Facially Expressed Emotions and Hedonic Liking on
2022 17th International Workshop on Semantic and Social Media Adaptation & Personalization (SMAP) | 978-1-6654-8727-6/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/SMAP56125.2022.9942096
Social Media Food Marketing Campaigns:Comparing
Different Types of Products and Media Posts
Katerina Tzafilkou
SMILE lab
University of Macedonia
Thessaloniki, Greece
tzafilkou@uom.edu.gr
katerinatzaf@gmail.com
Abstract— When viewers watch food video campaigns in
social media, they are experiencing various emotions. This
study explores these viewers’ emotional states that can be
detected through facial expressions, as well as their perceived
hedonic liking of the product. The study consists of five
experiments, one per product/stimulus including hedonic and
utilitarian foods. Seventy-six viewers successfully
participated in the tasks, and 164 valid video records were
analyzed by FaceReader Online. The results indicated that
FaceReader Online can capture differences in emotional
responses elicited by different types of food and media posts
in social media marketing campaigns. Sadness prevailed all
other emotions throughout the campaigns, while arousal
remained at levels of inactivity. The responses in the hedonic
product campaign were significantly less negative (in terms of
sadness and anger) than those in the campaigns of utilitarian
products. The hedonic liking ratings indicated significant
differences among campaigns of similar content and media
characteristics, implying the determinant role of other factors,
like individual product preferences and sensory expectations.
The results contribute to understanding consumer emotions
during watching food related campaigns in social media.
Keywords— consumer emotions, face tracking,
marketing campaigns, social media campaigns, video ads
I. INTRODUCTION
Measuring emotions can be crucial in the field of social
media food market research since psychological and social
factors can elicit food-related consumption behaviors.
Emotions are also crucial determinants of selecting and
consuming hedonic or utilitarian foods. Hedonic foods (e.g.,
ice cream) primarily serve to provide sensory pleasure,
whereas utilitarian foods (e.g., vegetables, bread) typically
have a more instrumental value [1]. Since the exposure to food
978-1-6654-8727-6/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: Universidade Catolica Portuguesa. Downloaded on December 28,2023 at 09:13:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Foteini Rafailia Panavou Anastasios A. Economides
SMILE lab SMILE lab
University of Macedonia University of Macedonia
Thessaloniki, Greece Thessaloniki, Greece
fotini138@hotmail.com economid@uom.gr
advertisements can influence the viewers’ food choices, this
associates food advertisements with food consumption
decisions [2].
Face tracking is a popular research methodology for
emotion detection because facial expressions are essential to
the expression of emotions. Researchers agree that changes in
facial expressions can lead to new objective measures of the
affective responses to foods, since the internal feelings are
frequently accompanied by them [2]. Furthermore, facial
expressions might provide additional information on fast
changing emotions during food consumption. Several
previous studies examined food-evoked emotions through
explicit dynamic approaches (e.g., Temporal Dominance of
Emotions) and implicit face tracking methodologies [3]-[7].
However, most of these studies included sensory attributes in
physical human-product experiences (e.g., while tasting the
product) and have not been conducted in the context of digital
campaigns. In a face tracking study, Mahieu et al. [8] showed
that watching an advertisement triggers stronger implicit
emotions than smelling a perfume or tasting a chocolate. This
finding is very contributing to our research since it confirms
that strong implicit emotions can be elicited in exposure to
food advertisements, similarly to sensory based/embodied
food experience.
Moreover, most studies in the field examine typically
hedonic products, while research on utilitarian products is
missing. Finally, although several studies examined the
characteristics of video campaigns that tend to retain user
attention and evoke emotional responses [9], the effects of
social media image posts and video campaigns on food
elicited emotions and preferences is significantly under
researched.
Motivated by the above, the main purpose of this study is
to examine the viewers’ emotions that can be detected via face
tracking software while they are watching social media
campaigns of utilitarian and hedonic food products. The study
also examines the self-perceived hedonic liking of every TABLE I. PRODUCT AND MEDIA CHARACTERISTICS
product and explores the differences among the campaigns. Stimulus Characteristics
Experiment/
