Brand Equity Measurement of Happydent ANTON BABU (U108009) AYAN DASGUPTA (U108014) GAURAV KAYAL (U108019) ISHITA GOEL (U108020)
CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 3 Brand Equity Measurement .................................................................................................................... 5 Brand Equity Model ............................................................................................................................ 6 Three Pillar Model ............................................................................................................................... 7 Stochastic Share .................................................................................................................................. 8 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Brand Loyalty (An off shoot of the Preference‐Behaviour Model and Measures) .............................. 9 Brand Adhesion ................................................................................................................................. 11 Price Sensitivity ................................................................................................................................. 14 Stochastic Share ................................................................................................................................ 16 Brand Gravity and Brand Focus......................................................................................................... 21 Brand Elasticity .................................................................................................................................. 23 Conclusion ................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. References ............................................................................................................................................ 26
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 2
Executive Summary In the Phase – I of our project, we measured the brand image of the brand Happydent, in the candy mouth freshener category, using a combination of the BAV model and laddering method. Our last finding indicated that Happydent was a leader in its category, beating off competition from the rival brands. In Phase – II, we work towards measuring the ‘equity’ of brand Happydent using a model which is a modification to existing models available for calculating brand equity. We use a “Three Pillar” model factoring in the components – Price Premium, Brand Loyalty and Market Share – to arrive at a definitive measure of brand equity. While evaluating the Brand Loyalty component, the results showed that in the case of Happydent (and the category in general), the customer attitude could be best described as belonging to the low involvement hierarchy (actÆfeelÆthink). The study reflected the brand’s reliance on highly loyal customers to drive its fortunes. To determine the Market Share we based our findings on a combination of ‘Stochastic share’ and ‘operational share’ to arrive at a suggestive figure. We determined the stochastic share to figure out the probability of the brand being selected on the next purchase decision. Being a determinant of the ‘mind‐share’, the stochastic preference share of the different brands was a clear pointer to the fact that Happydent had the highest share of the consumer’s mind. We also calculated the ‘Operational share’ of the different brands, an indicator of the market share of these products in the candy mouth freshener category. Happydent yet again scored over its competitors like Chloromint and Mentos. Price Premium being very important to measuring the brand equity, we relied on the Price and quality matrix which will check the premium that the brand can charge from its consumers for the quality that they provide. Through this model we inferred that a significant number of respondents viewed Happydent as good or superior quality, while a similar percentage of respondents considered the price to be not a barrier or at best a minor barrier; implying that for a superior or good quality product (even for a low involvement product category as this) the customer was willing to pay a higher price. We also tried to figure out the “brand gravity” and “brand focus” of Happydent with the results implying that the brand has a huge potential market waiting to be tapped and increasing its marketing efforts would be worthwhile. The results also confirmed an earlier inference that Happydent relied heavily on sales to its loyal customers.
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 3
In terms of brand adhesion Happydent is perceived less as a commodity as compared to the "mouth freshener category". There are strong loyalists to the brand, despite the category being a low involvement one. Consumers have strong attitudes towards the brand "Happydent" and they can identify with it. To sum it up, the brand Happydent scored high on all three parameters – price premium, brand loyalty, and market share (the market share was determined as a function of the ‘operational share’). However we also found out that most of its sales were derived from its (highly) loyal customers, and efforts were needed to be directed towards increasing its customer base since there was a potential market to be tapped. The overall Brand Equity of Happydent was on the higher side.
