Survata Study Uncovers Consumer Sentiment on Smart Speaker Sponsored Content

Read our exclusive release with Business Insider.
Download our full Smart Speaker Insights Sheet here.

Survata Study Uncovers Consumer Sentiment on Smart Speaker Sponsored Content
Apple HomePod Owners are Most Interested in Sponsored Content

In a study of 2,000 U.S. consumers, Market and Advertising Research and Measurement firm Survata today released findings on consumers’ sentiment toward receiving sponsored content on smart speakers, a growing consumer-device market. While the majority of consumers aren’t enthusiastic about experiencing more advertising, Survata found some interesting trends among the different smart-speaker brand owners.

Though they represented the smallest segment of smart speaker owners, Apple HomePod users are the most likely to be interested to hear about sponsored products or services (35 percent). That stands in contrast to Google HOME owners at 22 percent and Amazon Echo/Dot users at only 17 percent. In addition, Apple HomePod owners also were the most likely to think sponsored content would very positively affect their smart-speaker experiences (22 percent), compared to only 12 percent for Google HOME owners and 7 percent for Amazon Echo/Dot owners.

As brands and advertisers look to new ways to connect with potential customers, Survata also analyzed the types of sponsored content that consumers would find most helpful. Almost half (47 percent) thought restaurant sponsored recommendations would be helpful, with special events (41 percent), groceries (39 percent) and electronic products (37 percent) rounding out the top four.

The smart speaker study also uncovered some other notable findings, including:
23 percent: Ages 35-54 were the most likely group to be interested in sponsored content.
41 percent: High-frequency smart speaker users also were most likely to have interest in sponsored content.
38 percent: A plurality of consumers use their smart speaker 2-10 times a day.
72 percent: The most common task people use their smart speaker for is to listen to music, followed by checking the weather (54 percent) and asking questions or facts (52 percent).

For a full breakdown of all of the Survata Smart Speaker Study findings, you can view the full report here.

Survata conducted its Smart Speaker study in September 2018, interviewing 2,001 consumers. For more information on Survata’s methodology, please visit www.survata.com/methodology.

Download our full Smart Speaker Insights Sheet here.

2018 Midterm Elections – Insights Sheet

2018 Midterm Elections Insights Sheet

Survata conducted a study to determine sentiment towards the upcoming 2018 Midterm Elections the weekend prior to voting day. Metrics such as voter turnout, registration, political ideology, and voting issues were included.

Findings include:

-Among voters planning to turn out, Asian Americans (92%) lead for ethnic groups, Liberals for ideology (94%), and Suburbanites (87%) for communities.

-When it came down to the issues respondents expressed the most consideration for healthcare (64%), taxes (56%), and the economy (54%).

-34% of 18-24 year-olds will consider the #MeToo movement while voting during the Midterm Elections.

To download the full Insights Sheet – click here.

Nudge Theory in Research



This is Part 1 out of 3 written by our Market Research Ops Analyst, Jason Lee, on how Researchers can ensure they are writing their studies in the best way to get better data.

Nudge Theory in Research
By Jason Lee

Surveys… we’ve all taken them a hundred and one times for a million different reasons. Chances are, you’ve recently taken one, and you didn’t think too hard about it. But have you ever considered that the wording of the question, or even the placement of the answers may have influenced your choice? That the mere BOLDING, underlining, italicizing of a phrase could drastically alter the way you perceive and answer a question?

In recent years, Nudge theory has gained popularity and renown worldwide in every aspect of life – from Silicon Valley tech companies to politics, and even to public health. This new-age theory in behavioral science, political theory and economics, suggests that indirect influence and subtle suggestions can be harnessed as ways to influence people’s behavior and decision-making.

Nudging provides an alternative to traditional ways of achieving positive results, such as through educating, creating legislation or enforcing through mandates or demands. After being published, Nudge theory was quickly accepted and has since influenced the way several political campaigns have unfolded in the US[1] and Great Britain[2]. Several “nudge units”[3] exist around the world at all levels from national (UK, Germany, Japan and others[4]) all the way to the international level (IMF, World Bank, United Nations).

We can define the ”Nudge” as all persuasive action leading up to the final decision a person makes. Also known as choice architecture,[5] the “Nudge” is described in The Journal of Consumer Research as the “design of different ways in which choices can be presented to consumers, and the impact of that presentation on consumer decision-making which then can alter someone’s behavior in a predictable fashion without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives.”[6] In layman’s terms, nudge theory doesn’t take away choices, or alter the reward at the end to achieve results. Instead, it uses certain methods of pushing the brain to make a certain choice, even without that person actively knowing they’re being influenced. To count as a mere nudge, the intervention must be easy and “cheap” to avoid[7]. Nudges cannot be demands, mandates, or exclusions of choices.

