Think Eyetracking at Insight Show ‘09

Share

For the past two days Think Eyetracking has been at the Insight Show at Olympia in London.

Our theme was “Great minds like a think” after the fantastic Economist advertisement we frequently use as an example of how eye tracking can give us insight into people’s engagement with communications. On specially designed Think wallpaper we hung portraits of great minds with some of our favourite quotes, including,

“The most important word in the vocabulary of advertising is TEST. If you pretest your product with consumers, and pretest your advertising, you will do well in the marketplace.” – David Ogilvy

“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half!” – John Wanamaker

“It is the new and different that is always most vulnerable to market research.” – Malcolm Gladwell

Dan White and Robert Stevens presenting TV and email eye tracking case studies

Dan White and Robert Stevens presenting TV and email eye tracking case studies

On the second day of the conference, Rob spoke with Dan White, Head of Marketing Solutions at Millward Brown, about integrating neuromarketing research techniques such as eye tracking with more traditional research techniques. The talk was extremely well attended. Many thanks to Dan for presenting with us and introducing Think as Millward Brown’s eye tracking partner. Many case studies were shared of eye tracking research we have done across many different channels including email, TV, print, pack, and web. If you missed the talk, please check back soon as we will be posting a video of it soon.

Unfortunately I have little to say beyond our experience as an exhibitor at the show as our stand was so busy, I did not get a chance to look around or watch other presentations. This year Insight was combined with three other exhibitions creating a larger event, Marketing Week Live. In my opinion this was a great format.

If you went, what did you think? Are trade shows worth it in these times of economic downturn?

There are no hard and fast rules in eyetracking

Share

Skip Fidura from Dot Agency recently posted a great article about eyetracking, “There are no hard and fast rules in eyetracking”.  Please read his article because it’s got some great messages and he really knows what he is talking about form a client’s perspective; he’s seen the ROI from eyetracking pre-tests.

A key point that Skip makes, as the title suggests is that eyetracking will not give you a set of rules to apply to every creative you make.  Eyetracking helps to surface behaviour which can contribute to some guidelines to best take advantage of people’s habits, but generally eyetracking is a diagnostic tool.  It allows creative people to act freely and follow their ideas no matter how off the wall, but then pre-test and make sure the designs are doing their job: standing out and delivering a message.  The ideas can then be taken to the client with some intelligence; some information about which designs work, or which elements of the different design work.

Thanks for your post Skip.

Was Blended Too Good for Google?

Share

Search Engine Strategies is back in London next week and it reminded me of the paper that I gave there last year, I thought it would make a good a blog article, so here it is!

In 2008 Paul McCartney and Heather Mills announced their separation precipitating a lot of press coverage. This coincided with Google’s experimentation with blended search results:

As you can see the blended results get organic positions one, two and nine. We ran a sample of 30 people thru our omnibus study, giving them the task to “Find out more about Paul McCartney”. We left the task deliberately vague because we wanted the users to explore something of interest to themselves. The heatmaps of all 30 users shows that the blended results received a lot of attention:

The problem for Google is that the blended results receive almost all the attention, sucking user gazes away from the sponsored links like little black holes. If users don’t look at a link they can’t even consider clicking it, this is a problem if your revenue model is based on PPC!

A few days before I was due to talk at SES 2008 I thought I’d better check to make sure the data was still current, it wasn’t:

As you can see Google had reduced the number of blended results in the first nine organic places from three to one, de-prioritising the importance of blended.

I did the same search today (10th February 2009) and they have changed the algorithm again:

further de-prioritising the blended results down to organic position five. As we have found in previous research organic listings below rank three are much less valuable that ones in the top three.

We will never know how much revenue Google lost by experimenting with blended results, but I expect it’s more that the $4,000 it would have cost to pre-test the concept with Think. Just goes to show even Google gets it wrong on occasion!

Hollywood & Eyetracking Reveals How To Sell More Magazines

Share

The magazine market is big business!

  • Size of the UK market:
  • 2,600 magazines are sold every minute of every day in the UK
  • People in the UK spend around £2bn on magazines each year
  • 80% of women regularly read a consumer magazine
  • Consumer magazine sales have increased by 4.3% over the past 5 years and the average UK adult now purchases almost 30 magazines every year

(Periodical Publishers Association 2008)

If we asked you what attracts you to a particular magazine on the shelf, you might say ‘the front cover’. If you did, you’d be in agreement with around 75 percent of magazine consumers. The cover of a magazine has enormous influence on most purchasers’ buying decision – all but the most loyal of readers. It can be seen as an ‘advertisement’ for the issue’s content and most women’s mags share a generic layout – a model surrounded by the article headlines.

It is estimated that 60 percent of newsstand purchases are unplanned, and reports indicate that time spent selecting a magazine ranges from forty seconds grazing the newsstand, down to five seconds considering an individual title.

With an impulse buy like this, marketers only have a few critical seconds to appeal to the consumer’s subconscious, to evoke an interest in the magazine and successfully make a sale. Therefore, it is important for marketers to understand what is going on in the consumer’s head when they look at a cover and make their purchasing decision.

