A critical review of eye-tracking in communications research
At face value eye-tracking seems the perfect way to see if an advertisement is resonating with its target audience. So Insight decided to put it to the test. We ran a series of assessments with primary care physicians in the UK using draft and launched communication materials to find out more about the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of eye-tracking.
We compared eye-track data with qualitative follow-up. We assessed 'before and after' draft advertisements developed iteratively and conducted 'blink testing' - matching 'flash recall' with what was actually seen. Finally, we explored differences between respondent 'segments' in the way they process advertisements (male/ female, brand loyalists vs non-loyalists, highly differentiated category vs undifferentiated category).
We observed that used in isolation, eye-tracking adds little beyond observational information, much of which is reprised fairly accurately in a respondent's verbal debrief. Worse, if we relied totally on heatmaps and gazeplots we would learn little about the 'organic whole' and, would miss the respondent's interpretation of what the advertisement is asking of them and what they will do.
On a more positive note we found that eye-tracking does help validate how differences in draft advertisement s do or don't perform mechanistically. However on its own this tells us nothing about the net effect of the advert on the comprehension and call-to-action among the target audience. Where eye-tracking really adds value is where it provides an objective counterpoint to the post-rationalisation inherent in qualitative reviews, particularly regarding motivation and persuasion.
For example, we can now match reported recall with what we know respondents have (and haven't) seen as well as understanding how the order and length of time in which elements are viewed shaped their comprehension of the whole. Similarly, instantly available plots are a useful additional stimulus for the respondent to evoke how they interpreted the ad and why it is/ isn't motivating.
Eye-tracking also allows a previously unavailable level of granularity for interpreting differences between individuals'/ segments' reported preferences.
Advertisements are not meant to be understood, they are meant to persuade. Eye-tracking appeals to a 'metric culture' but this misses the point. What is paramount is how communications connect with and ultimately motivate the observer. Having said that, over-reliance on post-rationalised feedback also presents an incomplete picture. There will always be a gap between what a respondent reports and what actually happened. In summary, Insight's view is that eye-tracking has great potential as a quick and easy adjunct, adding objectivity to qualitative assessments and additional help in interpreting reported reactions and stated intention to change behaviour.
