By John Karolefski
Through a
special arrangement, presented here for discussion is an excerpt of a current
article from the monthly e-zine, CPGmatters.
Kellogg Company is enhancing
the packaging of its breakfast cereals by leveraging the consumer insights
gathered through virtual shopping. One of the brands to benefit from this
cutting-edge methodology is Kellogg’s Smart Start, a heart-healthy cold
cereal that’s low in sodium to help lower both blood pressure and cholesterol.
“Awareness was somewhat
low because it was a relatively young brand and because the heart-health
category was already crowded with brands such as Cheerios, Oatmeal Crisp
and Quaker Oatmeal, among others,” said Brian Seel, associate manager
of market research for Kellogg Company. “Beyond awareness, a key barrier
to trial was skepticism of the taste. Finally, qualitative research found
that the packaging had been criticized as being too ‘medicinal’ and lacking
in warmth.”
“The Smart Start
package needed some work,” he said.
For solutions, Kellogg
turned to Decision Insight for its virtual shopping platform called SimuShop
that enables product manufacturers to test options on the shelf.
A panel of qualified
consumers was selected and a scenario was set up for a shopping trip. A
combination of text and video cues set the context for an online shopping
experience. Video takes shoppers from the parking lot into the grocery
store and into the breakfast aisle. They can click on products for more
information such as size, nutrition and price and to make a purchase. Consumers
could buy or not buy any product, or even walk away without any purchase
(this determines the “walk-away” rate).
For Kellogg’s Smart Start,
designers developed four versions of the package that aimed to stand out
more on the shelf, present a warmer feel, and generate more trial. But
Kellogg opted not to rely on traditional methods of research that essentially
involve side-by-side comparisons of packages, “what-if”
changes in design, or expensive, full-scale in-market testing. Instead, it
turned to testing using a virtual shopping platform for a more efficient
and less costly form of research that provides the same output as an in-market
test.
At the center of the
virtual research was a four-part hierarchy of measures consisting of Sales,
Shelf Presence, Brand Equity, and Aesthetic Appeal.
The research can also
involve a combination of qualitative and quantitative exercises. After
respondents have gone through the quantitative survey and virtual shopping,
they can be intercepted by a live moderator for a one-on-one chat. The
moderator drills down more deeply into their likes and dislikes about package
design.
“Decision Insight
has used the shopping platform for several years now,” said Mr. Seel. “In
our Smart Start test, we have the validation that it does work. Our brand
and sales teams have embraced it. This is a methodology that our management
trusts.”
Discussion Questions:
What do you think of using virtual shopping programs around packaging
versus traditional methods of research such as traditional side-by-side
comparisons?
BrainTrust
Discussion Questions
Poll
Loading …
On the comparison between virtual and real-world based shopper insights, let us consider the costs and benefits. Certainly, virtual test platforms offer rapid test paradigms for potentially highly variable test stimuli sets, and thus potentially faster access to data and/or analytical results. Highly detailed vision-centric metrics such as common stopping points, browse duration, and the like can be obtained quickly in such an environment, similar to those currently collected in web-based research. More advanced virtual protocols may include eye-tracking, which often provide additional vision-centric metrics such as gaze fixation frequency, durations, sequencing, etc. These types of information can lead to important findings for concept refinement during the developmental period for prototypes and pre-launch options.
However, a growing body of convergent research has also demonstrated that our retail environments are visually over-saturated, frequently to an alarming degree. Currently, virtual environments primarily test within one sensory modality: vision (and to a far lesser extent, audition). Only visual based experiences are tested in the Kellogg case example. Therefore, most non-visual influences of brand/category merchandising on the consumer experience are missing from the evaluation and are more likely to be attenuated in importance within a decision-making hierarchy. In addition to auditory cues, other purchase-influencing cues, such as tactile-based (temperature, weight, damaged, etc.) and olfactory-based cues (think about fragranced categories such as deodorant or fabric softener sheets or bakery items) are among the necessarily missing merchandising attributes in a virtual test. This is a potentially costly trap when developing complex consumer decision trees. Certainly, in this day and age we are increasingly aware that packaging and merchandising are about more than what simply meets the eye.
Beyond concept refinement testing, let us also consider the virtual ‘environment’ as a proving ground for packaging or merchandising elements at a later stage in the process. For instance, let us ask: ‘Who are the test subjects?’ In a virtual world, we must recruit the shopper to the environment rather than allowing them to engage the environment naturally, on their own accord. This by itself introduces numerous challenges to the integrity of the resulting data, from low sample sizes and internal validity to heuristic biases and ‘observer effects’.