The research objectives (ROs) are the following: Product
Campaign Content and Tech
Media type Duration
RO1: To facially detect consumer emotions during name characteristics
watching social media food campaigns of different types of Category #1: Healthy Yohurt (video ads, utilitarian)
branded: yes,
products (hedonic, utilitarian) and media (video, image posts). Experiment 1/ ‘Yogurt soundtrack: yes, Video 15
RO2: To examine the differences in hedonic liking and Milk yogurt Milk’ human faces: yes (YouTube) seconds
emotional responses among different social media food
campaigns. branded: yes,
The experimental results are expected to shed light on the Experiment 2/ ‘Yogurt soundtrack: yes, Video 17
effectiveness and usefulness of applying face tracking to Almond yogurt Almond’ human faces: yes (YouTube) seconds
detect consumer emotions in social media marketing research.
The results provide the research community with richer Category #2: Nutritious Nutbutters (image posts, utilitarian)
insights on consumer emotions during watching food related Video-
Slideshow
video and image posts campaigns for hedonic and utilitarian Experiment 3/
branded: yes, (Facebook
products. Nut butter ‘Nutbutters 15
soundtrack: no, and
package and Only’ seconds
human faces: no Instagram
jars only
image
II. RESEARCH DESIGN posts)
Video-
As part of a larger study, participants completed one Slideshow
separate test for each product/stimulus, providing a final Experiment 4/
‘Nutbutters branded: yes, (Facebook
Nut butters 16
dataset of 164 face tracking records. All data were collected Hedonic soundtrack: no, and
combined with seconds
at the University of Macedonia (Greece). The experimental Use’ human faces: yes Instagram
hedonic food
image
protocol was approved by the ethical committee of the posts)
University of Macedonia. Category #3: Hedonic Ice cream (video ad, hedonic)
‘Hedonic Ad branded: yes,
Experiment 5/ Video 30
- Ice Cream’ soundtrack: yes,
A. Stimuli and Experimental Design Ice cream (YouTube) seconds
human faces: yes
Five commercially available products of branded milk
yogurt, almond yogurt, nut butters (hazelnuts, almond,
sesame, etc.), and ice cream, were used as stimuli. This B. Participants
research focused on healthy and nutritious utilitarian Seventy-six participants successfully completed at least one
products since they are considered more difficult to provoke of the five experimental tasks within a period of 60 days. There
strong food elicited emotions, compared to unhealthy and was an approximately equal gender distribution in the sample
hedonic products [1] [2]. (51% female, 49% male). The majority (64.5%) was in the age
A five-task experimental survey was designed in the group of 25-34, 18.4% were in the age group of 35-50, 14.5%
FaceReader Online platform, to individually track the facial were between 18 and 24 years old, while 2.6% were above 51
emotional expressions for each product stimulus. The first years old. Only 5 participants reported food allergies, two of
experiment included a YouTube video ad of a regular Greek whom concerned dairy products; hence these participants were
yogurt, while the second one included a YouTube video ad excluded from the yogurt experimental data. None of the
of an almond yogurt and related almond milk products of the participants was vegan, and 14.5% of the participants reported
same brand. The third experiment included a set of Facebook that they do not consume sugar.
image posts on a branded nut butter product, presenting only
the product and its package. The fourth experiment presented
the same nut butter highlighting their use in a hedonic C. Procedure and Measured Attributes
approach, e.g., through combinations with hedonic food (like An online invitation page including detailed instructions was
muffins and pancakes). The fifth experiment presented a distributed to all participants through email, describing the
video ad on a branded ice cream (hedonic product). Due to experimental steps and providing the corresponding FaceReader
the FaceReader restriction to upload stimuli in image Online and self-reported questionnaire links. Participants
formats, the tasks in experiments 3 and 4 were conducted completed each experiment separately on their desktop or laptop
through a video slideshow presenting the selected social devices. Due to technical limitations on mobile devices
media image posts. (especially on iOS smartphones), the participants were asked not
The characteristics of the selected products and media to use mobile devices for the experiment.
stimuli are presented in Table I. After watching a video ad, the participants filled in a
questionnaire about the hedonic liking of the promoted product.
A separate questionnaire link was provided in the instructions
page for every experimental task. After completing one
experimental task they could manually move to the next one.

Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: Universidade Catolica Portuguesa. Downloaded on December 28,2023 at 09:13:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 All participants provided their formal consent to be facially TABLE II. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR FXPERIMENT 1
tracked by FaceReader Online for emotion detection Std.
Emotion Min. Max. Mean [0,1]
purposes. Instructions were also provided on the position of Deviation
their head, the camera state, the room lighting, and the Happy .000 .409 .0467 .0921
potential removal of glasses and make up. Neutral .153 .989 .7060 .2170
The FaceReader Online™ software detects the six basic Sad .004 .929 .1202 .1739
emotions of Ekman [10] (happy, sad, angry, surprised, Angry .001 .748 .0789 .1290
Surprised .000 .131 .0153 .0219
scared, disgusted), a neutral state (neutral), as well as valence
Scared .000 .136 .0146 .0243
and arousal. The self-reported survey included a
Disgusted .000 .161 .0219 .0330
questionnaire item to measure the hedonic liking of the
Valence -.928 .357 -.1349 .2252
promoted product. The questionnaire was based on a five-
Arousal .189 .585 .3201 .0783
point hedonic scale: “I like the product [1= Extremely
Hedonic liking** 3.00 5.00 3.960 .767
Disagree; …; 5=Extremely Agree], according to relevant
literature in food science [11]. *Note: The mean value ranges between 0 and 1 for the FaceReader extracted
emotions, and between 1 and five for the self-reported hedonic liking item.
**Note. The value is self-reported
D. Data Processing and Analysis
Recording and analysis was completed successfully in
TABLE III. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR FXPERIMENT 2
203 sessions. All analyzed results were exported by
FaceReader Online in csv format to be cleaned and further Emotion Min. Max. Mean [0,1]
Std.
processed. After removing all records of low recording Deviation
Happy .000 .469 .0391 .0959
quality (less than 4.0/10.0), a total of 164 valid records
Neutral .283 .985 .7347 .2035
composed the final dataset (Experiment 1: 45 sessions,
Sad .001 .593 .0989 .1234
Experiment 2: 37 sessions, Experiment 3: 41 sessions,
Angry .000 .425 .0553 .0994
Experiment 4: 41 sessions, Experiment 5: 13 sessions). The Surprised .000 .290 .0309 .0569
final records achieved an average recording quality score of Scared .000 .078 .0144 .0180
9.0. Recording quality in FaceReader is ranging from 1=very Disgusted .000 .404 .0286 .0684
poor to 10=ideal quality. The final data were imported in Valence -.589 .287 -.1054 .1791
SPSS to calculate the descriptive statistics and conduct the Arousal .183 .547 .3163 .0745
comparative analyses. Hedonic liking** 1.00 5.00 3.320 .973
The platform of FaceReader Online generated a list of
visualized graphs and reports, filtering out the records of *Note: The mean value ranges between 0 and 1 for the FaceReader extracted
quality lower than 4.0/10.0. The reports included time charts, emotions, and between 1 and five for the self-reported hedonic liking item.
**Note. The value is self-reported
graphs, and pies for every task, as well as comparative results
in tables and graphs between the experiments based on T-
Test analysis. TABLE IV. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR FXPERIMENT 3
Std.
Emotion Min. Max. Mean [0,1]
Deviation
III. RESULTS
Happy .000 .457 .0392 .0923
Neutral .296 .981 .6946 .1981
Sad .001 .344 .0880 .0960
A. Descriptive Statistics
Angry .001 .572 .0917 .1367
Tables II-VI depict the descriptive statistics’ results that Surprised .000 .276 .0335 .0591
were calculated for each experiment separately, based on the Scared .000 .230 .0230 .0401
exported and processed datasets. The self-reported hedonic Disgusted .000 .330 .0401 .0728
liking value is integrated in every table to depict the hedonic Valence -.587 .403 -.1361 .1811
liking score for the promoted product in every experiment. Arousal .164 .481 .3082 .0652
As expected, the hedonic ad of ice cream received the Hedonic liking** 1.00 5.00 2.930 1.058
highest values of hedonic liking, while the lowest scores were
indicated in the nut butter product in the campaign *Note: The mean value ranges between 0 and 1 for the FaceReader extracted
‘Nutbutters only’. Interestingly, the same product in a emotions, and between 1 and five for the self-reported hedonic liking item.
different marketing campaign where its hedonic use was **Note. The value is self-reported
presented, reported higher hedonic liking rates among the
participants.

