Tag: Blog

Walk your talk: Choosing sustainable product claims wisely

Posted on by EyeSee Research

‘Eco-friendly’, ‘zero-waste, ‘100% recyclable’ – we’ve all seen them on that small section of supermarket shelves, but do these claims have the power to impact consumer behavior?

This is the second part of the comprehensive study on building sustainable yet competitive products that get picked out on the shelf. Here are the upcoming parts that will be published in the following months:

Part 1: The green horizon: An intro to the green buyer and how to measure eco behavior
Part 2: Walk your talk: Strategies for choosing your sustainable product claims wisely
Part 3: Social media impact: How much does social media content impact actual shopping?
Part 4: Virtual shopping: Why some categories are leaders in change, and how to become one

If venturing out to the eco-market, knowing your core audience is a must. In part one, we tackled the 3 shopper segments and what drives their (un)willingness to buy sustainably. But beyond understanding how these groups shop and what their incentives are – it is essential to understand how to effectively communicate your product to each segment and help the fight for ecological issues. This is where product claims come into play – they are great real-estate to not only communicate your product’s benefits and in a way negotiate the purchase, but also to directly state what exactly it is doing to make a green impact.

Clear claims for the big win

In the still novel landscape of green products, well-performing product claims are still finding their way to the consumer. In this study, the most common claims that can be found on sustainable products were evaluated using MaxDiff to understand how relevant and clear they are to the consumer – and to uncover their true potential to make a green impact. Here is how they performed on the two axes:

As seen above, one of the clear winners is ‘100% recyclable’– it is direct and clear, so it fared really well on both scales. Although a popular choice by both brands and shoppers, it can often be found in the center of the debate. A lot of product packaging that claims they are recyclable is, in fact, not when a regular consumer typically has no access to specific recycling sites or plants. An interesting note to take is that, although still a better performing claim than the rest, just ‘recyclable’ is seen as less clear and impactful than the former – suggesting that adding a number drives more impact. However, not just any number will work – as claims such as ‘80% less plastic’ is significantly lower on the clarity scale – and not only that, it was also one of that was rated as the least impactful out of the tested claims.

‘Zero waste’ is an interesting one – while it has the potential to be impactful, it ranked low on clarity. This means that although consumers know this term is a good one, they are still confused about how exactly that works, but by making it clearer as to how exactly the product is zero waste, you can boost the impact on consumer behavior.  What is definite is that the worst-performing claims are the ones that are vague in how they are helping the cause – just stating Eco impact (G-A+), Sustainable or Eco-friendly is not enough to sway purchase decisions of eco-conscious shoppers.

It is important to note that none of the claims made to the top left quadrant – meaning if a claim is not clear, it will not make any impact. So when building a communication strategy for a product claim, prioritize your KPIs:  make sure your claims are clear, direct, and specific in communicating how they contribute to reducing plastic pollution – but use them as a space for educating your consumers.

Driving transparency will drive awareness

Apart from being clear and relevant to eco-buyers, transparency is an area where brands can really shine through. Oftentimes, what consumers find clear on product packaging is not in fact the most sustainable option. And on top of this, and perhaps ironically, when it comes to using the phrase sustainable alone, it will not do the trick either since consumers might not understand what makes a product truly sustainable. So, by positioning your brand as a trustworthy source of information, your brand can make sure consumers are not only buying what you are selling but are being educated on how they can be responsible for a cleaner environment. As previously covered, levels of eco-awareness among shoppers differ – but through understanding their motivations behind acting green and addressing them specifically, crafting the right messaging and product claims becomes an easier task.

But some rules of thumb are: claims that are too general (e.g. ‘sustainable’) and overused (e.g., eco-friendly’) are found to be unclear and less impactful in contributing to pollution cause. If not transparent in how a product is sustainable or good for the environment – shoppers won’t buy into it. Whereas,claims that are direct clear and specific in communicating how they are reducing plastic pollution (e.g., ‘plastic-free’, ‘100% recyclable’, ‘100% biodegradable’) are the best option to place on a product package. 

Sustainable doesn’t mean different

As with any new product launch, a big part of any brand’s communications strategy is ensuring that the product and the packaging claims are developed just right. Since their influence on consumer decision-making is indisputable, a well-researched and data-led selection of product claims are the ones that will end up on the pack design – so, why treat sustainable products any different? Typically, product claims should be tested with a repertoire of behavioral and traditional methods – MaxDiff followed by a questionnaire will assure that your claim resonates with the consumer, RTM shows how a claim fares on believability and likability, and lastly, eye tracking and virtual shopping measure whether the claims are even seen and the products consequently bought.

So remember, going beyond just claims – like any new product that will eventually end up on the shelf, sustainable products should meet the same thorough (behavioral) research faith.

Key takeaways:

  • Product claims are the best area for describing your impact quickly
  • Clarity is a must – be specific in explaining how you are contributing to solving a specific problem (e.g. ‘plastic-free’/’reusable’)
  • Avoid being vague – claims such as ‘sustainable’ make it unclear to the consumer about how it is helping the plastic pollution problem
  • Be brief and direct – avoid using longer copy instead of a claim (such as ‘good for the environment’) and overused phrases (‘eco-friendly’)

    Let’s talk insights! Upcoming conferences and events

    Posted on by EyeSee Research

    Interested in competitive sustainable problems but worried about greenwashing perception? Not sure you are making the most out of your current research framework? Looking to develop action standards for your research? We’ve got you covered! EyeSee’s very best Business development Directors are heading to a number of events to talk and connect. Here is a rough breakdown to keep in mind.

    Next up: Quirk’s London | October 14

    EyeSee’s partner Joris De Bruyne and Liubov Ruchinskaya (Colgate brand insights Western Europe, Colgate-Palmolive) will join the stage at Quirk’s London to untangle the myth behind sustainability and how to act responsibly yet competitively. Join them on October 14 at 2 pm in Room 4 – register here!

    A friendly face: CRC Dallas | October 20-21

    CRC is bringing back safe and long-anticipated in-person networking with the world’s most well-known brands. Our Jane Nedinkovski will be there to mingle and answer all the essential questions for your research needs. Find this friendly face for an insights chat!