How eye tracking can help

Eye tracking offers an objective approach to understanding consumer behaviour. Eye movements can reveal hidden cognitive processes which can help understand and predict purchasing decisions.

To investigate front cover preferences, we conducted an eye tracking experiment using 30 female participants. They were asked to select a magazine they would purchase from eight available. We were particularly interested in researching the effect of two models on the front cover, instead of one and if it would influence the purchaser’s decision. The front covers of ‘Eve’ and ‘Good Housekeeping’ were Photoshopped to remove Patsy and Susannah from the original covers.

Which do you think got the most attention? Which got least?

Original (two model) and Photoshopped (one model) covers of Good Housekeeping and Eve magazines.

Heat maps display an aggregation of many individual’s viewing experience. Above, you can see that fixations are generally concentrated around the faces of the models/celebrities. Engaged people often make long fixations, and this is also in line with previous research on non-verbal communication e.g. eye contact indicates interest, attention and involvement. Interestingly, the actual text on the covers is not looked at very much.

96% of participants looked at the image of Davina alone compared to just 8% who looked at Patsy and Davina.

We can see that the image of Davina alone received more attention than the image of both Patsy and Davina (Eve), as demonstrated by the dense area of red. There were also longer fixations on the image of Davina, suggesting higher engagement and cognitive activity taking place here. Perhaps because Patsy and Davina are not normally regarded as a pair, less interest is taken in them.

Trinny and Susannah received more attention that Trinny by herself, because they are normally regarded as a pair. Trinny and Susannah received the most attention of all of the ten magazine covers we tested.

Celebrity parings work better when people believe there is a relationship between the pair – this is a technique Hollywood has been using to great effect for years!

Thanks for reading: http://twitter.com/modestrobert

Think Eyetracking at Insight Show 2008

Share

 

Natasha French demonstrating eyetracking with SuperVisual.

Natasha French demonstrating eyetracking with SuperVisual.

Last week we enjoyed two great days at the Insight Show, the UK’s only dedicated exhibition for market research experts. With around 2000 visitors from the market research sector, it was the ideal platform to showcase our services, share our unique software (SuperVisual), build relationships, and raise our profile within the industry.

Our stand was well received and our team were on hand to deliver advice and information regarding eyetracking and our services. We gave a number of eyetracking demos to show visitors; putting out the message that Think Eyetracking has a unique offering to help other market research agencies, creative agencies, and end clients.

Robert Stevens

Robert Stevens

Rob Stevens’ (Director and Co-Founder of Think) presentation on how eye-tracking can be used to identify high cognitive engagement and moments of increased suggestibility in consumers was well attended. The presentation explored eyetracking as a neuromarketing approach and the importance of combining implicit and explicit research techniques.He explained the benefits of combining eye-tracking with traditional market research methods.

Tristan Gadsby

Tristan Gadsby

Tristan Gadsby of Virgin Holidays joined Rob and provided a client perspective.His case study impressed the audience with details of how Think eyetracking has helped Virgin Holidays with both their online and offline marketing efforts.

We thank all of the people that came and chatted to us at our stand and who attended Rob and Tristan’s presentation.We look forward to working with many of you.

Credit Crunch, Theft and Checks

Share

As Christmas is almost here I thought is a good time to revist a blog from last year looking at credit rating agencies Equifax and Experian. Last year we found that 97% of people could not find their Statutory Credit Report using Equifax. A report that you are legally entitled to for just £2.00.

In the intervening time Equifax has made it even harder to find your report: There were two links on Equifax’s home page to your Statutory Credit Report, now there is just one and it is effectively hidden at the bottom of the page with grey text on a grey background!

Equifax Statutory Credit Report

The rest of this blog was originally posted on 9th September 2008.

As the credit crunch worsens and identity theft increases, consumers are well advised to check their credit rating on a regular basis.

Credit Ratings are now more important than ever before, so at Think Eye Tracking we conducted independent research on two major credit reference agency websites; Equifax and Experian.

In the UK, people have a legal right to get a copy of their Credit Rating for £2 ($4US). Equifax and Experian allow people to apply for their Statutory Credit Ratings online. Both websites also offer a number of premium services related to credit ratings which range in price.

The research included eyetracking thirty people as they tried to get their Statutory Credit Rating reports.

With Equifax, of the thirty people tested, only one person saw and clicked on the statutory report. The premium services however were very engaged with. This suggests Equifax maybe pushing the premium services at the expense of the statutory one.

Some of the people tested verbalized their confusion and unhappiness:

“They are trying to force me to buy my credit rating for £12 when I have a legal right to for £2, it’s disgusting.”

“I just can’t find it. Am I being stupid?…. Is it really here?”

“I must have looked for it for four or five minutes without finding it before I gave up.”

