience.
Interested in more insights from this study? Check out the full webinar here.
Is it ‘smart’ for brands to address current crises? Dive into a discussion of one of the biggest behavioral mobile studies, conducted on 1500 respondents in a replicated Instagram feed. We compare brand KPIs & crisis messaging (COVID, BLM, social causes) to generic tactical ads and seasonal posts in 6 industries: food and beverage, media, tech, beauty, healthcare, hygiene. Request the recording here!
As we present the results of this massive mobile study, learn about:
How does responding to social issues and crises affect different industries, brand relationships and loyalty business models?
Which type of posts has the highest sharing potential, recall, and standout power?
How is expressing support for the BLM movement and raising awareness about COVID-19 perceived by the respondents?
Request the session to learn how different brands are perceived when taking a stance on social issues!
The FMCG industry has felt the ripples of the COVID crisis in numerous ways. Retailers and manufacturers are faced with pressures and opportunities brought on by rationalizing SKUs, adjusting assortments, and resetting planograms. In this webinar hosted by Quirk’s, we will discuss a study on Planogram optimization and SKU rationalization in the COVID crisis and the potential paths for brands and retailers.
Request this session recording now to hear Gina Boyd, (Sr. Manager, Shopper Insights & Category Management, Biscuit at Mondelez International), Johannes Hartmann (owner of Insight Republic) and Jonathan Asher (EyeSee’s Executive Vice President) discuss the study results and how market research can help FMCG companies cope with the effects of the crisis by using both tactical and strategic studies.
Learn about:
Which new planogram path is most beneficial for your brand?
What are the best approaches to testing planograms?
How can marketing and insights leaders ensure they stay on top both during and after the pandemic?
Get the recording now for fresh FMCG insights and planogram optimization tips from seasoned industry experts!
The pandemic has resulted in shortages of ingredients and raw materials, limited plant capacity, supply chain disruptions and changing shopper behaviors. As such, manufacturers and retailers are facing growing pressures – and opportunities – to manage their shelves by rationalizing SKUs, adjusting assortments, and resetting planograms.
Once it has been determined which items in the branded or Private Label line will be eliminated (either temporarily or permanently), the decision must be made as to how to fill the space that will now be made available on the shelf. Essentially, there are three options:
1. Display the same # of facings for the top tier brands with fewer items in the line (so fewer SKUs)
2. Replace the lost top tier SKUs with more facings of Private Label.
3. Replace the lost Private Label SKUs with more facings of top tier facings.
Which new planogram path is most beneficial?
Note: We use the terms A-brand and Top Tier brands interchangeably in this text.
In order to determine the optimal shelf re-set, EyeSee conducted an extensive behavioral shopping study to identify the outcome of adopting the different approaches. The study tested planograms in the coffee, cereal, chocolate, and yogurt categories to uncover insights for our client’s pressing issues.
We interviewed 1,200 respondents who were split into 4 cells, and monadically shopped from one of four shelf sets: Baseline/Control; Top Tier brands with same # of facings but fewer SKUs/items; Increased # of Top Tier facings (replacing Private Label SKUs); or increased # of Private Label facings (replacing Top Tier SKUs). Each respondent behaviorally shopped 4 categories: coffee, cereal, chocolate, and yogurt.
Should retailers increase the number of A-brands or private label facings?
Importantly, even if the # of facings of top tier brands are maintained, when the # of items are reduced, the # of products bought declines by 2%, and the dollar spend declines by 5% compared to the control shelf. This suggests that replacing those lost SKUs with something else would be a better option.
However, when top tier SKUs are replaced by increasing the # of Private Label facings increases, we see that same 5% decrease in dollar spending (compared to the control shelf). This occurs as the total units bought remains about the same, suggesting that the lower price accounts for the change we see.
While Retailers may have reasons to place more of their own products on shelf given the opportunity, these findings suggest that doing so will result in significantly lower register rings compared to turning over more shelf space to top tier brands instead.
We do see that replacing Private Label SKUs by increasing the # of A-brand facings, average dollar spend increases by 2% (compared to the control shelf). This occurs as the total units bought remains about the same, suggesting that the higher price accounts for the change we see.
What does this mean for brands and retailers?
The shelf is a zero-sum game in terms of space, but not in terms of efficiency– depending on the objectives, some solutions are clear winners for all parties involved– shoppers, manufacturers, and retailers.
Behavioral research on planogram optimization brings us a step closer to those goals – by helping us understand the way a busy shelf is seen and shopped – with much higher reliability and predictability than if your consumers were to simply tell you what they want on the shelf, or how they think they’d react to a new set up they might encounter at some point in the future.
As we have seen here, when placed in a shopping context and confronted with alternative scenarios, behaviors will often shift, sometimes in unexpected ways. But knowing this before implementation will allow for smart planning and more profitable outcomes.
Want to learn more about planogram optimization? Reach out to us via [email protected]
Women’s participation in sports competitions has been on a steady rise throughout history, albeit lined with many hurdles to overcome. Inspired by the historic high in female participation at the now postponed Tokyo Olympic games, where 48.8% of participants would be women, Twitter decided to take a deep dive into the way advertising portrayal of gender roles in sports influences brand perception and their consumers.
