PART II: Methodological Considerations

• The Motive: Why Did We Do This?

• The Scene of the Crime: A Rigorous Virtual Testing Methodology

• The Verdict: Virtual Shopping Hypotheses…and What Is Actually Real

3

Global Leader in Community Panels

Pioneer in Immersive Virtual Testing

Engaging Visual Questions/ Exercises

Data Visualization & Rapid Online Reporting

Intersection of Research & Technology

WHY DID WE DO THIS?

• ‘Virtual Shopping’ is over a decade old – Vision Critical a pioneer, powering the industry

• Lots of new technology, lots of theories – From super computer to notebook

– From flat images to 3D modeling

– From central location to online

– From curiosity to key tool in category management

• Real world validation is well documented, but no true ‘best practices’ for wide variety of virtual methods used

We Wanted to Set The Record Straight!

THE MOTIVE

► Monadic Is Superior to Sequential Monadic

► ‘Dummy Shop’ Produces Better Data

► Spending Increases With Repeat Category Exposures

TODAY’S WEBINAR: THE VIRTUAL SHOPPING HYPOTHESES

A Rigorous Virtual Shopping Methodology • n=1800 category buyers; Vision Critical Springboard America Panel

• 20-minute questionnaire online

Multiple Types of Tests Included (~N=200 per test) • Multi-cell design, monadic and sequential monadic depending on test

• Point-in-time and longitudinal depending on test

• Online 2D full standard aisle/Online 3D full standard aisle

THE SCENE OF THE CRIME

MONADIC IS SUPERIOR TO SEQUENTIAL MONADIC

9

First, Second and Third Category Exposure Randomized

Variety of shelf configurations tested

Both monadic and sequential monadic methods

Up to three shops per interview

Respondent was received the same instructions before each shop

10

Monadic Is Superior to Sequential Monadic

In a sequential monadic design, the number of product views decreased in the 2nd and 3rd shops; as did shop time

Basket size/spend statistically consistent across shops

Second/Third Shop (B)

First Shop (A) 2.3

2.2

6.4 B

3.7

Purchases Views

$9.31

$8.80

$ Spent Shop Time

(min)

4.4 B

1.6

Note: 3 POGs tested in 3 positions – averages across the 3 shown on this page, Uppercase letters indicate the number is statistically higher than other at 95% confidence level, lower case at 90%

11

Ideal when objectives require full investigation the

shelf; Allows for greater in-depth diagnostic follow-up questions/shopability;

Findability

Ideal for testing wide range of differences from aisle to aisle; When doing a ‘disaster check’ on major category/pricing changes

Monadic Is Superior to Sequential Monadic

Monadic Sequential Monadic

Shorter Survey length Longer

More Sample required Less

‘DUMMY SHOPS’ PRODUCE BETTER DATA

13

‘Dummy Shop’ Example Shelfset

Prior to actual shop, ‘Dummy Shop’ with one cell of respondents

Both cells shopped the same ‘actual’ Shelfset

Both cells had similar instructions prior to ‘actual’ shop

14

‘Dummy Shops’ Produce Better Data

‘Dummy Shop’ respondents spend less time during the ‘actual’ shop

But spending, basket size and examination behaviors are similar

Satisfaction data consistent as well

Without Dummy Shop (B)

With Dummy Shop (A) 2.3

2.4

5.9

5.8

Purchases Views

$9.37

$9.58

$ Spent Shop Time

(min)

3.0

3.6 B

Note: Uppercase letters indicate the number is statistically higher than other at 95% confidence level, lower case at 90%

15

‘Dummy Shops’ Produce Better Data

From a behavioral standpoint, no real benefit; Takes away valuable survey

real estate; Helpful for ‘disguising’ test

Suitable for most projects; Detailed virtual shopping instructions are sufficient

Dummy Shop No Dummy Shop

× Cost

× Time to set up Longer (2 shopping

exercises) Survey length Shorter

SPENDING INCREASES WITH REPEAT CATEGORY EXPOSURES

17

Longitudinal First, Second and Third Category Exposures

Same, full category layout in 2D

Longitudinal sampling one week later and five weeks later (same respondents)

Sample sizes reduced slightly each time (n=200 first; n=95 completed all three)

No package changes included

18

Spending Increases With Repeat Category Exposure

Shoppers become familiar with the shelf in the first exposure

Basket size & spending consistent

There were no significant differences in the brands purchased

Second Exposure (1 Week Later) (B)

Third Exposure (5 Weeks Later) (C)

First Exposure (A) 2.3

2.2

2.2

6.0

4.4

4.9

Purchases Views

$9.29

$8.84

$9.25

$ Spent Shop Time

(min)

2.9

2.9

2.6

19

Suitable for most projects; Particularly in static

categories

Ideal for understanding impact on shopping over

time; Seasonal categories & changing competitive

context; Package testing

Spending Increases With Repeat Category Exposure

One Exposure Repeat Exposure

Shorter Timeline Longer

Lower Cost Higher

► Monadic Is Superior to Sequential Monadic

► ‘Dummy Shop’ Produces Better Data

► Spending Increases With Repeat Category Exposures

VIRTUAL SHOPPING HYPOTHESES

21

Conclusions

Technology is never a substitute for sound research design

Match the technology to the business issues (and know when to say when!)

Leveraging technology effectively can bring innovation to the research process

Questions?

Ideas for Future Waves?

Will be presenting Oct 1-3 at LEAD Marketing Conference

See you at Shopper Insights in Action July 18th-20th !