37c1dc64-4dad-44d5-ab7b-61d31dd19ded (1)

7/28/2019 37c1dc64-4dad-44d5-ab7b-61d31dd19ded (1)

1/10

custom research

I i n d pnd i n f

bigg xpn f n gd(cG) nf, wi v lf f

indy pnding bwn 10 pn nd20 pn f g l n pin.

t k f dll, -pni v invd illin f dll in

nlgy lp b ffivnf d pnd. ti n, CGTp-

n wi ad slin k llk nd nd w n

pny iz k diffn. Wil png f pnd ilf in n-

ily ipd by pny iz, wyi i bing ngd nd viwd inly i.

Wn pni w kd b inn gding n n inv-

n (roI) f d pnd, 67 pn f -pndn pd nn b

and efciency. However, when you look alil dp, i ny p-

ni nd $3 illin pd nn

b i biliy k invnin ddiin ilf v lg

pni. Fig 1 w gp b-

wn biliy k nd ng dpnd nd ffivn f pndilf. rgly lf f vll pndn

d lv gd in b , bwi n xpin, nly lg pni

pd xlln in b king ndffivn. t gp bwn v

nd v-n widn wn y lk king nd ngn pbilii

specically, with all of the not so good and

vy p n ing f -pndn f pni nd $3 illin.

t ffivn f ff ng p-

cic processes is similar across company size.Ddin ngn i b nlld,

fllwd by plnning nd nlyi. anprotability was rated not very effective by

pni f ll iz, indiing llng n gd indy.

tchnologyF ny pni, ff ipv p-in pfn v invlvd nl-

gy iplnin. ofn i, fliniiiv lvg ddiinl d ln

(see Figure 2). sipn nd yndid d d fn 83 pn , fl-

lwd by il n d 67 pn ndd d 54 pn. td d i

nly d yp w w diffnby pny iz, wi 64 pn f p-

ni v $3 billin lvging i ln,v nly 43 pn f ll pni.

unfnly, d yp in Fig 2 fn n ingd in td Pin

mngn (tPm) y, wi 38 pnnlyzing ply. N piingly,

17 pn n ingd n-d $3 billin, nd 13 pn d n-

jy i ingin v $3 billin.ti dipny bwn ll nd

larger companies is also reected in the fac-

t P mthe haves and have-nots

expert perspective by Fred schroeder President adesso solutions llc


2/10

expert perspective by Fred schroeder President adesso solutions llc

25%

46%

17%

12%

Excellent

Good

Not so Good

Very Poor

CAPABILITY RATING

17%

54%

25%

4%

ABILITY TO TRACK AND MANAGE SPENDING

EFFECTIVENESS OF SPENDING TO DRIVE SALES AND PROFITS

83%

83%

67%

54%

8%

Shipment data

Syndicated data

Retailer scan data

Trade data

Other

ELEMENT

nidd wn ling tPm y-

. Wil f nd w id ipn by jiy f pndn,

company size denitely inuenced the im-pn f nlyil bilii, inlding

pp in dining d pnd ff-

ivn. only lf f pni nd $3 bil-

lin d nlyil bilii vy ipn

b vy pny v $3 billin did ,indiing piid pbiliilg pni king.

t n f pin ffiv-n wi indi il lik ald l

by kara romanow

figure 1

t P m . e

figure 2

d e u a t P e(p p w)

o p

$3

p

p $3 ,

p p

p k.


3/10

Consumer Goods Technology

July 2012


4/10

1. What is your company size?

Company size %

Under $100M 20%

$100M to $499M 12%

$500M to $999M 12%

$1B to $2.9B 12%

$3B and above 44%

2. What types of products does your organization market? Mult iple respon ses permitted.

Products %

Food / Beverage 60%

Household products 32%

OTC / Personal Care / HBA 20%

60%

32%20%

Food / Beverage

Household products

OTC / Personal Care / HBA

20%

12% 12% 12%

44% Under $100M

$100M to $499M

$500M to $999M

$1B to $2.9B

$3B and above


5/10

3. What percentage of your gross sales are currently dedicated to trade spend?

Percentage %

5 to 10% 29%

11 to 15% 38%

16 to 20% 17%

21 to 25% 17%

26% or more 0%

4. Which phrase BEST describes your company's position and point of view when it comes to the

return on investment delivered by Trade Promotion spending?

