M. Mauri1,2, L. Rodighiero1, E. Bazzan1, S. Benedetto1, C. Caldato1, L. Armeno3
1 TSW s.r.l., User Experience Lab, Treviso, Italy. maurizio.mauri@tsw.it 2 Department of Food, Environmental and Nutritional Sciences, "Università degli Studi" of Milan, Italy 3Department of Anthropology, "Università Ca’ Foscari"
of Venice, Italy
Introduction
Neuromarketing is an interdisciplinary research field that brings together neuroscientific methods and marketing research [1,2]. It focuses the attention on the application of neuroscientific insights, methods and technological solutions into the field of marketing, behavioral economics and consumer psychology, leading to a new academic discipline also known as “consumer neuroscience” [3,4]. Neuroscientific research takes advantage of brain imaging techniques such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) to reveal and understand brain mechanisms. Neuromarketing emphasizes how some of these techniques might be proficiently used to study consumer experience, with the goal to understand how emotional and cognitive reactions can affect purchase intention and preference. Although the scientific debate about implications and understanding of brain processes involved in consumer experience elicited by products and services is still open, pioneering studies show how the possibility to investigate this experience by means of neuroscientific methods is a promising field enabling to improve the design of products and services [5]. In this vision, the present research project presents additional empirical evidence supporting the possibility to further develop the application of neuroscientific techniques based on EEG synchronized with portable eye-tracking and galvanic skin responses while subjects are exposed to a shopping experience “in vivo”, in a real shop, where real products, in this case sport shoes, are exposed to real clients. Preliminary results show how portable solutions enable to measure consumers emotional reactions by means of empirical methods while people are exposed to storefront displays, and how this kind of data can be combined with traditional ones based on self-reports and interviews according to Anthropological Marketing perspective [6], leading to the exploration of new insights about consumers’ reactions.
Procedure and Methods
Fifteen subjects (9 females, averaged between 18 and 36 years) are enrolled in the study and scheduled for a visit to the shop. They are invited to visit the “Flagship Store” in downtown of Milan (Italy).
Before the visit they are welcomed and briefed in a separate room, where they are consequently asked to wear: a) an EEG headset (from Emotive Epoch, 14 channels, 250 Hz); b) a bracelet enabling to measure skin conductance (SC) and heart rate (from Empatica, E4, 4 Hz); c) a portable eye-tracking (ET) from SMI (Sensory Motor Instruments hardware, equipped with ETG software, 60 Hz). All equipment, after the setting up, is synchronized.
A 1-minute baseline is recorded before starting the test, then subjects are carried to the sidewalk outside the shop, in front of the first storefront display amongst five, as the order of storefront display exposure is randomized for each participant. The shop presented 5 storefront displays, numbered from 1 to 5 (see Figure 1): the number 1 is presenting shoes from the brand “Puma”, together with a poster showing an American singer, called “Weeknd”, well known amongst teenagers; the number 2 is showing shoes from the brand “Adidas”; the storefront display number 3 presents shoes from the brand “Converse”; the number 4 exhibits a big TV monitor, showing continuously audiovisual messages from different brands; finally, the number 5 presents one shoe product only, this time from a new brand quite recently appeared in the Italian market, called “Under Armour”, an American company created in 1996 (in comparison to the other three storefront displays, that show brands very well known in the market – as they have been created in the Twenties of last century). Each participant is asked to stay in front of each storefront display (one by one) for 15 seconds. During the 15 seconds, both EEG, SC and ET are monitored and recorded.
73
R.A Grant et al. (Eds.): Measuring Behavior 2018, ISBN 978-1-910029-39-8 Manchester, UK, 5th-8th June 2018
After this first phase, the EEG headset is taken out, and subjects are asked to visit the shop for a free walkthrough wearing the eye-tracking glasses and the bracelet enabling to monitor skin conductance. Once completed the free walkthrough (10 minutes maximum), they are asked to accomplish two different tasks: a) find and take a packet of shoelaces and reach the cashier’s desk; b) once joined the cashier’s desk, they were asked to exit from the shop (as the shop presents 2 different solutions in order to exit, and the project is aimed to explore which one could fit better with the customer experience). At the end of the experiment, subjects are taken again into the separate room (the same where participant started the test), and after removing equipment, a researcher specialized in anthropological marketing [7], performed an interview. Before leaving and getting a coupon of 30 euros as a reimbursement, they are asked to fill in a self-report investigating different factors: memorization of brands presented in the storefront displays, the use of specific labels exposed with specific products, the ability to understand their meaning, the easiness in finding the exit way, how many cashier’s desks have been noticed in the shop, etc.
Results
Preliminary results here presented will be mainly focused on the first phase (exposure to storefront displays), as data analyses about tasks mentioned in procedure section is not completed yet.
About eye-tracking results, in Figure 2 the heatmaps for each storefront display are represented. The metrics about average eye-fixation allowed the identification of the visual elements watched at the most during storefront display exposure: they are “price labels”, on one side; and “shoe products”, on the other side. The storefront display number 4 (see Figure 2) is not reported, as it presents a big TV monitor displaying audiovisual messages changing all the time.
Figure 1. All storefront displays considered presented shoes from specific brands, from left to right: number 1, Puma;
number 2, Adidas; Number 3, Converse; Number 4, big TV monitor showing audiovisual messages; number 5, Under Armour.