Michelle Grushko, (Data Scientist, Marketing Insights & Analytics, Twitter) and Mila Milosavljevic (Senior Insights Manager, UX and Digital team) presented the pioneering study in a session at Quirk’s Virtual event. The conversations on redefining gender roles are becoming a fast-evolving trend on Twitter – people are starting to explore the meaning of femininity and masculinity more and more and challenge traditional gender roles.
Even though female athletes deliver outstanding athletic performances, there’s still a gender disparity – not only in earnings – but in the way they are presented in the media. Despite their athletic achievements, sportswomen are rarely praised just for that: the media tends to focus on their physical appearance, femininity (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, etc.
Twitter’s research has found that cultural relevance is incredibly important to a consumer’s purchase decision, and correlates with performance on brand effect metrics. We found that it’s important to consumers that brands are involved in culture (such as events and trends) and social issues. Consumers are increasingly talking about gender recognition in campaigns, with a 93% increase in volume over the last few years. A brand’s cultural involvement accounts for a quarter of a consumer’s purchase decision. This research specifically might help brands connect with what’s happening around the growing conversation of gender equality and gender roles, especially in sports.
The study included a total of 2400 respondents, out of which 1800 were exposed to with embedded tested advertisements. The study entailed a combination of implicit and explicit methods, measuring ad visibility and emotional engagement with two behavioral methods – eye-tracking and facial coding. Furthermore, virtual shopping provided insight into whether the advertised brand will be bought in a highly competitive environment, and which tested ads stimulate the purchase. Lastly, respondents completed a survey that also included a Reaction Time measurement test – adding another layer of implicit insight into the respondent’s biases.
Ads with female athletes are the front-runners
The ads in the study made up four different categories. Two focused on female athletes, and two on male athletes, each represented in traditional and non-traditional roles. Ads that showed traditional roles included common stereotypes around gender – women shown as elegant, maternal, graceful, and men as strong, masculine, powerful, etc. Whereas, ads that highlighted non-traditional portrayal emphasized women’s stamina and engagement in sports that are typically considered masculine, and men as paternal, caring, emotional.
Ads that featured female athletes outperformed campaigns that portrayed male athletes as the main protagonist on many KPIs.
All tested ads had absolute visibility, which may be due to the positioning of the ads as they were on the top of the feed. However, the tested ads also featured famous athletes, elements of humor, passion for sport, and some were also emotionally charged – all of which contributed to the high engagement. Moreover, all tested ads pushed purchase behavior in a positive direction. There was an increase in no. of shoppers, no. of bought items and consequently, the amount of money spent – compared to control cells that weren’t exposed to test creatives.
Low credibility of ads with male athletes
Ads featuring females in sports activities contradict stereotypes by default – women athletes are seen as strong, skillful, and persistent, even when the emphasis is on their gracefulness and elegance. These ads are also seen as more empowering and memorable, compared to those with male athletes. Regardless of the protagonists’ gender, however, ads with non-traditional roles yielded better purchase behavior results.
Another finding is that ads with male athletes had a higher effect on the shopping behavior of female viewers, while ads with sportswomen had a more significant impact on the shopping of the male audience. This isn’t anything new though, as our previous research also showed that purchase intent grows when the viewer and the protagonist are of the opposite gender.
Ads with male athletes in both traditional and non-traditional roles fall flat when it came to credibility and a sense of empowerment, which indicates that men are still looking for more relatable role models to feel empowered.
Stay ahead of the game with your sports ads
A study done by Twitter showed that 65% of people expect ads to be creative and culturally relevant for the 2021 Tokyo Olympics. Here are EyeSee’s tips for advertisers planning their campaigns for the coming year or any other sports event:
Media is highly saturated with typical gender roles – bring an element of surprise and novelty by introducing non-traditional creatives to your brand
While emphasizing gender equality in ads is relevant, it shouldn’t be done for the sake of italone – watchers will see through dishonest campaigns
Make sure that equality naturally fits the plot, creating a context that is believable and in line with the advertised product and target group
Be brave to explore the whole continuum of possible non-traditional roles (for both women and men)
Avoid going into extremes, as these kinds of scenarios are less relatable to viewers
Key takeaways
Ads featuring sportswomen blow the competition away – they out-perform on many KPIs
Representation matters! Not only do ads with women breaking the traditional stereotypes drive engagement – they are incredibly important to see
It’s not just the representation in sports advertising that’s vital, but opening the broader conversation around gender equality and inclusivity
Join over 2500 insights professionals who already registered for the highly anticipated Quirk’s Virtual event – request to watch a session byEyeSee and Twitter on Gender in sports ads: How (non)traditional roles affect brand equity.
Women’s participation in sports competitions has been on a steady rise throughout history, albeit lined with many hurdles to overcome. Inspired by the historic high in female participation at the now postponed Tokyo Olympic games, where 48.8% of participants would be women, Twitter decided to take a deep dive into the way advertising portrayal of gender roles in sports influences brand perception and their consumers.
Listen to EyeSee’s Mila Milosavljevic (Senior Ingihts Manager, UX & Digital), and Twitter’s Michelle Grushko (Data Scientist, Marketing Insights & Analytics at Twitter) tackle this topic and discuss:
• How does gender portrayal in sports affect advertising KPIs, and how are traditional and non-traditional roles perceived? • Are brands seizing their potential to facilitate real conversations and societal change on social media? • Do consumers think brands should take a stance on social issues?
