Has smartphone usage fallen among young people?

According to new research by Kantar TNS, smartphone usage has fallen among 16 – 24-year olds for the first time.

The report states that mobile device owners in that age group spend an average of 2.8 hours using their phones daily. This is down from 3.9 hours last year. While this doesn’t sound like a lot, it is significant for a number of reasons.

Firstly, if accurate, it seems to fly contrary to the conventional wisdom that people (especially young people) are spending more time on their devices. Secondly, if the dip is indicative of the beginnings of a perception among young people that they are spending too much time on their devices, this could have wide-ranging effects across the marketing and advertising industry.

“Thanks to the growing number of social media channels and a consumer demand for everything on-the-go, I don’t see this decline as reflective of a nation looking to move away from mobile phones,” Josh Krichefski, CEO of MediaCom UK, said.

“Smartphone penetration is now at 85% of all adults, and video – which companies like Facebook and Twitter have invested in massively of late – is now most viewed on a mobile; video consumption has more than trebled in the last five years and it’s only going to keep increasing.”

“Too late to put the genie back in the bottle”

34% of the young people interviewed as part of the study reported feeling that they spend too much time on their phones and said that they want to cut down on their usage time.

There is, however, a disconnect between intention and action, as the 16 – 24-year-old age group still spend significantly more time on their phones than any other. The 3.8 hour daily average is way above the 2.4 hour average across other generations.

“According to our own research, there’s been a significant rise in teenagers, in particular, viewing TV on smartphones. This is most likely due to phones getting bigger and content optimised to fit them, allowing teens to tap into their favourite shows and entertainment channels on-the-go and when it suits them,” continued Krichefski.

“Young people now have greater autonomy over how and when they watch TV, and so one reason for the decline in smartphone usage could be the popularity of ‘multiscreen’ services, allowing the viewer to pick up exactly where they left off when watching content between devices – Sky Q is a good example of this. The smartphone, though, isn’t going away anytime soon.”

One of the authors of the report, Michael Nicholas, agrees that the findings most likely don’t signal the end of mass smartphone usage.

“It’s too late to put the genie back in the bottle — phones are too entwined in our everyday lives, so we’re not likely to see many young people taking the radical decision to ditch them,” he said.

“However, there’s clearly a conflict between our perceptions on phone usage and acting on it.”

Source: marketingtechnews.net; 31 Oct 2017

Why Amazon is investing so heavily in voice

All computer interfaces up to today have been unnatural, inhuman and discriminatory, the company’s chief technology officer says.

If you think about it, all computer interfaces have been designed for communication with the computer, not with humans, Amazon’s chief technology officer Werner Vogels said at Web Summit.

These are unnatural and inhuman interfaces, and they are discriminatory, Vogels told the conference in Lisbon Thursday.

“Let’s take the International Rice Research Institute in Manila as an example. They know everything about rice and they work with farmers in the region to improve crop yields. They have built a digital webpage with all this crucial information but no one was using it because the farmers don’t own computers. So, they put a voice interface over it so farmers could call in and describe their patch of land. It has helped greatly improve crop yields,” Vogels said.

People who have bought Amazon Echo devices love them, their reviews say so, he continued. “They use them for every mundane task possible because it’s effortless.”

One customer who has dementia wrote that Alexa had given him his memory back. That he could ask it for the date 20 times a day and it would give him the correct answer 20 times, without getting angry.

But Amazon doesn’t want the world to confine itself to its Echo devices. “The device itself isn’t that smart. All of that lives in the cloud. Alexa is a voice service based on a platform that does all the work,” Vogels said.

Brands and developers could even forego Amazon’s skills kit and use Amazon Polly, its life-like speech service.

“Polly converts text to life-like speech. It can be fully managed, it has 47 voices and speaks 24 languages. Duolingo, the language learning app is based on Polly,” he said.

Polly allows control over the tone, volume, context and different pronunciations, Vogels demonstrated. “It can be used to build voice chatbots, not just Alexa.”

Amazon is investing in developing all this because it believes that the future lies in a human interface to our digital systems.

“I truly believe a voice interface to digital systems will completely revolutionise the way we build these systems and it will open these systems to everyone in the world and not just digital natives,” Vogels concluded.

Source: campaignasia.com; 10 Nov 2017

‘Segment of one’, the future of consumer marketing

Think with Google’s Guest Editor, Unilever’s Chief Marketing and Communications Officer Keith Weed, shares his perspective on the shift from mass marketing to mass customization and how brands will adapt.

