Reality Check: Marketing Is Hard and Complicated – InStore Display

Standard

Not relevant to everyone but it shows the tough realities of today’s marketing challenges and the integration of bio and brain measures.

Bottom Line:

Thus, the overall picture that emerges is that of:

  • “Trench warfare,” in which large battles for attention are waged every day
  • But the battle lines of market share change very slowly.

Highlights:

The results show that this is indeed the case, but only to a certain extent. They also show that:

  • Improving attention is not a sufficient condition, because not all in-store attention drives choice.
  • In contrast, out-of-store factors influence visual attention but much less than in-store factors. This is consistent with prior research showing the primacy of bottom-up factors in guiding visual attention and search among brands in supermarket displays.
  • However, out-of-store factors have a much stronger impact than in-store factors on evaluation, and only a small fraction of this impact is mediated by attention.

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

11/1/2009 — Author: Pierre Chandon, J. Wesley Hutchinson, Eric T. Bradlow, & Scott H. Young

Executive Summary

Recent trends in marketing have demonstrated an increased focus on in-store expenditures with the hope of “grabbing consumers” at the point of purchase, but does this make sense? To answer this question, the authors experimentally:

  • Varied the number of facings and the vertical and horizontal position of 12 brands of bar soap and pain relievers (while keeping total shelf space constant)
  • Measured consumers’ eye movements while they were buying and then measured their choice, consideration, past usage, shopping traits, and demographics.

The main result is that the number of shelf facings strongly influences visual attention and, through attention, brand evaluation.  For the average brand and consumer, doubling the number of facings

  • Increased the chances of looking at the brand by 28%
  • Reexamination by 35%
  • Choice and consideration by 10%.

Increasing the number of facings worked particularly well for frequent users of the brand, for low-market-share brands, and for young, highly educated consumers who are willing to trade off brand and price.

The authors find that:

  • The position of facings strongly influences attention (similar to the results for number of facings)
  • But that attention gains from shelf position do not always improve evaluation (unlike the results for number of facings).

For example,

  • Positioning the brand on the top shelf (versus the bottom one) increased noting by 17% and choice by 20%, showing that a high position helps choice above and beyond its attentional effect.
  • In contrast, placing a brand near the horizontal center of a shelf (rather than on either of its ends) increased noting by 22% but increased choice by 17% only because of negative direct effects on choice.

Because the majority of brand choice decisions are made inside the store, yet consumers evaluate only a fraction of the products available, improved attention through in-store marketing activity should strongly influence consumer behavior at the point of purchase.

The results show that this is indeed the case, but only to a certain extent. They also show that:

  • Improving attention is not a sufficient condition, because not all in-store attention drives choice.
  • In contrast, out-of-store factors influence visual attention but much less than in-store factors. This is consistent with prior research showing the primacy of bottom-up factors in guiding visual attention and search among brands in supermarket displays.
  • However, out-of-store factors have a much stronger impact than in-store factors on evaluation, and only a small fraction of this impact is mediated by attention.

Thus, the overall picture that emerges is that of:

  • “Trench warfare,” in which large battles for attention are waged every day
  • But the battle lines of market share change very slowly.

From a methodological point of view, the findings underscore the importance of combining eye-tracking and purchase data to obtain a full picture of the effects of in-store and out-of-store marketing at the point of purchase.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s