    Going green: Quirk’s NYC | November 2-3

    If you are interested in joining the sustainable product market, EyeSee’s team including Jane Nedinkovski, Jonathan Asher, Ozana Jurkovic and Laura Hoste will be attending Quirk’s NYC alongside Colgate-Palmolive’s Associate director of Foresight and Sustainability Insight, Cherie Leonard to discuss how to build more sustainable products that do affect the sales with proper communication. Learn more about our latest study on what makes a winning sustainable product here.

    Thinking 2022: MRMW APAC | November 10-11

    Tom Vande Moortel will be taking the (virtual) stage alongside experts from Google, The Coca-Cola Company, Colgate-Palmolive and Swiggy to share their expertise and discuss the vital lessons we have learned this year about innovation, the future of e-commerce and sustainability in order to ensure big wins in 2022 – register here!

      Online path to purchase research: Everything you need to know

      Posted on by EyeSee Research

      If you have a product sold online on retail partner websites – this blog is for you. Have you optimized every step of the online experience of shopping for your products? If not, this intro will help you start with online path-to-purchase testing, and if you are already doing e-commerce research, you will learn how to ensure your insights spill over onto other valuable areas and affect your ROI.

      Everyone is eyeing a share of the ever-growing e-commerce pie – that is, over 2 billion global digital buyers. With new features, platforms, mergers, quick commerce, social commerce and way too many acronyms to count – tackling online path to purchase research is not easy for the brand or portfolio managers who yet have to understand the new rulebook of online commerce. This guide will help you navigate that process using the unique benefits of behavioral research.

      Where should you start with e-commerce testing?

      There are so many moving parts to e-commerce testing that sometimes, it can be hard for researchers and stakeholders to take the plunge. That’s why we built a pyramid describing different levels of studies – to help structure this abundance of research questions for more effective research:

      Level 1 – Looks into the online shopper strategy, including motivations and complete journeys

      Level 2 – Goes deeper into online shopper behavior on specific websites: how do shoppers navigate the site; which pages are visited; and what are the critical shopper marketing assets

      Level 3 – Tactical impact studies for optimizing shopper marketing assets (that can then be applied to most websites), discovering what are the best practices for the shopper marketing assets (e.g., online package design) to maximize their impact on purchase decisions.

      Typically, the 3 levels demand a different research methodology framework. Surveys will be sufficient for Level 1 (online shopper strategy) that cover who visited which sites and why.

      On the other hand, for Levels 2 and 3 – so shopper behavior on a specific website and tactical impact studies – we need to combine survey with behavioral methods.

      Furthermore, the Level 3 tactical studies require a design experiment (e.g., A/B/C test of package design, different PDP layouts, or ads) to understand the impact of the variable on sales uplift.

      To wrap up, here is what we suggest to everyone:

      Your first priority would be to go ahead and pick the level of your study: online strategy, shopper behavior, or tactical impact studies. To do this, there are two different approaches: top-bottom (strategy to tactical) or bottom-up (that is, making sure your ads, product image, and PDP work first).

      Although it might sound logical to follow a top-down strategy the bottom-up approach might be more beneficial. Even more so in a turbulent situation like this – you will have quick wins that demonstrate the impact of e-comm research to your stakeholders, but also because these studies are the easiest. Certain marketing assets are essential on all sites (e.g., online package design), so you don’t need to have higher-level studies for information on this. Investing this way will ensure you get results faster and provide you with leverage to dig even deeper into strategic questions.

      Secondly, depending on the research level you pick, you should combine the suitable conventional and behavioral methods. The complementary mixed-method approach will provide you with +30% higher predictive insights and, more importantly, an understanding of the full picture.

      Lastly, you should pick the most appropriate specific retail website/websites to test on and make sure to test in context. Being able to expose respondents to testing environments that are visually and functionally the closest to the actual retail website ensures a higher correlation with genuine purchases.

      What are some of the touchpoints along the online consumer journey?

      The online path to purchase sounds a bit complicated, doesn’t it? Still, if you have a good framework, with the right structure, validated KPIs, understanding of the business context and empathy for consumers and their experience it’s easy to map out Consumer Journey.

      In e-comm, we start with the moment when a person lands on the website, then we track how person navigates through the live page (so it’s a real behavior, or as close as it can be), and we also expose consumers to some relevant static pages, usually Product Listing Page (PLP is similar to a shelf in a regular BM store, it’s just much more cluttered and pictures of products are smaller, imagine a PC or mobile screen with a list of hundreds of products that you scroll through) and Product Details Page, but it can be anything else, such as Search Result Page, Add to cart/Checkout process, A+ Premium content (or any Promo content), whatever we think might be relevant to investigate or have indications it might be a bottleneck (e.g. manufacturers might already have some internal data that can generate hypothesis where to deep dive). On static pages we want to know where consumers’ attention goes, for how long, how visible or engaging the products and website elements are.

      Around 70% of the e-comm shoppers abandon the cart without completing the purchase and there are many reasons for that – maybe they just investigated online and will shop offline, maybe they need more time to decide, but it can also happen that the process of checking out is too complicated and not easy to understand, so by fixing it you directly increase conversion rates.

      So knowing how the platform works, after doing so many e-comm studies with various Clients in various categories and all around the world, makes it quite easy for us to map out all the relevant touchpoints and identify potential bottlenecks. We also complement Navigation on live pages and Eye Tracking on static pages with traditional survey where we ask consumers about their experience and how much did they like or dislike some website elements. All that gives us a 360 view of the consumer experience on e-comm and it’s so easy to identify areas for improvement of UX and consequently conversion.

      What is a website navigation map & a UX conversion funnel?

      The tool that gives us the full picture of e-comm performance in a certain category is called Path 2 Purchase, with some great and eye-opening outputs. One of them is the Navigation map, where you can easily see what are the most common routes people take to find a defined product category (or to complete a given shopping task), do they use search or menu more, do they click on promos, where do they get lost or confused (so called dead-ends when they just give up and leave the page, possibly irritated), how long does it all take and the most important – which route brings the best conversion.