The connected world and the ubiquity of technology have rewritten the rules of building brands, innovation, media, creativity, and retail forever. While the internet served as the enabler for this transformation, the real driver has undoubtedly been the mobile phone.

Mobile is unlocking consumer control, empowerment, and choice to an extent we have never seen before, driving a hyper-segmentation revolution. As we move from mass marketing to massive customization—from focusing on averages to individuals—I believe that in the future we will build brands in segments of one. For marketers who have traditionally created and marketed brands to the dominant majority—the largest segment—this means thinking about marketing very differently than in the past.

Who is today’s consumer?

Today’s hyper-empowered, tech-augmented consumers are increasingly in control of the branded messages they receive and how they shop for brands. As micro-moment behaviour—where people instinctively turn to their device to act upon a need—becomes the norm, consumers’ expectations of value, convenience, and immediacy of response from brands are becoming increasingly demanding.

Search is absolutely central here, acting as the filter that enables the empowered consumer to get what they want, when they want, wherever they want. People—myself included—can’t remember what it was like not to be able to do things before their mobile was in their pocket.

This gives rise to two key characteristics of today’s consumer: immediacy and relevance. For example, searches for “open now” have tripled since 2015 and mobile searches related to “same-day shipping” have grown over 120% since 2015. And when it comes to relevance, expectation is accelerating rapidly. Since early this year, the volume for local searches without including the specification “near me” have outgrown comparable searches which did include it.

What does this mean for brands?

For brands to be allowed a part in the hyper-empowered consumer’s life, they have to be able to both anticipate and assist with their needs. This means being relevant, tailored, and personal—a huge shift from when brands (especially CPG businesses like Unilever) tended to be built for the masses. And they need to do it all in real time, in context, in the language.

There is a huge opportunity here for brands to help simplify lives in this complex world—to make massive choice digestible. Just think about how long it takes you to shop in a foreign supermarket where you don’t know the brands. Similarly, brands can help simplify the online world of seemingly never ending content to help organize people’s experiences in a connected world.

So what should marketers be doing?

It can certainly feel daunting and at times overwhelming to face this new world order. But I genuinely believe that there has never been a more exciting time to be in marketing. Still, what does all this mean for marketers in the day to day? In practice, I think it means three things.

Put people first. Leverage data to deeply understand the new and complex consumer journey, and be clear where your brand should be present to add the most value. Keep your consumer as the true north to connect with them on a one-to-one basis.

Cut through the clutter and build brand love by standing for something meaningful. People don’t just want a product to buy, they want an idea to buy into. Millennials and Gen Z show us time and time again that they want brands rooted in purpose and doing good for the world. Once that purpose is clear, it allows brands to create engaging experiences that sustain a far longer and richer consumer conversation than simply talking about a new product variant or a seasonal promotion.

Unlock the magical combination of data-driven consumer understanding and brilliant purpose-led creative to build deep and meaningful one-to-one relationships at scale. Marketing is magic plus logic, art plus science. Never before have we as marketers had the ability for the logic half of the equation that data affords us today. At the same time—as consumer attention is more selective—never before have we had such a need for the magic. At Unilever we have an ambition to have a billion one-to-one relationships—I don’t believe that a focus on the individual has to mean “niche.”

Mobile is rewriting communication and commerce, changing the relationship between brands and people forever. And with half of the world still waiting to join the online world, we are only at the foothills of what is possible. The brands that lead this, providing consumers with a frictionless experience online and off, are the brands that will win in the future.

Source: thinkwithgoogle.com; Oct 2017

Who are the people using adblockers?

The use of adblockers might not be something that keeps advertisers up at night, but it does represent a creeping problem for the ruling, internet advertising paradigm.

Advertising revenue is a foundational part of how the internet operates, with many sites giving away their content for free in the hopes that they will be rewarded with increased ad revenue.

The use of technology to simply avoid having to see any ads is a practice that is spreading. This means that marketers and advertisers need to figure out why people are turning to the technology, but also the kind of person that is likely to adopt an adblocker.

New data from Kantar Media’s DIMENSION study 2017 gives us a good idea of who the average UK adblocker is and how they behave online.

