Brand Equity Measurement: Happydent

Brand Equity Measurement of Happydent

ANTON BABU (U108009) AYAN DASGUPTA (U108014) GAURAV KAYAL (U108019) ISHITA GOEL (U108020)

CONTENTS Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. Summary.................................................................................................................................3 Brand Equity Measurement.................................................................................................................... Measurement ....................................................................................................................5 Brand Equity Model ........................................... .......................................................................................... ................................................................................. ..................................6 6 Three Pillar Model............................................ Model............................................................................................ ................................................................................... ...................................7 7 Stochastic Share ..................................................................................................................................8 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................9 Brand Loyalty (An off shoot ..............................9 off shoot of of the the Preference‐Behaviour Model Behaviour Model and and Measures) Measures) ..............................9 Brand Adhesion................................................................................................................................. Adhesion .................................................................................................................................11 11 Price Sensitivity .................................................................................................................................14 14 Stochastic Share ................................................................................................................................16 16 Brand Gravity and Brand Focus.........................................................................................................21 21 Brand Elasticity.................................................................................................................................. Elasticity..................................................................................................................................23 23 Conclusion................................................................................................ Conclusion ................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. References ............................................................................................................................................26 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 off competition from the rival brands. In Phase – 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 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 (actfeel think). 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 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 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.


Page 3

In terms of brand 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 of Happydent was on the higher side.


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, 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 of each relationship, developing reliable indicators of each 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 of their action plans.


Page 5

Brand Equity Model Aaker originally outlined five components of of brand 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 of the the components of of Brand 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 of the 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 (thinkfeel act), the emotional hierarchy (feelactthink), and the low involvement hierarchy (actfeelthink). 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.


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 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 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.


Page 7

Stochastic Share Stochastic share in the simplest of terms can be defined as a “mind share” that reflects the probability of a 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 of the preferred sets

It is therefore a true measure of brand of brand strength, since it reflects expressed preferences independent of behaviour. of behaviour. The stochastic share can be used to interpret the following‐ •

Share of mind of mind of the of the brand amongst the consumers

•

A measure of the of the efficacy of the of the strategic inputs by the company

•

A reflection of what 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 of the brands. The stochastic share generated is always compared with the “Market share” or “Operational Share” of the of the brand to determine the following‐ •

Failure or Success in maximizing the market potential of the of the brand

•

Whether the existing brand franchise is vulnerable or not


Page 8

An lysis

Bra d Loyalty

Stoc astic Sha e

Major Attributes

Br nd Elasticity

Be avioral Att Attitudinal

Brand Loyalty (An of shoot

f the

referenc ‐Behaviour Mod l and

Meas res) Behavi ural Meas re – The

ain indicator of behavioural me sure is re eat purchases. The

advantages of the behavioural measure include the focus on he most r levant crit rion for managers—purchase, the avoi ance of sit ational eff cts by measuring over time acros several incident incidents, and the r latively straightforward nature of th of the data. The ma or limitation of behavioural meas res is the ailure to identify moti e and the resulting confusi n between brand loyalty and other forms of repeat buying. For example, repeat purchases may re ult from either low i volvement or distribution limits.

Two consumers may regularly

purchase Happydent from a particular bakery. One do s so because he loves

appydent; e would

drive across town to get them. The other b ys them because he catches the bus outside th bakery. Although he likes H ppydent, he actually prefers other brands to Happydent, j appydent, j st not enough to go out of h of his way to bu them. Purchase behaviour alone is in ufficient. The major di advantage to behaviour‐based me sures of loyalty is the inability to identif the strength or qualitative nature f the f the consumer’s relati nship to the bra d. Multipl purchases may reflect a weak pre erence based on limite knowledge. Or, no prefere ce but mer habit. Or, no preferen e but limited availabilit of better of better‐liked alternatives. Attitudinal measur ‐ The major alternative operational definition is based on consumer attitudes, prefere ces, and p rchase intentions. Th following hart shows the break‐ p of most referred

brand in the mouth freshener c tegory.

