Shopper eye-tracking correlated directly against per-location sales data
Consumer healthcare brand marketing a portfolio of over-the-counter products through independent and chain pharmacies.
Confidential case study — anonymized. Full details available under NDA upon request.
Participants located specific products across three pharmacies with no prior exposure to the packaging, wearing eye-tracking glasses to capture unaided search behavior.
At two locations, participants were shown the actual product packaging beforehand, isolating unfamiliarity from poor shelf placement as the cause of delay.
Identification-time findings cross-referenced against each product’s actual monthly sales-per-location data — a measured commercial relationship, not an assumption.
| Objective Finding | Measured Value |
|---|---|
| Identification time vs. avg. monthly sales/location, flagship product — faster-ID location | 1 min 45 sec → 51 units/month |
| Identification time vs. avg. monthly sales/location, flagship product — slower-ID location | 5 min 42 sec → 20 units/month |
| Identification time vs. avg. monthly sales/location, second product — faster-ID location | 20 sec → 13 units/month |
| Identification time vs. avg. monthly sales/location, second product — slower-ID location | 7+ minutes → 5 units/month (a 160% sales gap vs. the faster-ID location) |
| Product shelf presence, third location | Not found — analysis not feasible; product absent from the shelf entirely |
| Misplacement discovered during fieldwork, slower-ID location | Second product located behind the cashier’s desk, bottom shelf — not on its category shelf |
| Unconscious-identification instance, faster-ID location | Participant’s gaze reached the product without conscious recognition; search continued 2 more minutes elsewhere |
| Recommendation | Rationale / Expected Impact |
|---|---|
| Optimize product placement to easily accessible, visible locations | Directly targets the 5:42 / 7+ minute identification times measured at the weaker locations |
| Enhance signage and category labeling | Reduces reliance on the packaging recognition that failed in the “unconscious identification” instance |
| Train staff to help shoppers locate products | Backstop for cases where placement and signage alone won’t close the gap |
| Run a store-by-store shelf-presence audit | Prevents a repeat of the location where the product could not be found on shelf at all |
| Implement an ongoing shopper-feedback mechanism | Keeps visibility issues from going undetected between formal audits |
The value of this study was not the eye-tracking data alone — it was pairing gaze data with actual sales-per-location numbers. A 1-minute-45-second identification time correlating with 51 units sold a month, against a 5-minute-42-second identification time correlating with 20 units for the exact same product at another location, turned a shelf-visibility hypothesis into a measured commercial relationship. And the location where the product simply wasn’t on the shelf at all — invisible to any planogram audit that only checks compliance on paper — is exactly the kind of gap this method is built to catch.