To put this concept into perspective, if a supermarket wants customers to make healthier choices, they could place the fruit at eye level and move the junk food onto the higher or lower shelves. This would count as a nudge. However, if a supermarket were to refuse to carry junk food, this would not be a nudge, since the supermarket is now limiting the choices of the customer. [8]

Nudge theory has been widely accepted by fortune 500 companies for managerial practices, by governments to sway decision making, and even by local grocery stores to promote better patron health. So why hasn’t market research caught on? As researchers why are we not more frequently, and consistently using Nudge theory to create better questions, to ensure better results?

In light of all of this, you may be asking yourself “How can I incorporate this into my studies? How do I take this theory and apply it in the field?”.

Take a minute to think about the questions below. Do you have the answer?

“A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”

A. $0.05

B. $0.10

C. $0.15

D. $0.20

Many people respond by saying that the ball must cost 10 cents. Is this the answer that you came up with? Although this response intuitively springs to mind, it is incorrect. If the ball cost 10 cents and the bat costs $1.00 more than the ball, then the bat would cost $1.10 for a grand total of $1.20.

But what if we change the formatting of the question? After reading these, do you have a different answer?

“A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”

“A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”

“A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”

“A bat and a ball cost $1.10 IN TOTAL. The bat costs $1.00 MORE THAN the ball. How much does the ball cost?”

A. $0.05

B. $0.10

C. $0.15

D. $0.20

The correct answer to this problem is that the ball costs 5 cents and the bat costs — at a dollar more — $1.05 for a grand total of $1.10.

After running this study for 250 respondents on the Survata platform, one can see that over 83% of respondent chose the incorrect answer when presented the question without formatting.

But why do so many people answer incorrectly? The answer is that people often substitute difficult problems with simpler ones in order to quickly solve them. In this example, some people seem to unconsciously substitute the “more than” statement in the problem (the bat costs $1.00 more than the ball) with an absolute statement (the bat costs $1.00). This makes the problem easier to solve.

Now that we know the above, is it possible for us as researcher to “nudge” the brain to slow down? Will that “nudge” result in answers that are far more likely to be correct and of a higher quality? Are there techniques which work better than others?

This phenomenon of irrationality, where the same questions/answers, simply formatted differently, with or without bolding, underlining, italics, or CAPITALIZATION will lay the groundwork of the next few articles to come. By the end of this series, I hope to have rattled your brain enough for you to ask the most important question as researcher: “How do I ensure that I’m asking better questions, so that I will receive the best possible data?”

Sources:

[1] Carol Lewis (2009-07-22). “Why Barack Obama and David Cameron are keen to ‘nudge’ you”. London: The Times. Retrieved 2009-09-09.

[2] “About us – Behavioural Insights Team – GOV.UK”. www.gov.uk.

[3] Ebert, Philip; Freibichler, Wolfgang (2017). “Nudge management: applying behavioural science to increase knowledge worker productivity”. Journal of Organization Design. 6:4.

[4] 5555, corporateName=Department of Premier and Cabinet; address=1 Farrer Place, Sydney, NSW, 2000; contact=+61 2 9228. “Behavioural Insights Unit – What’s new in the Behavioural Insights Unit”. bi.dpc.nsw.gov.au.

[5] Scheibehenne, Benjamin; Greifeneder, Rainer; Todd, Peter (2010). “Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload”. Journal of Consumer Research. 37(3): 409–25. doi:10.1086/651235. JSTOR 10.1086/651235

[6] Thaler, Richard H.; Sunstein, Cass R.; Balz, John P. (2013). Shafir, Eldar, ed. The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 428–39.

[7] Saghai, Yashar (2013). “Salvaging the concept of nudge”. Journal of Medical Ethics. 39: 487-493. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100727.

[8] Kroese, F.; Marchiori, D.; de Ridder, D. (2016). “Nudging healthy food choices: a field experiment at the train station”. Journal of Public Health. 38 (2): e133-e137.

Survata at PRSA International Conference 2018

Survata was invited by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) to speak with our client (Dynamic Signal) at their International Conference in Austin. The session “Viral PR: How Data Studies Inform News and Syndicate to Shape Industries” will take place on October 7th at 4:45 PM and cover how organizations can create, execute and pitch data studies that go viral and drive PR, marketing and sales success.

