A recent study on the FGI SmartPanel suggests that using online media and portable devices to listen to music correlates with listening to more music overall. With 43% of respondents saying that they use an iPod or similar mp3 player, that’s a lot of listening. Nevertheless, the same survey indicates that older media, like CDs and radio, retain their edge: 81% of respondents listen to music on the radio, and 61% say they listen to music on CDs. Then again, the data seems to show that those who use portable devices or online media to listen to their music buy more music and consume more hours of audio media per week.

Devices Used to Listen to Music

National Numbers
To establish some context for these discoveries, FGI researchers collected nationally-representative data to show how much time and money consumers spend on music, in general. A third (31%) spends between one and three hours per week listening to music. Slightly less than a quarter (23%) listens to music for four-to-six hours; 13%, for seven-to-nine hours; 15%, for 10-12 hours; and 17%, for over 13 hours per week.

Given that most respondents report listening to fewer hours of music, it makes sense that most (40%) also report spending less money –under $20 on music in the past year, to be precise. 23% report spending between $20 and $49. 18% say they spent between $50 and $100. A fifth of consumers spent over $100 on music this year. Even with the majority of consumers (evidently) saving money for other purchases, this statistic suggests that a good handful of music fans have the disposable income to bulk up their libraries, a surprising revelation in a climate of reserved spending.

In that vein, roughly 18% of consumers say they own a collection of between 2000 and 5000 songs, whether that is stored on a hard drive or in other formats. 27% say they own between 500-2000 songs. But most (43%) report owning fewer than 500, a figure which aligns with the revelation that consumers are spending less on music in general. A remaining handful (12%) reports owning more than 5000 songs.

Radio- and CD-Listeners Spend Less
Those who report listening to music on CDs or the radio, incidentally, report spending less time listening to music. They also spend less money on music and own smaller collections of songs. Over a quarter (28%) of radio listeners spends fewer than three hours a week listening to music, while 24% listen to music for four-to-six hours. Only a few (15%) spend the maximum 16-plus hours. Meanwhile, 44% of radio listeners say they own fewer than 500 songs. The majority (69%) own fewer than 2000. Not surprisingly, they tend to spend less money on music: 37% spent less than $20 this year, and 63% spent less than $50. Still, 20% managed to spend over $100.

Among CD-listeners, the percentages are more balanced. 23% say they listen to music for less than three hours a week; 22%, between four and six. Only 18% listen to more than 16 hours. Over half of listeners have fewer than 2000 songs in their libraries. 36% have fewer than 500, and only 12% have more than 5000. CD-listeners show an even distribution in terms of how much money they spend, too: 28% spent less than $20 on music this year, but 25% spent over $100. 25% spent between $20-50, while 22% spent between $50-100.

However balanced, these numbers indicate that most CD-listeners spent less than $100 on music in the last year, and radio-listeners were even more frugal. These respondents also own smaller collections of music (likely because they buy less) and consume fewer hours of media per week. It may be that those likelier to use older media formats are unlikely to adapt to new formats, such as the mp3, which permit the storage and purchase of a greater volume of music (and hence facilitate more listening). They may also be less interested in music on the whole, or they may be in an economic position that prevents them from taking advantage of the latest and greatest in audio technology –which is hardly inexpensive!

The Internet Changes Everything
As it has the industries of print media, entertainment, and education (among others), the web has transformed the ways that consumers learn about, buy, store and listen to music. FGI drilled down the numbers to find out how using online media, namely free media players, mp3 stores, and subscription services, changes the data for how much consumers spend on music, how long they listen, and how many songs they own.

Those who use online subscription services to listen to music tend to spend the least time listening: 28% report listening less than three hours per week, compared to 20% among those who use iTunes and mp3 stores, and 20% among those who use a free music player. On the other hand, mp3 store customers show considerable variation when it comes to how long they listen. As many respondents report listening to over 16 hours as report listening to fewer than three. As for those who use a free music player, the highest number (25%) actually report listening to more than 16 hours of music per week. It may be that the allure of free media encourages them to indulge more in listening to music than they would, were they required to pay. Even if they listen longer, they don’t spend as much.

