Eye Faster - POPAIpopai.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014 Mass Merchant Study...• Use mobile eye...

Eye FasterMaking Mobile Eye Tracking Easy For Market Researchers

2014 Mass Merchant Study

Presented to POPAI

January 15, 2014

Copyright © 2014 Eye Faster, LLC

Table of Contents

• Research Background

• Methodology

• Executive Summary

• Detailed Findings

– Shopping Path/Track

• Purchase Timeline; Shopping Path Trends

– Aisle/Category/Shelf

• Category Summary; Noticing Shelf by Shelf Height; Brands Viewed by Category

– Display Performance

• Display Density by Departments; Shopper Viewing Density Analysis; Display Cluster Analysis; Display Heat Maps

• Key Conclusions and Implications

Copyright © 2014 Eye Faster, LLC 2

Research Background & Objectives

3Copyright © 2014 Eye Faster, LLC

Background

• POPAI is conducting a large shopper study encompassing 28 stores over all regions of the US and covering multiple retailers

• Eye tracking was conducted in 6 of these stores as part of the study

Objectives

• Understand shopper behavior, particularly in relation to displays in the store

• Measure shopper behavior as shoppers naturally shop in different channels

• Use mobile eye tracking to observe and measure shopper behavior providing measurement at 3 levels of engagement

• Shopping Path/Track

• Aisle/Category/Shelf

• Display Engagement

• Integrate shopper behavior results with self-reported pre and post surveys

• Identify patterns of behavior and new insights

Methodology

• Eye tracking research was conducted at 6 stores across 3 major retailers, for 204 total participants

• Target 1083, New York/New Jersey, 33 participants• Target 373, Atlanta, 37 participants• Meijer 263, Chicago, 25 participants• Meijer 168, Kentucky, 33 participants• ShopKo 731, Cincinnati, 27 participants• ShopKo 87, Salt Lake City, 49 participants


• Shoppers were intercepted at the store and asked to perform their intended shopping trip while wearing Eye Faster Mobile Eye Tracking system

• Before shopping, participants were surveyed about their intended shopping trip• After shopping, participants were surveyed by about the items they purchased

Executive Summary

Planned vs. Unplanned Purchasing

• Unplanned purchasing declines in the last 20% of the shopping trip• Unplanned purchasing makes up the majority of purchase

• Unplanned purchasing, and therefore purchasing in general, sharply declines during the last 20% of a shopping trip

Shopping Path Tracking

• The shopping path is largely driven by the primary destination category of the shoppers, a consistent primary destination category creates concentrated paths through the store

Shopper Behavior Leading To Purchase

• Getting a customer to pick-up a product has the highest correlation with the customer purchasing• For most categories, the longer a customer spends in the category, the more likely the customer is to purchase

• Noticing a product in the category is not guarantee that a shopper will buy it, as it is only mildly positively correlated (R2 =0.15) with purchasing products

• In contrast, 30% of all products held are purchased

• 56% of shoppers that hold a product in a category will buy a product in the category

• Purchasing increases to 62% if more than 1 item is held

How Shoppers Shop Shelves

• Shoppers prefer to focus on products at slightly below eye level• For bays with single categories and similar products, shoppers focus on products at slightly below eye level

• This pattern is altered by either mixing categories in bays or incorporating value sized packages in the same bay

• Display viewing frequency is largely a matter of the path shoppers take through the store• If it is not on their path, they won’t see it

• If it is on their path, they will notice it based on the time in that area and not the density of the displays in the area

• High traffic = high viewing, low traffic = low viewing


Executive Summary, Cont.

Display Interaction and Shopping

• Display viewing frequency is largely a matter of the path shoppers take through the store• If it is not on their path, they won’t see it

• If it is on their path, they will notice it based on the time in that area and not the density of the displays in the area


• Shoppers see a small portion of the displays in a store and for a brief time during any individual trip• Typical shopper notices 32 displays

• This represents approximately 12% of the displays in a store

• Most notices are fairly brief, <1 second

• Highly noticed displays are not necessarily the best performing displays• Highly viewed displays toward front of store on racetrack are noticed by 40% of shoppers who pass by

• However, these same displays have a product interaction rate of 0.4%, 1/10th the rate of lesser viewed displays placed in the center of the store

