Eye Tracking in Neuromarketing: What Customers Really See
Gaze data shows what customers look at. Two studies of advertisements and shelves show what it can say about liking and buying, and where it stops.
Answer to the question
What does eye tracking neuromarketing show?
Eye tracking neuromarketing records where a viewer's gaze falls on an advertisement, screen or shelf. It measures attention, not liking or intent. In a study of 1363 print advertisements the picture won attention at any size, and in a shelf study the middle shelf drew attention without better evaluation.
Key takeaways
- Philip Graves argues in Consumer.ology that what people do is better evidence than their own explanations, and a gaze record is a behavioural measure of where attention went.
- Pieters and Wedel analysed 1363 print advertisements with more than 3600 consumers: the picture captured attention at any size, text in proportion to its size, and the brand element passed attention on best.
- Chandon and colleagues found that more shelf facings improved evaluation of supermarket brands, and that the effect worked entirely through greater visual attention.
- In the same shelf study, top and middle shelves drew more attention than low shelves, but only the top shelf improved evaluation.
- A gaze record describes attention. Liking, memory and intent need a second measure beside it.
[Eye tracking neuromarketing](https://thewhyweproject.com/articles/neuromarketing-software) records where a viewer's gaze lands on an advertisement, a screen or a shelf, and it asks for no opinion. The result is a record of attention, used for advertising, packaging and screen design. Philip Graves argues in Consumer.ology that people often cannot say why they bought something, and that the more reliable evidence is what they do. A gaze record fits that argument, and the practical question is how much it can carry.
What eye tracking neuromarketing actually measures
Eye tracking neuromarketing starts from a simple output: where the eyes pointed and for how long. Researchers usually summarise it as heat maps, gaze paths and the time spent on each region of a page, pack or shelf. Each of these describes attention. Attention is where a response to a pack or an advertisement begins, which is why it is worth measuring on its own.
Graves gives this kind of evidence a place in his argument. He holds that behaviour runs on processing a person cannot reach, that the explanations people offer are built after the fact, and that the remedy is evidence from what people do in the real setting. A gaze record is behavioural evidence of that kind. It is collected during the event, and nobody has to explain themselves to produce it.
The record also has a clear boundary. It shows that the eyes went to a region. It does not show whether the viewer liked what was there, remembered it or meant to buy it, and each of those needs its own measure beside the gaze. Eye tracking neuromarketing is one method within the wider field of neuromarketing, and it measures the eye rather than the brain.
Advertisements: which part wins the eye, which passes it on
Across 1363 print advertisements, followed with infrared eye tracking among more than 3600 consumers, the three key parts of an advertisement showed different strengths in drawing the eye. The parts were brand, pictorial and text, and the analysis came from Rik Pieters and Michel Wedel. They separated two processes: capturing attention and passing it on.
The pictorial was best at capturing attention, whatever its size. The text captured attention in direct proportion to its size, so a larger block of text drew more of the eye. The brand element was the most effective at passing attention on to the other elements. Only enlarging the text produced a net gain in attention to the advertisement as a whole.
The authors note that the pattern matches several ideas long held in advertising practice, and they frame the results as a basis for decisions about how to lay out an advertisement. The outcome throughout is attention: which part drew the eye, and which part sent it on to the next. That is a precise answer to a layout question, and it is the kind of question eye tracking neuromarketing suits well.
For a team choosing between two layouts, those findings become specific questions. Does the picture need to be large to hold the eye, or does it hold it at any size? Does the text need room to be noticed? Does the brand element sit where it can send the eye on to the rest of the page? Gaze records can answer each of these, and none of them asks a viewer to explain a preference. Why some elements stand out from a page has its own research record, and eye tracking neuromarketing adds a measure of attention to that record.
At the shelf, attention is not approval
Shelf work asks a harder question. Eye tracking in a supermarket study led by Pierre Chandon followed how the number and position of facings change attention to brands, and how those brands are then evaluated at the point of purchase. More facings improved evaluation strongly, and the effect worked entirely through greater visual attention. The gain was largest among frequent users of a brand, for brands with a low market share and among younger, more educated consumers who weigh brand against price.
Position gave a different result. Top and middle shelves drew more attention than low shelves, yet only the top shelf improved how the brand was evaluated. A middle-shelf brand was looked at more without being rated higher. That is the clearest case in these two studies for reading a gaze record as attention alone. Chandon and colleagues draw their own conclusion: eye tracking and purchase data should be combined to assess in-store marketing in full.
Anyone commissioning or reading an eye tracking neuromarketing study can put four questions to it.
- What did viewers have to do while their gaze was recorded?
- Which second measure sits beside the gaze: recall, evaluation or purchase?
- Which viewers were recorded, and does the effect hold for new buyers as well as regular ones?
- Does the claim stay with attention, or has it been stretched to liking or intent?
A study that reports only gaze can still settle a layout question. A claim about liking or buying needs a second measure beside it, taken from the same viewers.
Common questions
What does eye tracking neuromarketing show?
Eye tracking neuromarketing shows where a viewer's gaze falls and for how long, on an advertisement, a screen or a shelf. That is a measure of attention. Liking, memory and intent need separate measures.
Does looking at a product mean a customer will buy it?
Looking is a measure of attention and not a purchase. In a supermarket study of shelf position, top and middle shelves drew more attention than low shelves, but only the top shelf improved how the brand was evaluated.
What have eye tracking studies found about advertisements?
In an analysis of 1363 print advertisements with more than 3600 consumers, the picture was best at capturing attention whatever its size, and text captured attention in proportion to its size.
Why combine eye tracking with other data?
The authors of the shelf study conclude that eye tracking and purchase data should be combined to assess in-store marketing fully, because attention and evaluation did not always move together.
Sources
Graves, P. Consumer.ology.
Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (2004). 'Attention capture and transfer in advertising: Brand, pictorial, and text-size effects.' Journal of Marketing, 68(2). doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.2.36.27794. Read at the level of the abstract.
Chandon, P., Hutchinson, J. W., Bradlow, E. T., & Young, S. H. (2009). 'Does in-store marketing work? Effects of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of purchase.' Journal of Marketing, 73(6). doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.6.1. Read at the level of the abstract.