Session Objectives:
-Understand how data studies can inform their news strategies.
-Determine where white spaces exist for them to own a metric.
-Create studies and surveys that drive to viral headlines.
-Inform their larger thought-leadership, marketing communications and product-messaging initiatives.

Speakers:
Joelle Kaufman, CMO, Dynamic Signal
Chris Kelly, CEO, Survata
Sam Moore, Public Relations, Sam Moore Communications

To learn more about session, please visit the PRSA website. Attending the conference? Send us a note to connect.

Insights Summary: Nike + Colin Kaepernick

Survata conducted a study to determine consumer sentiment towards the Nike ad featuring Colin Kaepernick the week it aired. Metrics such as brand favorability, and purchase / viewing intent were included for both Nike and the NFL.

Summary
The sample was nationally representative of the US population on age and gender. Over one-third of respondents (35%) chose not to disclose their political affiliation, likely due to the sensitive nature of the survey topic.

Almost half of all respondents have purchased Nike in the past (48%). Ad recall for the Nike ad featuring Colin Kaepernick was 42% at the overall level. Those who reported having seen the Nike ad were more likely to view Nike favorably than those who had not seen the ad (29% to 16%).

Download the full Insights Summary Sheet here to get additional data broken down by age, gender, and political idealogy.

Survata interviewed 501 online respondents between September 7th–10th, 2018. The study was sampled within the United States, and was nationally representative of the US population on age and gender. The margin of error for this study at a 95% confidence level is 4.4%.

To learn about about Survata Market Research, please contact us.

Survata Snags Serial Entrepreneur and Market Research Veteran as First President

Read Dyna’s profile piece on MediaPost’s Data & Programmatic Insider.

Former UBMobile Founder and CEO Dyna Boen Will Lead Survata Market Research

SAN FRANCISCO — Leading Advertising Measurement and Market Research technology company Survata today announced it hired market research guru and former UBMobile co-founder and COO Dyna Boen as president of Market Research, the first appointment of its kind for the company. The announcement follows Survata recently closing its Series B funding round of $14 million.

Boen has spent her entire career in market-research technology and has been a part of multiple successful exits. Recognized as a well-respected influencer, educator and mentor in the brand marketing and research arenas, she successfully steered her most-recent endeavor UBMobile to a June 2018 acquisition by top market-insights firm CriticalMix. At UBMobile, Boen helped build its LifeTap mobile community and app, which included gesture-based surveys, video and image capture, GPS location and device-usage data, into what became known as the “Tinder” of market research. In less than two years, UBMobile assembled a client roster of many blue-chip brands, including Verizon, NBCUniversal, Sephora, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut.

Prior to UBMobile, Boen was co-founder and CRO of TrueSample, a research technology startup that was acquired by Imperium in 2017. In addition, Boen also was an early employee and executive at MarketTools and Zoomerang (the first online survey company), which were both acquired by SurveyMonkey.

“We couldn’t be more excited to have Dyna take the helm of our fast-growing market research business, which has amassed more than 2,500 customers in the last six years,” said Chris Kelly, co-founder and CEO of Survata. “ While we’ve had a successful journey so far, we recognized that Dyna’s deep experience, innovative approach and technology expertise in Market Research would allow Survata to more quickly become a complete platform for brand intelligence.”

Boen will lead all aspects of Survata’s Market Research business and plans her early focus on leveraging Survata’s unique tech-driven approach to conducting research, its Publisher Network, to build the company into a comprehensive brand-intelligence platform. Specifically, she plans to re-prioritize and deploy Survata’s existing technology assets, while also strengthening its mobile, geolocation and respondent-targeting capabilities. Pioneered at UBMobile, Boen also plans to integrate her signature ”3D Insights” approach into Survata, where stated and behavioral data are captured and combined with geolocation and real-time data.

“Technology has reshaped how marketing uses market research and how brands evaluate which companies to work with, and Survata is an example of how market research is expanding outside of just a niche function,” said Boen. “Survata will be the central hub of market intelligence for brands, and this appointment not only allows me to help them achieve this vision, but also to return to my entrepreneurial roots by building a team and a complete product.”

Boen also serves as a leader within the Women in Research organization, often mentoring up-and-coming stars within Market Research.

ABOUT SURVATA
Survata is a fast-growing measurement technology company that provides Advertising Measurement and Market Research to the world’s leading brands and agencies. The Survata platform provides the world’s fastest way to measure the branding impact of advertising, and measure the behaviors and opinions of consumers. The company is headquartered in San Francisco and backed by leading Silicon Valley venture capital investors. Learn more at www.survata.com

Webinar Recording – Accuracy Case Study: Panels vs. SurveyWalls

Accuracy Case Study: Panels vs. SurveyWalls

Thank you to the attendees to our 8/16/18 Greenbook Webinar, “Accuracy Case Study: Panels vs SurveyWalls”. Couldn’t attend? You can access the slides and the recording here.

