Correctly Identifying In-Market Success
TLDR: Biometric, Eye tracking, and Facial Coding Data combined can better identify in-market success.
In this collaborative study between Mars, the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute and MediaScience, our experimental design paired sales impact (single source measured) with both traditional and neuro measures.
Mars benefits from having single-source data to help inform them of the advertising throughput of their commercials. We were tasked to use eye tracking, biometric, facial coding, and self-report tools to to analyze 130 advertisements and pick where advertisements fell within a 1-4 scale – the Mars scale is a 1-4 measure of sales impact of their ads, if an ad scores a 1 it had a poor impact, if it scored a 4 it had very strong sales impact.
Mars provided us the 130 advertisements and the ad score was blinded to us. The purpose of the study was to correctly identifying in-market success.
What we found:
Survey data was 58% accurate while biometrics were 78% accurate when compared to the actual Mars scale. Which was more accurate in correctly identifying market success and statistically significantly better than chance.
A ground breaking discovery we made was the accuracy of which our measures could be used to selected the strongest and poorest performing ads as well as the average performing ads.
Humor is really critical to Mars ads, but now we have an objective base to predict humor.
We can also predict different types of humor: Continuous and Set Up / Pay Off.
Advertisers should establish in advance the desired audience response from any advertisement (e.g., laughter or attention to the brand) and use evidence-supported measures and analysis to ensure the desired response is achieved.
Key biometrics and objective coding are useful under defined conditions, whereas traditional survey measures offer no additional value.