|
Nimbus personnel have a combined 56 years of experience conducting packaging research for a variety of clients including:
Alldays feminine care
Always feminine care
Aquafresh toothpaste
Ariel detergent
Avella sweets
Benecol spread
Bold detergent
Bounty detergent
Charmin toilet paper
Daz detergent
Energizer flashlights
Fairy dishwashing liquid
Gilette razors
Haägen Dasz ice cream
Head & Shoulders shampoo
Kenco coffee
Kiwi shoe care
Lego toys
Lenor detergent
Nicorette anti smoking
Nike sport socks
Ocean Spray fruit juice
Old El Paso taco sauce
Pampers diapers
Persil detergent
Philadelphia cheese
Pringles chips
Shredded Wheat cereal
Staples office supplies
Volvic water
Wella shampoo
There is currently a great deal of revisionist thought in the industry which questions the wisdom of using eye tracking technology to test packages when the essential outputs are a heat map and a gaze trail. An example of this skepticism is found in the recent article by Mike Bartels in Quirk's Marketing Research Review entitled "Beyond the Heat Map." The article maintains, among other things, that there aren't enough useful analytics in such outputs to truly serve the information needs of the clients who use eye tracking for package testing. The outputs don't answer practical questions clients really have.
Unfortunately, these are the outputs that are most commonly provided by suppliers who use eye tracking technology for package testing.
The Nimbus system has always provided these outputs purely as ancillary deliverables from a package tesing project -- nice to have, but not critical to the knowlege need. Instead, Nimbus has always provided simple, practical, metric outputs that directly answer questions clients really have:
- Did shoppers see my package amid dynamic clutter?
- How long did they examine my package, if at all?
- What parts of my package did they view (Areas of Interest)?
- How long did they review the Areas of Interest?
These very reasonable questions are answered by Nimbus with the following metrics:
Question |
How answered |
Did shoppers see my package amid dynamic clutter? |
Total time (in milliseconds) the test package was viewed as a percentage of total time on the shopping trip |
How long did they examine my package, if at all? |
Total time (in milliseconds) the package was picked up from the shelf for a closer look, compared to the study-wide average time respondents spent examining packages in general |
What parts of the package did they view? |
Total time (in milliseconds) respondents spent viewing each AOI, compared to the study-wide average time respondents spent viewing package AOI's in general |
How long did they review the Areas of Interest? |
Total time (in milliseconds) respondents spent viewing each AOI on each test package |
What's the magic in this?
Metrics! Norms! Scores!
Our industry has lived with heat maps and gaze trails for so long that we've forgotten how valuable and insightful metrics can be. Nimbus never really had any dalliance with heat maps and gaze trails, although they're available as additional outputs if you like. The Nimbus system has always produced comparative metric analytics as primary outputs from a package design study.
Here are some examples of comparative metric analytic outputs from the the Nimbus system for a package testing project:
|