Further, a critical understanding of consumer “natural behaviors” means more than the collection of isolated actions of single shoppers, as is the constraint within virtual environments. In real-world tests, the interactive dynamics between members of a shopping group (or others) cannot as easily be revealed. (In the breakfast cereal category these might be parent-child or parent-parent-child interactions, etc.) While some retail categories (of SKUs within) may favor a one-to-one product-consumer relationship than others, many brand and category managers are discovering that increasingly intricate dynamics exist between the consumers and the myriad of shopping resources they have access to in-store (cell-phones, hand-held devices, in-store sales associates, circulars/coupons, etc.)
Shopper insights tests with the highest degrees of internal and external validity are most often conducted within actual selling environments with shopping behaviors and supporting data collected via non-invasive means (videography, RFID, etc.). In these cases, the shopper is unaware of the process and thus more apt to ‘act naturally’. Comparatively speaking, real-world in-store behavioral tests have been shown repeatedly to provide the most comprehensive and reliable story of what’s truly unfolding in the aisles.
While it is true that attitudinal data collected in any test environment is subject to the challenges relating to engaging the consumer, having at least one key data set that is free from many such confounds establishes a vital means of error-checking the quantitative attitudinal results beyond that which is available using virtual test protocols. In this case, it is a crucial matter of comparing what is said against what is actually done, in the real-world. This would be an ideal opportunity to combine the approaches whereby virtual testing leads to developmental insights which are then empirically validated in real stores.
In summary, it is agreed that virtual platforms have an important role to play in shopper insights research, especially during earlier creative developmental stages when creative test choice sets are larger and timeline efficiencies are more critical. However, when the time comes to understand the crucial in-aisle intersections of product, merchandising and the consumer, category stakeholders are best served testing in realities that are real rather than virtual.
For many years, leading CPG companies like Kellogg have used sophisticated eye-tracking technology to determine the effectiveness of packaging as well as shelf set plan-o-grams.
I can recall some pretty insightful learnings that resulted from the use of these virtual techniques…it’s one thing to ask what a consumer thinks based on side-by-side comparisons but it is a whole different matter to learn what really jumps out and catches their attention. Virtual shopping is the way to go, in my opinion….
Virtual testing of new package design can provide essential shopper insight–what works and what doesn’t work becomes clear quickly. Controlling the number of variables for consideration is an important step forward in reaching the best packaging option. Virtual shopping platforms are becoming more effective, screening ideas and selecting the better ones for further development. More marketers are reporting good success with these systems.
Virtual research is a great new tool to measure the impact of product and packaging options. It is likely more engaging than the traditional methods of evaluating packaging and labeling concepts. More and more people are becoming computer-wise. Generations X, Y and Z are very used to using computers and operating in the electronic world. A good message for CPGs ought to be: Go for It.
We’ve shown for years that virtual shopping can match “real world” shopping very nicely if certain conditions are met. If you believe the purpose of a package change is to help your product sell more, then VR is a great tool. If your decision criteria is not sales-based, then don’t use it. You often get different answers compared to attribute ratings or side-by-side comparisons that can lead you down the wrong or an unproductive path.
The ultimate “test” is rolling out a new package/product into the real world, where it will live or die in reality. One step back from that is full blown test market, and one step back from that is the controlled store test. With each remove from the ultimate, the odds for serious error rise. However, the need for efficient and practical methods for early indications of what will happen in the ultimate test, drive the search for tools that provide as much realism as possible.
Pursuing the hierarchy of real market > test market > controlled store test, we can continue with various in-the-store shelf tests and home use options. From there we move to the laboratory, and here is where the virtual reality methods begin to shine. And they do so primarily because of the efficiency of creating stimulus that at least has a dynamic two dimensional representation of a three dimensional world.
However, whether the experience is served up in a non-store research facility, or over the internet, it is still a very long way from the ultimate reality of the store. This means that virtual reality will be a continuing and growing contributor to development and testing, but will be most useful when comparing options in apparently realistic settings. Once the virtual setting is built, options can be tested efficiently.
I love it. But I would make sure that, at least initially, a real-world side-by-side test be in place to validate the findings. Over time, I imagine different factors could be used to create more accurate shop scenarios–such as time of year, time of day shopping, etc.
Overall, yes I think this virtual tool can be used effectively. Getting the database validated for any given retailer or CPG category, may be part of the longer-term solution.
I am a fan of the virtual shopping platform because I believe the choices more accurately reflect consumer preferences and ironically, also help to choose a broader base of consumers than the alternative of having to isolate only those consumers that are able to be available physically and in person.