Research Report On Allen’s Soothers

MAR KET ING RES EAR CH “Research Report on Allen’s Soothers” PRE SENT ED B Y: Fouzia Kousar Hafiz Mohammad Tariq Javad Ali Malik PRE SENT ED T O: Mr. Imran Sadiq

Pak-American Institute of Management Sciences

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT All praises for Almighty Allah who is “THE CR EA TOR” of whole of the universe and admires to our Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) Who taught us every thing of this life and the life thereafter.

Now it is our responsibility to convey the “WORDING OF SUCCESS” to whole of the Ummah. As it was indicated in the last Address of our Holy Prophet (Peace be Upon Him). And the graves of “FELLOW BEINGS” are the proof of the completion of this responsibility.

We are thankful to our respected teacher MR NAD EE M BAS HI R who taught us “marketing management ” with heart and also gave a guideline to this report.

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is about NSW MINT CANDY We have adopted a research methodology in which we have make a questionnaire, filled it out from the target segment, and analyzed it. We find out that other candies are working well according to positioning but it requires a little bit changes. Therefore we are launching new candy.

3

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Background

5

Positioning strategy

5

Research objective

6

Hypothesis

6

Focus group

6

Key findings of focus group

7

Questionnaire development

8

Questionnaire findings & analysis

13

Analysis of candies on different attributes

18

Factor analysis and perceptual mapping of Soothers

24

Recommendations

29

APPENDIX

5

6

Background There are many throat clearing candies available in the market and all of them have unique features. But now we want some more improvement in these candies therefore we have deciding to establish a new company named “NSW CO”. We are launching a new pro0duct with the name of

“NSW MINT

CANDY”.

Positioning Strategy To take a competitive edge over other products in this category, we have positioned it as a functional candy. This positioning has been backed by the strategic marketing mix, which markets it as a normal candy with additional value of freshening up and relieving the user from minor thirst congestion. Hence with this positioning. It is kept away from existing strong functional brands like strepsels, Hoest, Vicks etc. To achieve this positioning strategy successfully, We have developed the advertising copy to promote it as a candy that cheers up to user and freshens up. The aim here is again to induce demand amongst the normal candy users. We have identified the target market as people of age 18 to 25 years. The price of the it is set at 50 paisas to project its image as a candy that can be easily purchased by wide cross section of potential consumers. The purpose of a single candy pack is also to increase the frequency of purchase as that of a normal candy. The packing done in fancy wrappers is to further enhance the image as a cool and fine candy.

Research Objectives We conduct the research on the basis of following aspect .

7

•

To identify perception of it on given attributes with respect to its competitors.

•

To find out the perceived positioning of it on key attributes in relation to its desired position.

We have conducted the following research for our candy. FOCUS GROUP The focus groups, four in number, were conducted with the age group of 20-30 at Pak-Aims College. The occupation of the group members was students, belonging to various geographical areas. Students were selected as they construed a major element of our target market, which otherwise extended to users within the 30-50 (year) age bracket. As the product – candies is consumed both for its functional and non-functional attributes and generally by consumers who are also the decision making units (DMU’s) on the purchase, focus group findings can be used to figure out consumer’ preference for various brands on these attributes. In these focus groups, the students were asked to express their views on their buying habits on candies: their awareness levels, the preferences and reservations in opting for a certain brand, the perceived benefits associated to the functional / non-functional functions etc. 2 describes the sequence of methodologies adopted.

Key findings of the Focus Groups The key findings of these groups are as under. A detailed account of focus group and retailer in-depth interviews is given in Exhibit 1.  It relief the throat problem.  Strepsils is not a candy and It is not a medicine. 8

 Wrapping has an impact in projecting the functional value of a candy.  Strepsils has serious kind of wrapping.  Honey Strepsils works, but is very strong.  If the candy is high on mint, it is more effective.  Soothers is generally purchased from the left-over money (the change)  Soothers is bought for change in taste / non-medicated reasons.  Blue color of it gives a cool look.  Blue is a color associated with mint – and mint is perceived both for medicated and non-medicated purposes. Medicated for the soothing and curative effect it’s perceived to carry and non-medicated for the sweet freshening taste it brings.

