Join EyeSee for an insightful conversation with Krista Bradley, Sr. Market Research Mgr, Research+Insights at Microsoft, on distributing behavioral insights past the initial presentation to stakeholders and approaching complex online Path to purchase studies.Join the IIeX Behavior event on July 22, and learn how:
To prepare for and design a global behavioral study that extracts insights on local markets and high-level strategies, taking market specificities into account across time
Ensuring insights are correctly digested and reused in multiple different occasions and formats
Why behavioral data is essential and perfectly complemented by data from other studies
In this conversation, EyeSee and Jason Chebib of 180 New York agency (formerly VP at Diageo) will shed light on what should a research supplier/client relationship look like in 2021 – from both the client and agency side, what is it that you are looking for in a vendor or consultant?
With so many technologies, buzzwords, and shiny new promises about what research can do, both big and small players compete for a chance to deliver the best insights to drive business decision-making and strategy. We wondered what should a 2.0 Research Agency look like – what are the things we should live up to, and where do we miss the mark? What kind of thinking, mindset, and approach works best, regardless of the technology we are working with?
Register now to learn about:
What makes the difference between suppliers: is it speed, quality, flexibility, or something else?
In which direction will the insights industry potentially evolve
What is the role insights should play in shaping the strategy of a brand, in a changing brand landscape
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.
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!
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!
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.
Tech truly has the power to change research – we see new approaches and methods brought into the research toolkits, completely changing the horizon of insights. What used to be a guessing game is now unbiased, verified knowledge enabled by understanding behavior in the right context – and it will replace so many old research paradigms. Request the session recording now!
In this session, EyeSee and Twitter share:
Fresh findings from the latest study on brand safety and communication in a crisis
Twitter’s perspective on what to prioritize in 2021
Ways to leverage remote tech for high-quality behavioral research
Understanding the impact of store fixtures, design & messaging in brick-and-mortar stores is still as relevant as ever – even a year into the COVID-19 crisis. However, impacted by real-life limitations, research in stores faced new challenges in countries like France where store experience remains key in the path of purchase. To surpass the disruptions caused by the crisis, tech powerhouses like Google and companies from countless other industries turn to Virtual store environments and online remote research for consumer learnings.
Request the session recording below and learn:
How Google leveraged EyeSee’s unique virtual store capabilities
Fresh approach to studies for validating store setups and refining messaging
The value of measuring the changing consumer behavior in a realistic retail setting
