Read more of the key findings and support materials of this presentation by visiting here: http://www.radware.com/mobile-sotu2013/ to download the full “State of the Union: Mobile Ecommerce Performance Report.” As a featured speaker at the Velocity Europe Conference, Radware Solution Evangelist Tammy Everts shared research from the first documented study on the neurological impact of poor performance on mobile users. The study involved using electroencephalography (EEG) and electrooculograph (EOG) technology to monitor brain wave activity, eye movements, and facial muscle movements in a group of mobile users who were asked to perform a series of online transactions via mobile devices.

1. Mobile Web Stress
Understanding the neurological
impact of poor performance
Tammy Everts
Velocity Europe – November 2013

2. Why neuroscientific mobile testing?
Slide 2

3. • 2010 EEG study of desktop
users
• Throttled connection from 5MB
to 2MB
• Found that participants had to
concentrate up to 50% harder
• Afterward, participants reported
negative brand associations
Slide 3

4. Slide 4

5. Slide 5

6. It’s a mobile-first world.

7. 55% of all time spent
on retail sites takes
place on a mobile device.
Shop.org / comScore, October 2013
Slide 7

8. Slide 8

9. Stuart McMillan, Schuh’s Journey to RWD (Conversion Conference 2013)
Slide 9

10. Three all-too-common
mobile assumptions

11. Assumption #1
Mobile users expect pages to be slow.
Slide 11

12. Keynote, 2012 Mobile User Survey
Slide 12

13. Radware, 2013 State of the Union: Mobile Ecommerce Performance
Slide 13

14. Radware, 2013 State of the Union: Mobile Ecommerce Performance
Slide 14

15. Assumption #2
Mobile users want to browse, not buy.
Slide 15

16. By 2017,
retail mcommerce
is expected to hit
$113 billion –
26% of total
ecommerce sales.
eMarketer, September 2013
Slide 16

17. Mobile shopping cart
abandonment rate
is 39% greater
than desktop rate.
2013 Google I/O
Slide 17

18. Assumption #3
Users will stick around, even if pages
are slow, if they really want to buy.
Slide 18

19. Skava/Harris Interactive, 2013
Slide 19

20. What is emotional
engagement research?

21. “95% of the consumer’s
decisions are made at the
subconscious level.”
Dr. Gerald Zaltman, Harvard University Executive Committee of Harvard University’s
Mind, Brain and Behavior Interfaculty Initiative
Slide 21

22. Slide 22

23. Slide 23

24. Slide 24

25. Patients with damage to
emotional parts of the brain
cannot make decisions,
despite having no change in IQ.
Antonio Damasio, Descartes’ Error
Slide 25

26. The problem with surveys…
Traditional research relies on eliciting post-cognitive responses.
But thinking and talking about emotions changes and distorts
them.
Slide 26

27. Five benefits of neuro-scientific testing
1
2
3
4
5
Evaluates think/feel (not say)
Quantified data, at deeper-than-Qual levels
Moment-by-moment interaction
Cause-and-effect triggers
Fresh, deeper insights
Slide 27

28. Simplified cognitive timeline
Slide 28

29. EEG Emotional Engagement Study

30. Our research team
• Seren – leaders in customer experience & service design
• Neurosense – global leader in implicit methodologies
• NeuroStrata – expert consultants in blending neuromarketing
applications
Slide 30

31. The brands we tested
Slide 31

32. Our testers
• 20 testers (male and female)
• Pre-screened to ensure normal cognitive functioning
• Mobile device users
• Did not know they were part of a performance study
Slide 32

33. Jakob Nielsen, Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users, 2000
Slide 33

34. Methodology
• Standardized set of shopping tasks (browsing and checkout)
• Testers served sites over one of two speeds:
– normal Wifi
– artificial 500ms delay
• Using EEG headset and eyetracker, measured moment-bymoment responses
Slide 34