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 4
Brand Equity Measurement The concept of Brand Equity began to be widely used in the 1980’s by advertising practitioners and was then popularised by Aaker through his bestselling book on the subject. Advertising agencies such as Leo Burnett, DDB Needham and Young & Rubicam have continued to champion the cause and developed their own definitions and measurement systems. Traditionally marketers have emphasized short‐term measures such as current sales, profitability, and market share. However, these measures don’t always reflect the real success of marketing, which is to secure the long‐term preferences of consumers, generate future cash flow, and maximize returns for shareholders. There should indeed be a balance between short‐term and long‐term performance measurement. A brand manager who cuts advertising to meet this year’s profit target may also end up reducing brand equity (and the likelihood of future purchases) because of lower awareness levels and weakening brand attitudes. This may not show up in this year’s short‐term performance measures, such as sales, but may start to impact them next year. By measuring brand equity in addition to the year’s sales, the long‐term damage to the brand will be evident. So what is brand equity? It consists of the outcomes that accrue to a need/want satisfier when the brand name is added on. In case of a commercial brand, these outcomes include the capability to charge a premium, capability to increase sales, capability to get a discount, capability to withstand attacks like price cuts, sales promo schemes, margin attacks etc. Sales is not a good measure of these outcomes because it is not the best indicator of the future as it ignores the impact of the increased competition, and sales could be ‘bought’ by using short‐term measures like sales promotion. Key steps to measuring brand equity include ‐ determining which relationships are important, identifying the major factors that determine the strength of each relationship, developing reliable indicators of each relationship, and testing the measures to identify those that matter most and track them regularly. Thus emphasis should be on brand equity as a key performance priority so that management can be focussed on the immediate as well as long‐term impacts of their action plans.
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 5
Brand Equity Model Aaker originally outlined five components of brand equity • Brand loyalty • Brand awareness • Perceived quality • Brand associations in addition to perceived quality • Intellectual properties such as trademarks etc. In the model that we have developed for calculating brand equity, we have concentrated on specific aspects of the brand like availability, functional use, price sensitivity, trust that one associates with the brand, and whether it is worth recommending to others; besides the perceived quality. These will encompass all of the components of Brand Equity as defined by Aaker. For example, brand loyalty is a function of two factors ‐ beliefs and behaviour. Price sensitivity (or value for money as defined in the questionnaire) constitutes the ‘belief’ which is what drives the loyal customer to choose one brand over the other. Similarly purchase frequency ‐ number of times the brand was preferred when purchase was made for the category – is an indicator of ‘behaviour’ because one cannot be loyal to a brand unless it is bought frequently. We also sought to test the brand’s leveragability, on whether it can be extended to other related, or unrelated, product categories. Leveragability is the capability of the brand to straddle other need or want satisfiers. In order to test the consumer attitude towards the brand, we tried to analyse the attitude shown while purchasing the brand in terms of the different ‘hierarchies’ possible ‐ the learning hierarchy (thinkÆfeelÆact), the emotional hierarchy (feelÆactÆthink), and the low involvement hierarchy (actÆfeelÆthink). This gives further insight into the brand associations, which is an important component of brand equity. Brand Personality is also tested, as also how differentiated the brand is with respect to other products in the category.
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 6
Three Pillar Model
Price Premium
Brand Loyalty
Market Share
Price Premium One way to measure brand equity is to determine the price premium that a brand commands over a generic product. If consumers are willing to shell out a few rupees more for a branded product over the same unbranded product, then this premium provides important information about the value of the brand. However expenses such as promotional costs must be taken into account when using price premium to measure brand equity. Brand Loyalty This represents what portion of a brand’s sales is driven by loyal choice behaviour and what portion is driven by differently motivated choice behaviour. This metric, called “loyalty contribution” makes it easier to compare brands. It not only provides insights about the ‘true’ equity component of a brand’s share, but it is also possible to relate it, to the brand’s overall performance. Market Share Yet another metric for calculating brand equity is to find out the effective market share i.e. the sum of weighted market shares in each market segment that one operates in. However, even if a brand enjoys the highest market share, another brand may have the highest chunk of loyal customers. This helps us in understanding the underlying consumer behaviour patterns. The behaviour of the core group i.e. “loyal” more closely reflects the true equity of the brand, and we know that brands can benefit from having the core group representing a large share of their total franchise. This illustrates why market share alone is an inadequate metric for quantifying the quality of brand equity within the work‐place.