      Another great thing is a Conversion Funnel, where with the help of Eye Tracking and Interaction Tracking we can see the performance from Visibility to Purchase and very easily identify if there are any bottlenecks to fix. As we all know, visibility and position are king on e-comm – without that, the chances of consideration and purchase can be really low.

      What does the study setup look like for e-commerce research?

      Clients usually come to us with a certain topic – before venturing into the study they already know whether they want to do the UX study (if they are launching a new website or redesigning an old one), or they have some issue on the website (e.g. high bounce rate on cart review & payment page/touchpoint), or they want to know how the category of interest is purchased online – which is the online path to purchase.

      When it comes to the online P2P, most frequently, clients don’t know much about the online shopping journey for their category, so they have a hard time narrowing down the testing on a few static pages/touchpoints. Luckily, this is where the agency’s expertise is of high value – we know what the most frequent pain points are, so we, together with the client, discuss and brainstorm the best approach for their business questions and KPIs. Sometimes this includes a full suite of methodologies (navigation + Eyetracking & Interaction tracking + survey) and sometimes only some of them. Of course, the broader combination of methods ensures higher predictability.

      To run a P2P study, we need just 2 things from clients:

      1. to tell us who is their most important or multiple online partners

      2. to agree on the most important touchpoints

      So, the client is responsible only for providing the information, while we do all of the following steps – stimuli preparation, questionnaire preparation and study programming.

      What type of stimuli is used in path to purchase research?

      When it comes to the live stimuli meaning the navigation on the particular website, there is no stimuli preparation since respondents are redirected to the real, live websites in order to make their purchase. This online shopping simulation provides a real-life experience and consequently higher predictability. Respondent’s journey is tracked from the moment he enters the website till he leaves.

      In the case of static stimuli, after we have selected the relevant etailers with the client, we start with the stimuli preparation and thanks to our in-house design team and their speedy support, we are ready to launch in less than 2 days.

      These stimuli are called static since they represent the real pages but are not interactive, meaning that if the respondent clicks on the home button, he will not be redirected to the home page; still, we collect all the data behind their clicks to do further analysis. Don’t worry, although static, these pages provide real experimental environment together with all relevant data. In this case the less is more. The best part is – this all goes the same way, not depending on device type – so both desktop and mobile stimuli are prepared in the same way.

      What are the most common pain points for clients in e-commerce research?

      EyeSee’s data shows that online shoppers browse the product list page between 15s and 20s searching for the right item, spending approximately 1.5 seconds per product, deciding subconsciously what to buy. It is pretty challenging to first grab attention and then convert into purchase among increasingly more competitive products and retail options, so here are some of the most common client questions which reflect their main challenges of understanding the path from a visitor to a shopper.

      A lot of the client’s pain points can be summed up into 2 or 3 topics:

      • The first one (and the broadest one) is when the client knows a lot about B&M shopping but is interested in learning more about online shopping patterns for the specific category. The most important thing to uncover here is how easy it is to find the right product and what’s the role of different features (search bar, taxonomy, filter & sorting options) in that process
      • The 2nd topic concerns more the client’s product presentation on the retailer – can shoppers find the particular product? Does it stand out in a highly competitive context of a retailer’s product list? What drives consideration the most (is it a price, product placement, product image format…)?
      • The last category refers to more specific, that is – more tactical – questions that focus on client’s product performance once certain changes are implemented (for example hero image testing, A+ content on PDP). These questions aim to uncover what’s the impact of such changes on product performance and whether they trigger substantially higher conversion

      Now that we’ve gone over the three most common categories of questions, what are some of the tools that we apply to help address these challenges?

      What methods are used in e-commerce research?

      Let’s juxtapose the most frequently asked questions from clients have with corresponding EyeSee methodologies:

      • When we are exploring how the specific category is bought online, we start with our Navigation tracking approach. This tool unravels the spontaneous behavior on the retailer website and enables us to map each step that shoppers make in that shopper journey. Now, in terms of how easy it is to find the right product (easy in this case means not having to put in extra effort in finding a product: so, not making additional steps, not going back and forth, not being redirected to other pages, etc.) our navigation tool can tap into actual obstacles or bottlenecks that may exist on shoppers’ path. Our navigation output also pinpoints visitors’ most typical routes and tells us how people use website features like search, menu, filters, etc.
      • As for the product presentation on an e-tailer – its visibility and overall findability – we rely on a combination of navigation and eye & interaction tracking. Navigation helps us uncover how much time and effort shoppers invest in finding a particular product (usually the client’s product). At the same time, ET gives us an additional perspective on how noticeable that product is on the retailer’s list and how much potential a product has to capture the shoppers’ attention.
      • When it comes to more specific questions concerning the impact of different optimizations (category-wise or product-wise) we predominantly use Eye & Interaction tracking. Here, our focus is on specific areas of product presentation. These include hero image vs. regular image/ products with discount tag vs. products without discount tag/ PDPs with A+ content vs. those without and our eye-tracking /interaction tracking tool tracks how these areas perform in terms of noticeability and capturing shoppers’ attention. Furthermore, this approach identifies key conversion triggers in this optimized context – meaning, how each of the introduced features affects purchase intent (and to what extent)
      Short term and long-term goals to strive for on retailer websites

      There are certain steps clients can make in a very short time and yield highly positive outcomes. First things first, you need to be present on the retailer’s product list, preferably on the 1st page. Although it sounds quite obvious, this is one of the frequent challenges we uncover when conducting a study. This is especially important knowing that almost half (45%) of shoppers say they typically don’t scroll past the second page of results.

      Once you’re present, you should secure good product placement near the top of the list. The average product has approx. 1.4s to keep shoppers’ attention and items placed above the fold have a substantially higher chance to be seen and, consequently, considered than those in lower rows.   

      Complementing e-commerce research with omnichannel thinking

      Everybody’s talking about omnichannel and consumer-centricity today, which is a consequence of the 4th Industrial revolution and Digital transformation. There are so many channels today and consumers are more informed and in more power than ever.