• Display engagement is highest when the display is integrated with the adjacent aisle and products and is in the center of the store along the racetrack

• Displays with these conditions are only modestly seen (21% of shoppers)

• They are highly engaged (4.1% of shoppers)


SHOPPING PATH/TRACKRetailer: All


Purchasing Markedly Declines During Last 20% of Shop


0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

0-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100%

% P

urc

has

es D

uri

ng

Tim

e In

terv

al

Percent of Time Into Shopping Trip

Purchase Timeline - All Retailers

Generally Planned

Specifically Planned

Substitute

Unplanned

Grand Total

• Most purchases occur at the beginning and middle of the shopping trip

• Purchasing drops off during the last 20-30% of the trip

• Unplanned purchases largely drive the overall purchasing timeline

• Specifically planned purchases occur early and decline throughout the

remainder of the trip

Destination Categories Alter Traffic Flow


• Shoppers’ paths are more focused when there is a clear destination category, in these 2 examples: Grocery

• In both cases, the path to and from Grocery is consistent among shoppers

Pathways along

Grocery

Pathways

to Grocery

No Clear

Pathway

• However, when there is no clear destination category, paths are less consistent with the only focused hotspot directly in front of checkout

Shopping Path Trends


• All stores had a similar percentage of unplanned purchases in total

• However, the most focused shopping path was associated with significantly less unplanned purchases in the last 20% of the trip

Pathways along

Grocery

Pathways

to Grocery

No Clear

Pathway

• Meanwhile, stores with the least focused shopping paths had significantly more unplanned purchases during the last 20% of the trip

AISLE/CATEGORY/SHELFRetailer: Target


Category Summary• Shoppers spent the most time in Seasonal, though purchased relatively few items

– Study fielding conducted near Halloween, considerable space dedicated at some retailers to Halloween and Christmas

• Outside of Seasonal, Dairy, Bread – Packaged, and Salty Snacks were the next longest shopped categories

• As the time in aisle increases, the likelihood of purchase increases*


0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Pro

du

cts

Seco

nd

s

Products Purchased per Visitor

Time in Category

* R2 =0.210, 95% confidence interval: 0.095 ≤ R2 ≤ 0.325, without seasonal

Shopping by Holding vs. Shopping by Seeing

• In the categories where relatively few items were purchased (from previous slide—candy, baking, and bars/fruit snacks), most of shoppers’ time was spent fixating instead of holding little holding, little purchasing

• In contrast, shoppers also spent little time holding dairy, salty snacks, and carbonated beverages, but purchased a higher number little holding, lots of purchasing

• Categories with lots of holding and more purchasing: crackers, coffee/tea


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Pe

rce

nt

of

Tim

e

Hold

Fixate

Purchase Funnel• Fixating is the first step to purchase (not seen – not bought)

• 56% of shoppers that hold a product in a category will purchase a product in that category– 30% of all products held are purchased

• High Fixate/Notice does not necessarily translate into high purchase*

• Highly visited categories where Fixating leads to purchase: Cheese – Packaged, Carbonated

Soft Drink, Bread – Packaged– >40% of shoppers fixating purchase from the category

• Categories where Fixating and Reading does not lead to purchase: Prepackaged Fruit

Snacks, Candy, Household Cleaners, Pasta– <5% of shoppers fixating purchase from the category


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Pe

rce

nt

of

Sho

pp

ers

Fixate %

Read %

Hold %

Purchase %

* 95% confidence interval: 0.0479 ≤ R2 ≤ 0.2581

Products and Brands Viewed

• Seasonal is a clear outlier; shoppers viewed many seasonal products, but only a few brands

• Categories in which shoppers viewed many brands: Carbonated Beverages, Salty Snacks, Dairy, and Candy

• Categories in which shoppers viewed many products from each brand: Seasonal, Bread-Packaged, Household Cleaners, suggesting few strong brands with broad product lines in these categories


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Median Brands viewed

Product/Brand Ratio

Shoppers Notice Shelves At Slightly Below Eye Level


• Shoppers naturally look slightly to 25 degrees below eye level

• When the same type of products are distributed across multiple heights of a shelving unit, the products located in the middle shelves tend to receive most attention

• Here is an example from Bread-Packaged of how shoppers viewed the shelf • The majority of the focus is on the 4th shelf from the bottom, which is comfortably slightly below eye level

