Test

What’s the best way to market an electric lawn mower?

4.5k participants

Setup

The focus of the test was how brands should balance personal and planetary value props when marketing sustainable products. To that end, the two assets were designed to test performance across the following A/B split:

  • AMessaging strategies focused on quality and cost savings
  • BMessaging strategies focused on environmental benefits. 

Test Results

Attention Share and Engagement Share reflect the percentage of test-wide scoring accounted for by individual variants or demographics. Read more below in the Methodology section.

Sample Size
Total: 4,540 Gender: Male: 3,825 Female: 694 Age: 18-24: 93 25-34: 208 35-44: 333 45-54: 593 55-64: 1,217 65+: 2,096
Better for Cheaper Cuts Air Pollution
Attention Share

This measures the likelihood that a message will capture eyeballs in the wild. Read more in the Methodology section below.

64% 36%
Engagement Share

This measures the likelihood that a message will elicit a meaningful reaction from the audience. Read more in the Methodology section below.

23% 77%

Aggregate Insights

Personal benefits produced more attention at the top of the funnel, but environmental benefits produced more consumer engagement.

An optimal marketing strategy would marry both value props to maximize performance throughout the funnel.

Further testing could explore differentials between different strategies for framing personal benefits — e.g. a focus on fuel savings vs. a focus on health benefits vs. focus on noise reduction, etc.

Gender-based attention and engagement shares reflect the relative attention or engagement per gender for each variant. Read more below in the Methodology section.

Sample Size
Total: 4,540 Gender: Male: 3,825 Female: 694 Age: 18-24: 93 25-34: 208 35-44: 333 45-54: 593 55-64: 1,217 65+: 2,096
Better for Cheaper Cuts Air Pollution
Attention Share

This measures the likelihood that a message will capture eyeballs in the wild. Read more in the Methodology section below.

Male
31.5% 16.5%
Female
28.4% 23.6%
Engagement Share

This measures the likelihood that a message will elicit a meaningful reaction from the audience. Read more in the Methodology section below.

Male
9% 33.5%
Female
17.6% 39.8%

Gender Insights

The male audience paid more attention and engaged more readily overall.

Both male and female audiences paid more attention to personal benefits but engaged more with environmental messaging.

Further testing could target the male audience with dual-prop variants (combining personal and environmental benefits) to determine how best to break through the attention wall while unlocking engagement potential.

Age-based attention and engagement shares reflect the relative attention or engagement per age bracket for each variant. Read more below in the Methodology section.

Sample Size
Total: 4,540 Gender: Male: 3,825 Female: 694 Age: 18-24: 93 25-34: 208 35-44: 333 45-54: 593 55-64: 1,217 65+: 2,096
Better for Cheaper Cuts Air Pollution
Attention Share

This measures the likelihood that a message will capture eyeballs in the wild. Read more in the Methodology section below.

18-24
5.6% 4.9%
25-34
5.1% 9.7%
35-44
7.2% 4.4%
45-54
7.7% 6.2%
55-64
13.5% 9%
65+
14.7% 12%
Engagement Share

This measures the likelihood that a message will elicit a meaningful reaction from the audience. Read more in the Methodology section below.

18-24
0% 0%
25-34
0% 9.4%
35-44
12.8% 42.6%
45-54
0% 3.6%
55-64
4.1% 3.8%
65+
5% 18.6%

Age Insights

Older audiences paid more attention overall, with attention breaking in favor of personal benefits.

Engagement was spotty overall and heavily concentrated in the 25-34 and 65+ demos, with both segments breaking strongly in favor of environmental benefits.

The 35-44 audience was the most difficult to reach with environmental messaging but engaged with it most readily.

Further testing could target the 35-44 audience with dual-prop variants (combining personal and environmental benefits) to determine how best to break through the attention wall while unlocking engagement potential.

Methodology

This test was conducted with two message variants and a prequalified TCD audience of 4,540 likely adopters. Among those participants, 3.3% paid measurable attention to the test assets and .5% registered measurable engagement. 

Attention Score measures the likelihood that a message will capture eyeballs in the wild. It’s calculated using the rate at which test participants respond to a CTA to learn more about the subject.

Engagement Score measures the likelihood that a message will elicit a meaningful response from the audience. It’s calculated using a proprietary algorithm that weights measurable metrics — shares, saves, likes, etc. — in a way that has proven to be meaningfully correlated (r > .5) to real-world conversion behavior.

Attention Share and Engagement Share reflect the percentage of test-wide scoring accounted for by individual variants or demographics. For example, an engagement share of 25% means the variant or demographic in question accounted for 25% of the cumulative engagement score produced by all segments in the test.

All Tests

18 Total

Test F150vert

What’s the best way to market an electric pickup truck?

Test detail
Test walmartcleanbeauty

What’s the best way to market clean beauty products?

Test detail
Test shakenbake2

What’s the best way to market sustainable packaging changes for familiar products?

Test detail
Test washer

What’s the best way to reach and engage consumers about washing their clothes in cold water?

Test detail
Test chipotletrimmed

What’s the best way to reach and engage consumers around sustainable ingredient changes?

Test detail
Test foodintrash

What’s the best way to reach and engage consumers about their personal food waste?

Test detail
Test darkpatagonia

What’s the best way to motivate consumers to recycle their old clothes?

Test detail
Test TargetCenter

What’s the best way to reach and engage consumers around plant-based food options?

Test detail