Does In-Store Marketing Work? Effects of the Number and Position of Shelf Facings on Brand Attention and Evaluation at the Point of Purchase

Transcription

1 Does In-Store Marketing Work? Effects of the Number and Position of Shelf Facings on Brand Attention and Evaluation at the Point of Purchase Discussion of eye-tracking experiment presented by: Boram Nam (M), Daniele Artistico (P), Lauren Mayor (M) and Nick Sibrava (P) Faculty Research Seminar, March 12, 2015

2 General Overview Brand evaluation and brand consideration can be influenced by the interplay of in-store and out-of-store marketing through visual attention. in-store factors (i.e. number of facings, shelf position) out-of-store factors (brand market share, shopping goal, past brand usage, demographics) Examine visual fixation in a supermarket setting (as a proxy for attention to in-store marketing). Examine effects of attention and facings on evaluation of brands Recall of brand attention a good proxy for attention? Find out through eye tracking Specifically authors find the number and position of shelf facings influence visual attention, which in turn influences brand evaluation.

3 General Overview Why Attention: Shift of promotional budget from traditional out-of-store to in-store marketing trend toward using point of purchase as an advertising medium for building brand awareness and image Sophisticated shelf management (shelf space & positioning) No strong evidence that large shelf space always positively influence brand sales. Understand how consumers process complex commercial scenes Attention is measured with eye-tracking technology more reliable and sensitive metrics of in-store marketing s effectiveness

4 Empirical Question Main Question of the Study Does in-store marketing work? effectiveness of visual marketing stimuli? How do people visually process commercial scenes? Effects of in-store and out-of-store factors on visual attention, recall of visual attention, brand consideration and brand choice, visual reexamination Why use eye tracking? Traditionally the effects of attention have been measured through self report of participants (recall based on memory), which can be heavily biased and is not a valid visual attention. In this study, eye tracking method was used (infrared corneal reflection) to accurately measure visual attention (fixation= noting+visual reexamination) to better understand consumers decision-making process. increase validity of the measurement for academic studies behavioral measures for attention were also gathered (brand recall through noting and brand consideration through verbal record).

5 Hypothesis In-store factors primarily influence attention Out-of-store influence evaluation and is not mediated by attention Stronger interaction between in-store and out-of-store factors for evaluation than for attention alone.

6 Hypothesis Positioning: direct effect on evaluation and not entirely mediated by attention Brands positioned near the center will receive more attention than horizontal or vertical extremities (high quality on top) Positive direct effect on evaluation for top shelves due to vertical position inferences Middle position may get attention but will have negative direct effect on evaluation (best product should be on top) Market Share attention and evaluation will be higher for high market share brands in store factors have stronger impact on low market share brands Individual difference Past usage and preference will increase effects of in store factors Younger and more educated consumers, consumers not focused on fast and efficient buying and consumers willing to trade off multiple purchase criteria show higher levels of attention and evaluation. More influenced by in store marketing

7 Sample and Design 384 participants were initially recruited. They were head of the household and / or mainly responsible for the food shopping. There were also older adults in the sample (age range 24 to 69); given the well-known perceptual and working memory declines I wondered if they controlled for that (they did not). -- Attrition plus other problems: the power was still maintained b/c of the large sample of 344 participants with repeated measure designs that allowed for over 8K data points. But no exclusion criteria reported. -- Authors used a factorial design (12 planograms* x 2 two shopping goals (consider or buy) x 2 category order conditions - soap or pain reliever). Ecologically Valid: The experimental design was certainly to maximize the utility of eye/tracking but still about perception of common goods at the grocery store. Stimuli: There were 11 common brands for soap and pain relievers and a 12th brand intentionally obscure to participant (the 12th brand to make sure participants were not directed to familiar stimuli when focusing their attention). Presentation: Centrally presented Items, although the participant was facing a large number of items. So it seems that the procedure must have allowed some peripherally presented stimuli, later they concluded that peripheral vision did not have an impact on the results. Participant s task: They were seated and looked at the planograms (one at the time) and the eye movements were tracked using infrared corneal reflection, which does not require headgear. **See photo

8 Examples of the Stimuli and Planogram for the Study

9 Method: Measurement Type of Eye Tracker: Eye movements tracked using infrared corneal reflection (no headgear) Calibration: Look twice at a blank picture with five circles on screen Sampling Rate: Recorded the coordinate of the fovea with a frequency of 60 readings/second Measurement Details: Attention measures 1. Total time spent looking at the picture 2. Position and Duration of each eye fixation Evaluation measures 1. Brand Choice 2. Brand Consideration

10 Method: Procedure Sources of Noise: The price tag area is close to the bottom of the packages - difficult to attribute with confidence eye fixations that land between the price and the package areas to either one of them. Controlled for Noise: Made aggregated fixations to the brand level (i.e., packages and price together) for the two attention variables: noting - whether the brand was fixated on at least once, and reexamination - whether the brand was fixated on at least twice.

11 Analysis: Describe what their DVs were and how they defined them. Did they use AOIs (eye tracking)? Attention: Dependent Variables: Attention & Evaluation 1.) Noting - At least one fixation (>50ms) on the brand/price area 2.) Re-Examining - At least two fixations (>50ms) on the brand/price area *AOIs - Areas on the projected store-shelf image that corresponded to the inclusive boundary of the product and the price below it on the shelf Evaluation: 1.) Recall - Whether the participants recalled having seen a brand (self-report) 2.) Consideration - Whether the participant considered purchasing a brand (self-report) 3.) Choice - Whether the participant stated a choice to buy a brand (self-report)

12 Results and Interpretation: What main conclusion could they draw from their eye tracking/pupilometry measure? Where there caveats to this conclusion and if so, what were they? Number of facings was the most important predictor of evaluation Bottom-up processes have a stronger influence on attention, and to a lesser extent, consideration and choice, than top-down processes (i.e. out-of-store factors) Attention is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for increasing evaluation and choice, and instore facings (number and position) can increase attention. Recall is not the same as attention, even though they have previously been discussed in the marketing literature as analogous, and this prior conclusion is likely erroneous. Eye Tracking data allowed for a test of this question Caveats: There was no actual behavioral outcome (e.g., they were not monitoring actual purchases, which may be different than stated preferences) Studied choice preference, but not quantity of purchase (e.g., are they likely to purchase more of the brand) Overall preference for premium brands may be an interpretation of the findings Does not mention if age was tested, as attention declines with age, this could be a significant confound