• The 3rd shelf up, within the lower end of the comfortably below eye level zone, is the next most focused on shelf

Bread-Packaged

Altered Shelf Configurations Can Change Shopper Viewing Patterns


However, when different categories of products are mixed within different heights of a shelving bay, the products in the middle shelf do not necessarily hold the most attention

Also, if the products are of the same type but if there are a mix of value sized packages on the shelf with standard sized packages, then shoppers noticing can be drawn away from the center shelves

Baking, Bars and Pre-packaged fruit sacks, Cereal Hot/Cold, Packaged Sweet Baked Goods, Powdered Drink Mixes, Syrups

Baking, Bars and Pre-Packaged Fruit Snacks

Oatmeal

Pop Tarts

Pancake Syrup

Pancake Mix

Milk Chocolate Mix

Coffee Creamers

Almond Milk

Breakfast Drink Mix

Oatmeal

Muffins

Brownies

Donuts

Muffins

Grain Bars

Cookies

MuffinsDonuts

Brownies

Cakes

Wafers/Cookies

Value Sized

Value PacksValue Pack Value Pack Value Pack Large Sized

DISPLAY PERFORMANCERetailer: All


Display Analysis


• Shoppers were exposed to 1,378 displays across 3 retailers and 6 stores

• Individual stores ranged from 95 to 349 displays

• Of these displays, 980 were seen by shoppers• The typical shopper noticed 32 displays

• Because stores had widely varying counts of displays, the typical shopper noticed 12% of the displays in their store

• Noticing was brief for most, <1 second

05F-04F Endcap (DSP-11MEJ-263-a)

• 366 displays had sufficient attention for analysis• These displays were the most frequently viewed displays in each of the stores

• Of the top-viewed displays, the typical shopper saw 18

• Of the top-viewed displays, participants shopped them for an average of 6.9 seconds

• Display performance was evaluated using a combination of:• Density of displays by location

• Views of display by location

• Shopper path taken through the store

• Displays were also grouped according to performance characteristics and then evaluated based on descriptive characteristics of the displays

Shopper Path Is Primary Driver of

Display Noticing

Low Density High DensityDISPLAY DENSITY


• Endcap displays are the most common displays found throughout a shopper’s pathway

• In general, shoppers notice displays in proportion to their pathway through the store

• Increasing density of displays does not increase the amount of time spent interacting with the displays

• If the shopper doesn’t walk by it, the display is still not seen

Shopper Path

Display Noting

Display Density Has Limited

Impact



• Areas densely covered with displays still have no more views than the proportion of the shoppers that cross its path

Low traffic,

High Density,

Low viewing

High traffic,

Moderate Density,

High viewing

Shopper Path

Display Noting

Displays That Interrupt the

Racetrack More Highly Noticed


• Bins in the racetrack receive disproportionately large attention compared to nearby endcaps

• Racetrack placement ensures consistent foot traffic

• Central placement makes the bins largely unavoidable


Bins Focus Attention

Shopper Path

Display Noting

Display Cluster Analysis

• Display Performance Metrics

– Average % Shoppers Viewed

– Average Time Viewed

– Average % Shoppers Interacted with Product

• Display Descriptive Characteristics

– Location in store

– Display Characteristics

• Integrated

• Retailer Generic Signs

• Sale signs (with/without price)

• Product-Related Signage

• Freestanding

• Seasonal Themed

• Static

• Video

• Audio

• Motion

• Displays were clustered by their performance and then analyzed according to descriptive characteristics to identify any significant differences in the characteristics of the displays in each cluster


Displays Cluster Into Different Performance Levels


Cluster

Average % Shoppers Viewed

Average Time Viewed

(seconds)

Average % Shoppers

Interacted with Product

% of Displays in Cluster

1 7.6% 41.6 5.0% 2%C1: “Few Saw, Intensely Shopped”Very few shoppers saw, but those who did shopped intensely

2 22.1% 5.1 0.1%50% C2: “Some Saw, Poorly Shopped”

Fair number of shoppers viewed, but shoppers paid less attention

3 21.4% 8.7 4.1% 20%C3: “Some Saw, Modestly Shopped”Fair number of shoppers viewed, and shoppers paid more attention