Questionnaire Development At the conclusion of the focus groups phase, a questionnaire was developed, The basic input to this was achieved through the insights from the focus groups. This data is analyzed using various statistical techniques and corroborative (confirmatory) tabulation of each questionnaire.

Questionnaire Design: The questionnaire was kept ‘closed’ and ‘open ended’ or a combination of both. ‘Closed ended’ multiple-choice questions to limit consumer response to a set of pre-given variables and ‘Open ended’ to cart wheel any revealing thoughts, which may also be taken as a proxy for assessing the psycho-graphic profile of a consumer. In addition, there were rating questions on a scale of 1 to 5, used to gather respondent’s assessment of various brands on multiple attributes. These questions would enable tabulation of the intensity of the responses gathered on 300 questionnaires, which was taken as a sample size for the purpose of

9

conducting this study. The sample was drawn randomly amongst student, professionals, teachers etc., of both sexes, in order to obtain varied responses.

10

11

QUESTIONNAIRE FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS After the the existence candies we came to know the following findings TABLE 1 Education < 10yrs 10-12 12-14 14+

% 6 7 22 65

Gender Males Females

Occupation Student Employed Unemployed

% 70 30

% 78 18 4

Income (Rs)

%

<10k

13

10-20k

15

20-30k

24

30+k

48

<18

15

18-25

57

25-35

28

C

12

COMPETITORS ANALYSIS Table 1 Flavors mostly liked in Candies (% of respondents) Mint Very strongly liked (5)

Fruit

Sweet

24%

13%

Chocolates 13%

Coconut 31%

15% Strongly liked (4)

20%

24%

26%

19%

44%

37%

39%

50%

13% Total 28%

Table 2 3 Favorite candies (% of respondents) 1st Favorite

2nd Favorite

3rd Favorite TOTAL

Hoest

11%

11%

6%

28%

Hacks

0%

0%

0%

0%

Soother

2%

2%

17%

20%

Strepsils

0%

2%

0%

2%

Mentos

7%

13%

4%

24%

Polo

11%

11%

6%

28%

Vicks

2%

4%

0%

6%

Soft Mint

4%

0%

0%

4%

Eclairs

17%

6%

4%

26%

Misc

35%

33%

31%

100%

T

13

Table 3 Medicated/non medicated Purchase (% of users) Medicated not buy Hoest 24 Hacks 61 Soothers 18 Strepsils 6 Mentos 17 Polo 11 vicks 17

Non-Medicated

Both

33

30

11

11

20

4

24

30

24

67

11

17

2

60

18

4

68

13

61

4

15

Do

, Analysis for candies on various attributes This analysis is based on the question, which tabulates the consumer’s preferences of different attributes for the given candies. Vicks The users who consider sweetness to be least important attribute buy Vicks most frequently. This reinforces the medicinal value of Vicks, as evidenced by the purchase of Vicks due to its throat clearing ability. Share of Vicks in total value attribute to the mint is relatively minimal, but within the customer base of Vicks, their preference for Vicks is prompted by its highly perceived value on mint. Here a possible inference emerges that the medicinal value of product (throat clearing) and mouth freshening ability is perceived to be associated with mint. The importance of packing and size in the purchase decision for Vicks is quite minimal.

14

Polo Polo is not conceived as a sweet candy. If viewed from the weightage table for different candies on the attributes (shown in appendix B) that out of 176 respondents buying Polo frequently or sometimes, only 22 have high preferences for sweet in their purchase decision for Polo. Packing is considered to be an important attribute of Polo if analyzed from the top two box approaches. Of the 174 respondents buying Polo, 86 give high preference to the packing attribute of Polo. It shows that the look of the product and the way of the packing helps inducing the demand for Polo. The concern with the price is somewhat limited as of the regular buyers, 43% are least concerned with the price of polo. The medicinal value attached to Polo is restricted as almost 44% of the frequent purchasers are less concerned with the throat cleaning ability of Polo. Looked from the other angle, 40% of the respondents who are rare buyers of Polo also give least weight age to the throat-clearing dimension in Polo. This value is attributed to Polo for Mouth freshening is evened out across the respondents. Amongst the frequent buyers, 50% prefer mouth freshening ability of Polo. Strepsils Srepsils established itself as a typical functional candy with considerably lower preference for sweet. Also the higher proportion of the occasional buyers also reinforces the limit of its use to the functional requirements of the consumers. Herein again, though 48% of the regular and occasional buyers of Stepsils lay high preference on mint but in contrast, equally higher proportion of respondents consider mint as of lesser importance. This further makes the exact differentiation of the functional candies from non-functional on the basis of mint alone, but unreliable. In terms of throat clearing dimension, however, Strepsils is rated much higher.