Indeed, 72% of those who use a free online media player report having spent less than $100 on music last year. 28% report paying between $20-49. 29% report paying less than $20. With less than a third (28%) of consumers saying they actually use a free media player, there is no telling what the broad implications of a trend like this may be, but there certainly seems to be a correlation between access to or use of free media and using media more heavily.

It may also be that the online format alone, whether free or not, makes it easier to use more media. Shoppers on iTunes and similar mp3 stores report spending less on music (70% spent less than $100; 52%, less than $50), but they also own larger song libraries (33% owned between 2000-4999 songs; over half owned more than 2000). Even if users are not using the media for quite as many hours as those who listen to free media players, they still consume plenty, which leads researchers to speculate that buying music using a virtual form of money (credit) in the intangible format of an mp3 may be “easier” to do in the consumer’s mind than exchanging material assets for a physical object –especially since an album on iTunes costs up to six dollars less than a CD from a store. Since consumers cannot “see” the transaction, it may carry less of a guilt factor, even in a down economy.

Where do you Obtain Your Music?

Music on the Move: How Mobile Devices Change Consumer Habits
Notwithstanding the dominance of Apple’s iPod, it is not the only portable device that consumers use to listen to music. Neither is iTunes the only mp3 store that consumers patronize. Sony, Archos and Creative Labs are some of Apple’s upcoming competitors in the market for portable players, while Amazon is giving iTunes a run for its money in the music download business. Apple may also face competition from an unexpected alternative: as technology advances, smartphones are becoming an increasingly attractive way of listening to music. Although traditional mp3 players have a higher penetration in terms of the music-playing function (43% compared to 10% for smartphones), those who do use smartphones to listen to music tend to be some of the heaviest users of media.

42% of those who use their smartphones to listen to music say that they have between 2000-5000 songs in their library, at least 10 percentage points higher than iPod-users, and even higher than users of other devices. They also listen to more music, with 27% listening to between four and six hours and 23% listening to more than 16. While roughly 25-30% of users of other devices had spent less than $20 on music in the past year, among smartphone users, the number was 15%. Nearly half (46%) report having spent between $20-$49. Although not a gigantic leap, this definitely speaks to a greater tendency among those who use their smartphones to listen to music to spend more money on music overall.

It does bear mentioning that those who can afford to purchase smartphones –and pay for a data plan that makes listening to music feasible –are likely to be in an economic position that enables them to spend more on music and similar little luxuries. They may also be heavier consumers of all forms of media, given the simple access to news, social networking, video, and other content that smartphones facilitate. It makes sense that music would fit into that group.

Actionable Insights
What can we conclude from this study more generally? Notwithstanding the complexity of this body of data, there are a few major points to consider. First, users of online and mobile technology tend to be heavier consumers of media. Second, smartphone users tend to be even heavier media-consumers. Yet in spite of this fact, many consumers still use CDs and radio. In a shifting media climate, different stakeholders will interpret this information differently.

Record labels may take comfort in the comparatively higher percentages of consumers who still use CDs and radio, but they might balk at the data for media-consumption among iPod and smartphone users. Producers of mobile and portable devices will be happy to hear that consumers have found so many ways to use their products and try to gain even more of an edge in the mp3 market. All stakeholders would likely benefit from deeper research into topics that pertain to their interests.

• Free music players could use advanced analytics and user research to create more targeted advertising, making business more lucrative for them and for their sponsors.
• Mobile application developers could research how exactly consumers use their phones to listen to music in order to develop more innovative and user-friendly platforms. They could then use concept testing to refine their ideas.
• Record labels could perform a competitive analysis to understand what gives other players in the market an edge, and they could use the insights from such a study to develop a strategy for evolution and success.

Next Steps You Can Take

• Contact FGI Research: click here or call us at (919) 929-7759
• Explore FGI Research’s market research solutions, including custom panels, full service research, and our online sample (SmartPanel).
• Join FGI Research’s online panel to participate in future studies.

Survey Methods
Respondents: 240
Date of Survey: December 21-28, 2010
Sample Source: FGI SmartPanel

This nationally-representative sample consists of adults aged 18 and up and is balanced to the US population using recent census data. One can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

In a survey fielded through SmartPanel™, over half of U.S. consumers said that they had gone online to watch television programming, of one type or another, in the last three months. Over a quarter of these online viewers said that they had watched TV using a web-enabled mobile device. These trends correspond to data that FGI collected on Google Trends, which indicates that the search term “watch tv online,” and related variations, has seen a steady increase in frequency since 2005.

