The same product. A different length of decision.
LIFESTYLE VARIANT
Longer task completion time
84
respondents compared two variants
p = 0.037
statistically significant difference in task time
01 — WHAT THE DATA SHOWED
01
The type of photography had a statistically significant effect on task completion time: F(1,82) = 4.50; p = 0.037.
02
With the variant showing the product “on a person”, completing the tested task took longer than with the plain packshot.
03
The study did not provide clear evidence that the variants also differed in the subjective rating of the user experience.
02 — WHAT WE NEEDED TO FIND OUT
Does the way a product is presented affect how a shopping task unfolds?
The study compared a plain packshot with a photo of the product “on a person”. The goal was not to pick the nicer image, but to verify whether the type of photography changes the time needed to complete the same task.
03 — HOW THE MEASUREMENT WORKED
84 respondents took part in the controlled experiment. They completed e-commerce tasks over variants of the product presentation; the process was supplemented with eye-tracking data and the standardized UEQ questionnaire for a subjective rating of the user experience.
[ WHAT THE STUDY SAYS — AND WHAT IT DOESN'T ]
SUPPORTED BY DATA
In the tested task, lifestyle photography led to a longer time than the plain packshot. The difference was statistically significant.
CANNOT BE INFERRED
That lifestyle photography generally reduces conversion, that it is always worse, or that users rated it better or worse.
The result applies to the specific variants, sample and the tested e-commerce task.
05 — RECOMMENDATION FOR PRACTICE
Don't choose product photography by impression alone. Validate it on the specific task the page is meant to support, and assess the time or course of the decision together with behaviour, attention and business data.
[ THE TAKEAWAY ]
The same product can change how people decide depending on how you show it.
Testing variants helps choose the photo by the customer's task, not by the team's preference.
DISCUSS YOUR OWN STUDY →[ GLOSSARY — WHAT THE TERMS IN THIS STUDY MEAN ]
- N (sample)
- The number of people included in the analysis. In this study N = 84.
- F(1,82)
- The value of the test statistic and its degrees of freedom in the statistical test used.
- p-value
- Helps assess how compatible the data are with the assumption that there is no difference between the variants. It does not by itself describe the size of the impact.
- UEQ
- A standardized questionnaire for the subjective rating of the user experience.
[ FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STUDY ]
Is a packshot or lifestyle photography better?
A single study cannot determine a universally better type of photography. In the tested task the lifestyle variant led to a longer time than the packshot. The choice needs to be related to the specific product, page and user goal.
What does p = 0.037 mean?
If there were in fact no difference between the variants and the assumptions of the test used were met, a result this pronounced or more would appear in roughly 3.7% of repetitions. The p-value itself does not say how large the practical or business impact is.
Did the type of photo also affect how the page was rated?
The study did not provide clear evidence of a difference in the subjective rating of the user experience. The longer time therefore cannot automatically be explained by one variant being liked more or less.
Does a longer time mean lower conversion?
No. The study measured the time to complete a specific task, not the impact on real conversion or revenue. Such a conclusion would require linking the research with additional data or a follow-up experiment.
What was eye tracking used for in the study?
Eye tracking supplemented the course of the task with data on visual attention. The main described difference between the variants, however, concerns task completion time, so we do not automatically attribute it to a specific gaze pattern without further analysis.
Want to go through the study in more detail?
DETAILED REPORT WITH METHODOLOGY AND RECOMMENDATIONS — FREE PDF