Brand quity Measurement

Page 9

Centre F esh 14%

Happydent 2%

Men os 14

Or it 20

Chl romint 0%

Base: 3 Responde ts

The advantages of ttitudinal measures ma include id ntification f the reasons underlying loyalty and greater protection against the effects f temporar conditions such as st ck‐outs or hort‐run competitive promotions. In case of Happydent and the ategory in eneral we ind the customer attit de to be of the low involve ent hierar hy that is, First Act (b haviour) then feel (emotion) and finally think (belief). When

sked to de ine what Happydent s ands for t em the maximum nu ber of res ondents

responded with “Rejuvenating and refres ing” followed by “White teeth”

hich indicates their

positive attitude to ards the b and. We al o see that it is in the p eferred set for 33 out f the 35 respondents which gain indica es the high reference iven to the rand Thus, t e two important par meters of the model reflect a brand’s reliance on hig ly loyal custom rs and its uccess in attracting brand switch rs. The first group ar

those wh

have a

positive attitude to ard the brand (prefer it) and who buy it. The second group are those who buy it on a given purchase but who may prefer another brand. Happyden scores hig with the fi st group while it scores low

ith the second group.


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:


Page 11

Implic tions •

16 custome s go for a p rticular brand in the m uth freshener category, out of thes of thes only 11 are brand loyal to Ha pydent. That is, there is 68.75% of the consumers are loyal to Happydent out of the total consumers who buy a particul r brand in he mouth f reshener category. T us, it can be inferred t at consum rs have str ng attitudes towards t e brand "Happydent" and they i entify with it.

•

4 consumers go for a p rticular brand in the category out f habit; ho ever the n mber in case of Happydent is more (5). Thi can be att ibuted to t e fact that there are still strong loyalists to he brand, despite the category bei g a low involvement o e. Thus the number of habituali of habituali ts increases.


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.


Page 13

Price Sensitivity The belief that belief that drive behaviour across most categories are “price” and “quality” after considering the distribution of price 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"

Brand Total

Price not a barrier

28.57%

14.29%

11.43%

2.86%

57.14%

Price minor barrier

20.00%

5.71%

5.71%

0.00%

31.43%

Price

0.00%

8.57%

2.86%

0.00%

11.43%

significant

barrier Price absolute barrier

0.00%

Total

48.57%

Orbit

"Superior

28.57%

"Good

20.00%

2.86%

100.00%

"Acceptable

"Poor”

Brand Total

Price not a barrier

28.57%

11.43%

8.57%

0.00%

48.57%

Price minor barrier

22.86%

2.86%

5.71%

0.00%

31.43%

Price

0.00%

8.57%

2.86%

5.71%

17.14%

significant

barrier Price absolute barrier Total

2.86% 51.43%


22.86%

20.00%

2.86%

5.71%

100.00%

Page 14

Chloromint

"Superior

"Good

"Acceptable

"Poor”

Brand Total

Price not a barrier

34.29%

17.14%

8.57%

2.86%

62.86%

Price

20.00%

5.71%

5.71%

0.00%

31.43%

0.00%

2.86%

2.86%

0.00%

5.71%

minor

barrier Price

significant

barrier Price

absolute

0.00%

barrier Total

54.29%

25.71%

17.14%

2.86%

100.00%

Centre Fresh

"Superior

"Good

"Acceptable

"Poor”

Brand Total

Price not a barrier

22.86%

14.29%

5.71%

2.86%

45.71%

Price

20.00%

5.71%

2.86%

0.00%

28.57%

2.86%

8.57%

5.71%

0.00%

17.14%

5.71%

2.86%

minor

barrier Price

significant

barrier Price

absolute

8.57%

barrier Total

45.71%

34.29%

17.14%

2.86%

100.00%

Mentos

"Superior

"Good

"Acceptable

"Poor”

Brand Total

Price not a barrier

42.86%

20.00%

5.71%

0.00%

68.57%

Price

14.29%

5.71%

2.86%

0.00%

22.86%

2.86%

2.86%

2.86%

0.00%

8.57%

0.00%

0.00%

28.57%

11.43%

minor

barrier Price

significant

barrier Price

absolute

0.00%

barrier Total

60.00%

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


Page 15

(51.43%), Chloromint – 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 each of the 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.