15

Hoest A clear distinction for this brand of consumers, who prefer Hoest more because of its medicinal value, especially the perceived throat clearing and soothing effect. The fact is established by a low preference for the attributes like “Sweetness”, usually related to non-functional candies and a high pick on attributes such as ‘throat-relieving’ by a majority (58%) regular buyers (frequent & occasional) of this brand. Interestingly, it ranks only fourth in the mouthfreshening capacity compare to its competitive brands, illustrated in the following, indicating that the candy is preferred by brand-loyal customers who’ve managed to cling on to their age-old choice.

Soothers Soothers has a split choice amongst its consumers, in terms of their ratings of brand’s strength on the five key attributes defined above, indicating that it is perceived as a candy with a bit of both – the functional and non-functional impact. As much as it would seem to be co-incidental, the statistic given in Table A reflects that the company’s positioning strategy of placing its brand as a multi-purpose candy, is holding well with the consumer. The catch however, is that this is not translating into volumes, as the candy is still being bracketed largely by a certain class of consumers – sophisticated, well educated and elegant, usually calling (demanding) ‘Soothers’ by name at the point of purchase. This class is relatively insensitive to minor place adjustments as it places a premium in its purchase decisions, is prone to trying out new sleek brands (innovator / early adapter category), yet is particular about the product attributes that include functional as well as general attributes. Soothers to them fairs reasonably well on the functional attributes as shown by the above table. However, there are certain general attributes such as overall outlook, packing, that are not valued highly by these customers. One of the findings of the focus 16

group, which was translated as one of the major dislikes about the brand was its perceived stickiness (it melts), packing (difficulty to open) and lack of handiness associated with carrying a one-off candy. Interestingly, some of these consumers tag theuropatic value with a ‘Strepsils-like-candy’ – an opinion not generally shared by a majority of respondents and would rather prefer to eating a slightly light but handy candy, like Mentos and Polo. The advertisement of taxi may also not be particularly appealing to them, as they are more attuned to find and subtle messages. The less sophisticated consumers, however, would be more conceived with some variety, be generally be more price sensitive, and rather associate with the kind of person in the taxi advertisement carrying the energy and the valor to make thing going.

Exhibit 1 µ1717171717171717171717

17

181 8181 81818µn181818181818µn181818181818µn18188181818Ln1818418ì¥Á187 1818ð¿18181818181818181818181818ž1818

18

19bjbjUU191919191919191919191919191919191919 19j@ 197|19197| 1919c ™191919191919191919191919191919191919191919Ÿ19191919191919ÿÿ¤ 19191 9191 9191 9191 9ÿÿ¤1 9191 9191 9191 9191 9ÿÿ¤1 9191 9191 9191 9191 9191 9191 9191 9191 9l1919191919<191919191919<1919<191919191919<191919191919ø1 91919191919ø191919191919ø1919µ1919191919191919191919

19

202 020202020µn202020202020µn202020202020µn20208202020Ln2020420me any three favorite candies.

4) Which candy/(ies) come in your mind for the purpose of Throat Clearing and Mouth Freshening? First Recall

…………………………

Second Recall …………………………. Third Recall

………………………….

5) Which of the following do you usually purchase for medicated/ nonmedicated reasons(please tick in the appropriate circle): Medicated

Non-Medicated

Both Do

not

Buy Hoest Soothers Strepsils Mentos Polo Vicks 6) Which of the following do you eat (please tick on the appropriate circle)? Frequently

Sometimes

Rarely

Vicks Polo Mentos Hoest Soothers

20

Strepsils 7) Do you think of Soothers as:( you may encircle more than one)? a. Just another candy b. Helps Throat Clearing c. Mouth Freshening d. Other 8) Please rank the following on the given attribute on a scale of 1…5, 1 being the least preferred & 5 being most preferred.