Why the Three‐Pillar model? The “three‐pillar” model is a modification to the Aaker’s model that is generally suggested for calculating brand equity. It takes into account the fact that Happydent is a high impulse, low involvement product and thus factors like price premium and brand loyalty contribute heavily to the brand equity (as does market share, obviously) compared to other components of Brand Equity as outlined by David Aaker. Strong brand equity based on these, simplifies the decision process for low‐ cost and non‐essential products (like Happydent) and insures that the product is considered by most buyers.
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 7
Stochastic Share Stochastic share in the simplest of terms can be defined as a “mind share” that reflects the probability of a brand being selected on the next purchase decision. It’s a probability market share of the brand based on attitude, and is calculated from • •
The proportion of Insisters and Preferrers (the two categories of consumers out of the brand disposition ladder) The sizes of the preferred sets
It is therefore a true measure of brand strength, since it reflects expressed preferences independent of behaviour. The stochastic share can be used to interpret the following‐ • • •
Share of mind of the brand amongst the consumers A measure of the efficacy of the strategic inputs by the company A reflection of what the consumers would like to do
The “Operational Share” of a brand is the representation of the Market share of the brand when appropriate market data is not available. The Operational share data is usually used to determine the success of the selling efforts and reflects what the consumers are persuaded to do apart from reflecting the market shares of the brands. The stochastic share generated is always compared with the “Market share” or “Operational Share” of the brand to determine the following‐ • •
Failure or Success in maximizing the market potential of the brand Whether the existing brand franchise is vulnerable or not
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 8
Anaalysis Bran nd Loyalty
Stoch hastic Sharre
Majo or Attributtes
Braand Elasticity
Beh havioral Attitudinal Brand Loyalty (An off f shoot of o the Preference P e‐Behavio our Modeel and Measu ures) Behavio oural Measu ure – The main m indicattor of behavioural meaasure is rep peat purchases. The advantages of the behavioural measure include the focus on the t most reelevant crite erion for managers—purchase, the avoid dance of situ uational effe ects by meaasuring over time acrosss several incidentts, and the reelatively straightforward nature of th he data. The majjor limitation of behavioural measu ures is the failure f to id dentify motivve and the resulting confusio on between brand loyaltty and other forms of repeat buying.. For examp ple, repeat purchases may ressult from eiither low in nvolvement or distributtion limits. Two consu umers may regularly purchase Happydent from a parrticular bakery. One doe es so becausse he loves H Happydent; h he would drive across town to o get them. TThe other bu uys them because he cattches the bus outside the e bakery. Although he likes Haappydent, hee actually prrefers other brands to Happydent, ju ust not enou ugh to go out of his way to buyy them. Purchase behaviourr alone is inssufficient. The major dissadvantage tto behaviour‐based meaasures of loyalty is the inabilitty to identifyy the strengtth or qualitattive nature o of the consumer’s relatio onship to the bran nd. Multiplee purchases may reflect a weak prefference baseed on limited d knowledge e. Or, no preferen nce but meree habit. Or, no preferencce but limite ed availabilityy of better‐liked alternattives. Attitudinal measure e‐ The majorr alternativee operational definition iis based on consumer aattitudes, preferen nces, and pu urchase inte entions. Thee following chart c shows the break‐u up of most preferred p brand in n the mouth freshener caategory.
Brand E Equity Measurement
Page 9
Centre Frresh 14%
Happydent 3 32%
Menttos 14% %
Orb bit 20% %
Chlo oromint 2 20%
5 Responden nts Base: 35 The advvantages of aattitudinal m measures mayy include ide entification o of the reasons underlyin ng loyalty and greaater protection against tthe effects o of temporaryy conditions,, such as sto ock‐outs or sshort‐run competiitive promotions. In case of Happydent and the category c in general g we find f the customer attitu ude to be off the low involvem ment hierarcchy that is, First Act (beehaviour) th hen feel (em motion) and finally thinkk (belief). When asked a to deffine what Happydent H sttands for th hem the maaximum num mber of resp pondents respond ded with “Reejuvenating and refresh hing” followed by “Whiite teeth” w which indicattes their positive attitude tow wards the brrand. We alsso see that it is in the prreferred set for 33 out o of the 35 dents which aagain indicattes the high p preference ggiven to the b brand respond Thus, th he two imp portant paraameters of the model reflect a brand’s b reliance on high hly loyal customeers and its success s in attracting a brand switche ers. The firsst group aree those who o have a positive attitude tow ward the brand (prefer it) and who buy it. The seecond group are those who buy it on a given purchasee but who may prefer an nother brand d. Happydentt scores high h with the firrst group while it scores low w with the seco ond group.