Firstly, the reasons why people turn to adblockers are already fairly well known, but the study sheds a little more light on exactly what it is about ads that annoy consumers so much. Three-quarters of surveyed adblocking adults reported seeing the same ads over and over again, while 50% continued to see ads for products they had already bought.

Interestingly, adblocking is not an all-or-nothing practice. Only 19% said that they always use adblocking software, with 37% claiming that they ‘sometimes’ make use of the technology

So, who are these adblockers?

Introducing the adblockers

The study reveals that adblockers are 53% more likely than average to be aged 15-34 and not be married/living as a couple, or living with relations. They are 27% more likely to be aged 15-34, living with a partner and childless.

Of those adblockers that are older, those aged 35-54, they are 90% more likely than the average UK adult to make an online purchase more than once a week.

Adblockers tend to be more tech-inclined than their peers. They are 65% more likely to participate in a virtual world, 44% more likely to use the internet for tech-related purposes and 22% more likely to claim to love buying new gadgets and appliances.

But perhaps the biggest factor that unites adblockers is a love of gaming. Adblockers are 44% more likely to be die-hard gamers, 38% more likely to keep up-to-date with the developments in the industry and 28% more likely to say video games are their main past time.

Attitude to advertising

The data seems to indicate that adblockers may be more receptive to advertising than they first appear. 55% of the surveyed adblockers claim to like or tolerate advertising, so it must be aspects of the ads rather than the ads themselves that are driving adblocker adoption.

31% of adblockers agree that tailored or more personalised ads are more interesting than other ads. 29% reported that they do not mind seeing ads targeted at them if it helps to pay for quality content on sites they like.

What does this mean?

“Our DIMENSION study found that most UK internet users aren’t against advertising per se, but that many – from digital natives to slightly older, less tech savvy users – feel over targeted by repetitive or irrelevant adverts,” said Richard Poustie, chief executive of Kantar Media UK & Ireland.

“Their natural tolerance towards advertising is being eroded by poor advertising strategies, and in response an increasing proportion are turning to ad blockers.

“The most effective means for the industry to address ad blocking is to improve how they target and engage with consumers. As a first step, brands must have accurate insights into the preferences and attitudes of a given audience and use this information to select the content and channel of delivery that’s most relevant to them.

“A robust, holistic measurement strategy will then allow brands to build an accurate picture of how, when and by whom their content is being consumed and adapt advertising accordingly. The aim should be to provide advertising that optimises and enhances – rather than detracts from – consumers’ overall experience online, to discourage them from using an ad blocker to opt out of the advertising ecosystem.”

Source: marketingtechnews.net; 30 Aug 2017

Touchscreens Turn You Into a More Impulsive Shopper

Psychology has plenty of advice for how to be a better shopper: Don’t rely on retail therapy to lift your mood. Think of spending like a diet, and plan when you’re going to cheat. Buy experiences over stuff — but only sometimes, because stuff can make you happy, too.

Here’s one more nugget of wisdom to add to the list: Not all methods of online shopping are created equal. According to a new study in the September issue of the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, the device we use may affect our ability to prioritize needs over more frivolous wants — and if you want to avoid overspending or shopping regret, it may be wise to limit your virtual browsing to your computer and stay away from the apps.

In the study, researchers from the University of British Columbia surveyed 99 people and found that they behaved more “rationally” when shopping at a desktop computer compared to a touchscreen device (in this case, an iPod Touch). In one experiment, for instance, participants using the touchscreen indicated that they were more likely to make a “hedonic” purchase, like a restaurant gift card, than they were to buy a more useful item like a grocery store gift card; for desktop users, the opposite was true. In another experiment, the study subjects took a test to measure their thinking style on a scale from experiential (a more freewheeling, impulsive thought process) to rational (careful, analytical). In general, those using the touchscreen were higher on the former way of thinking, and those on the desktop on the latter.
Part of the discrepancy, the researchers note, likely stems from the fact that touchscreens are just more fun to use: “When a consumer uses a touchscreen device, the novelty and fun generated by finger movements create experiential and affective feelings, in alignment with the playfulness and emotional nature of hedonic products,” they wrote.

“When participants are on their touchscreen device they lean towards a way of thinking where pleasurable products — things we don’t usually need — seem more interesting, and so they are more likely to make the purchase,” explains lead study author Ying Zhu, a marketing professor at UBC. “Whereas on a desktop they think in a more rational way — it might be because they associate their desktop device with logic and work.”