University of Macedonia, Greece.

Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: Universidade Catolica Portuguesa. Downloaded on December 28,2023 at 09:13:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE V. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR FXPERIMENT 4 average expressions of all participants. The time series data
Std. in the charts highlight the average levels (between 0 and 1 in
Emotion Min. Max. Mean [0,1]
Deviation axis y) of every measured emotion throughout the duration of
Happy .000 .207 .0260 .0482 every video campaign, separated in timeframes of 2 and 5
Neutral .313 .984 .7040 .1936 seconds (in axis x). The decreasing or increasing linear
Sad .001 .520 .1052 .1189 pattern in the prevailing emotion ‘sad’ is also depicted for
Angry .000 .314 .0680 .0849 each depicted campaign. The emotion ‘neutral’ was excluded
Surprised .000 .149 .0320 .0385
from the reports since its levels were significantly higher than
Scared .000 .123 .0188 .0230
all measured emotions (around 0.7/1.0), revealing low levels
Disgusted .000 .409 .0355 .0756
of emotional responses.
Valence -.517 .084 -.1370 .1350
Overall, the participants expressed similar facial emotional
Arousal .196 .542 .3143 .0677
states in all five experiments, where the emotion of sadness
Hedonic liking** 1.00 5.00 3.290 1.146
(followed by anger) was prevailing over the other emotions
*Note: The mean value ranges between 0 and 1 for the FaceReader extracted during the sessions. The expression of happiness remained at
emotions, and between 1 and five for the self-reported hedonic liking item. lower levels throughout the time frames. The trend lines of
**Note. The value is self-reported the prevailing emotion of sadness indicated a mild decrease
or increase during the campaign duration of the healthy and
TABLE VI. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR FXPERIMENT 5 nutritious products, whereas in the case of hedonic product a
quite intensive decrease was observed in the first and last
Std. seconds where the emotion of surprise significantly
Emotion Min. Max. Mean [0,1]
Deviation
Happy .380 .962 .7974 .1719 approached sadness. No significant differences were
Neutral .004 .111 .0491 .0391 observed in the sad area sizes among the non-hedonic
Sad .001 .238 .0545 .0672 products. The results imply that although negative facially
Angry .001 .164 .0343 .0485 expressed emotions tend to change throughout the time, they
Surprised .000 .059 .0095 .0157 still prevail over the positive ones in all types of products.
Scared .000 .065 .0161 .0200 As regards the hedonic liking of the promoted products,
Disgusted -.225 -.009 -.0798 .0592 the participants rated the hedonic liking of the yogurt and nut
Valence .202 .357 .2739 .0457 butter products of medium levels (mean= 3.35), while the ice-
Arousal .380 .962 .7974 .1719 cream hedonic liking score was significantly higher (mean=
Hedonic liking** 2.00 5.00 4.160 0.90 4.16).
The reports on the circumplex model indicated
*Note: The mean value ranges between 0 and 1 for the FaceReader extracted approximately equal levels of arousal and valence in all the
emotions, and between 1 and five for the self-reported hedonic liking item. five experiments. Participants expressed a quite unpleasant
**Note. The value is self-reported
(valence < 0) and inactive (arousal < 0.5) emotional state on
their facial expressions during watching the campaigns. This
B. Temporal Average Expressions and Circumplex Model result can be explained by the participants’ directed attention
Figures 1 -3 depict three examples (one from each product on the provided stimuli, as explained in [11].
category) of the reported time charts about the temporal

0.2
Emotion al score ranges

0.15
0.1
[0,1]

0.05
0
00:00.0 00:02.0 00:04.0 00:06.0 00:08.0 00:10.0 00:12.0 00:14.0 00:15.0
Time frames 2 sec

Happy Sad Angry Surprised Scared Disgusted Linear (Sad)