      To be fully consumer-centric, E-comm P2P is just one piece of the puzzle, which should be complemented with Brick & Mortar studies (e.g. how people move through the store and what catches their attention). Lately, we have been experimenting with so-called Passive Tracking – looking at what people did before they landed on a certain online retailer. This can nicely wrap up the entire story and give us an even deeper understanding of the consumer journey, but this can never replace any experimental design where we need a controlled environment to be able to conclude how a specific change in the content impacted the KPIs, like in the case of famous A/B tests.

      Interested in how online path to purchase research can help your brand stand out on e-commerce? Reach out to us to get advice about which study type would work best for your current goals!

      Interested in making your online presence truly consumer-centric? Check out the comprehensive online path to purchase demo! 

        Improving NPD success: Best practices from Coca-Cola and General Mills

        Posted on by EyeSee Research

        New product development is the lifeblood of every company – yet only 80% of product launches create a positive impact on the bottom line. With NPDs being one of the more challenging things to develop successfully, experts Tanja Petrovic (Innovation Strategy Director, The Coca Cola Company), Tony Marcello (Consumer Insights Manager – Morning Foods, General Mills), and Nikola Golubovic (Shopper Insights Director, EyeSee) deep-dived into where and how to approach testing NPDs.

        Last year, consumer shopping and how they use products changed – and with it, so did new product development. Studies show that 40% of shoppers are ready to try new brands and products. Did the pandemic impact strategies for new products? Is brand loyalty more of a priority than before?

        Due to its long-lasting legacy, credible products, and a loyal bond with the consumers, the Coca-Cola Company found itself in a privileged situation during the pandemic – most of its key brands were not negatively impacted. But what has changed, under the pressures of a health crisis, is the way people are consuming products.

        Nowadays, consumers are more open to exploring new products and different types of categories – driven by two factors: the inability to travel and have new experiences, but then compensating staying at home by trying new products. According to data from the Coca-Cola Company, in Germany alone, 72% of consumers aged 16-34 are willing to try new exotic flavors. This remains true for France and Spain, where 65% stated they want to try flavors they never had before in an attempt to, in a sense, transport themselves to a different part of the world. Another pandemic-driven change is that consumers are now looking at their products as a vehicle for better health – and functionalities like immunity support, energy boost, etc. are gaining traction.

        Given all of these changes in consumer behavior, how has the new product development process been impacted? What does the process in General Mills look like now?

        While the change in consumer habits transformed the innovation process in General Mills, it is also a natural step for any company that comes over the years. Tony believes that it really comes down to attempting to better understand consumer habits, wants and needs – and doing a lot of research to achieve that. But apart from learning how to truly tap into shopper behavior, understanding how to better communicate at the first moment of truth and how to be better from a marketing standpoint is also crucial.  

        To tap into these (unmet) needs, a lot of research is needed. Consumers don’t always do as they say, so it’s important to find methods that are accurate at measuring what the shoppers are actually doing. 

        What are some of the key reasons NPDs fail? What are the essential things to keep in mind?

        When it comes to new product developments, bottlenecks can occur at any step of the process. The most common reasons behind innovative initiatives’ failures are (mis)understanding consumer behavior, issues in product development, inadequate product communication at the first moment of truth and lack of marketing support.

        On top of this, researchers are often inclined to get as much information out of the shopper as possible – but sometimes that’s not realistic. Consumers can easily state whether they like or dislike a new product or concept, but questioning beyond that is where the real insights lie. And while many shoppers say they are open to trying new products – General Mills’ expert guesses that 90% of their shopping cart is things they typically buy, meaning standing out on the shelf can be a challenge. The aid for this? Instead of doing one test to understand the first moment of truth – do a couple, and bring it earlier in the process in order to fully understand the real potential. Another game-changer is conducting the tests in the consumers’ own space.

        Is there something smaller innovators and disrupters are leveraging that big companies are missing? What can we learn from them?

        Big companies tend to think big – from developing new products and expanding their portfolios to launching campaigns that cover every consumer touchpoint. But, perhaps counterintuitively, small companies’ success lies in just the opposite. Here’s what small innovators are doing that bigger ones should consider, as explained by Tanja Petrovic:

        1. The adoption of an agile approach – big systems don’t tend to lean towards agile principles, but an iterative innovation process and constant improving along the way is the key to a successful launch
        2. Managing everyday uncertainties – instead of the go-to move of attempting to remove uncertainties, large companies need to learn how to deal with them as a normal part of business
        3. Efficient vision and mission with a purpose – with big brands come wide portfolios that need to cover different needs but staying focused on the vision and mission could resonate with the consumers
        4. High engagement internally and externally – what smaller businesses excel at is developing loyal relationships both with employees and consumers
        5. Consistent interaction with the consumer – staying in touch with the consumer through social media provides real-time feedback on a product, service or concept
        6. Leveraging alternative channels – instead of opting for the mainstream channels first, alternative channels are a great place to build a brand and push out products

        On top of this, if small innovators are providing a better or a different quality of a product or service, they can apply premium positioning and pricing strategy OR they provide better convenience while shopping or offer the product at a more attainable price.

        How has researching innovation changed over the years?

        First of all, the context has changed – the ideal store and shopper habits changed and are continuing to evolve – and this has created great pressure for brands, agencies and researchers to do everything faster and more efficiently. Over time, researchers learned how to ask and listen, but nowadays, the key challenge lies in tying all the pieces together, overcoming the obstacles and obtaining the full picture. Recognizing that there is a discrepancy between what consumers say and do, usually means that the outcome wasn’t properly anticipated. As Nikola explained, for EyeSee both the voice of the consumer, and measured behavior are important – and combining the two factors unlocks risk management analyses.

        By doing volumetrics it is possible to estimate actual sales potential all while listening to consumers to help improve the products. This is done through leveraging online virtual shopping environments and putting shoppers in simulated, yet typical shopping situations. The possibilities of this approach are endless – from testing different POS materials, varying different placements, planograms, and types of displays while measuring the sales potential of the new product to repeating purchases and sometimes exposing shoppers to out of stock situations in order to identify what are the risks of listing new SKU – testing in-context holds the key to NPD success.