Vicks

Strepsils

Soothers

Hoest

Polo

Mentos

Sweetness Mint Size Packing Throat-clearing Mouth-freshening Overall taste 9) do you think that Soothers packing signifies its functional value(i.e does it go with its throat clearing/mouth freshening abilities)? Yes

No

Not Sure

10) What is about Soothers that you particularly like/ don’t like? LIKES

DISLIKES

21

Appendix-B THROAT-CLEARING FOR CANDIES- A CROSS TABULATION: 1 Count % within candy % of Total 2 Count % within candy %of Total 3 Count % within candy %of Total 4 Count % within candy % of Total 5 Count % within candy % of Total Total Count % within candy % of Total

1 0 0

Vicks 2 3 11 21 30% 26%

1 22 33%

Polo 2 3 14%

3 8 26%

1 14 26%

1 8 31%

Hoest 2 13 27%

3 9 21%

1 9 24%

0%

9%

18%

18%

3%

7%

12%

6%

10%

7%

11%

8%

8%

13%

8%

6%

0 0

13 35%

2 2%

11 16%

0 0%

4 13%

4 8%

4 17%

7 17%

7 27%

0 0%

9 21%

7 19%

4 9%

4 11%

2 11

0%

11%

2%

9%

0%

3%

3%

3%

6%

6%

0%

8%

6%

3%

3%

2%

0 0

2 5%

11 14%

7 10%

4 19%

2 6%

9 17%

0 0%

4 10%

0 0%

4 8%

9 21%

4 11%

7 16%

2 5%

2 11

0%

2%

9%

6%

3%

2%

8%

0%

3%

0%

3%

8%

3%

6%

2%

2%

0 0%

7 19%

31 38%

18 27%

7 33%

13 42%

22 42%

4 17%

11 27%

4 15%

22 46%

11 26%

13 35%

7 16%

18 47%

4 21

0%

6%

26%

15%

6%

11%

19%

3%

9%

3%

19%

9%

11%

6%

15%

3%

0 0

4 11%

16 20%

9 13%

7 33%

4 13%

4 8%

9 38%

7 17%

7 27%

9 19%

4 10%

4 11%

11 25%

4 11%

4 21

0%

3%

14%

8%

6%

3%

3%

8%

6%

6%

8%

3%

3%

9%

3%

3%

-

37

81

67

21

31

53

24

41

26

48

42

37

44

38

19

0

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

10

0

31%

69%

56%

18%

45%

20%

35%

22%

41%

36%

31%

37%

32%

16

10 0 26 %

Mentos 2 3 7 12 29% 29%

22

Soothers 2 3 15 10 34% 26%

1 7 37

23

23j@

237|23237|

2323c™2323232323 232 3232 3232 3232 3232 3232 3232 3232 3Ÿ23232323232323ÿÿ¤2 3232

3232323232323ÿÿ¤232323232323232323ÿÿ¤2323232323232323232323232323232323l23232

2323ð¿23232323232323232323232323ž232323bjbjUU2323232323232323232323232 2323c ™232323232323232323232323232323232323232323Ÿ23232323232323ÿÿ¤232

323232323232323ÿÿ¤232323232323232323ÿÿ¤2323232323232323232323232323232323l232 20.4 Total

35.2 33.4

29.6

11.1

26

Table7

23

Soothers Medicated

Non

Both

Do not

Total Medicated Frequently

buy

1.9

11.1

16.7

1.9

20.4

11.1

5.6

-

1.9

7.4

1.9

20.4

24.2

29.6

24.2

22.3

31.6 Sometimes 37.1 Rarely 31.6 Total

Analysis for candies on various attributes This analysis is based on the question, which tabulates the consumer’s preferences of different attributes for the given candies.