As Internet infrastructure grows and technological capabilities advance, web-users have gained access to an increasing volume and variety of media. This diversified diet of content seems to be breeding a new type of media consumer. However, it bears mentioning that one of the most common reasons why consumers said they watched television content online was because they had missed an episode of a show they usually followed on the TV (70% indicated as much). While more people may be accessing content on the Internet, it seems clear that the Internet has yet to replace TV altogether.

Online Viewers not “Online” All the Time
Of all respondents, 53% said that they had gone online to access television programming in the past three months, compared to 47% who hadn’t. One in ten of those who said they watched streaming content on the Internet reported doing so “most frequently” (that is, compared to watching television on cable, satellite, or another format). Still, 72% of these viewers said that they watched television on cable, digital cable, or satellite most often, notwithstanding the occasional episode they viewed online. In short, “traditional” TV-watching habits prevail, even if a majority of viewers accesses content online some of the time. Given these data, it seems logical that one of the most commonly-reported reasons why viewers accessed streaming content was because they had missed an episode they usually watched on TV.

Reasons for Watching Streaming Content Online

A related reason for watching online content, which 25% of respondents listed, was because viewers didn’t have time to watch their favorite show, or shows, on TV at the scheduled air-time. A quarter of viewers (25%) wanted to avoid ads. A handful (22%) wanted to re-watch an episode that they had watched on the TV originally, while 1 in 5 said they preferred not to pay for cable. Overall, convenience (avoiding ads, fitting TV-watching into a busy schedule) seemed to be a driving factor in consumers’ decision to access online content. The cost of cable and viewers’ dedication to favorite programming played a role, but a small one, in the decision. Overall, viewers have not “transitioned” to watching television online all the time so much as they have appropriated the use of streaming content to add convenience to their daily lives. The Internet, in short, is just another way to watch TV –at least in this context.

Where Does Content Come From?
Viewers who accessed television content online did so most frequently using Hulu (49%) and network websites (49%). YouTube was in a close third, with 41% of viewers having used it to access content. A quarter of viewers used Netflix or a similar paid subscription service to get television content online, while a handful used search engines like Google Video (21%) and Yahoo! Video (13%).

Who’s Watching?
FGI Research asked a few questions to assess online viewer demographics. The numbers of male and female online viewers were fairly even. When it came to age, however, younger consumers were disproportionately represented among online viewers. Viewers between the ages of 25 and 30 were likeliest to have gone online to watch television content; 82% reported having done so in the last three months. Meanwhile, those aged 65 or older were least likely to have watched streaming content on the net. Among all viewers under the age of 55, a majority had accessed online content at some point in the last three months. Income seemed to make a difference, too, with those in higher brackets tending to watch more content online.

Age Breakdown of Online Viewers

These data may, more than anything else, reflect Internet penetration writ large. That is, those who infrequently use the net (those who cannot afford broadband, or older people who have yet to adapt to the technology) are unlikely to use it to watch television. Deeper research might determine whether the idea of accessing content is inherently less attractive to some non-adopters, or whether it’s a matter of having access to the necessary technology.

Income Breakdown

Why Not Watch Online?
The survey did lend insight into why some viewers have not latched onto streaming content. One of the most frequently-cited reasons, which 62% of respondents selected, was that viewers enjoyed the experience of watching on a TV set. A third said that they saw no reason to watch content online, since they rarely missed an episode of a show that they followed when it aired. Some chose not to watch online because their Internet connection was too slow (16%), while others admitted they did not know how to access streaming content (13%). The fact that so many viewers preferred watching television on a TV set, as opposed to a computer, suggests –as has much of the data from this study –that viewers enjoy the convenience of watching online but predominantly continue to watch on the TV set, and may prefer to do so.

