As the Apple Watch nears its one-year anniversary, customer-acquisition platform Fluent interviewed 2,578 Americans nationwide to determine their opinions on Apple’s smartwatch. Fluent found that 197 of the surveyed users (or around 8 percent) own an Apple Watch. Another 8 percent of respondents said they owned a different kind of smartwatch.
Fluent found that 79 percent of surveyed Apple Watch owners use their device for health and fitness monitoring, as well as to access notifications. Other popular uses include listening to music (75 percent of respondents), accessing email and chat services (66 percent), playing games (63 percent), making purchases with Apple Pay (61 percent) and accessing maps and directions (61 percent).
Overall, 56 percent of surveyed owners said health and fitness monitoring was their primary purpose for using the device (other than telling time).
Of Apple Watch owners, 62 percent said they plan to upgrade to a new Apple Watch when the next edition is released.
Fluent surveyed all users about their likelihood of purchasing an Apple Watch and found that 8 percent of respondents said they “definitely will” purchase an Apple Watch in the next year, while 11 percent said they “probably will.” On the other hand, 24 percent of respondents said they “probably will not” purchase an Apple Watch in the next year, and 35 percent of users said they “definitely will not.”
Breaking these respondents into categories, Fluent found that users who own an iPhone or regularly use an Apple product are more likely to purchase an Apple Watch in the next year than Android owners.
Fluent asked users if they felt that the Apple Watch was a successful product for Apple and found that 47 percent of all respondents said yes, while 53 percent said no. For Apple Watch owners, 77 percent said yes, while 23 percent said no.
Finally, Fluent asked users if they think the “majority of Americans” will have smartwatches in 10 years, and it found that the results were evenly split–50 percent of all respondents said yes, and 50 percent said no. In terms of Apple Watch users, 75 percent said yes, while 25 percent said no.
Jason Cohen, chief marketing officer of Fluent, told SocialTimes:
8 percent of Fluent’s survey respondents said they own an Apple Watch, so with the margin of error baked in (2 percent), that translates into roughly 15 million to 20 million Americans. While that’s a far cry from the number of folks who own iPhones, the inaugural version of the Apple Watch by and large should be viewed as a smashing success. And its future looks even brighter: Nearly one-half of Americans, and 75 percent of current Apple Watch owners, believe that the majority of people will own smartwatches 10 years from now.
The other point I’d like to emphasize is that the Apple Watch is more than just a watch—it is a wearable device, and Apple Watch owners take advantage of the full breadth of features it offers, from fitness tracking, to notifications, to music, chat and payments via Apple Pay. Apple Watch owners say the primary reason they own them is for convenience (46 percent) and features (31 percent). Only 11 percent say “fashion.”
When it launched last year, many pundits were questioning Apple’s ability to tackle the watch market, but I don’t think Tim Cook and his team every seriously thought that “watch people” would dump their Pateks and Rolexes for an Apple Watch. The plan was never really to go after the watch market–it was to launch and lead a whole new category of wearable devices. I think they have succeeded in doing so with the first generation of the Apple Watch, and although it certainly isn’t perfect, and it may not have lived up to the incredible amount of media hype surrounding it when it first was brought to market, the consumer adoption is there, and opportunity abounds for the future of the Apple Watch and the wearables category.
Fluent’s complete findings are available here.
Article courtesy of SocialTimes
A simple caption can boost advertising effectiveness by 17% as measured by effect on purchase intention.
New Ohio State University research published last week in the Journal of Consumer Research (open pre-publication access) by Christopher Summers and colleagues reports that captioning an ad with the words that the ad “targeted specifically to you based on your online activity” boosted ad effectiveness compared to the same ad revealing no information about targeting. There are provisos – the effectiveness boosting effect appears to hold only when the ad actually is behaviourally targeted and perceived by the audience to be accurately so.
Interestingly, the study – picked up by the Harvard Business Review – found that same ad captioned with the words “targeted specifically to you based on your demographic information” had no significant effect on ad effectiveness. It would seem that targeting transparency for behavioural advertising boosts ad effectiveness, but not for demographic targeting.
Why might targeting transparency boost behavioural ad effectiveness? The basic psychology of priming could account for this effect because reminding people of their past behaviour can increase the mental salience of associated behaviours (AKA primes), making these associated behaviours and responses more likely. This behavioural ‘identity priming’ – highlighting aspects of an individual’s behavioural identity – might explain why targeting transparency enhances behavioural advertising effectiveness.
However the authors offer an alternative explanation; they suggest that the bump in ad effectiveness may be due to the effects of ‘social labelling’ – when audiences believe they are being behaviourally targeted (accurately) as individuals (not stereotypes), they perceive marketers as labelling them (accurately), and may adjust their self-perceptions to better match these accurate (and desirable) social labels. This might explain the differences between the effectiveness of targeting transparency for behavioural ads and the non-effectiveness of targeting transparency for ‘demographic targeting’; its the difference between ‘we believe you’re this stereotype (profile/group/persona/market)’ and ‘we believe you’re you‘.
Whatever the reason, (I remain more convinced of ‘priming’ explanation), when it comes to behavioural targeting, transparency and honesty may be the best policy.
Summers, C. A., Smith, R. W., & Reczek, R. W. (2016). An Audience of One: Behaviorally Targeted Ads as Implied Social Labels. Journal of Consumer Research.