This isn’t the first study to support the idea that touch can influence consumer behaviour. Rather, it “adds to years of research that shows us that when people physically touch a product in a store, they are much more likely to purchase that product,” says Natasha Sharma, a Toronto-based psychotherapist and doctoral candidate in psychology at the University of Toronto. “This is because touch releases emotion, and gives us a sense of connection to an item.”

Sharma also suggests that for those of us who tend to be more impulsive shoppers already, choosing to make all purchases in person may be the best option of all.

“In a store, we have to make an effort to find items, carry them to a checkout counter, pull out our wallet, and pay, and all of those steps give our brain time to be less emotionally driven and impulsive,” she says. “With the element of touch playing a role now, I would recommend that people more at risk may want to remove shopping apps, for instance, or just stick with cash and debit purchases in brick-and-mortar stores.”

Source: thecut.com; 25 Aug 2017

68% of APAC residents believe there is a problem with fake news on digital platforms

“Fake news” is one of the buzz phrases of 2017. First coined during the US presidential election last year, the term has taken on a life of its own and is now part of common parlance for many broadcasters, commentators and consumers alike.

New research by YouGov, reveals that the majority of APAC residents do believe that “fake news” is a problem. However, it also shows that what the problem is exactly is far harder to define.

TV is the most trusted source of news content

The study found that consumers view TV as the most trusted source for news, with three quarters of those polled (75%) placing either a little or a lot of trust in TV. This is followed by radio (trusted by 70%) and newspapers (68%), while digital is the least trusted source for news (60%).

Yet consumers also accept that these sources can be responsible for spreading “fake news”. Despite reporting high levels of trust in TV, nearly half (47%) of respondents believe there is a problem with fake news on TV. A similar number report concerns over “fake news” in newspaper content (49%) and radio (41%). However, concern about “fake news” surges to more than two-thirds (68%) of respondents when it comes to digital content.


Just one in eight people place “a lot” of trust in news that friends and family share online

Social media is a key site for news content, with more than a third of APAC residents (37%) sharing online news content on social media at least once a day. This is even higher in Thailand (54%), Vietnam (50%), Indonesia (44%) and the Philippines (40%).

While the majority of respondents (58%) say they trust news that friends and family share on social media, just 13% of those polled place “a lot” of trust in news that friends and family share online. Australians are the least trusting, with 7% of people not placing any trust in content that their friends and family share. This is more than double the regional average of 3%.

Over half of APAC respondent think more negatively of a brand that was found to be advertising on a platform that contains fake news

Consumers are cautious over the content they see online and more than half (56%) have conducted independent research to check the validity of a news story. Yet despite recognising the problem of “fake news”, consumers can be unaccepting when brands become tied up with the issue; a majority of respondents (54%) would think more negatively of a brand that was found to be advertising on a platform that contains fake news. Furthermore, two thirds of APAC residents (66%) would trust a brand less if it was found to be advertising on a platform that contains fake news.

54% of respondents would no longer make purchases from a brand found to be promoting fake or misleading content

The survey also shows how brand scandals are able to influence consumer behaviour, as well as opinion. For instance, if consumers were to find out that a brand had been promoting fake or misleading content, a majority of consumers would no longer make purchases from this brand (54%), choose a different brand in future (51%) or tell family and/or friends about it (51%). Furthermore, three in ten consumers (29%) would share this information on social media and a quarter of consumers (26%) would delete the brand’s app from their phone.

 

Source: au.yougov.com; 21 Aug 2017

Millennials Crave Consistency, Connection With Brands

To be favoured among Millennials, brands should lean less on blanket traditional advertising and more on how they can relate to their daily lives.

After reviewing more than 15,000 responses from Millennials over the past five years (2013-17), St. Louis branding agency Moosylvania found brands that continually win Millennial favour do something for the Millennials’ personal brands.

While the top 10 brands (which includes Apple, Nike, Samsung, Amazon and Coke) are blue-chip, well-advertised brands, some further down the list, like shoe brand Vans (No. 34), outrank heavy advertisers like Budweiser (No. 94), which may have less daily relevance to the demographic.

“Pretty much everything here is: ‘Make me look good. Make me feel good, or keep me entertained,’ ” says Norty Cohen, CEO of Moosylvania. “All these [top] brands are doing something for Millennials’ own personal marketing. When you look at these brands, they’re helping them market themselves.”