We hope you can join us at a future Survata Webinar!

Interested in learning more about how Survata’s Publisher Networks yields higher response quality over in-person panels? Send us a note.

Webinar – Accuracy Case Study: Panels vs. SurveyWalls


Join us on Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 2 pm ET to find out if monetary incentives of panels could lead to bad data.

Survata will reveal the results of two market research studies (1 CPG, 1 Apparel) collected across both a panel and a SurveyWall to see which method offers better accuracy. Digital publishers want to monetize their content, and a simple SurveyWall can easily replace a paywall and allow consumers to access the premium content they desire by answering survey questions. Unlike traditional panels where survey respondents are compensated, a SurveyWall is a cashless transaction that can benefit the researcher, the survey respondent, and the digital publisher.

Register today to:

-Understand the difference between an in-person panel and online SurveyWalls
-Review the results of a study to see which method yields better accuracy
-Understand how different incentive systems can affect data quality

We will answer these questions:

-How do SurveyWalls differ from other offer walls?
-Can you determine feasibility of sample from a SurveyWalls vs. panel?

Save your seat >>

The Global Conscious Consumer with Jascha Kaykas-Wolff, CMO of Mozilla

Brand Knew is a new podcast featuring interviews with marketing leaders of major national brands. Hosted by Austin Moorhead, the podcast will dive into how consumers are changing and what brand leaders are doing about it. Survata is proud to be the sponsor – check out their fourth episode below with Mozilla CMO, Jascha Kaykas-Wolff, and be sure to subscribe for future episodes with marketing thought leaders.

——

Brand Knew Ep. #4: The Global Conscious Consumer with Jascha Kaykas-Wolff, CMO of Mozilla

Mozilla, the company that makes the Firefox browser, competes with Google, Apple and Microsoft. Mozilla’s never going to win a traditional marketing battle against these goliaths, so instead they focus on long-term brand-building initiatives: art installations and advocacy for an open internet.

Listen to the CMO of Mozilla, Jascha Kaykas-Wolff, discuss his approach to brand building, their discovery of the global “conscious chooser” segment, and why he thinks it’s important to teach incarcerated individuals how to code.

Find Brand Knew Podcast on SoundCloud and iTunes and be sure to subscribe.

Survata ‘Tech Trust Index’ Finds Tech Brands Consumers Trust Most with Their Data

Amazon takes top spot by wide margin, but technology least-trusted sector

In a study of more than 2,600 consumers released exclusively with Business Insider, market and advertising research firm Survata today released its “Tech Trust Index,” a ranking of the top 15 tech brands most trusted by consumers’ with their personal data.

The Index, which asked consumers to rate many of the most well-known tech brands from one to five (one being most trusted; five being least trusted), found that Amazon was by far and away the most-trusted tech brand with an average score of 1.87. Amazon was the only company with a rating under two (2), with Paypal coming in second place with a 2.05 average rating.

The rest of the top 15 ranked as follows: Microsoft (2.13), Apple (2.26), IBM (2.41), Yahoo (2.43), Google (2.53), YouTube (2.58), eBay (2.78), Pandora (2.88), Facebook (2.90), Linkedin (2.97), Spotify (3.16), AOL (3.20) and Instagram (3.24).

Facebook, which recently has been at the center of a lot of consumer data controversy, seemed to create the most polarization among consumers, as they overwhelmingly either ranked it as most trusted (1) or least trusted (5).

In addition to identifying the top 15 most-trusted tech brands, Survata also studied consumers on a number of other questions regarding their data preferences. Those results include:

    -58 percent of consumers would not pay a tech platform a nominal fee to avoid it using their data. Only 8 percent said they would, with 34 percent unsure.

    -A surprisingly large one-third (33 percent) of consumers value the convenience technology adds to their lives more than their data privacy. However, the youngest age group (18-24) was the most likely (42 percent) to value convenience more than data privacy.

    -The consumer-technology sector was the least-trusted sector by consumers, even losing significantly to retailers, which have had their own battles with high-profile breaches. Unsurprisingly, healthcare was the most-trusted sector.

    -Nearly 70 percent of consumers think they should control when and how a public tech platform uses their data, even if they voluntarily put that data on that platform.

Survata conducted its Tech Trust Index study from April 23-26, interviewing 2,601 consumers. For more information on Survata’s methodology, please visit www.survata.com/methodology.