4 39.6% 6.1 0.4% 28%C4: “Many Saw, Poorly Shopped”Seen by many—almost half of shoppers, but not shopped by many

Overall 26.6% 6.9 1.1% 100% Overall for comparison

• C3 “Some Saw, Modestly Shopped” performs best• They have about the same visibility as C2, but shoppers are more engaged with them (longer

time viewed, more product interaction)

• 1 in 5 shoppers that view a C3 display interact with the display

• C4 “Many Saw, Poorly Shopped” seems to have the best visibility, but very low shopper

engagement

Displays Heat Map Cluster Examples

Cluster 1 “Few Saw, Intensely Shopped”

Meijer 263 - 02B-03B Endcap (DSP-7MEJ-263-B)

Cluster 2 “Some Saw, Poorly Shopped”

Shopko 87 - A31F-A32F Endcap (DSP-45SHOP-87-C)

Cluster 3 “Some Saw, Modestly Shopped” Cluster 4 “Many Saw, Poorly Shopped”

Target 1083 - A03 Endcap (DSP-67TAR-1083-B)Shopko 731 - X13 Bin (DSP-45SHOP-731-B)


Display Location Impacts Display Performance


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

END OF AISLE -BACK OF STORE

END OF AISLE -CENTER OF

STORE

END OF AISLE -FRONT OF

STORE

IN-AISLE RACETRACK -BACK OF STORE

RACETRACK -CENTER OF

STORE

RACETRACK -FRONT END

RACETRACK -SIDE

% o

f D

isp

lays

in C

lust

er

Location in Store

Display Location

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Cluster 4

Grand Total

Statistically significant at 95% confidence level

• Displays placed on the “Racetrack – center of the store” are significantly more likely to fall into Cluster 3 “Some Saw, Modestly Shopped”, the overall best performing cluster

• Highly visible, but low action displays in Cluster 4 “Many Saw, Poorly Shopped” are significantly more like to be located on the “Racetrack – Front End” than other display clusters

C2 and C3 Display Location Differ By Primary Racetrack Location


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

END OFAISLE - BACK

OF STORE

END OFAISLE -

CENTER OFSTORE

END OFAISLE -

FRONT OFSTORE

IN-AISLE RACETRACK- BACK OF

STORE

RACETRACK- CENTER OF

STORE

RACETRACK- FRONT

END

RACETRACK- SIDE

% o

f D

isp

lays

in C

lust

er

Location in Store

Display Location – Clusters 2 vs. 3

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

• Both clusters were spread fairly evenly throughout the store, but most were somewhere

along the racetrack

(C2 “Some Saw, Poorly Shopped” 62%, C3 “Some Saw, Modestly Shopped” 60%)

• C3 “Some Saw, Modestly Shopped” had more displays along the racetrack in the center

of the store


Integrated Element Separates High Performance Clusters

• Different display elements were evaluated to explain the difference in performance between the clusters

• C3 “Some Saw, Modestly Shopped”, the best performing cluster, was significantly more likely than C4 “Many Saw, Poorly Shopped” and somewhat more likely than C2 “Some Saw, Poorly Shopped” to have an integrated display

• C3 “Some Saw, Modestly Shopped” had significantly more seasonal themed displays than C2 “Some Saw, Poorly Shopped” and C4 “Many Saw, Poorly Shopped” and more integrated displays than C4 “Many Saw, Poorly Shopped”

• C4 “Many Saw, Poorly Shopped” had significantly more freestanding displays than C3 “Some Saw, Modestly Shopped” and C2 “Some Saw, Poorly Shopped”



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Retailer GenericSigns

Sale signs(with/without price)

Product-RelatedSignage

Freestanding Seasonal Themed Static Integrated

Pe

rce

nt

of

Dis

pla

ys w

ith

in C

lust

er

Display Characteristic

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Cluster 4

Grand Total


KEY CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONSRetailer: All


Key Conclusions And

ImplicationsKey Conclusions Implications for Retailers

• Unplanned purchasing declines in the last 20% of the shopping trip

• Unplanned purchasing makes up the majority of purchases

• Unplanned purchasing, and therefore purchasing in general, sharply declines during the last 20% of a shopping trip

• As the shopper is reaching checkout, their unplanned purchasing is dropping-off dramatically

• Shoppers see the displays but they don’t act• Rather than trying to capture the last few unplanned

purchases at checkout, we suggest researching how improving the shopping conclusion experience can increase return trips to the retailer, which will have far more impact on store sales

• Can reducing checkout time lead to increased return trips?

