Brand Image: Does it meet clients’ needs?Susan McNew
The Situation
In 1998, Ceridian had a moderate advertising budget and complete collateral system.
In 1999 & 2000, Ceridian went dark with all advertising and began a shift to a new internally developed collateral system.
In 2002, Ceridian hired a new Sr. VP of Marketing.
The Ceridian Brand Image
New logo. New collateral system. Small advertising budget.
New brand designed to increase curb appeal and generate greater awareness.
The Opportunity
Connect customers with Ceridian’s unique value.
Promise better future for our customers. Establish context for Ceridian business
activities. Create motivated, focused employee culture. Separate Ceridian from the competition.
The Research Question
Does Ceridian’s brand image appeal to human resource professionals’ needs?
Methodology
Began with focus group of clients. Helped test the current brand image and
define questions for survey instrument. Phone survey to 774 clients and prospects
Immediate need for results Ability to gather verbatim comments
Phone Survey
15 – 20 minutes to complete $1,000 cash drawing Dun & Bradstreet database Ceridian’s sponsorship was not disclosed 3 weeks to complete
Survey Says All questions focused on one of the following
areas: How they currently perceive the various human
resource vendors. What vendor attributes are critical to meet the
requirements and needs of their company’s benefits, payroll and human resources departments.
How/where they receive their information about new products and solutions.
Demographics about their company.
Key Findings – Provider Positions% Aware of Provider on Aided Basis
Reported awareness by percentage.
ADP achieved the highest level of awareness.
Ceridian follows ADP at the next level of awareness.
Two other providers achieved awareness nearly as high as Ceridian; PeopleSoft and PayChex.
Fewer than one-fifth of the respondent companies are aware of ProBusiness, life care or ComPsych.
4
7
13
34
44
43
49
75ADP
Ceridian
PeopleSoft
PayChex
Magellan
ProBusiness
Life Care
ComPsych
Provider – most likely considered
1
5
4.5
6
13ADP
Ceridian
PeopleSoft
PayChex
ProBusiness
Base: 774 Total Respondents
Other ProvidersLess than 1%
ADP achieved the highest level of consideration.
Ceridian follows ADP at the next level of consideration. Lower awareness is behind
Ceridian’s lower consideration level in this study.
PeopleSoft and PayChex achieved consideration just below Ceridian but ahead of the other providers.
No other provider gained consideration among more than 1% of the respondent firms.
Key Findings – Provider Positions Ceridian is more successful
among the larger segments on the key market penetration measures.
Ceridian’s awareness and consideration are particularly low among Small company prospects.
ADP’s penetration levels are strong across all of these company size segments, especially Large Midsize firms (351-1000 employees).
CERIDIAN SUCCESS RATES:
Small[195]
Small Midsize
[181]
Large Midsize
[170]
Large[143]
Total[689]
Awareness 19 45 53 60 43
Consideration 2 6 8 10 6
Considered & Aware
8 12 16 16 14
ADP SUCCESS RATES:
Awareness 61 77 81 78 74
Current Use 22 33 45 28 32
Consideration 14 13 12 12 13
Considered & Aware
23 17 15 15 18
Key Findings – Ceridian
Good
FairExcellent
Poor Very GoodExcellent
Good
PoorFair
Very Good
As expected, the overall rating for Ceridian among customers is much more positive than among Ceridian’s non-customers.
Just slightly more than one-third (36%) of the non-customers gave Ceridian a highly positive rating compared to nearly six-tenths (58%) of current customers.
“Good” (the middle rating point) is the most frequent overall rating of Ceridian among non-customers compared to “Very Good” among customers.
Ceridian Non-Customers (n=198) Ceridian Customers (n=84)
47%
30%6%
14% 4%
46%
12%4%
29%
10%
Key Findings – Perceptions
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Overall
Data Secure
Better Comply
New Tech
Access Tech
User Training
Reporting & Analysis
Web Self-Service
Customer Support
Full Range
Noncustomers Customers
Top 2 Ratings of Ceridian – Customers vs. Non-Customers
As expected, Ceridian’s customers were more likely to give Ceridian positive ratings on every attribute.
Very large customer-to-noncustomer differences were found for …
Overall Rating Data Secure/Private
Notable differences were also detected for …
Web Self-service model Customer Support
Key Findings – Perceptions
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Integrated
Quality & Reliable
Frees HR
Easy to Use
Flexible
Fulfill Quickly
ROI
Lower Costs
Inexpensive
Noncustomers Customers
Top 2 Ratings of Ceridian – Customers vs. Non-Customers Other attributes with very large
Ceridian customer-to-noncustomer differences:
Integrated Solutions Very Flexible
Customers were also more positive than non-customers for …
Quality and Reliable Frees HR Easy to Use ROI Relatively Inexpensive
Fulfill Quickly was the only attribute where customers are not more positive than non-customers.
Next steps
Ceridian now understands its position in the market.
Increasing Ceridian’s brand awareness has received management level attention.
The survey will be repeated in 2003.
Questions?