This month our guest blogger is Web Psychologist and Future Foundation nVoy Nathalie Nahai. Nathalie helps businesses to psychologically optimise for better engagement online. Here she explores the gender differences in online behaviour and the important things brands need to know about consumer engagement.

The personalization of the web is one of the fastest growing online trends, and nowhere is this more prevalent than when we’re shopping. When it comes to ecommerce, there’s one area in particular you need to know about if you want to future-proof your business: the gender differences fueling online behaviours.

Falling under the umbrella of ‘individual psychology’, gender differences in how and why we shop have been well documented in the offline world, and now studies are discovering how these differences translate online. As with any research, it’s never one-size-fits-all, and there will always be exceptions to the rule. But if you’re targeting male and female shoppers, there are three things you absolutely need to know if you want to secure your e-tailing future:

1. Women are more sceptical

In general, women tend to be more sceptical of online information than men ([1] – 3(6), pp. 565–82), and perceive online shopping as more risky ([2] 57, pp. 768–75). They’re less likely to part with sensitive information (phone number, address etc), and generally need greater assurance that the site they’re visiting is trustworthy, credible and secure. Men, on the other hand, tend to be less concerned with privacy and are generally more comfortable parting with sensitive information ([3] – 4258, pp. 36–58).

nVision shows us that:
• 20% of men and 13% of women strongly/agree with the statement: “I don’t/wouldn’t worry about the security of banking on a mobile phone” (Disagree/ strongly: men 58%, women 69%)

2. Men shop online more than women

Believe it or not, men appear to be out-shopping their global female counterparts – and not only on desktops and laptops, but via smartphones too. Whether it’s because they get to avoid the tedium of malls or because it’s easier to do without leaving the comfort of your sofa, the rise of the affluent, online-shopping male is making headlines not only in research ([4]; [5] – 31(9), pp. 1-15] but also in the wider press ([6]). They’re also spending more on average than women, so if you’re selling your wares online it makes sense to target this market.

nVision data backs this up:

• “How often do you do each of the following internet activities (either on a desktop/laptop, mobile phone or tablet computer)? Buy a product/service online” – at least once weekly: men 41%, women 37%

3. Men do their research

You’ve probably suspected it for a while, but when it comes to online shopping, men really do like to do their research before they buy. Although we all rely on earned media (such as likes, ratings and reviews) to inform our purchasing decisions, it’s men who will go that extra mile to make sure their product really does stand up to scrutiny. And it’s not just adults – research shows that this phenomenon starts young, with boys more likely to refer to the internet before making a purchase than girls. Not only that, but they’re also more likely to be influenced by the reviews and comments they find online than their female peers ([7].

Turning to nVision, we see:
• 73% of men say “I shop around extensively to get the best deals”
• Our kids research reveals that 37% of boys and 34% of girls have compared prices online/ used a price comparison site

For more information, contact Karen Canty | karenc@futurefoundation.net.  For more on Nathalie Nahai’s work or her book Webs of Influence: The Psychology of Online Persuasion, visit her website www.thewebpsychologist.com.

As we track in our Cashless Society trend, marketplace innovations designed to reduce (or indeed remove) our reliance on wallets and purses are coming thick and fast in 2012 – with mobile handsets leading the charge. But with nVision Research consistently showing that many people remain unconvinced about the data security credentials of their smartphones, we wonder whether Wallaby - launched in beta in the US during June – will help to contribute to the “Death of Objects” even among the more techno-phobic consumer segments.

Wallaby is a service which claims to select an individual’s best credit card for each transaction they make. The Wallaby card is connected to all of the user’s other payment accounts and, at the moment of purchase, will review the various cards to determine which would offer the best return for the consumer (eg to “maximize cash back rebates, merchant discounts, frequent traveler rewards”). According to the supporting website, “Each time you swipe your Wallaby Card, we look at where you are, what day it is, what cards are in your wallet, what your preferences are and what special deals are available. We then determine the best card for you for this purchase and forward the transaction to that card”.

Wallaby also claims that it helps to simplify the payment process and reduce wallet clutter. And the underlying proposition here is clear: why carry several cards in your purse/wallet when you can have just one which is guaranteed to provide you with the best return?

You might have noticed a new advertising drive by Irish ferries, very similar to the below (but narrated by a man)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xl030d_irish-ferries-advert_shortfilms

This, to me, is the language of the nano-trip – a (mainly European) travel trend that first emerged at the sharp end of the 00s and has been building up a head of steam recently. The France Tourist Authority adverts plastered all across the tube (encouraging people to ditch the staycation) is also in similar territory. On mainland Europe, you can also see various marketing campaigns targeting visitors from neighbouring countries specifically.

All this of course is certainly influenced by our long-standing desire for holidays abroad vs. professionalised budgeting.

On a global level, this feeds into the wider trend of inter-regional travel : this is seeing significant growth (particularly in China/Asia) and is expected to rise throughout the 10s.

We've talked in a previous blog-post about the "Brand Match" scheme from Sainsbury's, wondering if the current culture of price comparison will soon give way to a situation where companies carry out the hard work on our behalves and then proactively demonstrate the better value that they represent.

In this context, we note with interest the recent advertising activity from EDF Energy for its "Blue +Price Promise". Under the initiative, EDF says it will tell its customers if any of its competitors are offering better tariffs and that it won't charge them if they then wish to change suppliers accordingly. On its website, EDF thus offers a guarantee that “From the moment you complete your move to Blue +Price Promise, we'll let you know if a competitor or EDF Energy launches a product that's more than £1 cheaper per week”.

Should EDF find itself being out-priced, it claims that customers will receive letters or emails within 10 days of it learning about the more competitive option. And to give the process an air of transparency and impartiality, prices are monitored by PricewaterhouseCoopers (so that customers “don’t just have to take our word for it").

With the company also guaranteeing that its current prices will be maintained until 2013, that customers will receive monthly rewards as part of its “Thank yous” scheme and that the electricity it supplies comes from “low-carbon generation”, it seems clear that our Transparency, Demanding Consumers and Maximising Behaviour trends have lost none of their potency in the early 10s.

But this is a development which also speaks very strongly to our emerging End of Inefficiency trend - which suggests that, at least in relatively low-interest sectors, consumers may soon find themselves willing to hand over a degree of control to third-party systems guaranteed to find them the best deals. Does EDF's scheme show, then, how brands might be able to interrupt this trend by championing their own efficiency? And does it give further proof that we're heading towards "Price Comparison 2.0", where the impetus falls on brands rather than consumers? We'd love to hear your thoughts.