24

Vicks The users who consider sweetness to be least important attribute buy Vicks most frequently. This reinforces the medicinal value of Vicks, as evidenced by the purchase of Vicks due to its throat clearing ability. Share of Vicks in total value attribute to the mint is relatively minimal, but within the customer base of Vicks, their preference for Vicks is prompted by its highly perceived value on mint. Here a possible inference emerges that the medicinal value of product (throat clearing) and mouth freshening ability is perceived to be associated with mint. The importance of packing and size in the purchase decision for Vicks is quite minimal. Polo Polo is not conceived as a sweet candy. If viewed from the weightage table for different candies on the attributes (shown in appendix B) that out of 176 respondents buying Polo frequently or sometimes, only 22 have high preferences for sweet in their purchase decision for Polo. Packing is considered to be an important attribute of Polo if analyzed from the top two box approaches. Of the 174 respondents buying Polo, 86 give high preference to the packing attribute of Polo. It shows that the look of the product and the way of the packing helps inducing the demand for Polo. The concern with the price is somewhat limited as of the regular buyers, 43% are least concerned with the price of polo. The medicinal value attached to Polo is restricted as almost 44% of the frequent purchasers are less concerned with the throat cleaning ability of Polo. Looked from the other angle, 40% of the respondents who are rare buyers of Polo also give least weight age to the throat-clearing dimension in Polo. This value is attributed to Polo for Mouth freshening is evened out across the respondents. Amongst the frequent buyers, 50% prefer mouth freshening ability of Polo.

25

Strepsils Srepsils established itself as a typical functional candy with considerably lower preference for sweet. Also the higher proportion of the occasional buyers also reinforces the limit of its use to the functional requirements of the consumers. Herein again, though 48% of the regular and occasional buyers of Stepsils lay high preference on mint but in contrast, equally higher proportion of respondents consider mint as of lesser importance. This further makes the exact differentiation of the functional candies from non-functional on the basis of mint alone, but unreliable. In terms of throat clearing dimension, however, Strepsils is rated much higher. Hoest A clear distinction for this brand of consumers, who prefer Hoest more because of its medicinal value, especially the perceived throat clearing and soothing effect. The fact is established by a low preference for the attributes like “Sweetness”, usually related to non-functional candies and a high pick on attributes such as ‘throat-relieving’ by a majority (58%) regular buyers (frequent & occasional) of this brand. Interestingly, it ranks only fourth in the mouthfreshening capacity compare to its competitive brands, illustrated in the following, indicating that the candy is preferred by brand-loyal customers who’ve managed to cling on to their age-old choice.

Soothers Soothers has a split choice amongst its consumers, in terms of their ratings of brand’s strength on the five key attributes defined above, indicating that it is perceived as a candy with a bit of both – the functional and non-functional impact. As much as it would seem to be co-incidental, the statistic given in Table A reflects that the company’s positioning strategy of placing its brand as a multi-purpose candy, is holding well with the consumer. The catch however, is 26

that this is not translating into volumes, as the candy is still being bracketed largely by a certain class of consumers – sophisticated, well educated and elegant, usually calling (demanding) ‘Soothers’ by name at the point of purchase. This class is relatively insensitive to minor place adjustments as it places a premium in its purchase decisions, is prone to trying out new sleek brands (innovator / early adapter category), yet is particular about the product attributes that include functional as well as general attributes. Soothers to them fairs reasonably well on the functional attributes as shown by the above table. However, there are certain general attributes such as overall outlook, packing, that are not valued highly by these customers. One of the findings of the focus group, which was translated as one of the major dislikes about the brand was its perceived stickiness (it melts), packing (difficulty to open) and lack of handiness associated with carrying a one-off candy. Interestingly, some of these consumers tag theuropatic value with a ‘Strepsils-like-candy’ – an opinion not generally shared by a majority of respondents and would rather prefer to eating a slightly light but handy candy, like Mentos and Polo. The advertisement of taxi may also not be particularly appealing to them, as they are more attuned to find and subtle messages. The less sophisticated consumers, however, would be more conceived with some variety, be generally be more price sensitive, and rather associate with the kind of person in the taxi advertisement carrying the energy and the valor to make thing going.

