Skip to main content

Survey: Amazon Echo owners spend $400 per year more than Prime subscribers on Amazon

Based on a survey of 2,000 consumers who made purchases on in 2017, Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP) has determined that Amazon Echo owners are even more valuable to the company than Prime members.

CIRP grouped Amazon shoppers into three categories: (1) those that own at least one Alexa device, (2) Prime subscribers and (3) average Amazon shoppers who don’t fall into either of the other two categories. (There’s probably a meaningful overlap between categories 1 and 2.)

The company estimated that average annual spending for all Amazon customers is $1,000 while Prime subscribers spend roughly $1,300. However, Echo owners spent a full $400 more on average, coming in at around $1,700 annually.

Average Annual Spending on (As of Q3 2017)

Amazon aggressively discounted the cost of its various Alexa devices in an effort to drive adoption and consolidate its dominant position in the virtual assistant market. Alexa/Echo devices were at or near the top of the company’s list of best-selling electronics over the holiday.

Most of these Echo owners are not buying products by voice. Echo ownership thus reflects (and perhaps reinforces) loyalty to Amazon. Recognizing the spending patterns, Amazon may be inclined to subsidize Echo devices to get them into people’s homes. This was one of the speculative observations in the CIRP report.

Estimates in the market of Prime membership vary from about 50+ million to just over 100 million. It’s probably closer to the latter figure. It’s also a safe bet that the categories of Echo owners and Prime members substantially overlap.

There are about 125 million US households, according to US Census Data and updated estimates. Many virtual assistant households have more than one device (think: multiple rooms). Accordingly, the US market for virtual assistants could ultimately exceed 200 million devices.

via Marketing Land


Popular posts from this blog

6 types of negative SEO to watch out for

The threat of negative SEO is remote but daunting. How easy is it to for a competitor to ruin your rankings, and how do you protect your site? But before we start, let’s make sure we’re clear on what negative SEO is, and what it definitely isn’t.Negative SEO is a set of activities aimed at lowering a competitor’s rankings in search results. These activities are more often off-page (e.g., building unnatural links to the site or scraping and reposting its content); but in some cases, they may also involve hacking the site and modifying its content.Negative SEO isn’t the most likely explanation for a sudden ranking drop. Before you decide someone may be deliberately hurting your rankings, factor out the more common reasons for ranking drops. You’ll find a comprehensive list here.Negative off-page SEOThis kind of negative SEO targets the site without internally interfering with it. Here are the most common shapes negative off-page SEO can take.Link farmsOne or two spammy links likely won’…

Another SEO tool drops the word “SEO”

This guest post is by Majestic’s Marketing Director, Dixon Jones, who explains the reasons for their recent name change.
Majestic, the link intelligence database that many SEOs have come to use on a daily basis, has dropped the “SEO” from it’s brand and from its domain name, to become Since most people won’t have used Google’s site migration tool before, here’s what it looks like once you press the “go” button:

In actual fact – there’s a minor bug in the tool. The address change is to the https version of (which GWT makes us register as a separate site) but that message incorrectly omits that. Fortunately, elsewhere in GWT its clear the omission is on Google’s side, not a typo from the SEO. It is most likely that the migration tool was developed before the need for Google to have separate verification codes for http and https versions of the site.
The hidden costs of a name change
There were a few “nay sayers” on Twitter upset that Majestic might be deserting it…

Software Review Site TrustRadius Has A New Way to Treat Reviews Obtained Through Vendors

Online user reviews are the most powerful marketing technique for influencing purchase decisions. But do they accurately represent the views of most users?Today, business software review platform TrustRadius is announcing a new way — called trScore — to handle the bias introduced in reviews by users obtained through the vendor of the reviewed software product. The site says more than two million software buyers visit each year to check out its product reviews.To understand trScore, let’s first look at TrustRadius’ approach.The site says it authenticates all users through their LinkedIn profiles. It also requires users to answer eight to ten questions about the product, in order to weed out users having no familiarity. Additionally, a staff person reads every review before it is posted, and the site says about three percent of reviews are rejected for not meeting guidelines.As for the reviews themselves, TrustRadius puts them into two main buckets: independently-sourced reviews and ven…