Setup
The focus of the test was how grocery chains can most effectively promote their food waste initiatives. To that end, the two assets were designed to test performance across the following A/B split:
- AMessaging strategies focused on reducing waste
- BMessaging strategies focused on fighting hunger.
A
B
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.
Aggregate Insights
Messaging around reducing waste produced more attention at the top of the funnel and more engagement deeper down the funnel.
The general consistency between the attention and engagement shares for both assets suggests that top-of-funnel consumer interest in waste reduction is matched by genuine consumer passion as well — i.e., "fight food waste" wins hearts as well as eyeballs.
Further testing could explore (a) whether marrying both value props in one message produces more attention and engagement than either individually and (b) whether using a more emotionally charged image for the "fight hunger" asset — e.g., a person at a food bank — changes the relative performance of the two messages.
Gender-based attention and engagement shares reflect the relative attention or engagement per gender for each variant. Read more below in the Methodology section.
Gender Insights
The test population skewed toward male participants, who demonstrated a preference for "fight food waste" across attention and engagement metrics.
With a smaller sample size, the female audience also preferred "fight food waste" across attention and engagement metrics but engaged more overall than the male audience and engaged with "fight hunger" at a relatively higher rate.
Further testing could target the female audience with a combined message to determine whether the engagement potential suggested by this sample can be unlocked at scale.
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.
Age Insights
The attention and engagement advantage of "fight food waste" persisted across all age brackets but was most pronounced among participants under the age of 35.
Attention for both messages was fairly balanced among participants over the age of 45, although "fight food waste" was still a strong engagement winner for all brackets except 45-54.
Further testing could specifically target participants in the 45-54 age bracket with a combined message to determine whether the engagement potential suggested by this sample can be unlocked at scale.
Methodology
This test was conducted with two message variants and a prequalified TCD audience of 2,834 likely adopters. Among those participants, 7% paid measurable attention to the test assets and 4.7% 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.