Brand E Equity Measurement
Page 10
Brand Adhesion Brand Adhesion measures the attitude of the consumers towards a product. It categorizes the customers in four categories: Loyalists – Consumers who think that there is a real difference between brands and always buy the same brand Habitualists ‐ Consumers who think that there is NO real difference between brands BUT always buy the same brands Discriminators ‐ Consumers who think that there is a real difference between brands but DON’T always buy the same brands Commodity Buyers ‐ Consumers who think that there is NO real difference between brands and DON’T always buy the same brands A category adhesion is measured when the respondents choose for the products in general for that category. Following which, adhesion for Happydent is measured. Following are the questions used to measure adhesion:
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 11
Implicaations •
•
16 customerrs go for a paarticular brand in the mo outh freshen ner category,, out of these e only 11 are brand loyal l to Hap ppydent. That is, there is 68.75% of the consumers are loyal to Happydent out of the total consum mers who buyy a particulaar brand in tthe mouth freshener hus, it can be inferred th hat consume ers have stro ong attitudees towards th he brand category. Th "Happydentt" and they id dentify with it. 4 consumers go for a paarticular brand in the caategory out o of habit; how wever the nu umber in he fact that there are still strong case of Happydent is more (5). Thiss can be attrributed to th loyalists to tthe brand, d despite the ccategory bein ng a low involvement on ne. Thus the e number of habitualissts increases.
Brand E Equity Measurement
Page 12
•
Happydent is perceived less as a commodity as compared to the "mouth freshener category" as a whole as the number of consumers in the Commodity Buyer grid falls for the brand Happydent as compared to the category. Thus Happydent is more of a brand than a commodity.
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 13
Price Sensitivity The belief that drive behaviour across most categories are “price” and “quality” after considering the distribution of price sensitivities in the marketplace. These two situations represent scenarios where consumers make a decision based on either quality/price. At the other end of the price‐sensitivity spectrum are consumers for whom price, at least in this category, is never a barrier; once they decide to purchase in the category, only the best will do. Also, loyal customers think their brand is superior for some reason, and this superiority has the effect of minimizing their price sensitivity. Non‐loyal or occasional users have differing quality perceptions that result in greater price sensitivity. The following questions were asked to measure the relation between Price and quality
Happydent
"Superior
"Good
"Acceptable
"Poor"
Price not a barrier Price minor barrier Price significant barrier Price absolute barrier Total
28.57% 20.00% 0.00%
14.29% 5.71% 8.57%
11.43% 5.71% 2.86%
2.86% 0.00% 0.00%
Brand Total 57.14% 31.43% 11.43%
48.57%
28.57%
20.00%
2.86%
0.00% 100.00%
Orbit
"Superior "Good
"Acceptable
"Poor”
Price not a barrier Price minor barrier
28.57% 22.86%
11.43% 2.86%
8.57% 5.71%
0.00% 0.00%
Brand Total 48.57% 31.43%
Price significant 0.00% barrier Price absolute barrier
8.57%
2.86%
5.71%
17.14%
2.86%
2.86%
Total
22.86%
20.00%
5.71%
100.00%
51.43%
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 14
Chloromint
"Superior
"Good
"Acceptable
"Poor”
Price not a barrier Price minor barrier Price significant barrier Price absolute barrier Total
34.29% 20.00%
17.14% 5.71%
8.57% 5.71%
2.86% 0.00%
Brand Total 62.86% 31.43%