Television-Media Consumption Habits
To get a broader sense of consumer television-watching habits, FGI asked all respondents about how much and what kinds of television they consumed. Most respondents (40%) watched between 3 and 4 hours of television a day, while 36% said they watched more than 5, and a quarter said they watched 2 or fewer. Meanwhile, 20% of consumers said they followed more than 7 television programs regularly. A fourth of respondents (24%) said they watched 5 or 6 programs regularly, 31% said they followed 3 or 4, and 19% said they watched only 1 or 2 programs on a regular basis. The remaining 6% said that they didn’t follow any particular program.

Categories of Programming

The most popular types of programming that consumers watched were Primetime Drama (66%), Primetime Comedy (62%), News and Political Commentary (56%), and Reality TV (50%). Slightly less popular were Late-Night, which 37% of viewers watched, Children’s Programming, Daytime Talk, and Soap Operas.

Actionable Insights
Observers may draw several conclusions from this body of data. One is that the number of television viewers who access streaming content online at least some of the time is rising. Second, many of these viewers are young and/or affluent, which may (admittedly) reflect Internet penetration rates more than it does the inherent appeal of streaming content online. Third, while many viewers retrieve their content directly from the host network’s website, many also get their content from less-reputable sources, including file-sharing sites. This particular data point may influence how producers, executives, and decision-makers in the media choose to address the question of whether to publicize content online –and how to respond if content gets posted or shared illegally.

A final trend to keep in mind is that, while usage of streaming content is expanding, many (if not most) viewers still prefer to watch television on a TV set, whether because they enjoy the experience or because that happens to be the most technologically feasible option. When it comes to making choices about how to manage content online, or how to respond to increasing demand for online content, media leaders should attend to these and related questions. Some research initiatives that could further clarify the trends include:

• Surveying known users of online media to determine what types of programming they access most often, and how often they watch online television in general.
• Experimenting with incorporating advertising into content posted online, assessing how it affects the numbers of viewers that access that programming, and evaluating which types of advertising are best suited to that format.
• For networks, surveying consumers about why video-sharing sites like YouTube are popular, and finding ways to adjust content-posting policies to combat illicit usage of these sites.

Next Steps You Can Take

• Contact FGI Research: click here or call us at (919) 929-7759
• Explore FGI Research’s market research solutions, including custom panels, full service research, and our online sample (SmartPanel).
• Join FGI Research’s online panel to participate in future studies.

Survey Methods
Respondents: 301
Date of Survey: October 6-11, 2010
Sample Source: FGI SmartPanel

This nationally-representative sample consists of adults aged 18 and up and is balanced to the US population using recent census data. One can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Most media leaders concur that print media is floundering. Trends in technology, communication and markets reflect that fact (Steve Jobs just ushered in the next wave of online content readers with Apple’s iPad). An entire genre of journalism seems to have emerged just to cover the decline, not only in print but online. According to the New York Times, sixty-two percent of journalists think the Internet has forever altered their profession’s principles, eroding the standards of good journalism and the relevance of print publications alike. Still, new data from FGI Research indicates that print may yet have an audience. While 67% of consumers surveyed say they see a decline in the use of print versus other types of media to stay informed, 74% say they “would not prefer that online publications eventually replace print publications completely.”

Subscriptions to and circulation of print media first began to drop in the 1920’s, when print started competing with radio for audience. The rise of television put a bigger dent in newspaper market share and ad revenue. But high-speed Internet has by far been the biggest threat to traditional print media, since online publishers offer content in a variety of formats that are not only easy to access but, for the most part, free. FGI Research asked consumers to tell us where they get their information, what they think about the decline of print media and whether they would be willing to pay for online subscriptions.

Rupert Murdoch comments on the rapid change in communication technologies.

Where News Comes From
Notwithstanding the rash of stories about how online sources threaten print, FGI’s data show that 1 in 3 (33%) consumers still use print publications “most often” to stay in-the-know, compared to 28% who use online content most often. 39% use both equally often.

“Which of the following sources do you rely on for information?”

Meanwhile, two thirds (69%) of respondents say they “use online publications to supplement print publications,” while 20% say they rely solely on online sources for information. 11% say they never use online sources. These results indicate that, while consumers may turn to online content for some information, they have not abandoned print altogether. Indeed, some do not even use online sources. It follows that traditional media still has a market. In fact, a little over half of consumers (52%) said they purchased print sources from newsstands and stores, compared to 48% who did not.

