Upload
girish-patil
View
721
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
If need more details contact me !!
Citation preview
JOHN WAX: ENHANCE(A)
Product Line
House hold Viz, Brite, Klear Floor Wax, Rain Barrel Fabric
softner etc
Personal care products Hair conditioner and shampoos
SC Johnson & Company
Standard established procedures for New Product development
◦ Product Feasibility study
◦ Performance test against competitive product
◦ Test market before national introduction
New Product Development
Hair Conditioning Market
[(202-116)/116)]x 100=74%Increase in Instant hair conditioner market size
Company launched Agree hair instant conditioner in 1977
ASSESSOR Test was conducted on Agree product – performed fairly well
1978 Market share Agree conditioner – 15.2%
Agree Hair Conditioner
Enhance Hair Conditioner With success of Agree conditioner Company
decided to launch Enhance- Sequel of Agree in 1979
Target Market Dry Hair 25-45 Yr Old Women
Existing Competitors Brands: Ravlon’s Flex, Brek Clean, Tame, Loreal, Sassoon, W Balsam and AGREE
Blind Test was conducted to establish preference levels on specific and overall attributes against competitor products Viz Revalon Flex
Test was conducted on 400 hair conditioner users for six weeks usage period
Users were given Enhance and Flex condiioners in blind labeled, identical non-identifiable packages form
The Key preference attribute to be tested was ‘women with specific hair care’ problem relevant to Enhance strategy and positioning
Enhance Blind Test
Blind Test – Overall Prefrence
The ASSESSOR Pre-Test Market was resorted to estimate the ongoing market share of Enhance and determine the consumer reaction to the product
2 Independent techniques were used namely◦ Trail and Repeat Level method- for Market Share
prediction of new product◦ Preference Level method – for Measurement of Brand
Preference
ASSESSOR Pre Test market
Over view of ASSERSOR Modeling Sequence
Test Phases Laboratory PhasePre Use
Call Back Phase Post Use
initial Questionnaire – Evoke Set The preference questionnaire – Pairing of brand Advertising recallLaboratory Purchasing Brand Ratings
Information Collection – After use preferences, repeat purchase rate, and diagnostics concerning product performance Call back test was conducted 4 weeks after the Lab test
ASSESSOR Pre Test market
ASSESSOR provided 08 major result ◦ Market Structure – for segmentation of market ◦ Advertising recall – to estimate impact of
advertisement ◦ Trial Estimation- to simulate anticipated
competitive environment ◦ Repeat Purchase Estimation◦ Product Acceptance- Like and dislike of product ◦ Market Share Prediction
Trial and repeat model Preference model
◦ Cannibalization◦ Incremental Share from Sampling
ASSESSOR Pretest results
ASSESSOR -MARKET STRUCTURE
Product Map- Enhance Vs Othre Product
Provided a measure of how well an ad broke through the clutter of competitive advertising
Ad recall reasons (Exhibit-4) ◦ For dry hair – 47 %◦ Conditioning – 20%◦ Penetrates - 20 %◦ Manageability – 11%◦ Texture of hair – 6%
ASSESSOR –ADVERTISMENT RECALL
Ad Point Recall
Is designed to reflect local conditions and simulate the anticipated competitive environment
The test product is showcased like a real market condition
Enhance was offered in 8 and 16 ounce sizes at $1.31 and $ 1.94
Agree was offered in 8 and 12 ounce sizes at $1.31 and $ 1.67
Flex was offered in 16 ounce size at $ 1.67 Out Come
◦ Enhance trial rate 23% where as Agree had achieved trial rate of 33% in the past
TRIAL ESTIMATION
Administered by telephone call back – 04 weeks after Laboratory Interviews.
Out of 215 respondents, 42 did not use Enhance because it is specifically formulated for DRY HAIR
The performance on PRODUCT MAP post sample usage by the respondents.(Exhibit-3)◦ Condition Vs Clean – improved on clean and declined on
conditioning
◦ Condition Vs Effects – Declined on conditioning as well as effects
ASSESSOR – Repeat Purchase Estimation
The respondents feedback was obtained about ‘what she liked best about Enhance’
The response was for Manageability rather than conditioning which was the main copy point of market structure
Even repeat purchasers voted for Manageability
ASSESSOR –Product Acceptance
ASSESSOR –Product Acceptance
Market Share was estimated with two convergent methods
◦ Trial and Repeat
◦ Preference Model
ASSESSOR –Market Share Prediction
Trial and Repeat: Model was based on the purchase information gathered during laboratory shopping and follow up telephone calls
The Formula used wasM=TS
Where M= Market ShareT= the ultimate cumulative trial rate (Penetration or
Trial)S = the ultimate repeat purchase rate among those
buyers who have made a trail purchase
Retention (S) was a function of the initial repeat purchase rate and the rate at which previous tiers returned to Enhance after buying another product (called switch back)
ASSESSOR –Market Share Prediction
Preference Model Estimates of Share – Model market share predictions was based on the respondents answers to questions about product attributes and the degree to which they perceived these attributes to be present in competing brand.
The preference model predicted that Enhance would attain 27.5% share of those consumers (in evoked sets) Penetration rate – 14% Base Market Share Estimate – 3.8%
ASSESSOR –Market Share Prediction
ASSESSOR –Market Share Prediction
It was estimated that the launch of Enhance will lead to 2.4% cannibalization among Agree users
The analysis shows to draw more than proportionate share of cannibalization from competitive products Viz. Wella, Balsam etc
The analysis also shows to draw less than proportionate share of cannibalization from competitive product Viz Loreal, Clirol Condition
ASSESSOR –Canibalisation
The analysis shows to draw more than proportionate share of cannibalization from competitive product Viz, Wella Balsam.
The analysis also shows to draw less than proportionate share of cannibalization from competitive product Viz, Loreal, Clirol Condition.
ASSESSOR- Incremental Share from sampling