0.00%
2.86%
2.86%
0.00%
5.71%
0.00%
54.29%
25.71%
17.14%
2.86%
100.00%
Centre Fresh
"Superior
"Good
"Acceptable
"Poor”
Price not a barrier Price minor barrier Price significant barrier Price absolute barrier Total
22.86% 20.00%
14.29% 5.71%
5.71% 2.86%
2.86% 0.00%
Brand Total 45.71% 28.57%
2.86%
8.57%
5.71%
0.00%
17.14%
5.71%
2.86%
8.57%
45.71%
34.29%
17.14%
2.86%
100.00%
Mentos
"Superior
"Good
"Acceptable
"Poor”
Price not a barrier Price minor barrier Price significant barrier Price absolute barrier Total
42.86% 14.29%
20.00% 5.71%
5.71% 2.86%
0.00% 0.00%
Brand Total 68.57% 22.86%
2.86%
2.86%
2.86%
0.00%
8.57%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
60.00%
28.57%
11.43%
0.00%
100.00%
Implications Analysing, the above 4 belief grids of the 4 brands we can see that 42.86% of the respondents view Happydent as good or superior quality, while the figure for the other brands stands at Orbit – 40% Chloromint – 51.43%, Centre fresh – 37.15% and Mentos‐62.86%. This is backed up by a large majority of people for whom price is not a barrier or a minor barrier – Happydent‐48.57%, Orbit
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 15
(51.43%), Chloromint – 54.29%, Centre fresh (42.86%) and Mentos (57.15) Thus, we can see that for a superior or good quality product consumers are willing to pay a higher price.
Stochastic Share A separate questionnaire for stochastic share was used and a sample size of 95 customers responded to the questions. Two question were asked to the respondents‐ 1. The first question asked the respondents to list down the brands in the branded mouth freshener category that they intend and/or would prefer to purchase. From this we got the preferred sets of each of the brands.
2. Due to unavailability of Market Share data in the branded mouth freshener category, the Operational Share of each of the brands was found out. The question asked for this asked the respondent the brand of mouth freshener purchased by him/her at the time of the last purchase.
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 16
Stochastic Share Analysis 1. The preferred set size for each Brand Preferrers was calculated – i.e. Average preferred set size. This indicated how many brands were being preferred on an average among the Happydent preferrers, among Chloromint preferrers and so on. 2. The size of each brand preferrers was calculated next. It indicated the proportion of Happydent preferrers in the sample proportion of Chloromint preferrers and so on. 3. Then the size of the preferrers was divided by the preferred set size for the respective brands and the ratio for each brand determined. 4. Summated all the ratios of all the brands 5. The stochastic share of each brand was determined finally, by extrapolating the summated ratio to 100 and consequently the ratios of each brand also.
Implications The “Stochastic preference share” of the different brands was calculated. The findings are as follows‐ Stochastic Share Market Happydent Chloromint Mentos Orbit Centre Fresh
30.327 20.819 12.232 16.845 19.777
It can be clearly seen that the stochastic share of Happydent is the highest, followed by Chloromint, Orbit, Mentos and Centre Fresh. It thus indicates that Happydent has the highest share of mind amongst the consumers. The strategic inputs of the company have been very effective. In other words, Happydent has the highest share of the consumer’s mind which can be attributed to all the marketing activities undertaken by the company till date. Thus the consumer’s would like to buy the brand Happydent more, or conversely, every one out of three consumers on an average would want to buy a Happydent mouth freshener.