• How can the retailer provide a positive experience at the last moment of experience for the shopper?

• A primary destination category, such as grocery, focuses customer shopping path

• Stores without a primary destination have more variation in shopping paths

• Shopper make fewer unplanned purchases in the last 20% of the shop when they are in a store with a primary destination

• Display views are correlated most strongly with density of shopper traffic passing by

• For retailers lacking a destination category, creating a destination category could lead to increased shopper visit frequency

• For retailers with a destination category, the destination category should require shoppers to traverse a large portion of the store

• In addition, the path to the destination category should pass by impulse purchase or high value categories, such as pharmacy and health & beauty


Key Conclusions And


• For most categories, the longer a customer spends in the category, the more likely the customer is to purchase

• Noticing a product in the category is not guarantee that a shopper will buy it

• In fact noticing products, is only mildly positively correlated (R2 =0.15) with purchasing products, while noticing is required for purchase, it is not sufficient

• Getting a customer to pick-up a product has the highest correlation with the customer purchasing

• 30% of all products held are purchased• 56% of shoppers that hold a product in a category

will buy a product in the category• Increases to 62% if more than 1

• Rather than the primary objective to be driving attention to the category, the primary objective should be to engage the customers that do pay attention to the category

• Engagement will increase time in category and increase the number of products held

• More products held lead to more purchases• Engagement can be achieved through:

• Interactive displays (mechanical & electronic)• On package promotions• Integrated displays• Store staff suggesting products so that the product

is in the shopper’s hands• Shoppers prefer to focus on products at slightly below

eye level• For bays with single categories and similar

products, shoppers focus on products at slightly below eye level

• This pattern is altered by either mixing categories in bays or incorporating value sized packages in the same bay

• Where possible, a category should be oriented horizontally, with as limited vertical spread as possible

• For larger categories, placing value packages lower, shoppers looking for the value packages will search for them on lower shelves, and other shoppers will focus on the higher price per unit products placed in the center shelves


Key Conclusions And


• Display viewing frequency is largely a matter of the path shoppers take through the store

• If it is not on their path, they won’t see it• If it is on their path, they will notice it based on the

time in that area and not the density of the displays in the area


• High value displays should be placed in high traffic areas• In low traffic areas, we recommend low effort, low

involvement displays, which do not change as frequently as other displays

• Use the display space for way finding, providing information, or assistance to the shoppers

• It is a low traffic area, the shopper is likely looking for something specific that is not obviously in other locations

• Help them find it• Shoppers see a small portion of the displays in a store

and for a brief time during any individual trip• Typical shopper notices 32 displays• This represents approximately 12% of the displays

in a store• Most notices are fairly brief, <1 second

• Given the limited number of displays that an individual shopper sees and the limited time allocated by the shoppers to noticing displays, the goal of the display should be engagement over noticing

• Engagement needs to be encouraged rapidly and communicated clearly to the shopper


Key Conclusions And


• As with categories, engagement with displays, rather than merely viewing, is essential for purchase

• Highly noticed displays are not necessarily the best performing displays

• Highly viewed displays toward front of store on racetrack are noticed by 40% of shoppers who pass by

• However, these same displays have a product interaction rate of 0.4%, 1/10th the rate of lesser viewed displays placed in the center of the store

• Display engagement is highest when the display is integrated with the adjacent aisle and products and is in the center of the store along the racetrack

• Displays with these conditions are only modestly seen (21% of shoppers)

• They are highly engaged (4.1% of shoppers)

• From these results, custom displays along the racetrack in the center of the store are the most likely displays to generate incremental sales

• 0.4% interaction rates, which then lead to a much smaller purchase rate suggest that the front of store, largely non-integrated displays should be changed to minimized, especially in consideration of purchasing behavior and the decline in purchasing as shoppers approach the end of the shopping journey


Eye Faster - POPAIpopai.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014 Mass Merchant Study...• Use mobile eye...

Documents

Transcript of Eye Faster - POPAIpopai.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014 Mass Merchant Study...• Use mobile eye...