Haircare
_Lumos Survey

Haircare_Lumos Survey

Understanding Consumer Behavior in Shampoo Selection

Objective:

The objective of this market research study was to understand consumer preferences and behavior regarding shampoo brands. This included gathering insights into packaging design, brand perception, and purchase decision-making.

Methodology:

Quantitative Survey:
Conducted with 600 participants to gather data on consumer preferences and brand perceptions—forming the foundation for broader behavioral insights.

Eye-Tracking Analysis:
Eye-tracking technology was applied to a select group to decode real-time visual attention patterns while interacting with shampoo packaging on retail shelves—revealing what truly captures the consumer’s eye in a cluttered environment.

In-depth Interviews:
15-minute individual interviews uncovered emotional triggers, subconscious motivations, and decision-making cues that influence purchase behavior beyond price or ingredients.

A/B Packaging Testing:
Multiple packaging variations were tested to assess consumer preferences for visual elements—helping identify design attributes that drive shelf pickup and brand recall.

Client Challenges:

Low Shelf Visibility in a Cluttered Market:
With multiple brands vying for attention, the client struggled to understand why their packaging failed to stand out or grab consumer attention in retail environments.
Limited Understanding of Visual Engagement:
The brand lacked clarity on which packaging elements (colors, layout, icons) truly attract the eye—resulting in missed opportunities at the shelf.
Disconnect Between Consumer Perception and Purchase Behavior:
Despite strong brand recall, actual conversion at the shelf was low—indicating a gap between what consumers say and what they do.
Ineffective Packaging Communication:
The existing packaging failed to communicate value propositions or benefits effectively—leading to lower preference despite product efficacy.
Need for Emotionally Resonant Design Cues:
The brand needed deeper insights into the emotional and subconscious triggers that influence decision-making, beyond rational factors like price or ingredients.
Lack of Data-Driven Design Validation:
New packaging concepts were being rolled out without real behavioral validation—creating risks in product launches and rebranding efforts.

Insights and Inferences

🔍 1. Eye Tracking Participation & Brand Preference

Total Participants: 600
- ET: 80 (40 Test, 40 Control)
- Non-ET: 520 (260 Test, 260 Control)
Insight: Despite the enhanced visual engagement for the 80 ET participants, overall purchase intention and brand preference remained similarly low across both Test and Control groups. Visual attention did not translate into a stronger connection with the brand.

🧠 2. Purchase Intention & Brand Acceptance

➡ Inference:

Both groups show a lackluster purchase intent with marginal differences. The ET enhancement in the Test group did not lead to a substantial improvement in brand acceptance.

💇‍♀️ 3. Consumer Concerns (Dandruff, Itch, Oiliness, Hair fall)

➡ Inference:

While the Control group reported higher numbers for each concern, this did not drive them away from the brand. Instead, it suggests that even consumers facing more issues are not necessarily converting—highlighting an overall gap in the product’s perceived efficacy.

📅 4. Usage Frequency & Preferred Days

➡ Inference:

Usage frequency remains low and inconsistent across both groups. The slight differences in preferred week/day may reflect general shopping patterns rather than a brand-driven behavior.

💡 5. Pack Type & Brand Appeal

Test Group: Chose the new Test Pack heavily, yet rated it poorly on premium cues and overall appeal.
Control Group: Favored the existing pack design, indicating that familiarity and perceived quality drive consumer trust.
➡ Inference:
The new packaging failed to deliver the premium impression needed to shift consumer behavior, despite higher trial rates.

🛍 6. Value Proposition

Test Group: The product was perceived as offering poor value for money and lacking a premium feel.
Control Group: Although slightly better rated, overall value perception remains a challenge.
➡ Inference:
The value messaging is not resonating; both groups indicate that pricing or benefits need clearer, stronger communication.

🧴 7. Product Preference

Daily Clean variant: Received low likability in both groups.
Daily Cool variant: Although relatively better received, it did not create a compelling differentiation.
➡ Inference:
There is weak product differentiation among variants, leading to a lack of strong recall or relevance in the consumer’s mind.

✅ Key Takeaways / Client Challenges
🔸 A. Eye Tracking Exposure ≠ Emotional Impact

Enhanced visual cues from ET (40 Test, 40 Control) did not lead to increased purchase intent or brand preference.

🔸 B. Packaging Design Disconnect

The new Test Pack failed to evoke a premium perception compared to the familiar existing design—undermining first-impression impact.

🔸 C. Habit Formation and Usage Consistency

Low daily usage and inconsistent engagement across both groups suggest the brand has yet to become a habitual choice.

🔸 D. Value Proposition Shortfall

Perceived poor value for money and quality signals indicate a need to strengthen the product’s benefit and performance messaging.

🔸 E. Product Differentiation Weakness

The variants lack clear differentiation, which impedes strong consumer recall and reduces the chance of converting trial into repeat purchases.

Unlock Your Data Insights Today!

Whether you're a curious learner or an industrial client, our resources are designed to empower you with actionable data insights. Fill out the form below to instantly access our offerings and book your free consultation:

Haircare_Lumos Survey

Haircare_Lumos Survey

Objective:

Methodology:

Client Challenges:

Insights and Inferences

✅ Key Takeaways / Client Challenges

Haircare
_Lumos Survey