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 17
Stochastic Share Centrefres h 20%
Happydent 30%
Orbit 17%
Mentos 12%
Chloromint 21%
Out of the 95 consumers who responded, 24 consumers had bought a Happydent mouth freshener at their last purchase. Similarly, 22 consumers had bought a Chloromint mouth freshener at their last purchase, and so on. Happydent Total 24 respondents
Chloromint Mentos Orbit 22 18 14
Centre Fresh 8
Others 9
% 25.26 respondents
23.16
8.42
9.47
18.95
14.74
The Operational Share represented below, can be taken as a proxy for the Market share of brands in the branded mouth freshener category. It can be seen that Happydent has the highest market share (25%), closely followed by Chloromint (23%) and Mentos (19%). Thus it can be predicted that the selling efforts of the brand “Happydent” and “Chloromint” have paid off, as can be seen by operational shares of more than 20% in a highly cluttered category. An interesting thing to note is, that the others category (including brands like Pass Pass, Big Babol, etc.) occupies an operational share of 10%.
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 18
Operational share
Others 10%
Happydent 25%
centrefresh 8% Orbit 15%
Mentos 19%
Chloromint 23%
On comparison of the stochastic share and operational share obtained, there are three possibilities that can exist‐ 1. If Operational Share > Stochastic Share, the brand is performing above potential 2. If Operational Share < Stochastic Share, the brand is performing below potential 3. If Operational Share = Stochastic Share, the brand is performing as per potential For example, if the operational share of a brand is above the stochastic share, the short term vulnerability of the brand is high, and the operational share is likely to fall over time or can be artificially maintained by marketing activities. However, if the operational share of the brand is below the stochastic share, the long term prospects of the brand are very positive, and it is a matter of time, till the operational share catches on with the stochastic share. Brand
Stochastic Share Happydent 30 Chloromint 21 Mentos 12 Orbit 17 Centre 20 Fresh
Operational Share 25 23 19 15 8
The performance of the brands can be seen from the table given above, and inferences made as mentioned before‐ • •
Happydent ‐ The Operational Share < Stochastic Share, therefore the brand has potential to perform better Chloromint ‐ The Operational Share > Stochastic Share, therefore the brand is performing above potential.
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 19
• • •
Mentos ‐ The Operational Share > Stochastic Share, therefore the brand is performing above potential. Orbit ‐ The Operational Share < Stochastic Share, therefore the brand is performing below potential. Centre Fresh ‐ The Operational Share < Stochastic Share, therefore the brand is performing below potential.
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 20
Brand Gravity and Brand Focus Brand Gravity: It is the power of the brand to maintain consumers who prefer it. It is measured as sales (last purchase) divided by the number of people who had Happydent in their preferred set. A high gravity ratio, however, indicates that consumers regard the brand as desirable, available, and a good value, a brand that is relatively resistant to competitive prices or promotions. Brand Focus represents the proportion of sales that come from consumers who identify the brand as most preferred the brand. It is measured as the ratio between sales (last purchase) and the most preferred brand. A brand with high focus gets sales mostly from consumers who prefer it. Brands with low focus “steal” customers from other brands. Firms can succeed with either high or low focus.
The Model Used Last Purchase
Preferred Brand Happydent Orbit
Happydent Orbit Centre Fresh Chloromint Mentos
X Y
X
Centre Fresh X
Chloromint Mentos X
X
X: Hard core loyalist who bought the brand they preferred the most Y: Switcher Following is the question that has been used to measure brand focus and brand gravity:
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 21
Responses: Brand Focus Last Purchase Happydent Orbit Centre Fresh Chloromint Mentos Brand Focus
Most Preferred Brand Happydent Orbit Centre Fresh 9 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 81.82% 42.86% 40.00%
Chloromint Mentos 1 1 5 71.43%
1 1 3 60.00%
Base: 35 Respondents Brand Gravity All the 35 respondents had Happydent in their preferred set. However 13 of them actually bought Happydent. Thus the Brand Gravity of Happydent: 13/35 = 0.371 The Brand Focus score for Happydent = 0.8182
Implications According to the Preference‐Behaviour Model Gravity can be thought of as a measure of general marketing efficiency. Here Happydent has a score of 0.37 which means that it has a very huge potential market waiting to be captured and increasing its marketing efforts would be worthwhile. This could also mean that there is a wide preference for Happydent as witnesses here and hence the gravity ratio is low. The high Focus score of Happydent indicates a firm that is relying on sales to customers who prefer it. It results from a successful targeting strategy that produces a group of loyal consumers who buy what they most want.