Figure 2. All storefront displays presented with heatmap performed by eye-tracking SMI ETG software “Begaze” from data collected of the whole sample (15 participants). Looking at the pics, it is possible to notice how shoe products and prizes are
74
R.A Grant et al. (Eds.): Measuring Behavior 2018, ISBN 978-1-910029-39-8 Manchester, UK, 5th-8th June 2018
Figure 3. All storefront displays presented with heatmap performed by analytic participants: areas of interest (AOI) are focused on price (yellow) and shoe products (blue box)
Figure 4. All storefront displays presented with heatmap performed by creative participants: areas of interest (AOI) are focused on price (yellow) and shoe products (blue box)
Eye-tracking analyses have been performed also according to results from anthropological marketing interviews, that identified two clusters of consumers: one cluster represented by more analytic people (8 analytic participants over 15), and a second cluster represented by more intuitive people (7 creative people over 15). Two areas of interest focusing the visual attention on price labels and shoes products have been identified for each storefront display. Heatmap from the two clusters are represented in Figure 3 (Analytic participants) and Figure 4 (Creative subjects), where yellow boxes identify AOI about price labels, while blue boxes are identifying AOI about shoe products. Results about dwell time (average time fixation) on a specific element of visual scene, in this case,
“prices” and “shoe products”, are represented in Figure 5, where AOI about price and shoe products are compared across the two users’ clusters (analytic and creative subjects). Statistical analyses do not show any significant difference, although the same patterns, in terms of visual behavior, appear systematically in each storefront display (for 4 times, in each of the 4 storefront displays). The same kind of analyses about eye-fixation time spent on average on prices and shoe products are performed comparing the sample composed by female (8 subjects) vs male (7 subjects), but it is not possible to identify any clear pattern. Also dividing the whole sample for the two age ranges, 18-27 and 28-36, eye-tracking data do not show any pattern appearing in each storefront display.
75
R.A Grant et al. (Eds.): Measuring Behavior 2018, ISBN 978-1-910029-39-8 Manchester, UK, 5th-8th June 2018
Figure 5. Graphs representing eye-tracking results (average dwell time, that correspond to the average time fixation for each AOI considered – prices and shoe products) across all participants and across all storefront displays: analytic subjects spend
more time on prices in comparison to creative ones; creative subjects spend more time watching shoes than prices.
Figure 6. Graphs representing EEG results, in terms of Motivation Index (approach for positive values VS withdraw behavior for negative values, derived from frontal asymmetry – f. a. – of alpha brain waves detected in the frontal lobes)
averaged across all subjects, for each storefront display; values are expressed in microVolts.
Considering EEG results, data do not show significant differences, as resumed by graphs (see Figure 6). Frontal asymmetry has been calculated from raw data, according to analyses about alpha rhythms [8,9]. The storefront display reflecting the highest value (approach behavior) is the number 5, Under Armour. The second one is the number 4, equipped with the big TV monitor that shows continuously audiovisual messages. The third one is the number 2, Adidas, followed by the number 1, Puma. The last one (with negative value, reflecting withdraw behavior) is the number 3, Converse. A t-Student statistical test has been performed across all subjects averaged for each storefront display to assess significant differences. No significant differences are emerging from data collected.
Results about Skin conductance data show different trends amongst different storefront displays (see Figure 7).
Skin conductance levels are calculated from raw data as the scientific literature shows significant changes according to different stimuli [10,11] and by means of wearable solutions [12]. The stimulus reflecting the highest
Price Labels
Average dwell time for AOI of price and product
0.08
Vetrina 1 Vetrina 2 Vetrina 3 Vetrina 4 Vetrina 5
uV
76
R.A Grant et al. (Eds.): Measuring Behavior 2018, ISBN 978-1-910029-39-8 Manchester, UK, 5th-8th June 2018
value (highest arousal) is storefront display number 4, equipped with the big TV monitor. The second one is number 2, Adidas. The third one is number 5, Under Armour, followed by storefront display number 1, Puma. The last one (with negative value, reflecting the lowest arousal activation in comparison to baseline) is the storefront number 3, Converse. A t Student test is performed across all storefront displays to assess significant statistical differences. No significant differences are detected.
Figure 7. Graphs representing Skin Conductance (SC) results, in terms of intensity of arousal (derived from sweating gland activity from the wrist of the non-dominant hand) averaged across all subjects, for each storefront display; values are
expressed in microSiemens.
Figure 8. Graphs representing the level of memorization of brands; this kind of data have been collected by means of traditional self-reports.
Results from traditional interviews (see Figure 8) show that the brand “Adidas” exhibits the highest recall performance, as all fifteen subjects reported to spontaneously remember the presence of that brand in the storefront display (15 over 15). The second-best performance about spontaneous recall is provided by Puma (14 over 15).
Converse is revealing the third best memorization performance in terms of interviews (10 over 15). The last performance is shown by the brand Under Armour (2 over 15 subjects reported to spontaneously remember this brand presented in the storefront display).
Performing a correlation statistical analysis between data from EEG and data from self-reports, the correlation score has been positive (p > 0.95) for the following storefront displays: number 1, Adidas; number 2, Puma, and number 3, Converse. In the correlation analyses, storefront number 4 was not considered, as it was equipped with a monitor, thus it is not comparable with other storefront displays. About storefront display number 5, the
Vetrina 1 Vetrina 2 Vetrina 3 Vetrina 4 Vetrina 5
uS