Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Challenging Brand Preference
- A Triangulation Study
3rd International Consumer Brand Relationship Colloquium
September 27, 2013
Rollins College
Winter Park, Florida
The Data Source Prosper International – Worthington, OH
● Online data gathering started in U.S. in 2002
● Consumer Intentions and Actions (CIA) and Media Behavior and Influence (MBI) studies
● CIA monthly, MBI twice yearly
● Both conduct online questionnaires in U.S.
● 8,000 responses in CIA, 22,000+ responses in MBI per wave
● Nationally projectable – using 14 U.S. Census age/sex format
● Product purchases in 8 categories – present and future
● Media use and influence – 31 external media forms, 23 internal
● NU data analysis, no restrictions
We’ve Now Aggregated and Combined 10 Years of CIA and MBI
Data 1,100,375 consumer responses analyzed 73 FMCG product categories 1,529 individual brands 31 media forms consumed – online and offline 23 in-store media forms reported Media consumption (minutes per day) and media
influence by media form
10 Year AGR for Brands, Stores and No Brand Preference
Brand AGR -1.68%
Store AGR -0.98%
No Preference +1.38%
AGR = Average growth/decline rate for the 10 year aggregated period
Are Brands Really in Trouble?
Manufacturer brand preference is declining
Not being taken up by store brands
Being replaced by No Brand Preference….commoditization?
The “signs” aren’t good
Internet
TV
Can Social Media be “Killing Brands….Softly?”
Some Speculation on Why Most brand theory and concepts developed in
1970s-1990s – age of mass media - common
consumer denominators
Brands are an artifact of large mass media
investments – primarily television
Mass media advertising provided widespread icons,
languages, understanding and acceptance among
large consumer base
Traditional brand success was built, and still
depends, on mass audiences, mass acceptance and
mass understanding – brands are all about “scale”
The Triangulation Study Two other brand research organizations
are finding the same results - declines in brand preference
● Y&R BAV – attributes it to “declining brand and organizational trust”
● Brand Keys (CEI) – suggests it’s “inability to create meaningful engagements due to the lack of product differentiation”
We Compared Three Product Categories
Our findings (BIG data), BAV and Brand Keys
● BAV – 40,000 responses per year, 20 years – global - monitors brand strength and stature
● Brand Keys – 30,000 responses per year, 13 years – U.S. only – measures engagement with brand
Three categories: cosmetics, ready-to-eat cereals and allergy medications
BIG Data: Cereal Brand Preference
Brands greater than 1% Share
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 AGR
Kelloggs 13.9 12.8 11.6 11.5 12.6 12.3 14.0 15.5 -5.6
Cheerios 9.3 9.2 9.7 10.6 11.5 12.5 12.7 12.7 3.3
General Mills 4.5 3.8 2.9 3.6 3.1 3.3 2.9 3.1 -25.7
Post 3.8 3.6 3.2 3.6 2.7 2.7 2.2 2.1 -18.2
Special K 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.4
Store Brand 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 0.6
Frosted Flakes 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.8 -3.9
Kashi 1.1 1.4 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.0 8.8
Raisin Bran 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.2 -11.4
Quaker 1.3 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.7 -14.0
Honey Buns 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 0.9 1.1 1.2 -0.6
Corn Flakes 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 -10.9
Maltomeal 1.7 1.4 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 -1.8
No Preference 32.7 33.9 37.5 32.3 32.1 30.4 30.6 28.4 2.6
BAV Cereals
2002 2012
Allergy Medication Brand Preference
Brands greater than 1% Share
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 AGR
Store Brand 6.7 5.8 5.3 4.8 5.8 4.9 5.3 5.2 -2.7
Benadryl 5.5 5.8 5.4 4.0 4.4 5.1 5.1 4.7 -1.3
Tylenol 8.1 6.1 5.3 4.6 3.7 3.6 3.2 2.4 -15.6
Sudafed 5.6 5.3 4.4 3.3 3.5 3.3 2.9 2.7 -11.0
Claritin 2.1 2.3 3.6 3.4 3.7 4.2 3.7 3.3 5.8
Equate 2.4 2.3 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.8 2.1 1.9 -2.7
Advil 3.0 2.1 1.7 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.5 -10.7
No Preference
57.6 60.2 62.9 69.6 66.0 65.3 65.3 65.1 1.5
BAV Allergy Meds
2002 2012
BIG Data Cosmetic Brand Preference
2012 2011 Difference
Share NPS Share NPS Share NPS
All Users-20.1 -24.1 3.9
Cover Girl 19.2 27.5 20.8 27.9 -1.6 -0.4
Maybelline 13.1 11.9 12.8 6.5 0.3 5.5
Revlon 7.6 17.5 7.0 -3.4 0.5 20.9
L’Oreal 6.7 17.2 6.2 25.9 0.5 -8.7
Avon 5.5 38.9 7.0 29.4 -1.5 9.6
Clinique 4.1 53.6 4.2 48.5 -0.1 5.5
Mary Kay 3.5 49.2 3.9 45.1 -0.4 4.1
MAC 3.1 39.0 3.3 41.1 -0.2 -2.1
Oil of Olay 2.0 -1.2 1.4 22.6 0.7 -23.8
Almay 1.8 37.1 2.1 13.7 -0.2 23.3
Estee Lauder 1.7 53.5 2.1 48.0 -0.4 5.5
Other31.8 29.3 2.5
No Preference22.2 22.7 -0.5
BAV Cosmetics 2002
2002 2012
Brand Keys “Brand Engagement”
Category Year Mean VarianceRange
(max-min)
Cereals2004 123.36 28.05 19.00
2013 118.09 3.29 6.00
Cosmetics2004 128.17 41.24 17.00
2013 128.58 2.81 4.00
Allergy Meds2004 111.33 20.67 12.00
2013 110.00 9.60 9.00
● Variance in the Engagement Index has fallen drastically in all 3 categories from 2004 to 2013
● Range in the Engagement Index is much smaller in 2013 than in 2004
Hierarchical Cluster Analysis
# Clusters in 2002 # Clusters in 2012
Cereals 5 2
Cosmetics 4 1
OTC Allergy Meds 4 2
Results are consistent irrespective of methodology
BAV Cereals Cluster Analysis
● K-means cluster analysis with two clusters. ● Decreasing distance between the two clusters over time