        Interested in how our experts ensure NPDs are a success? Make sure you check out the full webinar!

          Eye tracking in venture crowdfunding: Uncovering behavioral insights

          Posted on by EyeSee Research

          While eye tracking is widely used and popular in consumer behavior literature, very few studies have introduced eye-tracking technology in entrepreneurial finance. EyeSee’s online eye tracking was recently used in a study conducted by researchers from Vlerick Business School, Politecnico di Milano, University of Ghent, and the University of Bergamo, and it was a pioneering use of the technology in entrepreneurial finance research – and it delivered vital findings about behavior on equity crowdfunding pages. Read on for an exclusive interview with one of the study authors, Xavier Walthoff-Borm.

          Study authors:
          Vincenzo Butticè , Veroniek Collewaert, Silvia Stroe, Tom Vanacker, Silvio Vismara, and Xavier Walthoff-Borm.

          Equity venture crowdfunding is very competitive, and eye tracking helped prove that amount of stimuli/info is provided might make a big difference in the funding outcomes – what are some of the recommendations for getting your page or website right?

          Equity crowdfunding is competitive as increasingly more entrepreneurial ventures are using this type of crowdfunding, still, the success rates of securing equity crowdfunding are much larger compared to traditional equity markets. It was important to focus on what drives attention to the amount and type of information in equity crowdfunding deals as people’s attention is limited in digital markets, yet traditional finance theory assumes all information is captured by prospective investors. We found that much information is not observed in equity crowdfunding markets and people’s human capital uniquely affects how they look at deals. The extent to which this impacts actual investment behavior, and the funding outcomes is still an open question. However, it is important for entrepreneurs to make the first page (home page) right as we found that most people are limiting attention to this page only. When designing your home page, it is important that you don’t create information overload. Consider all relevant information aspects but choose your hook wisely for each information aspect. Moreover, refine your writing style so you avoid too much description.

          Eye tracking has extensive use in the world of consumer behavior, UX and E-commerce testing – and now, it has helped you better understand what happens with funders. What are the factors in the investor profiles affect the way they look through a page for crucial info?

          While eye tracking is widely embedded in consumer behavior literature, only few studies have introduced eye tracking technology in entrepreneurial finance.  We were the first to use online eye tracking technology which allowed us to run a large-scale experiment with real investors. We investigated the human capital of investors and the extent to which it affects their attention behavior to information aspects when evaluating early-stage equity crowdfunding campaigns. Traditional academic literature argues that people attend to signals – think of aspects with regard to the product, the team or the market potential that the entrepreneur is using to signal the potential of an investment opportunity – to assess the quality of early-stage deals. While the crowd in equity crowdfunding markets is heterogeneous, we disentangled human capital into general capital (i.e., their education level and entrepreneurial experience) and specific human capital (i.e., previous industry-specific experience and equity crowdfunding experience). We find that both types of human capital uniquely affect the way people look at early-stage equity crowdfunding deals. For example, specific human capital reduces how many different signals people attend to and the time it takes to do so. In contrast, general human capital increases the signal set size and the time to form a signal set. What is more, both types of human capital influence the composition of the signal set differently. General human capital is increasing peoples’ attention to the entrepreneurial team, while specific human capital is decreasing attention to the entrepreneurial team. Specific human capital (such as equity crowdfunding experience) is mainly increasing the attention to product aspects of the campaign. We also find gender to be influencing attention behavior. Females are less attracted by the financial and strategical aspects of early-stage deals.

          Perhaps counter-intuitively, it is not always humans and stories that draw attention – in a competitive online environment such as Equity crowdfunding pages, there are other elements that might matter more? What are those attention-grabbing campaign aspects you need to ensure are perceived in order to increase your chances of securing investments?

          If you want to increase your chances of securing investments, you have to make sure that all relevant and important information is provided on the home page. Most people limit their attention to the home page only. Be specific and be bold in the information you provide on those campaign aspects that you believe make an impact since people’s attention is bounded in online financial markets. Your first entry is the most important one, and this is not different in entrepreneurial finance. We would emphasize the value of carefully considering and drafting the most relevant information on the home page as entrepreneurs have to quickly establish interest and credibility. While the crowd is heterogeneous, and human capital is uniquely affecting attention behavior, it is difficult to make general statements about which campaign aspects are most important and would increase the chances of securing investments. Moreover, we didn’t investigate their investment behavior yet were focusing on the time they spend on different campaign aspects. The proportion of time fixated on these aspects is reflecting engagement of attention, which is different from the importance of the information for a decision-maker. The most important takeaway would be to know your crowd and draft your information on the crowdfunding page accordingly.

          How does buying online differ from participating in equity fundraising?

          The boundary conditions in the buying process of online shopping are different from those in the stock buying process of private early-stage firms. Mostly, because of the higher uncertainty in early-stage investment decision making as past information is limited, the information provided is less tangible (accurate) and the decision outcome uncertain and laying in the distant future. Besides, the decision process is more challenging as most people in equity crowdfunding develop their own understanding of the decision outcome without the confessions of reviewers or third-party advisors. These boundary conditions may affect how investors look at deals and how shoppers look at the packaging. Accordingly, I am afraid it would be comparing apples to oranges. Yet, studies investigating how shoppers look to packaging suggest the existence of a limited attention span as well. The observed visual attention behavior seems similar as people tend to focus on easy observable signals (such as prices and brands) rather than detailed information processing (e.g., reading nutrition information). People have the objective of finding information convenient to their primary information needs to reduce cognitive costs. After all, it seems we are lazy thinkers and cognitive misers despite the setting.

          EyeSee’s remote webcam-based eye-tracking technology has an extraordinarily extensive field of application spanning consumer research, academia, business, or advertising research. Due to its simplicity and wide availability, it is truly a disruptive moment that democratizes eye-tracking. Because eye tracking is now available online to anyone with a computer, it has an exponential effect on the recruitment pool of respondents in comparison to using eye tracking devices or central location laboratories.

          Want to learn more about how you can combine online eye tracking with other traditional and behavioral methods to drive your business forward?

