Tidewell wants to know whether a new shelf layout would help it at retail. We built two full-size sparkling water sets in our facility: the current set, where Tidewell sits at the right end of the aisle, and an alternative set that moves it to the center at eye and waist level. 40 category shoppers wore eye-tracking glasses, 20 per set. Each looked at the shelf freely for 10 seconds, then shopped it and chose the one 8-pack they would buy.
Tidewell share of purchases
40%+25 pts
Alternative set. Current set: 15% (3 of 20 vs 8 of 20)
Shoppers seeing each Tidewell pack
5.9 of 20
Up from 2.9 in the current set
Time to first look, Tidewell
3.8 s
Down from 5.1 s in the current set
Average price paid
$6.30
Down 2.3% from $6.45. Tidewell is priced below the category leader
Share of purchases by brand measured
Tidewell goes from a tie for third to first. It takes one purchase each from five competitors, so no single brand carries the loss. Counts are out of 20 shoppers per set, so read the size of the gain as directional.
Purchases by shelf measured
Eye level wins in both sets. The alternative set spreads a little more buying to the waist and bottom shelves.
How the test works
Who took part measured
Quotas kept age, gender and buying frequency matched across the two sets.
Each map combines every glance from the first 10 seconds the 20 shoppers spent in front of the set. Heat map shows where looking piled up. Spotlight darkens everything nobody looked at. The two count views show how many of the 20 looked at each pack, and what they finally bought.
The ten packages that pulled the most eyes in each set, then every Tidewell pack side by side. First look is seconds from stepping up to the shelf. Looking time is the total time spent on that pack in the first 10 seconds.
Top 10, current set
| Package | First look | Looking | Shoppers |
|---|
Top 10, alternative set
| Package | First look | Looking | Shoppers |
|---|
Every Tidewell pack, current vs alternative measured
| Pack | Where it sat | Shoppers cur / alt | First look (s) cur / alt | Looking (ms) cur / alt | Bought cur / alt |
|---|
Six of eight Tidewell packs make the alternative top 10. None of them made the current top 10 except Lime. At the right end of the aisle, half of Tidewell sat on the top and bottom shelves, where few shoppers looked in the first 10 seconds.
The whole shelf, not just Tidewell. Did the alternative layout make the category easier to shop, or did Tidewell only borrow attention from its neighbors?
What changed across the whole set
Shoppers looked at slightly more packages, found their first one a little sooner and stayed longer on the packs they looked at. The gains are modest for the category as a whole and large for Tidewell, which means the alternative layout mostly redistributes attention toward the center of the aisle rather than creating a lot of new looking. Corrowan, which held the left end of eye level in the current set, is still the second brand but is no longer the most looked at.
Take the alternative layout to the retailer. Moving Tidewell from the right end of the aisle to the center, at eye and waist level, roughly doubles the number of shoppers who look at each Tidewell pack (2.9 to 5.9 of 20), gets the first look about 1.4 seconds sooner and lifts Tidewell from 3 to 8 of 20 purchases.
The category does not lose. Shoppers look at slightly more packs overall and stay longer on each one. Average price paid dips 2.3%, because Tidewell sells below the category leader. Raise that with the buyer before they raise it with you.
Next step: confirm the purchase shift with an online shelf test of about 300 shoppers per layout, and test whether Tidewell keeps most of its gain with only the eye-level row, since center waist-level space is harder to win.
Why in person
Glasses record where people actually look at a real shelf, at real distance, with real lighting and real neighbors. It catches what a screen cannot: packs above or below the line of sight, ends of the aisle, and how people move along a set.
Why online too
Online heat maps reach hundreds of shoppers in days, at a fraction of the cost. They are the right tool for comparing package designs and sizing an effect. In person is the right tool for layouts, fixtures and displays.
What you get
Heat and spotlight maps for each set, package-level scores for every item on the shelf, a brand read for your packs, purchase results, and a recommendation you can take into a line review.