Using five years of data, the study also found brands that consistently engaged Millennial consumers continued to rank high over time, he says.

“There were some brands that came and went,” Cohen says. “They did one thing and then [went away]. It’s the idea of consistency driving the connection — staying with it every day.”

Along those lines, the study also found peer influence and conversation was a more effective way to drive trial among Millennials than traditional advertising.

According to the research, peers talking about a brand produced a significantly greater chance of new brand adoption than TV, Facebook and YouTube advertising combined, Cohen adds.

Noting that Millennial consumers are now aging into different life stages, the study separated the demographic into two age groups: 17-27s and 28-37s. In doing so, Moosylvania found older Millennials showed more loyalty and digital connectivity to brands than their younger cohorts.

Source: mediapost.com; 17 August 2017

Micro-Moments Now: Three New Consumer Behaviors Playing Out in Google Search Data

Two years ago, Google introduced the concept of micro-moments. We put a name to a behaviour that, thanks to mobile, was becoming pervasive. People had started to expect an immediate answer in the moments they wanted to know, go, do, and buy. The concept of micro-moments was perhaps as truthful, observable, and relatable a consumer behaviour trend as any marketer could wish for.

Illuminating this behaviour and the associated consumer expectations proved to be really useful for marketers. In many ways, the micro-moments conversation has provided a reset and a roadmap for companies who sought a simple mental model for how to approach the otherwise daunting force that is mobile. It helped marketers think about which moments mattered most, and it created urgency. It also inspired an evaluation of a range of legacy habits and approaches—from how to think about share of voice and how to measure business results, to how to deliver useful experiences.

Now, midway through 2017, it’s clear that the centrality of micro-moments—for consumers and marketers alike—is as important as ever. It’s an entrenched behaviour—micro-moments are only multiplying. People can’t remember what it was like to not be able to learn, do, or buy things when the need struck by reaching for the device in their pocket.

New consumer behaviours up the ante

Micro-moments have been accelerating consumer expectations for “right here, right now” experiences. People take for granted that information is at their fingertips and tailored to their specific needs. But the thing about human beings is they never stop wanting that little bit extra. It’s becoming evident that they’ll keep raising the bar, wanting more useful information, more personalization, more immediacy. My team wanted to dig into these evolving expectations and understand how consumer behaviour has changed since we first introduced micro-moments. Here’s a glimpse of the consumer taking shape behind the data.

The “well-advised” consumer

Think about the last time you used your phone to find an answer or guide a decision. For some of you, this might have been about something big—like that safe family car you’re hoping to buy, or the Yosemite adventure you’re planning. But for others, it might have been, well, more mundane—like knobs for kitchen cabinets, best home remedies for wasp stings, or the least stinky sock for hiking.

People today want to be empowered to make the right decision, big or small—and they’re turning to their phones for advice to guide them. We can see this in the data. Mobile searches for “best” have grown 80% in the past two years. And again, it’s not just for high-consideration items or weighty topics. Because they can, people are turning to their phones for information on just about everything. For example, toothbrush searches have grown more than 80% on mobile and searches for “best toothbrush” have grown more than 100% on mobile in the past two years.  Before mobile, doing the research might have been more effort than people cared to expend. Now it’s easy and fast, so we can be confident in any decision we’re making, big or small.

The “right here” consumer

People also expect digital experiences to be made just for them—including experiences that are tailored to the location they’re in right now. Several years ago, marketers were able to deliver this type of relevance by taking explicit cues people gave them. For example, if someone wanted to find a sushi restaurant nearby, their search query would likely include the zip code, area name, or even “near me.” Today, people expect brands to gather enough contextual information to deliver location-specific responses without someone having to search for anything more than just “sushi.”

These expectations transfer to site and app experiences, too. Compared to just a year ago, smartphone users are significantly more likely to purchase from companies whose mobile sites or apps customize information to their location.  Today, people just assume their smartphone will know where they are and will deliver information accordingly.

The “right now” consumer

Ever needed a restaurant reservation at the last minute? What about a hotel room? Or a pharmacy? People turn to mobile more than any other source to help them get things done, make decisions, or purchase. And every day, people are becoming more reliant on their smartphones to help make last-minute purchases or spur-of-the-moment decisions. In fact, smartphone users are 50% more likely to expect to purchase something immediately while using their smartphone compared to a year ago.

