1 / 24

Influence of Detailed Photographs of Product on Customer’s Purchase Decision

Influence of Detailed Photographs of Product on Customer’s Purchase Decision. Sanjay Kumar Ranganayakulu Nikhil Bendre Shaunak Natu. Overview. Introduction Hypothesis Design of Experiment AOI’s User Testing Results Conclusion Future Scope. introduction. Increase in online shopping.

fergal
Télécharger la présentation

Influence of Detailed Photographs of Product on Customer’s Purchase Decision

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Influence of Detailed Photographs of Product on Customer’s Purchase Decision Sanjay Kumar Ranganayakulu Nikhil Bendre Shaunak Natu

  2. Overview • Introduction • Hypothesis • Design of Experiment • AOI’s • User Testing • Results • Conclusion • Future Scope

  3. introduction • Increase in online shopping. • Need for better on-line product marketing • Less research on influence of detailed photographs in customers purchase decision • People generally tend to read the reviews • Apartment selection as a product domain was selected since one of our team members worked on developing the website as an intern.

  4. hypothesis Hypothesis 1: If a set ofdetailed photographs of an apartment are presented then people would tend to read less reviews. Hypothesis 2: People would respond positively after viewing a webpage with detailed set of photographs of the product versus the webpage with only one photograph of the product.

  5. Design of Experiment • 2 by 2 within-subjects repeated measure design • Constant review quality • Independent variables (IV) • Level of Detail • High level of detail • Low level of detail • Apartment Quality • Good • Bad

  6. Design of Experiment • Dependent variables (DV) • Objective • Fixation duration • Fixation counts • Subjective • Preference ranking

  7. 2 Layouts, 4 apartments

  8. AOI

  9. User testing • 21 Participants , 18 Graduate and 3 undergraduate students • TOBII ET-1750 Eye tracker • Randomized the webpage layouts to minimize the order effects • Preference Ranking of the webpage layouts

  10. results • Quality of apartment: Good • Levels of details: High and Low • AOIs: Pictures and Reviews Interaction Plot of Mean Fixation Duration

  11. Heat map and Cluster Plot • Quality of apartment: Good • Levels of details: High and Low Low High

  12. results • Quality of apartment: Bad • Levels of details: High and Low • AOIs: Pictures and Reviews Interaction Plot of Mean Fixation Duration

  13. Heat map and Cluster Plot • Quality of apartment: Bad • Levels of details: High and Low Low High

  14. results • AOI: Pictures • Quality of apartment: Good and Bad • Level of details: High and Low Interaction Plot of Mean Fixation Duration

  15. results • AOI: Reviews • Quality of apartment: Good and Bad • Level of details: High and Low Interaction Plot of Mean Fixation Duration

  16. Cluster Plot • Quality of apartment: Good • Level of Detail: High

  17. Cluster Plot • Quality of apartment: Good • Level of Detail: Low

  18. Cluster Plot • Quality of apartment: Bad • Level of Detail: High

  19. Cluster Plot • Quality of apartment: Bad • Level of Detail: Low

  20. results Overall preference ranking distribution

  21. conclusion • Participants tend to spend more time to make a decision if there are less number of pictures than detailed pictures, since they have to rely more on the reviews. • Preference ranking data indicates that detailed pictures of an apartment could influence people to prefer an apartment even though the quality of reviews is same.

  22. Future scope • Change the quality of reviews • Good • Bad • Extend it for different products • Use a larger sample size • More representative sample demographics.

  23. Questions ?

  24. Thank You

More Related