            All that buzz: How to use AI in consumer research

            Posted on by EyeSee Research

            Despite the ever-increasing and all-encompassing ‘buzz’ of AI, just like many other topics (machine learning, BeSci) it has been around for at least 50 years. However, the pandemic has exponentially accelerated the need for change and escalated the willingness to adopt new tech. The question is – does using AI in consumer research add value, and how and when to employ it so that it does?

            What is the scope of AI in consumer research?

            The promise of AI is excellent; at EyeSee, most of our fundamental methods use some form of AI (webcam-based eye tracking, facial coding, analyzing virtual shopping data, etc.). However, AI and machine learning are not one-solution-fits-all. It is essential to understand the scope (width) and the limitations (depth) of AI.

            Width of AI: AI and machine learning can be used for many applications in market research: (1) collecting data by replacing current methods, process optimization (automation, DIY…), analyzing datasets in a way that was not possible before (e.g., big data)… AI is a means to an end and should never be the goal. Take a step back and ask yourself: What am I trying to accomplish with using AI?

            Depth of AI: The limitations need to be taken into account. AI is only as good as the data we feed it – with the economic crisis already disrupting our lives and consumer habits, be wise and carefully estimate its power of foresight, especially when it comes to predictive models based on (past) data. Another thing to be mindful of is checking the noise in the dataset and the error margin. Let’s take a look at eye-tracking. Right now on the market, there are AI-based solutions that predict the gaze direction. Oftentimes, a 5-10% increase in visibility for packaging is significant and can make a huge difference – but these solutions have error margins much bigger than that. The second question presents itself: Is AI (or any other hot buzz) the best solution for my current problem? Depending on what you need, the answer might be different. For example, early screening of new concepts can be done using AI-based methodologies, but if you need validation, a superior choice would be experiment-based solutions using real shoppers, such as virtual shopping.

            In many cases, a combined approach of doing research the way you are currently doing (e.g. experimental) with AI models might be the best way to move forward.

            using AI in consumer research

            So what are the benefits of using AI solutions in research?

            When done well, AI (or any other new technology buzzing around the industry) can create many advantages: impacting speed, time and costs, enabling access to new data, decreasing mistakes… But just like most decisions, you need to do a more in-depth analysis to assess whether it will fit your goal and is the best solution. You might learn that often a hybrid model is the best for covering all phases of your product development: e.g. using AI-based exploration and experiment-based validation.

            using AI in consumer research

            What now – how do you approach implementing new tech in research?

            There are several questions to answer before adopting any new technology in your studies:

            • What are your objectives, and will they be solved with the new buzz? If yes, fantastic! Still, think under which circumstances it will add value. Testing a pricey SuperBowl ad with a DIY platform is probably not the best idea.
            • Do you have the implementation skills to take up this new technology? How about the research skills? For most technologies, it takes 3-7 similar projects to take full advantage of the new tech. Agencies play a crucial role in diffusing innovations. They execute similar projects for many different clients – thus, their learning is steeper and experience broader.
            • Is this your first project and you are not sure where to start? Be smart and pick the level of the study which will provide you with quick wins that demonstrate the impact of the new approach to your stakeholders. Often, the bottom-up approach – start with tactical optimizations and then address strategy. It sounds counterintuitive, but it might be the best.
            • Do you have an efficient framework for disseminating new findings? A vital step final step is finding a way to socialize the latest insights – or approaches – across the organization. However cool your new tool is, if you don’t have broad support and buy-in for it, and a clear understanding of the new value or type of data gained, you will waste precious energy.
            using AI in consumer research

              Upgrading retail research with behavioral decision trees

              Posted on by EyeSee Research

              On a supermarket shelf, the interests of retailers, manufacturers, and consumers converge in the most tangible way – a consumer settles on one out of hundreds of different products at hand, and a decision is made before you know it. But how do you ensure you really understand what happens in front of the shelf? Data about end sales does too little, too late to explain the decision. On the other hand, surveys that promise prediction by relying on stated purchase intent and claims of future behavior are about as reliable as rolling the dice. Enter Behavioral Decision trees.

              Decisions abound in a retail environment, leaving numerous questions unanswered by traditional research methods. What happens when your consumers have to make a trade-off in shopping? Do they stick with your brand if their go-to product is out of stock or do they switch to a substitute product easily? Which attributes are exchangeable, and where does their loyalty lie? Most importantly, how do you learn about all this?

              The answers to these and many other questions are found in a Behavioral decision tree. With a new behavioral framework, this revamped tool delivers plenty of data about actual decision-making. Virtual shopping ensures respondents are making decisions in context and with thousands of real shoppers, you are delivered reliable and stable data to base business decisions on.

              Behavioral decision trees – remote, scalable and highly predictive

              Decision Trees are used as a graphical representation that helps manufacturers and retailers understand how consumers make decisions in front of a shelf. They provide defined product hierarchies and help category segmentation, simplify the shopper experience and maximize the entire category sales. But here’s the kicker – what differentiates the behavioral is the addition of virtual shopping environments.

              There are two key benefits of going behavioral and online – putting shoppers in context via virtual shopping environments, instead of relying on surveys, ensures real insights into actual in-store behavior. And secondly, a thing which is extremely relevant during the pandemic, but also beyond – not having to use face-to-face interviews but running the study with thousands of shoppers online, making decision trees scalable. This way, your business decisions are based on actual shopper decisions, and not on what people say they will do.

              Why is virtual shopping the MVP of research?

              Basing your product decisions on stated measures turns out to be a risky business. We ran a meta-analysis on over 35000 respondents from dozens of projects across FMCG industries, and compared survey results to virtual shopping data. Considering its high correlation with Retail Audit Sell-out Data (0.8) and the fact that it puts consumers in the right context, we used Virtual shopping as an external measure of the reliability of claimed future behavior. In a nutshell, the results argue that it is extremely important to be careful if you are making business decisions based only on stated purchase intent – whether top box or top2box, as both have some sort of error in them.

              So, how unreliable are surveys? 

              Well, we calculated the error margins and the findings indicate that the purchase intent measure is incredibly unreliable – on the brand level, the error was as high as 71% for T2B. On the SKU level, the overestimates are even more extreme at  486% for T2B and 217% for TB.

              Mapping out the pain points and opportunities in a category

              The Decision tree output shows which product attributes are the ones that shoppers aren’t willing to sacrifice when faced with an out-of-stock situation – these are the ones that are the least substitutable. What this means for retailers and manufacturers is that they need to follow the tree to create corresponding (visual) blocks in the planogram. For the top three levels of the tree, it is a must to develop clean blocks that are easy to find on the shelf. The tree levels dictate how substitutable a product is for a shopper. The higher the level, the less substitutable the product is.

              The 4 types of shoppers you are dealing with

              There is a simple but effective framework for interpreting the decision tree results and identifying consumer segments. Based on our studies, we identified 4 types of shoppers when it comes to brand loyalty – instant switchers, switchers/quitters, risky shoppers and loyal ones!

              When you know how the sample spreads across each of these 4 types of consumers, you can start to think about how to assist their shopping and ensure your brand is not overlooked due to a bad planogram. Furthermore, it opens an opportunity to understand whether you have a chance as a replacement for your competitor, where do these buyers come from, and what triggers them to make the switch. A poorly executed shelf is frustrating and can affect sales. 

              Shopper-cards

              Getting the full picture with a Brand Gain & Loss Analysis

              Another valuable output that can be included is a Brand Gain & Loss Analysis – which provides a proportion of shoppers that switched from your brand to Competitive Brand X or who switched from Brand X to your brand, pinpointing when it happened during the shopping process. For an even deeper understanding of the process behind purchase decisions, the stated importance of the attributes, brand recall, dominant occasions and missions as well as ease of shopping and shelf organization are included in the analysis. This allows for a 360-degree view of the shopper and the shelf, by using both implicit and explicit methods in a single study.

              The many applications of Behavioral decision trees

              Behavioral decision trees are a versatile tool that really helps navigate the complexity of category management, but its benefits spill over to other areas as well. For example, they are most commonly used for shelf optimization and planogram creation. Then, identifying gaps in assortment and looking for areas that are hiding some innovation opportunities. Learnings from these studies can be used as a great source of input for building a communication strategy – since they can uncover relevant purchase motives – for both in-store prompts and on-pack claims. Finally, they aid in distribution optimization – by identifying distinct segments that drive loyalty and require full-time availability at the retailers.

              The Behavioral decision tree FAQs

              • Why do decision trees require such a large sample size?

              In order to obtain more reliable and stabile insights, the entire tested category and all the relevant product attributes and their levels such as brand, price, type of pack, size of pack, functionalities, and sometimes category-specific attributes should be represented! The only way to ensure all market segments are covered exhaustively, bigger samples are needed! It also depends on the research question, meaning sample sizes can vary from 1000 to 3000 respondents.

              • How are categories defined in behavioral decision trees?

              A category is defined by how shoppers group products based on their needs and product interchangeability. For instance, a common definition for cola and non-cola soda drinks should be the “carbonated soft drinks” category because shoppers could switch between cola and orange soda but would not logically use milk to satisfy the same need state. So precision is key when it comes to choosing and deciding on the right boundaries of the category in order to get the most relevant insights about the entire competitive landscape across it.

              Interested in learning more? Get the full meta-study findings on how surveys compare to virtual shopping and check out the behavioral decision tree demo!

                Vaccination attitudes: Which messaging style is the most effective?

                Posted on by EyeSee Research

                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 with an 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:

                1. Let’s protect the ones we love
                2. Eliminating COVID is possible – Vaccinate to protect yourself and your family
                3. Vaccines save 3 million lives each year. It can save yours, too.
                4. Vaccines have protected us for over 200 years – let’s get immunization going
                5. 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.

                  Embracing the new: Heather Graham joins EyeSee!

                  Posted on by EyeSee Research

                  The pandemic has propelled us all into an evolving and learning mode; it has pushed both industries and insights providers to consider new approaches as a matter of survival. Within EyeSee, an agile strategy was part of the team’s DNA from the get-go, which is why sourcing out the right talent to shape and handle the growth is key. A new one just joined our ranks: Heather Graham, formerly VP/Client Development at Behaviorally (formerly PRS)!

                  Heather has market research experience spanning over two decades, covering both agency- and client-side companies in the US and Singapore. Throughout her career, she has been particularly keen to tackle a wide variety of projects, tasks, and initiatives.

                  “Aside from an impressive list of clients under her belt, Heather’s contagious curiosity, drive to learn and go the extra mile to the optimal solution for clients made it clear to me that she would feel right at home within EyeSee”, said Oliver Tilleuil, Founder and CEO at EyeSee.

                  We took this opportunity to get to know Heather’s perspective on the changing industry landscape and major opportunities facing clients in 2021.

                  The MR industry is adjusting to accommodate new research needs during and after global pandemic, seemingly becoming overall more tech-driven, agile, and tactical. The byproduct of this massive embrace of online and behavioral is that there is far less diversity in MR services in the market. How do you define innovation and ‘new’ in MR today?

                  Given the pace of 2020 (and 2021 being at least as fast, if not faster), I’m hoping for a multi-pronged approach and philosophy to innovation across the industry. 

                  Client-facing technology and services launched by agencies: Though in my experience clients are a lot like FMCG consumers – intrigued by the new and willing to try it, but find it quite hard to give up the tried and true (for a whole host of mostly good reasons) – and so innovations and ‘new’ ideas need to find a balance between familiar or recognizable and distinctive. Both in terms of the ideas themselves and in terms of overall portfolio of services. 

                  Employee- and team-facing technology and services: 2020 was a year of literally grinding through. 2021 needs to be a time (hopefully shorter than a year 🙂 of taking a step back and developing or retooling processes, software, and hardware to better enable and empower employees and teams to do their work successfully and more efficiently. Which will benefit everyone, of course!

                  With online shopping and buying options being on the rise, could you share any predictions about what might make companies competitive in this area?

