Willingness to spend on eye-tracking in Australia

Willingness to spend on eye-tracking in Australia

Table 15 - Willingness to spend on eye-tracking services by different groups

When we cross-tabulate the perceived customer value from eye-tracking to add value to clients’ business with the consumers’ willingness to spend on eye-tracking as a percent of spending on usability services, we struck upon interesting results.

A staggering 56.5% of response percent was concentrated on advisory provision of eye-tracking data services. The willingness to spend less than 5% was held stronger by a response count of 9, closely followed on 8 by a willingness to spend 5-10% of the planned usability spending on eye-tracking.

The willingness to spend 5-10% out of a company’s marketing budget looked more convincing when the company would either do advisory on eye-tracking data analysis it had provided (n=8, overall response count=56.5%), but also if it could provide more than just eye-tracking, i.e. sourcing focus groups or renting laboratory facility for research use (n=7, response count=32.6%).

A reasonable 30.4% response count decided that it was all of the factors affecting the barrier to acceptance and that, if lifted by fulfilling advisory, auxiliary services or doing cost-effective eye-tracking, could make 10-30% spend on eye-tracking service a much stronger proposition.

Table 16 - Cross tabulation of willingness to spend versus expectations

When we cross-tabulate the responses to the perceived barriers of acceptance to eye-tracking with the responses to the willingness to spend on eye-tracking as part of expenditure on usability services, we found some intriguing findings.

The cross-tabulation shows that the willingness to spend 5-10% of their budget in buying eye-tracking service will be much stronger if a company like Realeyes could provide more awareness about the tracking technology as well as its benefits in present-day research, according to 51.2% of the audience. About 23% agreed that providing after-sales service would encourage the willingness to spend about 5-10% of budget.

The cross-tabulation shows us to interpret that the optimal no: of responses that agree on 5-10% willing to be spent is reached (n=8) through providing training and awareness of commercial applications of eye-tracking. Anywhere Beyond or before 5-10%, the response count evenly decreases.

The results are a bit inconclusive while explaining the willingness to spend, when we look at option “all of the above” as barriers to acceptance of eye-tracking. Identical response counts (n=3) are obtained for both “Nil” and 5-10% of budget to be spent on eye-tracking.

The response counts are identical (n=5) when it comes to one of the barriers to acceptance being the lack of client awareness of eye-tracking applications. The response count willing to spend less than 5% is identical to the count spending 10-30%.

- A faction of 10 responses (n=7) suggested other barriers to accepting eye-tracking as a service, the main factor being the cost associated with the service, and especially testing large numbers. There were concerns shown in spending on eye-tracking when the project was already over budget and pressed for time.

- Another claimed that it was the lack of efficacy in literature and a low cost-benefit ratio that others support saying that it is an “expensive answer” to a rather low level set of questions.

An Australian supplier on the other end made a comment on the survey, saying that the interpretation & establishment of meaningful results is very important. Examples of Design A improved to become Design B because of the eye-tracking results”.

But we believe that every other research method faces this case of doing justice to the data collected by interpreting it right to recommend on meaningful results of eye-tracking service.

9. 
   
   Download 4.93 Mb.
   
   Share with your friends: