LUCAS TEIXEIRA shares the results of a study that used eye-tracking technology and mathematical modeling to explore how visual attention to specialty coffee labels influences consumer choices.

Value lies in the eye of the customer. By employing eye-tracking technology, that adage becomes literal in Lucas Teixeira’s research. In this article, he examines the types of visual attention given to specific attributes on a coffee label. The customer’s gaze reveals which of those attributes correspond to an increase or decrease in their likelihood of purchase.

Consider a real-world scenario where a buyer shops for organic products and is presented with two coffees. Both are organic, but one coffee’s certification is more difficult to locate than the other. Those seconds spent searching can determine which gets placed in the cart and which stays on the shelf. Teixeira’s research suggests that a successful marketing manager can drive business outcomes with intentionally designed labels that guide the customer’s attention toward information the customer cares about.

So, which attributes should you prioritize? It would be tempting to take the study’s results as a guide, but be advised that they are not prescriptive. In other words, attributes that performed well with the Brazil-based participants may not align with the interests of consumers located in other countries.

The Coffee Value Assessment provides a system of evaluations to identify a coffee’s physical, descriptive, affective, and extrinsic attributes. You could start there. Then, prioritize attributes based on your audience’s preferences. Eye-tracking is certainly one way to do it, but there are other ways to gather insights, some of which you may already be doing: At the register, ask someone why they chose a specific offering. Send online surveys. Check sales data. Analyze clicks.

For attributes that are less understood but that you might think are important (such as a producer’s name, or the coffee variety), Teixeira beautifully suggests that educating customers can turn their “curiosity into preference.” For example, there was a time when roast dates were an oddity, included as legal formality only. Today, consumers have gained (more or less nuanced) knowledge about coffee freshness, and many search for a roast date immediately.

Distinctive, value-adding attributes are what define specialty coffee.1 In fact, in the coming years, one of the Coffee Science Foundation’s key research aims is to better understand what drives consumer preferences and how through engaging with consumers we can maximize value in coffee. As you read this article, I hope you are inspired to look at your own coffees through the eyes of your customer. If you are the consumer, maybe you could reflect on what it is that draws you to a coffee and how visual attributes impact what you choose to taste. Cheers to your next cup!

ALVIN KIM (he/him)

Portfolio Manager: Roast & Retail

The information that specialty coffee brands present on their labels plays a crucial role in consumer decision-making.

Specialty coffee consumers are driven by a wide variety of preferences; their cultural, market, and geographic contexts inform the attributes that they seek in coffees.[1] This creates a challenge for retailers, who must decide what information they include on coffee retail labels. Effective labels must communicate a coffee’s extrinsic attributes—important information that is not discovered through tasting or smelling—in a way that resonates with consumers. Visual attention, a key factor in consumer psychology,[2] shapes how buyers perceive these attributes. As Mateus Manfrin Artêncio wrote, “our brains craft the story of taste (a sensory input) long before the coffee even touches our lips, creating a multi-sensory experience driven by anticipation.”[3]

While retailers invest heavily into “buying” consumer attention, Behe et al. highlight that many lack understanding of what actually catches attention and positively drives purchase decisions.[4] To address this, our research team—Ligianne Carvalho da Silva Dâmaso, Lilian Maluf de Lima, Eduardo Eugênio Spers, Nuno Manoel Martins Dias Fouto, and myself—used eye-tracking technology to study how specialty coffee labels attract visual attention, and how different types of visual attention influence consumer choices.[5] We analyzed informational (rather than design) attributes that are valued in the specialty market, focusing on Brazil’s growing domestic specialty coffee industry.[6]

About Eye-Tracking Technology and Metrics

Eye-tracking technology tracks where, for how long, and in what sequence people focus their gaze, offering insights into visual engagement that are more reliable than self-reports. As Behe et al. note, this method is valuable because gaze responses “cannot easily be consciously controlled or steered.”[7] In consumer research, eye tracking reveals how individuals interact with visual content on social media[8] and retailer websites,[9] and in physical cafés and stores.[10]

We used three eye-tracking metrics to quantify visual attention: time fixation duration (how long a viewer focuses on a point), visit count (how often a viewer returns to the same area), and time to first fixation (how quickly a gaze lands on an attribute). Using these three metrics, we examined consumers’ attention to eight common specialty coffee label attributes: price, brand, coffee variety, organic certification, origin, 2004 SCA cupping score, altitude, and roast level. We then analyzed how visual attention to these attributes influenced participants’ product choices—spoiler alert: more attention doesn’t necessarily mean a higher likelihood of purchase.

**Figure 1.** Our study used screen-based eye-tracking technology. This technology uses illuminators and cameras to capture the user’s eye movements. These are then processed using algorithms to identify patterns. This diagram has been adapted from an image supplied by Tobii, accessible on tobii.com.

Design and Methodology

This study involved two experiments to explore how consumers interact with attributes on specialty coffee labels. We chose the eight attributes above because they’re commonly associated with specialty coffee,[11] and we divided them into two groups to ensure a realistic number of attributes per label. We deliberately left the designs as simple as possible, so that consumers would focus on the informational attributes rather than on any aesthetic elements.

In the first experiment, participants evaluated labels with price, brand, coffee variety, organic certification, and origin (see figure 3). The second experiment focused on price, SCA cupping scores, altitude, and roast level (see figure 4). Price appeared in both groups because it helped us later to analyze consumers' willingness to pay. Both experiments used mock coffee labels presented in pairs on a computer screen for 10 seconds per slide. Participants chose between the coffee on the left, on the right, or neither.

We recruited 28 participants from a specialty coffee shop in São Paulo, Brazil: 15 were “specialty coffee enthusiasts,” already familiar with these attributes, and 13 were “specialty coffee curious” consumers. We gave the “curious” group a short introduction to specialty coffee, briefly explaining the attributes. Eye-tracking data were collected during both experiments, capturing metrics like fixation duration, visit count, and time to first fixation (see figure 2).

Observations: Experiment One

Our study found a strong link between visual attention to organic certification attributes and consumer choice. For every additional second participants spent gazing at the organic certification (fixation duration), their likelihood of choosing that coffee increased by 2.9%. Similarly, each additional return to the organic certification area (visit count) raised the probability of selection by 2.9%.

Brand attributes also influenced consumer decisions. Conveniently, the café where participants were recruited was in the process of rebranding, so we included both its old and new branding on mock labels. Attention to the old brand showed a positive, though not significant, effect on choice. However, for every second spent fixating on the new brand, the likelihood of choosing the product decreased by 6.1%. Interestingly, more frequent visits to the new brand area increased the probability of choice by 3%. A possible explanation is that customers need to see new brands multiple times, and build familiarity with them, before they feel confident choosing them. As participants encountered the new brand on more slides and cumulative visits to this attribute increased, their likelihood of choosing that product increased.

A similar pattern emerged for coffee variety attributes in the first experiment. Longer fixation durations on any of the three coffee varieties were associated with a lower probability of choice. However, for each additional visit to the variety attribute, the likelihood of selection rose by 0.7%. As participants saw more labels and returned to the variety names more often, their likelihood of choosing products with any of the three varieties increased.

In addition to different prices and regions, a key difference between the labels is that the label on the left shows the old brand, the label on the right the new. Our method of analysis—discrete choice modeling—meant that we could calculate how attributes influenced purchase likelihood, even while changing multiple variables per slide.

**Figure 3.** A slide showing a pair of mock specialty coffee labels with brand, variety, certification, origin, and price attributes used in Experiment One.

Experiment Two:

In the second experiment, roast level (light, medium, or dark) emerged as a key factor. Participants were more likely to choose coffees labelled as light or medium roast. For every second spent gazing at light and medium roast attributes, the probability of choice increased by 18.05% and 17.81%, respectively. In contrast, for every second spent fixating on all roast levels collectively, the likelihood of choice decreased by 21.54%. This suggests that roast level positively influences decisions only when consumers recognize their preferred roast. Prolonged attention to all roast levels may indicate confusion, reducing the likelihood of selection.

The score attribute, based on the SCA’s 2004 cupping system, also influenced decisions. Coffees with higher scores (which we told participants reflect superior flavor and aroma) attracted more attention and increased the likelihood of being chosen. However, the altitude attribute had no significant effect on choice, likely because many participants were unfamiliar with its connection to coffee quality.

**Figure 4.** The mock labels in Experiment Two displayed attributes including price, 2004 SCA cupping scores, altitude, and roast level.

Price played a significant role in Experiment Two.[13] Products were more likely to be chosen if price drew less attention at first glance, and lower price points generally increased the likelihood of selection. Interestingly, participants spent more time viewing higher-priced coffees, and longer fixation on price—regardless of the amount—correlated with a higher likelihood of purchase. While these findings may seem contradictory, they suggest two possible explanations: price-sensitive consumers prioritize price in their decisions, while consumers with more flexibility may associate higher prices with better quality.

Willingness to Pay

We also examined participants’ willingness to pay for specialty coffees based on the time spent viewing attributes such as price, roast level, and organic certification. Unlike simply choosing a product, willingness to pay refers to the maximum price a consumer is motivated to pay beyond the current market price, based on their perceived value of the product.[14] In this study, the market price was represented by the median of the three prices displayed on the labels. Results showed that the willingness to pay was, in general, higher than the retail price range exhibited. This suggests consumers’ readiness to pay more for specialty coffees that they (based on the label attributes) perceived as higher quality and more unique.