35. Slide 35

36. Why test a 500ms delay?
Case study: The impact of HTML delay on mobile business metrics
Slide 36

37. We focused on the metrics most affected by the 500ms delay.
Frustration
Emotional engagement
Slide 37

38. Slide 38

39. Normal speed
2.66s
2.92s
2.83s
4.24s
Slide 39

40. Frustration levels across sites (normal speed)
Slide 40

41. Engagement levels across sites (normal speed)
Slide 41

42. 500ms delay: Peak frustration results
Slide 42

43. 500ms delay: Average engagement results
Slide 43

44. Impact of site speed on post-test brand association
Slide 44

45. EEG summary
• A mere 500ms delay results in significant increase in
frustration levels.
• Faster pages result in higher levels of engagement.
• Different sites trigger emotional shifts at different phases of
the experience (browsing vs. checkout).
• Important: These tests happened under ideal browsing
conditions.
Slide 45

46. Slide 46

47. Erin Kissane, November 2013
Slide 47

48. Bonus Study: Implicit Response Test
The effect of loading speed
on brand perception

49. We react faster to congruent stimuli
than incongruent stimuli.
Slide 49

50. https://www.projectimplicit.net/index.html
Slide 50

51. Methodology: Pre-test
Two brands – Easyjet and
Ryanair – were measured
against 24 attributes.
Slide 51

52. Slide 52

53. Slide 53

54. Slide 54

55. Implicit pre-test: Brand mapping
Slide 55

56. Implicit pre-test: Purchase intent
Slide 56

57. Methodology: Test
1 Participants then viewed one of two videos depicting a flight
selection/booking process:
•
•
Normal
Slow (500ms delay per page)
2 Each brand is measured again against the same 24
attributes.
3 Difference between normal and slow indicates effect of speed
on brand perception.
Slide 57

58. EasyJet: Impact of 500ms slowdown on each dimension
Slide 58

59. EasyJet: Impact of 500ms slowdown on each attribute
Slide 59

60. Ryanair: Impact of 500ms slowdown on each dimension
Slide 60

61. Ryanair: Impact of 500ms slowdown on each attribute
Slide 61

62. Brand perception summary
• Overall, EasyJet enjoys a more positive brand perception.
• 500ms delay triggers downward shift in perception for both companies.
• Impact on EasyJet was greater than on Ryanair.
• Impact varies across attributes for each brand:
– Slow EasyJet site suffers more in Purchase Intent and Functional attributes.
– Ryanair suffers more in Warmth/Friendliness dimensions.
Slide 62

63. Slide 63

64. Takeaways

65. 1 Mobile users are significantly affected by slow performance:
up to 26% increase in peak frustration and up to 8% decrease
in engagement.
2 Slow sites can seriously undermine overall brand health –
across both desktop and mobile platforms.
3 The nature and scale of impact varies, depending on a
number of factors (e.g. inherent strength/weakness of brand).
4 Brands with already-fragile consumer affinity are at higher
risk.
5 Greatest risk is to purchase intent.
6 Great opportunities exist to strengthen overall brand by
investing in performance optimization.
Slide 65

66. Slide 66

67. Sources
Web Stress: A Wake-Up Call for European Business (Foviance, 2010)
http://www.ca.com/us/~/media/files/supportingpieces/final_webstress_survey_report_229296.aspx
2013 Social & Mobile Commerce Consumer Report (Shop.org / comScore)
http://shop.org/research/original/2013-social-mobile-commerce-consumer-report
2012 Mobile User Survey (Keynote)
http://www.keynote.com/docs/reports/Keynote-2012-Mobile-User-Survey.pdf
2013 State of the Union: Mobile Ecommerce Performance (Radware)
http://www.radware.com/mobile-sotu2013/
The Danger of a Poor Mobile Shopping Experience [INFOGRAPHIC]
http://www.getelastic.com/the-danger-of-a-poor-mobile-shopping-experience-infographic/
Case study: The impact of HTML delay on mobile business metrics (Web Performance Today, November 2011)
http://www.webperformancetoday.com/2011/11/23/case-study-slow-page-load-mobile-business-metrics/
I was a mobile-only user for six weeks (Erin Kissane)
http://the-pastry-box-project.net/erin-kissane/2013-november-12/
Slide 67

68. Questions?
Velocity Office Hour – Today @ 16:15
webperformancetoday.com
twitter.com/tameverts
linkedin.com/in/tammyeverts
plus.google.com/+TammyEverts/
Slide 68