Position and point of view %

Concerned about the cost and the efficiency of the investment 67%

Concerned about the cost and our inability to properly track and manage it 17%

Concerned about the cost but it delivers sales 13%

Extremely concerned about the cost, the inability to track it and the efficiency

of the investment 4%Not a major concern because it delivers a reasonable return on investment 0%

29%

38%

17% 17%

5 to 10%

11 to 15%

16 to 20%

21 to 25%

26% or more

67%

17%13%

4%

Concerned about the cost and the efficiency

Concerned about the cost and our i nability to track

Concerned but it delivers sales

Extremely concerned about the cost

Not a major concern


6/10

Thinking about the difference between Trade Promotion Management and Trade Promotion Effectiveness:

5. First, how would you categorize your company's ability to track and manage Trade Promotion spending?

Track and manage %

Good - we have a solution that manages our spending but is limited foranalyzing spending at a customer level

46%

Excellent - we have a great solution that both manages promotion spendingand enables us to manage promotion effectiveness

25%

Not So Good - we have a solution controlling some areas (e.g., deductions)but overall it isn't working well nor effective enough

17%

Very Poor - it's a problem managing deductions, or actual vs. planned spendis way off, and we don't have an effective, if any, solution in place

13%

6. Next, how would you categorize the effectiveness of your company's Trade Promotion spending

in terms of driving sales and profits?

%

54%

25%

17%

4%

Effectiveness

Very Poor - we have no way of knowing if our spending per customer is effective

Not So Good - we have difficulty analyzing the effectiveness of our spending / customer

Good - we have done some analysis and have insight into some areas or accounts

Excellent - we have a good handle on the effectiveness of our spending for most priority customers

46%

25%

17% 13%

Good

Excellent

Not So Good

Very Poor

54%

25%

17%

4%

Good

Not So Good

Excellent

Very Poor


7/10

7. Please rate the effectiveness of your company's Trade Promotion efforts for the following areas:

Very

Effective

Somewhat

Effective

Not Very

Effective

Not At All

Effective

Deduction Management 54% 29% 17% 0%

Promotion Planning & Analysis 17% 58% 21% 4%

Reporting & Analysis 13% 58% 25% 4%

Account Profitability 8% 50% 38% 4%

8. What are you currently using to analyze your trade promotion effectiveness?

Mult iple respon ses permitted.

Analyze %

Shipment data 83%

Syndicated data (e.g., IRI, Nielsen, etc.) 83%

Retailer scan data 67%

Trade data 54%

Other 8%


8/10

9. Are any of the above data sources integrated into your TPM system or are they analyzed separately?

Integrated? %

Analyzed separately 38%

Manually integrated 21%

Not integrated 17%

Automated integration into TPM system 13%

Other 13%

10. How do you measure promotion effectiveness with indirect retailers (e.g., Ahold)?

Measure %

Disparate data 38%

We use same data for all customers 33%

None, we do not analyze this 29%

38%33%

29%Disparate data

We use same data for all customers

None, we do not analyze this

38%

21%17%

13% 13%

Analyzed separately

Manually integrated

Not integrated

Automated integration into TPM system

Other


9/10

11. How are your sales people and/or brokers primarly incented?

Incented %

Exceeding volume objectives / quotas 42%

Customer profitability 17%

Sales profitability 17%

Budget adherence 0%

Other 25%

42%

17% 17%

25%

Exceeding volume objectives / quotas

Customer profitability

Sales profitability

Budget adherence

Other


10/10

14. What is the liklihood you will look to change your TPM solution?

Change %

We are currently looking 21%

In the next 12 months 13%

13 - 24 months 17%

No plans to look 50%

15. Please indicate the importance of the following factors in selecting a TRADE PROMOTION MANAGEMENT provider:

Very

Important

Somewhat

Important

Not Very

Important

Not Important

At All

Fast and easy to install 29% 63% 8% 0%

Easy to use / good user adoption 79% 21% 0% 0%

Flexible / easy to configure 33% 67% 0% 0%

Cost / limited budget 21% 67% 8% 0%

Analytical abilities and support determining trade spending effectiveness 71% 29% 0% 0%

Documents

37c1dc64-4dad-44d5-ab7b-61d31dd19ded (1)