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 22
Brand Elasticity Brand elasticity measures the ability of the brand to be extended to a different product category. A brand can be extended to a different category if it is strong on certain attributes which are characteristic of the other category. For instance, a shoes brand A can be extended to apparels if it is strong on the attribute of styling. For the brand under consideration, Happydent, a possibility of a brand extension was checked for different product categories. The premise for doing a brand elasticity check is that if a brand can be leveraged in some other category, it contributes to a higher brand equity although vice versa is not true. Example Coca Cola The following is the question that was asked from the respondents for checking the brand elasticity:
The following is the result:
Happydent Orbit Mentos Centre Fresh Chloromint
Toothpaste Cigarettes Soaps Toffees Toothbrush Pan Masala 30 13 10 10 8 14 23 8 4 10 12 5 5 5 8 22 5 0 17 0 9 8 10 5 8 7 0 18 10 14
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 23
Happyydent Pan Masala, 14 Toothpaste, 3 30
Toothbru ush , 8
To offees, 10 0
Soaps, 10 0
Ciggarettes, 13
Base: 35 5 Responden nts, more thaan one exten nsion for eacch product aallowed A qualittative analyssis was carrried out to identify the e reasons th he consumeers ascribe to t brand extensio on of in such a categoryy. A clear in ndication fro om the abovve is that fo or the two products, p Happydeent and Orbiit which claim m whiteningg of teeth, co onsumer can associate with cleaning property and thuss see a possibility of them m as toothpaaste brands. Another key fact which w emerged from thee above wass that it is believed b in ggeneral that chewing ption is differrent for Happydent becaause of the w whitening gums arre not good ffor teeth, but the percep and cleaaning propeerties associated with itt. Therefore e, smokers also a believee that, if Haappydent extends it to cigaretttes, then it is possible th hat it will haave less harm mful effects tthan usual cigarettes and will be more reffreshing.
Brand E Equity Measurement
Page 24
Recommendations As we have seen that the brand Happydent is leader in the market and also have the highest brand equity so we can say that the recommendation for the brand. The recommendations are not anything drastic because the brand is pretty much in the right path now. So the recommendations for the brand Happydent are: ¾ From Stochastic Analysis we found that Operational Share < Stochastic Share, therefore the brand has potential to perform better. This finding was further re‐strengthened by the fact that the Brand gravity score was 0.371 which suggests that greater marketing will be succeed in attracting a large number of customers. ¾ Even though it is a low involvement product there is more functional attitude towards it and also the high brand focus score suggests that the targeting has been very successful and also that the positioning and advertising are in the right direction. ¾ The loyalists are found to be very strongly attached to the brand and maybe free sampling will attract more customers and eventually loyalists for the brand ¾ Explore the opportunity of doing a line extension into categories like toothpaste and toothbrush because it can leverage on its identity as a freshener with dental care.
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 25
References [1] http://books.google.co.in/books?id=FP3‐ lKskU5YC&pg=PA537&lpg=PA537&dq=stochastic+share++‐ +market+research&source=bl&ots=dSNjJ5gIRo&sig=13JDDJdEPeEsZXiZT5FZnBCLNSg&hl=en &ei=laybSqmQBpbbjQeCgb3ABQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage& q=stochastic%20share%20%20‐%20market%20research&f=false [2] http://books.google.co.in/books?id=9KYOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=stochastic +share+analysis+‐ +market+research&source=bl&ots=YKuPCvDrtL&sig=Nz8BHRSr1SSEbkG39_fxv_Ogx6c&hl=e n&ei=‐ qqbSrO9NZ27jAfCvbG8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=f alse [3] http://smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/www/Styles.pdf [4] Brand Gravity and Brand Focus Model has been taken from Carl Obermiller Brand
Loyalty Measurement
Brand Equity Measurement
Page 26