There is significant potential to enhance the perceived value of specialty coffee through better communication of its extrinsic characteristics. Educating consumers about key attributes—such as rare varieties, complex flavor profiles, and roast styles—can bridge the gap between information and perceived value. Sellers can leverage tools like social media, in-person interactions, and public tastings to deepen consumer understanding.

What Might We Learn?

Our study highlights that visual attention alone does not guarantee a positive influence on purchasing decisions. Attributes unfamiliar to consumers—such as a new brand—initially drew more attention but reduced the likelihood of purchase. Over time, as consumers revisited these attributes and became more familiar with them, the probability of purchase increased. This demonstrates the potential for curiosity to evolve into preference when consumers are given the opportunity to understand unfamiliar attributes. There is significant potential to enhance the perceived value of specialty coffee through better communication of its extrinsic characteristics. Educating consumers about key attributes—such as rare varieties, complex flavor profiles, and roast styles—can bridge the gap between information and perceived value. Sellers can leverage tools like social media, in-person interactions, and public tastings to deepen consumer understanding.

Ultimately, every glance at a coffee package represents a consumer’s rapid mental calculation of value. Retailers must leverage attributes that convey the greatest value within seconds. Eye-tracking technology offers invaluable insight into this process, helping to align label information with consumer psychology. ◊

LUCAS DE VASCONCELOS TEIXEIRA is a Professor in the Digital Business program at Pecege, São Paulo. He holds a PhD in Business Administration and a PhD in Communication and Consumer Practices. His research focuses on communication and marketing, with a particular emphasis on consumer behavior, food studies, and specialty coffee.

References

[1] Specialty Coffee Association (SCA), Towards a New Definition of Specialty Coffee (2021), sca.coffee/sca-news/just-released-new-sca-white-paper-towards-a-definition-of-specialty-coffee.

[2] Thomas Zoega Ramsøy, Introduction to Neuromarketing & Consumer Neuroscience (Neurons Incorporated ApS, 2015).

[3] Mateus Manfrin Artêncio, “What You Know Matters: The Impact of Storytelling on Coffee Professionals’ Sensory Perception,” Issue 21, 25, sca.coffee/sca-news/25/issue-21/what-you-know-matters-the-impact-of-storytelling-on-coffee-professionals-sensory-perception.

[4] Bridget K. Behe, Mikyeung Bae, Patricia T. Huddleston, and Lynnell Sage, “The Effect of Involvement on Visual Attention and Product Choice,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 24 (2015), doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.01.002.

[5] You can read the full journal article at Lucas de Vasconcelos et al., “Visual Attention and Attribute Choice for Specialty Coffee Labels,” Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 62 (2024), doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2022.271049.

[6] Vera Espindola, A Business Case to Increase Domestic Consumption, SCA (2020)

[7] Richard Bates, “Zooming Interfaces” (2002) in Bridget K. Behe et al.

[8] Lijie Zhou and Fei Xue, “Show Products or Show People: An Eye-Tracking Study of Visual Branding Strategy on Instagram,” Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 15, no. 4 (2021), DOI: 10.1108/jrim-11-2019-0175.

[9] Rosy Boardman and Helen Mccormick, “Attention and Behaviour on Fashion Retail Websites: An Eye-Tracking Study,” Information Technology & People 35, no. 7 (2022), DOI:10.1108/ITP-08-2020-0580.

[10] Jens Nordfält and Carl-Philip Ahlbom, “Utilising Eye-Tracking Data in Retailing Field Research:

A Practical Guide” Journal of Retailing 100, no. 1 (2024), doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2024.02.005.

[11] Rubens Nunes et al., “Incentives to Differentiation Strategies for Brazilian Coffee Producers,” Revista de Economia e Administração 12 (2013), DOI:10.11132/rea.2013.749.

[12] The calculation of the observations was obtained, for example in Experiment One, by multiplying 28 individuals by 16 photos (slides), generating 448 observations to be used in the discrete choice measurement models. For the occasions when the interviewees made no choice (neither the right nor the left option of the slide), the data were doubled, because this represented the occurrence of “non-choice”

in both product sides. The sample of Experiment One, therefore, had 448 observations + 18 duplicate “non-choice” observations, totaling 466. The same procedure was applied in Experiment Two.

[13] The price attribute was not as significant as other variables in influencing choice in Experiment One, potentially because the relatively narrow price range did not impact decision-making strongly within this sample.

[14] Michael Parent et al., “The new WTP: Willingness to Participate,” Business Horizons 54, no. 3 (2011), doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.003.

We hope you are as excited as we are about the release of 25, Issue 23. This issue of 25 is made possible with the contributions of specialty coffee businesses who support the activities of the Specialty Coffee Association through its underwriting and sponsorship programs. Learn more about our underwriters here.

Interpreting Attention: Using Eye-Tracking Technology to Understand How Coffee Labels Influence Consumer Choice | 25, Issue 23