Consumers Still Read Some Print
This begs the question: what kinds of print media do readers use? In terms of subscribers, local newspapers and national magazines are the most popular, with 52% of consumers saying they subscribe to local newspapers and 46% saying they subscribe to at least one national magazine. Some print sources clearly are not experiencing the same losses as others. However, other print sources are in big trouble.

“What kinds of print media do you subscribe to and pay for?”

National Newspapers, Local Magazines Lag
According to the graph above, only 10% of consumers surveyed subscribe to a national newspaper. 11% say they subscribe to at least one local magazine. Meanwhile, 29% say they neither subscribe to nor pay for any kind of print media, though that does not guarantee that those consumers use online sources instead (they may simply not look at the news at all). Even so, the data suggests that some print sources have been hit harder than others.

Online Subscription Fees Not the Solution
Most readers use both online and print sources for information. Two thirds use online content to supplement print. This is partly the reason why print newspapers are worried about declining readership. Consumer opinion suggests they are becoming less relevant –and that they do not provide everything consumers want to read. Declining ad revenues and profits exacerbate newspapers’ anxiety.

At the same time, subscription fees are not attractive to media consumers. National newspapers like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, whose print readership has declined, but whose online content is king, have considered charging an online subscriber fee to stay afloat. But FGI Research’s data show they would have some convincing to do: 70% of consumers say they are unwilling to pay a fee for online content. Indeed, part of the attraction of online content –at least until now –has been the fact that it costs nothing.

The Search for the Perfect Subscriber Fee
Even if they had to pay to read, the vast majority of consumers (87%) say they “should be charged less than what [they] pay for print publications,” because of perceived lower production costs. Since “publishers aren’t spending money on paper/printing,” readers believe they should not have to pay a price reflective of those costs. Only 10% think they should pay “as much as” they pay for print subscriptions because they consider the services “comparable.” The remaining 3% think they should pay “more than what [they] pay for print publications” because of the wider array of information available. For the most part, consumers are opposed to the idea of paying for online content. This puts today’s print media in a bind. How can they satisfy all of their readers while generating enough revenue to turn a profit and satisfy shareholders?

Actionable Insights
Declines in subscription, circulation and other performance measures have given today’s print media plenty of reasons to worry. However, FGI Research’s study indicates that they may still have an audience. As for how to respond to readers who have migrated online, while consumers may balk at the idea of a subscriber fee, some may sign on at the right price (less than what they pay for print). Overall, this data gives the print media industry some hope for the future –if they act now. How should publishers respond?

• Conduct research to find out what demographics use which sources, and organize content accordingly. Target your content and publications for the right audiences.
• Using qualitative as well as quantitative data, find out the ideal price of an online subscriber fee. Begin testing now.
• Use qualitative data to find out what draws readers to one publication over another, and respond to those data to maximize readership no matter where you publish. Use qualitative data to fuel future quantitative studies.

Next Steps You Can Take

• Learn more about the results of this study: complimentary access to the data in this report, including cross-tabulated results, is available upon request from FGI Research.
• Contact FGI Research: click here or call us at (919) 929-7759
• Explore FGI Research’s market research solutions, including custom panels, full service research, and our online sample (SmartPanel).
• Join FGI Research’s online panel to participate in future studies.

Survey Methods
Respondents: 300
Date of Survey: April 7th-14th, 2010
Sample Source: FGI SmartPanel

This nationally-representative sample consists of adults aged 18 and up and is balanced to the US population using recent census data. One can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Popular association with poor quality and “looking cheap” have often kept store brands (private label products) from enjoying broad acceptance and sustained market share. There is even a lingering perception among some consumers that “store brands” equate to “generics,” an antiquated association to be sure. Yet store brands also have a universal reputation for saving consumers money. Data from a recent FGI study shows that 97% of US consumers believe “store brands cost less than national brands.”

Our findings suggest that consumers are poised to expand their purchases of store brands. Not only do a third of those surveyed buy more store brands than they did a year ago, but 1 in 4 plans to increase his or her store brand purchases in the future. As this CBS report reveals, even brand loyalists are open to switching to store brands, especially when the perceived quality is as good as, or better than, the national brand.