Finding the statutory report proved difficult for 29 of the 30 consumers tested as the heatmap below shows, there is only one mouse click on the Statutory Credit Report link:

The testing returned far more positive results from the Experian site. 18 of the 30 people tested clicked the statutory report, but 27 saw it. Consumers who did not choose the statutory report made an informed decision to go for Experian’s one month free trial of their premium service.

The eye tracking heatmap above details where people tested focused on the Experian home page. Eighteen of the thirty testedclicked to access their statutory report and 27 saw it. Some of the people tested stated:

“I looked at the statutory offer but went with the free one because it seemed better.”

“Why isn’t the Exquifax one easy like that?”

Companies do need to balance their commercial interests with their moral and legal obligations. This is necessary to gain the trust and loyalty of consumers. At Think we believe Experian has got the balance right by prioritizing their premium service while also giving consumers statutory rights a significant amount of prominent screen estate alongside a compelling commercial offering.

Is Equifax profiteering from the recession?

Cuil is (currently) destined to fail

Share

 

As stated in our previous post, 97% of people we have tested use Google. It is the first and only search engine most all surfers employ. Google’s simple yet efficient display has moulded user’s subconscious search habits and preferences so strongly that new interfaces departing from its model are almost destined to fail even if they do have a compelling offering.

The two/three column approach taken by Cuil challenges the habitualised search behaviour people have developed using Google; it is not intuitive to a world of searchers with an unconscious preference for Google’s linear format.

In addition to this, people are happy with Google, a sample of 90 people recently tested by Think, 86% said they wouldn’t use anything else.

Cuil was created by two former Google employees and it boasts to have the largest search capacity to date, but is that what users are really interested in? People have learned how to search efficiently in order to minimize the time spent searching so how does a 3 column layout with paragraphs of text going to align itself with the learned behaviour?

We tested a sample of 30 people using the new search engine to better understand this.

As shown in the heatmap above, Cuil’s 3 column layout promotes localized areas of attention. Fixations are concentrated upon the headers – this is also where participants clicked to access their desired internet pages. The top results acquired the largest amount of fixations, receding gradually from left to right and top to bottom. Results appearing below the category search box suffered from a low fixation count as they were the last in the viewing order. Although limited attention was paid to the category search box, people did verbalise a sense that this would be helpful.

Breaking from the familiar linear format of Google has lead to an inconsistency in people’s visual behaviour. The gaze plots below illustrate some of the representative paths taken. The many long saccades indicate that users were confused. The page layout is different to the familiar flow of Google and so breaks with the users’ subconscious models of how to search. We believe this is a fundamental problem that will prevent users adopting Cuil.

Users also verbalised their confusion and dissatisfaction:

“When you first see it, it looks too busy. I have to choose what I want to look at.”

“I don’t like the layout – it’s too long-winded; too wordy, and I tend to look at things in a list rather than a box layout.”

“I just looked at the headings instead of the black writing. You wouldn’t need to have so much text if you knew what you were looking for. I think there’s more info than you need on it. It’s just supposed to give you a link. There’s lots of things you don’t see because you don’t bother to scroll down for it.”

Cuil’s layout challenges, rather than takes advantage of, the habitualised search behaviour people have developed through years of using Google.

For this reason we think Cuil is currently destined to fail.

Has Google gotten better?

Share

How many times do you use Google each day? Each week? Each month? Countless times! And would you say you use it in the same way you did a couple of years ago?

It’s likely that you don’t.

There has been a significant shift in search pattern behaviour; one that reflects rational and effective time management; one that is a result of habitualisation. Here at Think Eyetracking, we conducted a study into search behaviour to explore this.

In a 2005 study we found that people looked through many of the search results before clicking on one. The distribution of attention using Google can be seen in the heatmap below.

In our most recent study, we had 30 participants search for the broad term, Oasis. PEEP methodology was employed; participants were eyetracked while completing the task and later asked about their usual behaviour.

As seen in the heatmap above, fixations are studded around the top 5 results and the majority of clicks are upon the top 3 results (discounting the sponsored link). The sponsored link was actually not well attended to due to the fact that searchers are now familiar with advertiser placement within Google. The 2008 heatmap supports the recent trend observed by Cornell University (Their study found that the top 3 Google results get 79% of all clicks) and by AOL (Findings were that 63% of clicks were concentrated upon the top three search results).

Furthermore when asked afterwards what they would normally do when they couldn’t find their desired search result on the first page of Google, 87% respondents replied that they would modify the search terms or refine the search by category. 97% of people tested answered that Google was the search engine they most commonly used and out of those people, 87% stated they wouldn’t bother using anything else.

It’s not clear that Google has gotten any better, but certainly our use of it has become habitualised. Google’s popularity and dedicated following mean that a large majority of users have grown extremely familiar with the search giant and refine searches to display exactly what they need within the top 5 results. We now expect to find our required answer in the top 5 results.

The use of Google has become habit and users have optimized their behaviour accordingly; they now act in order to eliminate the need to scroll below the fold or sift through additional pages of results. Nowadays to compete competently, you must know your customer’s search words, and land in the top 5, if not top 3 results.