FINDING 01HIGH IMPACT
Measure change, not the dominant emotion
"Sad was the floor. Happy was the only channel that actually moved with the content."
EMOTION TIMELINE · 0:00 – 4:32
0:001:303:004:32
Across 244 usable reaction videos, the predominant expression was flat and slightly negative — exactly what a distracted viewer looks like, and a poor verdict on the creative. So we measured change off each viewer's own baseline, not raw intensity. Read that way, smiling is the channel that tracks ad and brand effect , , and at scale a positive shift is recoverable from webcam responses well enough to predict ad liking . The one reaction worth acting on was a Surprise spike — invisible in the average, isolated to the 13–17 segment, on a single second of one cut. Stated preference would never have found it.
Each finding is read off the time-aligned emotion trace, normalized against each viewer's own baseline. The resting face is a floor, not a verdict; what counts is where the face moves, in which direction, and at which second. The full segmented traces ship in the downloadable report.
"Sad was the floor. Happy was the only channel that actually moved with the content."
"Across all 244 videos the most common expression was low-grade negative, and it did not develop."
"Fear and Anger showed no meaningful shift for any clip — no aversion event, no recoil."
"A sharp Surprise spike appeared only in 13–17 White & Asian viewers, on cut one, at the cup-placement moment — then a positive follow-through."
"The reordered second cut drew no strong reaction in any demographic; the longer competitor spots with people and animals pulled the strongest Happy in the test."
Build the launch around the one moment that earned a reaction. Cut a short version that front-loads the placement-and-swirl beat before the brand mark appears — positive expression converts to intent only when it lands right before the brand. Retire the second cut. If there is budget for a follow-up, the longer story-and-character structure of the benchmarks is the proven pattern.
Segmented from the time-aligned emotion traces by age, gender, and ethnicity. Shares are of the 244-video sample; the line under each is the reaction that defines it.
"The only segment that flinched — Surprise into Happy at the cup-placement second on cut one, and nowhere else."
The youngest viewers, most likely to share. The single actionable reaction in the test lives here. Build the cut-down for them.
"Cut one did not resonate. No strong shift either way, positive or negative."
Same age, different response. The placement gag did not land. A reminder that "youth" is not one audience on this creative.
"Flat across both in-house cuts; the benchmarks still moved them."
The larger half of the sample, and the quieter one for this creative. They prove the sensor works — they react to the strong benchmarks — they just do not react to the cuts on test.
"Most responsive overall, with the strongest Happy of anyone on the character-and-animal benchmark."
A smaller slice of the sample but the most expressive. Useful for calibration; not where the in-house cuts won or lost.
"Reacted, but with no actionable creative-level difference between the cuts."
Two thirds of the sample. They engaged, yet the in-house cuts did not separate for them — which is itself a finding when a creative is meant to.
We don't share client reports — but we'll run a study like this one on your audience and hand you the full evidence trail: every finding traceable to a clip, a transcript, and a segment. Book a 30-minute working session and we'll scope it against a real question of yours.