Figure 1 Time chart Experiment 1 ‘Yogurt Milk’

Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: Universidade Catolica Portuguesa. Downloaded on December 28,2023 at 09:13:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Emotion al score ranges 0.15

0.1

0.05
[0,1]

0
00:00.0 00:02.0 00:04.0 00:06.0 00:08.0 00:10.0 00:12.0 00:14.0 00:15.9
Time frames 2 sec

Happy Sad Angry Surprised Scared Disgusted Linear (Sad)

Figure 2 Time chart Experiment 5 ‘Nutbutters Hedonic Use’

0.1
Emotion al score ranges

0.08
0.06
0.04
[0,1]

0.02
0
00:00.0 00:05.0 00:10.0 00:15.0 00:19.9
Time frames 5 sec

Happy Sad Angry Surprised Scared Disgusted Linear (Sad)

Figure 3 Time chart Experiment 5 ‘'Hedonic Ad Ice Cream

C. Comparative Analysis
A comparative T-Test analysis with unequal sample size
and unequal variance was conducted between pairs of stimuli.
Five significant emotional differences (p<0.05) were reported
in the results, where four of them concerned differences
between the healthy/nutritious products and ice cream
(hedonic product). The detected differences emerged in
emotions of surprise, sadness, anger, and valence.
The following insights emerged in terms of emotions:
• In Experiment 1 ‘Yogurt Milk’, the selected participants
responded more surprised than in Experiment 4
‘Nutbutters Hedonic Use’.
• In Experiment 5 ‘Hedonic Ad - Ice Cream’ the selected
participants responded less sad than Experiment 1
‘Yogurt Milk’, less sad than Experiment 4 ‘Nutbutters
Hedonic Use’, and less angry than Experiment 3
‘Nutbutters Only’.
The following insight emerged in terms of valence:
• In Experiment 5 ‘Hedonic Ad - Ice Cream’ the selected
participants responded more positively than Experiment 4
‘Nuts Hedonic Use’.
The above results extended previous research on chocolate
versus bakery products, where chocolate products elicited
stronger emotional emotions, in bodily sensing studies [1].
The results also extended previous research on face tracking
indicating that FaceReader Online can capture differences in
emotional responses elicited by different types of food in
digital-social media marketing campaigns.
A comparative analysis was also conducted on the hedonic
liking scores of the non-hedonic products. The one-way
ANOVA results indicated significant differences (p<0.05) in
the hedonic liking among the four products. The participants
rated lowest the product in Experiment 4 ‘Nutbutterss Only’,
while the highest hedonic liking score was reported in
Experiment 1 ‘YogurtMilk’.
A bi-pair T-Test analysis with unequal sample size and
unequal variance also revealed significant differences between
the two yogurt products, where the milk yogurt received
significantly higher scores than the almond yogurt (p<0.05).
No significant differences were detected between the two
products of the nut butters campaigns. This result possibly is
explained by the fact that both campaigns promoted the same
product in a different marketing approach, and the participants
were asked to rate the product itself. The hedonic ice cream
product was excluded from the hedonic liking statistical
comparison since its value was significantly higher (p<0.05)
than all other products. These results suggest that the
individual preferences on a product possibly prevail over the
campaign design characteristics.

Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: Universidade Catolica Portuguesa. Downloaded on December 28,2023 at 09:13:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 IV. CONCLUSIONS [5]
This study describes a remote Face Tracking application
using real-time facial expression recognition in five
campaigns/stimuli, combined with a self-reported survey to [6]
measure the product hedonic liking.
The findings extend previous research in food-sensory
experiences by suggesting that facial expressions of negative [7]
emotions (sad, angry, or surprised) can reveal significant
differences in social media food campaigns.
The FaceReader Online tool detected significantly lower
levels of negative emotional states in the hedonic product (ice [8]
cream), compared to the rest campaigns of healthy and
nutritious products (yogurts and nut butters). This finding
comes in agreement with previous studies in sensory research
where chocolate products elicited more intensive emotional
[9]
responses compared to non-hedonic food products [1].
Significant differences were detected in surprise between
the image post campaign of nut and the video campaign of
milk yogurt, implying that FaceReader Online can detect [10]
differences in the emotional responses between different types
[11]
of products and stimuli.
The statistical analysis revealed significant emotional
differences among the healthy products’ campaigns’ hedonic
liking rates where the video ad of the branded milk yogurt was [12]
more positively indicated than the video ad of the branded
almond yogurt. Both video ads shared similar characteristics
like short duration, the use of soundtrack and the use of human
faces consuming the product.
Some limitations of the study regard the analysis
methodology as regards the comparison of the hedonic liking
rates and the consumers’ emotions, since other factors have
possibly affected their ratings apart from the campaign
characteristics (e.g., their previous experience with the product
and the expected sensory appeal [4]).
Also, the findings rely on the FaceReader software and
provide mainly descriptive analysis. Finally, the experimental
methodology that instructed participants to direct their
attention on the given stimuli is possibly the reason for the
decreased emotional effects in all the examined campaigns
[11], hence more research (e.g., in the wild) is suggested. This
research, however, faces the challenge that any food related
social media campaign can reveal some emotional responses
at a relatively narrow level of arousal and valence.
W. He, S. Boesveldt, C. de Graaf, and R. A. de Wijk, “The relation
between continuous and discrete emotional responses to food odors with
facial expressions and non-verbal reports,” Food Qual. Prefer., vol. 48,
pp. 130–137, 2016.
K. A. Leitch, S. E. Duncan, S. O’Keefe, R. Rudd, and D. L. Gallagher,
“Characterizing consumer emotional response to sweeteners using an
emotion terminology questionnaire and facial expression analysis,”
Food Res. Int., vol. 76, no. P2, pp. 283–292, 2015.
R. van Bommel, M. Stieger, M. Visalli, R. de Wijk, and G. Jager, “Does
the face show what the mind tells? A comparison between dynamic
emotions obtained from facial expressions and Temporal Dominance of
Emotions (TDE),” Food Qual. Prefer., vol. 85, no. December 2019, p.
103976, 2020.
B. Mahieu, M. Visalli, P. Schlich, and A. Thomas, “Eating chocolate,
smelling perfume or watching video advertisement: Does it make any
difference on emotional states measured at home using facial
expressions?,” Food Qual. Prefer., vol. 77, no. April, pp. 102–108,
2019.
J. L. Plass et al., “Emotional design for digital games for learning: The
effect of expression, color, shape, and dimensionality on the affective
quality of game characters,” Learn. Instr., vol. 70, no. February 2019, p.
101194, 2020.
P. Ekman, “Are There Basic Emotions?,” Psychological Review, vol.
99, no. 3. pp. 550–553, 1992.
S. Wichchukit and M. O’Mahony, “The 9-point hedonic scale and
hedonic ranking in food science: Some reappraisals and alternatives,” J.
Sci. Food Agric., vol. 95, no. 11, pp. 2167–2178, 2015, doi:
10.1002/jsfa.6993.
S. Wiens and E. Syrjänen, “Directed attention reduces processing of
emotional distracters irrespective of valence and arousal level,” Biol.
Psychol., vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 44–54, 2013, doi:
10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.05.001.

REFERENCES
[1] T. Otterbring, M. Folwarczny, and K. Gidlöf, “Hunger effects on option
quality for hedonic and utilitarian food products,” Food Qual. Prefer.,
vol. 103, no. April 2022, 2023.
[2] G. Juodeikiene et al., “Effects of emotional responses to certain foods
on the prediction of consumer acceptance,” Food Res. Int., vol. 112, no.
May, pp. 361–368, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.06.064.S.
[3] L. Danner, S. Haindl, M. Joechl, and K. Duerrschmid, “Facial
expressions and autonomous nervous system responses elicited by
tasting different juices,” Food Res. Int., vol. 64, no. November 2018, pp.
81–90, 2014.
[4] D. Garcia-Burgos and M. C. Zamora, “Facial affective reactions to bitter-
tasting foods and body mass index in adults,” Appetite, vol. 71, pp. 178–
186, 2013.

Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: Universidade Catolica Portuguesa. Downloaded on December 28,2023 at 09:13:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.