Page 16

Stochastic Share Analysis 1. The preferred set size for each Brand Preferrers was calculated – 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 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 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 of each brand also.

Implications The “Stochastic preference share” of the of the different brands was calculated. The findings are as follows‐

Stochastic Share Market Happydent

30.327

Chloromint

20.819

Mentos

12.232

Orbit

16.845

Centre Fresh

19.777

It can be clearly seen that the stochastic share of Happydent 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 of three consumers on an average would want to buy a Happydent mouth freshener.


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.

Total

Happydent

Chloromint

Mentos

Orbit

Centre Fresh

Others

24

22

18

14

8

9

25.26

23.16

18.95

14.74

8.42

9.47

respondents % respondents

The Operational Share represented below, can be taken as a proxy for the Market share of brands 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%. of 10%.


Page 18

Operational share Others 10%

Happydent 25%

centrefresh 8% Orbit 15%

Chloromint 23%

Mentos 19%

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 of the brand are very positive, and it is a matter of time, of time, till the operational share catches on with the stochastic share.

Brand

Stochastic

Operational

Share

Share

Happydent

30

25

Chloromint

21

23

Mentos

12

19

Orbit

17

15

Centre

20

8

Fresh

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.


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.


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. of sales that come from consumers who identify the brand as Brand Focus represents the proportion of sales 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 Preferred Brand Last Purchase

Happyd Happydent ent

Orbit Orbit

Centre

Chloromint

Mentos

Fresh

Happydent

X

Orbit Centre Fresh Chloromint

X Y

X X

Mentos

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:


Page 21

Responses: Brand Focus Most Preferred Brand Last Purchase

Happyd Happydent ent

Orbit Orbit

Centre

Chloromint

Mentos

Fresh

Happydent

9

Orbit Centre Fresh

1

Chloromint

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

2 5

1

1

Mentos

1

Brand Focus

81.82%

1 42.86%

40.00%

3 71.43%

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: 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.


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 of the other category. For instance, a shoes brand A can be extended to apparels if it if it is strong on the attribute of styling. 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

Tooth oothp paste ste Cig Cigarett rettes es Soaps aps 30 13 23 8 5 5 17 0 8 7


Toff Toffee eess 10 4 8 9 0

10 10 22 8 18

Toot Tooth hbrush Pan Pan Masala 8 14 12 5 5 0 10 5 10 14

Page 23

Happydent Pan Masala, 14 Toothpaste, 0

Toothbr sh ,8

Toffees, 1

Soaps, 1

Cigarettes, 13

Base: 3 Responde ts, more than one exte sion for each product llowed

A quali ative analy is was car ied out to identify th

reasons t e consumers ascribe o brand

extensi n of in such a categor . A clear i dication fr m the abo e is that for the two

roducts,

Happydent and Orbit which clai

whitening of teeth, of teeth, consumer can associate with cleaning property

and thus see a possibility of the of the

as toothp ste brands.

Another key fact

hich emerged from th above wa that it is believed in eneral that chewing

gums are not good or teeth, but the perception is diffe ent for Happydent because of the of the

hitening

and cleaning prop rties associated with it. Therefor , smokers also believe that, if H ppydent extends it to cigarettes, then it is possible t at it will h ve less har ful effects than usual cigarettes and will be more ref reshing.


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: 

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. of customers.



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.



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



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.


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


Page 26

Brand Equity Measurement: Happydent

Recommend Documents