                  For our clients: It is more important than ever in this new COVID/post-COVID environment to understand P2P and ensure that your brand has the primary bases covered – and covered with compelling calls-to-action.  This doesn’t mean that everything needs to change, not at all. Continued investment in consistency – your distinctive assets and brand language should be maintained – with an eye to meaningful and well-placed signposts and reminders is critical to maintain (and better yet, build) mindshare with consumers. Driving compelling and cohesive stories across advertising, e-commerce, and pack is essential. 

                  Additionally, ensuring brands have the right mix and the right presentation of the mix is critical.  While we don’t have crystal balls, of course, the past 12 months have certainly helped us see more of the future than we could have anticipated even 18 months ago.  So, in reviewing the product portfolio – do all your products still make sense?  Should something(s) be added? 


                  For EyeSee: This past 12 months provides two sides of a coin.  EyeSee has been an industry leader in online behavioral research, but the gap with competitors is shrinking – accelerated by the pandemic.  In the few days I’ve been here, I’ve already seen that this is simply a motivation to push further.  And I’m so excited to be a part of that entrepreneurial stretch.

                  What do you believe is at the core of EyeSee? Was there something you learned about the organization that might not be so obvious for outsiders?

                  EyeSee may still feel like a young, new company in the industry, but the methods, the practices, the expertise deployed are well established and well researched. 

                  What made me join the team are the Enthusiasm, Authenticity, Integrity, Empathy.  Olivier’s passion is infectious; meeting with others in various positions and locations during the interview process demonstrated to me that it is a shared passion. 

                  EyeSee has been a good competitor over the years , which shows me that there are strong services on offer.  And these services go beyond retail and FMCG, which is exciting. With +10 onboarding and introduction meetings under my belt, I feel the human-ness of everyone I’ve spoken to. There is clearly considerable respect amongst everyone I’ve spoken with, there is a strong feeling of a team from the highest levels, and I’ve already met a cat and a baby during conference calls (strong contributors, both).


                  Heather Graham has worked in marketing research for over two decades, both on the agency- and client-side. Previously, she was a part of Behaviorally (formerly PRS) in the US and Singapore. Heather most enjoys being in agency-side and relatively smaller companies as she feels like this is where she can have the most positive impact, learn the most, and have access to the most variety of projects, tasks, and initiatives.

                  If this interview sparked interest in EyeSee’s unique approach, check out our article outlining the formula behind our 8 years of sustainable growth.

                    Going global: EyeSee ventures into Asia, reinforces operations in North America

                    Posted on by EyeSee Research

                    EyeSee obtained a record growth in 2020 in spite of the COVID crisis and kicks off 2021 by broadening its global reach and capabilities by opening a new sales office in Singapore and an operations office in Mexico City. The award-winning company has been steadily doubling in size every year to meet the growing demand for agile & scalable behavioral research from clients such as Twitter, Microsoft, Colgate-Palmolive, J&J, Bayer, Disney, and many more.

                    Being an agency that relies exclusively on pioneering online research technology (remote eye tracking and emotion tracking through facial expression) to deliver deep and actionable behavioral insights, EyeSee was able to serve clients in all geographies and a variety of industries from its beginnings, conducting research in 40+ countries. However, the deep and fruitful relationships EyeSee forged with its clients drive and increase demand for further global growth in exciting markets such as the APAC region and real-time support from top researchers in North America. After reinforcing its presence with experienced team additions in 2020, EyeSee continues to pull in global talents while tracing the path to becoming the most innovative global supplier of accessible behavioral research.

                    EyeSee’s results were recognized by industry awards (MR agency of the year under 10$ (2020), Advertising research project for Twitter (2020), Global MR project for Microsoft (2019) Quirk’s, and receiving Deloitte’s most sustainable growth award in 2020.

                    Joris De Bruyne, EyeSee’s partner and the leading force behind the move to Asia, explains this step:

                    “We are moving into Singapore to follow our clients, and we have already done projects with our blue-chip clients in Asia.” “The innovation in Asian markets in E-commerce, TikTok, and Mobile studies provide the perfect fuel for our predictive and innovative research solutions,” Joris adds. Previously, EyeSee has run Singapore-based projects with clients such as Johnson&Johnson, Bayer, Ferrero, DBS Bank, and Sanofi, so this step is a natural continuation.

                    It is not just about scaling the operations – for Olivier Tilleuil, EyeSee’s founder and partner, these new offices represent something much more profound:

                    “The ability to attract and help develop top-notch behavioral research experts in any market we do business in, is one of the most exciting and fulfilling aspects of this.” He continues: “As our organization grows into a true global leader, this brings many opportunities – apart from building innovative solutions and services that exceed the expectations of our clients, we have a chance to create true experts in our teams and a recognizable brand that stands for cutting-edge behavioral research.”

                    The Singapore office will continue to develop EyeSee’s key accounts in the APAC region. It will be lead by Tom Vande Moortel, and the Mexican office setup is underway with Diego Adolfo Chávez Terrazas, an experienced researcher who previously worked for Walmart, Colgate-Palmolive, Turner Media, and Kantar – as the Country lead and Insights Director. 

                    Tom Vande Moortel explained what sets EyeSee apart in a market brimming in innovation in a hub such as Singapore:

                    “EyeSee’s innovative and scalable take on behavioral market research can substantially improve the quality and speed of insights, even for mature clients. Our approach correlates far better with real sales uplift than standard research methods, and results can be delivered within two-three weeks. We are very excited to enter into a market with highly developed digital commerce, and our product portfolio is perfectly matched for clients in such an environment.”

                    Diego Adolfo Chávez Terrazas sees the biggest opportunity in a new generation of researchers in Mexico: 

                    “EyeSee has been a key player in the industry of Marketing Research in the last few years in Europe and the US. An operations office in North America is an exciting moment for the company, as we are looking for the best talent in the country to help us establish. We seek smart and talented people who will add value to our clients with their knowledge. For those talents who want to settle the new way of doing Marketing Research in a cooperative and innovative environment, EyeSee Mexico is the place to be.“

                      Thanks for your interest!

                      We”ll get back to you promptly