Mobile empowers people to be nimble. They can organize themselves as much (or as little) as they like because they know their smartphone is there for them. And, they expect brands to respond by understanding their needs and addressing them right now.

Looking ahead

These consumer shifts are an inevitability we can plan for. Expectations will only continue to rise. People will want to be more informed, have more personal experiences, and get things done even faster. And as these expectations ratchet up, so do the requirements (and opportunities) for marketers.

Source: thinkwithgoogle.com; July 2017

Millennials want to buy from companies led by outspoken CEO

Nearly half of millennials (47%) believe CEOs have a responsibility to speak up about issues that are important to society, far outpacing the sentiments of Gen Xers and Boomers (28% each).

An even larger six in 10 millennials (56%) say that business leaders have a greater responsibility to speak out now than in years past.

M1

This is according to CEO Activism in 2017: High Noon in the C-Suite, a report commissioned by Weber Shandwick in partnership with KRC Research.

“When dozens of CEOs spoke up about the new administration’s decisions regarding issues like climate change and travel to the US from select countries, for example, social media ignited, protests erupted and media attention exploded. Navigating how to communicate a company’s point of view in this environment is becoming increasingly complex and important. Future generations will only pay closer attention to how companies communicate around their values when it comes to deciding where to work or who to purchase from,” said Andy Polansky, CEO of Weber Shandwick.

Millennials’ buying decisions influenced by CEO activism

CEO activism positively affects millennials’ purchase decisions, according to the survey. Half of millennials (51%) say they would be more likely to buy from a company led by a CEO who speaks out on an issue they agree with. This rate has increased since 2016 (46%). This form of “voting by wallet” is not to be ignored as companies fiercely compete for customers. By comparison, CEO activism is less likely to affect the purchase decisions of Gen Xers and Boomers.

m2

The risk of silence

This survey also asked consumers what they think the risks are of not speaking out. Half of Americans (47%) believe the biggest risk of a CEO not speaking out on a hotly debated issue is some form of criticism, whether it comes from the media (30%), customers (26%), employees (21%) or the government (9%). Top perceived risks do not differ by generation.

“For companies looking to increase sales, recruitment, innovation and word of mouth, millennials’ bias toward CEO activism should not be overlooked. This generation is heavily purpose-driven and is already changing the game when it comes to how we work and where people want to work,” said Leslie Gaines-Ross, chief reputation strategist of Weber Shandwick.

Source: marketing-interactive.com; 1 Aug 2017

Men are ‘more responsive’ to online ads: Eye-tracking research

In a study by Shutterstock, men looked at ads longer and noticed more ads than women.

An image of a child in a ballpit with a heatmap showing where most people’s eyes were drawn.

An image of a child in a ballpit with a heatmap showing where most people’s eyes were drawn.

Men are more responsive to online ads than women, according to an eye-tracking study by picture provider Shutterstock.

Shutterstock’s study, carried out by eye-tracking specialists Lumen, found that simple image-led online ads which mirror the demographic profile of their target audience perform best.

Males looked at the ads for 0.4 seconds longer than females (0.9 seconds vs 0.5 seconds) while noticing a third of the ads in the study compared to a quarter for females.

Meanwhile image-led ads featuring children were shown to be more engaging to parents: those with children viewed 25 percent of these ads for an average of 1.3 seconds, compared to those without children who viewed 22 percent of the ads for an average of 0.8 seconds. Similar figures were found for images of an elderly couple being viewed more by people aged over 55 years old.

Data also showed that marketers selecting the correct images can double the amount of time that online ads are viewed on desktop.

The top-performing ad was viewed for 1.4 seconds, compared to a benchmark dwell time of 0.7 seconds.


Jeff Weiser, chief marketing officer at Shutterstock, said: “It’s notoriously hard to prove the effectiveness of online ads but this study goes a long way to showcasing what type of images engage viewers and therefore what kinds of ads are most effective. For marketers looking to produce online ad campaigns, they should seek to use simple imagery that appeals to the target demographic.”

The study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, 150 panellists were shown 65 images (taken from Shutterstock’s picture library) in a randomised order to find out which were the most engaging. In the second phase, the top, middle and bottom performing images from the first study were used to create 16 image-led ads, which were then shown to a panel of 148 individuals, within a “typical online browsing environment”. Throughout the entire study, panellists’ eye movements were tracked to measure engagement.

Source: Campaign UK; 24 July 2017