A Massive Market is at Stake
Of the $500 billion dollars that United States consumers spend yearly across all categories, store brands claim only 17% ($84 billion), but that share is growing –and national brands large and small have felt the shift. Store brand sales have even seen gains in categories that national manufacturers used to consider “safe,” like baby food, feminine hygiene, health and beauty products, household cleaning goods, and oral care, among others. The change is less surprising when you look at other markets around the world. In Western Europe, for instance, the market share of store brands is 2-3 times larger than that of national brands. As American consumers’ habits start to mirror this tendency, American companies are responding: Target plans to add another 100 products to their “UP & UP” brand in 2010.

Store Brand Quality Catches Up
FGI Research asked US consumers how they view the quality of store brands vs. name brands. Specifically, we asked how much they agreed with this statement: “The quality of store-brand products is just as good as name brand products.” A full two thirds (65%) of consumers said they “strongly agree” or “agreed somewhat.” Furthermore, four out of five (79%) consumers strongly agree or agree somewhat that “store-brand products are an excellent value for the money.”

“Store Brands are Just as High-Quality as Name Brands”

These data suggest strong consumer confidence in store brands on questions of quality and value. On the whole, consumers view store-brand products as comparable in quality to name brands. Given the 97% who believe store brands are less expensive than name brands, and the more than 60% who believe store-brand products give them a good value for the price, it follows that switching from name brand to store brand may be one way consumers can save money without sacrificing quality. But how many will actually make the switch? FGI answered that question with some data about purchasing habits.

Store Brand Purchases Pick Up
Over a third (35%) of consumers said they were buying more store brands than a year ago. Asked to project their purchasing habits for the next year, 25% said they plan to increase their consumption of store brands. These results support industry predictions that store brand growth will be 13% annually. Should the US growth rate reach half of these levels, store brands could capture another $5 billion per year in consumer spending. This is a healthy “trial” statistic; retaining that share of wallet will ultimately depend on consistency of store brands’ competitive quality and pricing.

Grocery Store Brands Fare Best
FGI Research asked a few specific questions about store-brand food products (groceries). Up to 79% of consumers believed store-brand food products were “just as nutritious as name brands.” A larger percentage (83%) was willing to serve store-brand food products to family members. Meanwhile, 63% of consumers said they were “extremely likely” or “somewhat likely” to buy store-brand food products compared to national brands, while only 15%  said they were “extremely unlikely” or  “somewhat unlikely.”

“Thinking Only of Food Products, How Likely are You to Buy Store-Brand?”

Store Brands Gain Traction Across Categories
Store brands consumers were most likely to buy included food, household goods, and “general merchandise” (a broad category that encompassed seasonal items, school supplies, automotive needs, etc). Hair care products, over-the-counter drugs and baby care also fared well. Consumers were less likely to spend on store-brand apparel and home goods like appliances.

“In which of the following categories do you purchase store-brand products?”

Actionable Insights
This FGI Research study demonstrates growing consumer confidence in the quality, price and value of store-brand products, confidence which translates into higher consumption of store brands. Consumers are likelier to purchase store-brand food, household items, general merchandise, and health and beauty (less so home goods and apparel). So, what are some key actions to consider based on these findings?

• Retailers and manufacturers should continue to invest in store-brand offerings. These products usually bring higher margins for retailers and significant gains are possible with the proper research, product development and marketing.
• Some store brands’ packaging might need improvement. High quality, professional packaging and attractive pricing will drive sales.
• National brands must stay abreast of consumer preferences and behaviors, especially as regards leading store-brand offerings. Further erosion of their market share is likely without aggressive research, product development and real differentiation, and marketing.
• Private label manufacturers must remain aware of quality concerns to maintain their strong performance relative to national brands and even enhance their competitive edge. This means robust marketing and packaging research and conscientious response to consumer preferences.

Next Steps You Can Take

• Learn more about the results of this study: complimentary access to the data in this report, including cross-tabulated results, is available upon request from FGI Research.
• Contact FGI Research: click here or call us at (919) 929-7759
• Explore FGI Research’s market research solutions, including custom panels, full service research, and our online sample (SmartPanel).
• Join FGI Research’s online panel to participate in future studies.