Exhibit 1 µ2727272727272727272727

27

282 8282 82828µn282828282828µn282828282828µn28288282828Ln2828428ì¥Á287 2828ð¿28282828282828282828282828ž2828

28

29bjbjUU292929292929292929292929292929292929 29j@ 297|29297| 2929c ™292929292929292929292929292929292929292929Ÿ29292929292929ÿÿ¤ 29292 9292 9292 9292 9ÿÿ¤2 9292 9292 9292 9292 9ÿÿ¤2 9292 9292 9292 9292 9292 9292 9292 9292 9l2929292929<292929292929<2929<292929292929<292929292929ø2 92929292929ø292929292929ø2929µ2929292929292929292929

29

303 030303030µn303030303030µn303030303030µn30308303030Ln3030430me any three favorite candies.

4) Which candy/(ies) come in your mind for the purpose of Throat Clearing and Mouth Freshening? First Recall

…………………………

Second Recall …………………………. Third Recall

………………………….

5) Which of the following do you usually purchase for medicated/ nonmedicated reasons(please tick in the appropriate circle): Medicated

Non-Medicated

Both Do

not

Buy Hoest Soothers Strepsils Mentos Polo Vicks 6) Which of the following do you eat (please tick on the appropriate circle)? Frequently

Sometimes

Rarely

Vicks Polo Mentos Hoest Soothers

30

Strepsils 7) Do you think of Soothers as:( you may encircle more than one)? a. Just another candy b. Helps Throat Clearing c. Mouth Freshening d. Other 11) Please rank the following on the given attribute on a scale of 1…5, 1 being the least preferred & 5 being most preferred.

Vicks

Strepsils

Soothers

Hoest

Polo

Mentos

Sweetness Mint Size Packing Throat-clearing Mouth-freshening Overall taste 12) do you think that Soothers packing signifies its functional value(i.e does it go with its throat clearing/mouth freshening abilities)? Yes

No

Not Sure

13) What is about Soothers that you particularly like/ don’t like? LIKES

DISLIKES

31

Appendix-B THROAT-CLEARING FOR CANDIES- A CROSS TABULATION: 1 Count % within candy % of Total 2 Count % within candy %of Total 3 Count % within candy %of Total 4 Count % within candy % of Total 5 Count % within candy % of Total Total Count % within candy % of Total

1 0 0

Vicks 2 3 11 21 30% 26%

1 22 33%

Polo 2 3 14%

3 8 26%

1 14 26%

1 8 31%

Hoest 2 13 27%

3 9 21%

1 9 24%

0%

9%

18%

18%

3%

7%

12%

6%

10%

7%

11%

8%

8%

13%

8%

6%

0 0

13 35%

2 2%

11 16%

0 0%

4 13%

4 8%

4 17%

7 17%

7 27%

0 0%

9 21%

7 19%

4 9%

4 11%

2 11

0%

11%

2%

9%

0%

3%

3%

3%

6%

6%

0%

8%

6%

3%

3%

2%

0 0

2 5%

11 14%

7 10%

4 19%

2 6%

9 17%

0 0%

4 10%

0 0%

4 8%

9 21%

4 11%

7 16%

2 5%

2 11

0%

2%

9%

6%

3%

2%

8%

0%

3%

0%

3%

8%

3%

6%

2%

2%

0 0%

7 19%

31 38%

18 27%

7 33%

13 42%

22 42%

4 17%

11 27%

4 15%

22 46%

11 26%

13 35%

7 16%

18 47%

4 21

0%

6%

26%

15%

6%

11%

19%

3%

9%

3%

19%

9%

11%

6%

15%

3%

0 0

4 11%

16 20%

9 13%

7 33%

4 13%

4 8%

9 38%

7 17%

7 27%

9 19%

4 10%

4 11%

11 25%

4 11%

4 21

0%

3%

14%

8%

6%

3%

3%

8%

6%

6%

8%

3%

3%

9%

3%

3%

-

37

81

67

21

31

53

24

41

26

48

42

37

44

38

19

0

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

10

0

31%

69%

56%

18%

45%

20%

35%

22%

41%

36%

31%

37%

32%

16

10 0 26 %

Mentos 2 3 7 12 29% 29%

32

Soothers 2 3 15 10 34% 26%

1 7 37

33