Survey Methods
Respondents: 367
Date of Survey: February 26th-28th, 2010
Sample Source: FGI SmartPanel

This nationally-representative sample consists of adults aged 18 and up and is balanced to the US population using recent census data. One can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

From the Brick…

In 1984, Motorola unveiled the first cellular phone: nicknamed “the brick,” it weighed two pounds, offered a half-hour of talk time per battery charge and sold for $3,995. In twenty-six years, mobile technology has transformed at warp speed. Not only are most devices the size of matchbooks, but phones are inexpensive and readily available. Some boast a battery life of up to a week, and features like games, unlimited texts, and Internet are standard. Through texting, many companies have found a new avenue for marketing to consumers. Some users have even started to shop online –with their phones. FGI turned to SmartPanel to get insight in this trend.

… to the Boutique
Among those surveyed, 59.67% reported that their phones had Internet, whereas 40.33% did not. When we drilled down the data by provider, the percentage of customers with Internet sometimes jumped as high as 75.9% (with Sprint) or 70.9% (with AT&T).¹ Across the board, customers believed the Internet connection on their phones was secure. When asked if they felt safe using mobile Internet to make a purchase, 87.93% answered “yes.” Customers’ overall faith in the web that they accessed through their phones may help explain the purchasing habits of those who used the technology to shop.

However, not as many customers were shopping online with their phones as their level of comfort might portend. As many as 67.6% of respondents said they did not use their phones for online purchases. Even among mobile customers who had Internet, the number of respondents who shopped online through their phones was relatively low. Nevertheless, the 32.4% of users who said they did shop online were making purchases in a range of categories.

What they Bought
Most (81.03%) were buying apps for their smartphones. Yet respondents also purchased other products, including electronics, clothes, shoes and accessories, books, food, and household items. Some said they also looked up information about what cars to buy. The industries that dominated were fashion, books, electronics and food. All of this data begs the question: who is the customer here?

Who’s Buying
The majority of those who shopped with their phones, up to 67.2%, were male. 32.8% were female. When women did use their phones to make purchases, they spent most of their money on household goods or on clothes, shoes and accessories. Men, meanwhile, spent a fair penny on food, books and electronics.

A breakdown in terms of income revealed even more about these mobile shoppers. Nearly two-fifths were in an income bracket between $75k and $100k. One fifth was in the bracket of $100k or more. A little over 30% made between $20,000 and $75,000 a year.

What they Spent
No matter who was shopping, customers tended to use their phones for small purchases: 43.1% of those surveyed said they spent less than $50 per month, and 24.14% reported that they spent between $51 and $100. A few said that they spent as much as $200-$300 on purchases through their phones. Among these, most were spending money on food (33.3%), automotive goods (30.0%), or clothes and accessories (27.8%).

Actionable Insights
Ultimately, the diversity of purchases that customers made through their phones –buying not just apps but tangible goods and services –indicates that this trend should influence how companies adapt their marketing plans to respond to mobile technology. By finding out what customers shop online, which ones use their phones to shop online, and what they buy, multiple industries can move towards marketing efforts aimed at this demographic. The way to gain an edge in the emerging mobile market is by using top-notch research methods. One thing is for sure: both mobile Internet and online shopping are here to stay. As the former becomes more ubiquitous, the tendency to use phones for online purchases could increase, or at least stay steady. Further research would reveal even more insight into this possibility.

Next Steps You Can Take

• Learn more about the results of this study: complimentary access to the data in this report, including cross-tabulated results, is available upon request from FGI Research.
• Contact FGI Research: click here or call us at (919) 929-7759
• Explore FGI Research’s market research solutions, including custom panels, full service research, and our online sample (SmartPanel).
• Join FGI Research’s online panel to participate in future studies.

Survey Methods
Date of Study: 2/5/2010
Total Responders: 300
Sample Source: FGI SmartPanel

This nationally-representative sample consists of adults aged 18 and up and is balanced to the US population using recent census data. One can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

1. We wanted to know what mobile providers respondents relied on and what features were on their phones. We found that the leading providers were Verizon and AT&T, while T-Mobile and Sprint claimed a smaller –though substantial –share of the market.