Analysis of Cornflakes Brand in Its Market Category - Case Study Example

Assignment B: Cornflakes brand Name Institution Executive summary Every organization has its own way of ensuring that the products they make reach the desired audience and market. Once the product hits the market, this is not the end of the marketing process. They continue their marketing strategies to ensure that the products continue receiving attention in the market out there and grow exceedingly. This report uses some metrics to measure strengths of brands. These are market share, market penetration, average purchase frequency, category buying rate, share of category requirements and sole loyalty. The report concentrates mainly on the analysis of cornflakes brand in its market category and in its brand category. The findings is this report will show that concentrating on those strategies will enhance the brand visibility for the brand and position it in a manner in which people truly resonate with the brand. Part B: Section 1 Question One We can analyze the corn flakes from table 1 following six different metrics namely; market share, market penetration, average purchase frequency, category buying rate, share of category requirements and sole loyalty. There are six brands of chocolate which have been looked at side by side and the relevant figures attained. However, for the purposes of this report, the focus will be mainly on Cornflakes brand. Other brands will be brought in from time to time to show the comparison and contrast between cornflakes and the other brands in line with the six metrics noted here. Cornflakes commands a market share of 37% from the table. So far, this is the largest figure in this table on market share. This implies that the brand has the highest possible market share in this market. The high percentage over other brands serve to show that cornflakes is more preferred to the other brands in this market. The concept of market share is brought about to show how strong a brand or product or even a service is in a particular market or industry (Sherif, 2006, p. 73). The higher the market share, the stronger the product or the service is (Montes et al 2003, p. 190). However, in most instances, if a product has not been able to hit the margin of 50% market share, it can’t really consider itself as being fully dominant in that particular market. 37% market share of cornflakes shows that people prefer to buy more from this brand than form the other brands in the market. Market penetration is also another metric that measure the strength of a certain product or service in the market. Table 1 shows the cornflakes brand to have a market penetration of 73%. The metric of market penetration shows how much the product and how deep the product has gone into the market (Smith, 2004, p. 71). In other words, it shows the extent to which a certain product has captured both the imagination as well as the attention of the various shoppers in the market. If the market penetration levels are high, then this implies that the product or service has been able to achieve a high degree of attention from the shoppers. The metric could be measured using a pedestal of below average if the penetration is lower than 25%, average if the penetration is between 25% and 50% and above average if the penetration goes beyond 50%. For levels beyond 75%, the market penetration could be termed as being excellent. In this case, the market penetration is 73%. This places the cornflakes performance using this metric as above average and the interpretation is that the brand has managed to capture the attention of the market to a 73% degree. Average purchase frequency is also another metric. This metric illustrates the extent to which people conduct repeat purchases in the market. The average purchase frequency for the cornflakes brand in this particular market is 2.3. This is in form of a ratio. The implication is that the people in this market buys the cornflakes brand at least two times in a certain period of time. If the ratio is high, it suggests that people buy .more of the product in repeated purchases. In this market, the ratio of 2.3 is among the highest ratios. This means that people buy more of cornflakes brand than they buy of other brands in repeated purchases. Every organization strives to have their products achieve a higher APF level than their competitors. The category buying rate is another metric analyzed here. From the table, a ratio of 5.4 shows that the people who went to buy products, each of them bought at least five of the brand. Category buying rate shows the number of products of a particular brand bought over a certain period of time. The 5.4 ratio for the cornflakes brand is the highest in this market. This implies that the brand is bought more times than any other brand in this market. Share of category requirements for the cornflakes brand is 43% in this market. Share of category requirements is achieved through dividing the Average Purchase Frequency over the Category Buying Rate. A figure of 43% shows that the product (cornflakes) commands a modest higher buying rate in the market. Share of category requirements is always an ideal metric to show how strong the brand is performing in the market. The higher the share of category requirements, the higher the perceived purchasing power of the clients in this market from the brand. The last metric measure the extent to which clients will go to ensure that they purchase products from only specified organizations. This is the metric and concept of sole loyalty. Sole loyalty shows how well people connect to a certain brand and their absolute willingness to purchase this brand as opposed to others in the market (Schmittlein, Cooper & Morrison, 1993, p.170). Some people go to the market with their mind set on a specific product and it takes a lot to have them deviate from buying this product to another brand. Organizations struggle to ensure that the figure of sole loyalists is maintained at a high level. High level of sloe loyalty is good for business as this increases the volume of business. The cornflakes brand in this market is 22%. So far, this is the highest figure in this market. It shows that the brand has more loyal customers than any other brand in this market. Question two. a. There exists different kinds of markets, mostly rallied and determined by the way the above discussed metrics of market share, market penetration, average purchase frequency, category buying rate, share of category requirements and sole loyalty. These are the repertoire market as well as the subscription market. The definitions of the two markets is offered here. The first market, the subscription market is comprised of many buyers who exercise a high degree of sole buying (Mason, 2007, p.12). Their categorical allocations are rallied according to a one certain specific brand. The repertoire market on the other hand has fewer solely buyers. This is because their categorical allocations run across a number of brands in the market (Romaniuk & Sharp, 2004, p.340). b. Just from the definition offered in the 2.a above, there are a number of differences that are existent between these two markets, the repertoire and the subscription markets when they get placed side by side. These differences have been highlighted in the following paragraph. The first difference is that in the repertoire market, the market share is low because few people are sole loyalists to a particular brand. The subscription market is different in the sense that it has a higher market share because more people purchase this brand following a market category, not brand. A repertoire market has a lower market penetration when contrasted to a subscription market. The Average purchase frequencies, the category buying rate are also low for a repertoire market but high for a subscription market. There are also differences in the sole loyalty of the two markets. The repertoire market has a lower sole loyalty as people look at the whole brand category so that they can determine the type of brand to buy. In the subscription market, the opposite happens. The sole loyalty is higher because people look at the brand first before they can categorize it. c. The form of market that cornflakes operates in is a subscription market. It has a certain superiority compared to the other products in the market and this can be seen from the above statistics. Consequently this means that corn flakes is a popular brand and if put in a repertoire market the consumers would view it from a categorical point of view. Question Three. The managing director is right on focusing market strategies on the brand’s top heavy 20% customer base. Most organizations strive to make sure that the percentage of the clients who are sole loyalists are kept satisfied through being given the attention that they deserve. Sole loyal customers are the bloodline of every company (Wilson et al 2008, p.4). They are the people who believe so much in the quality of the brand to such an extent that they cannot be able to purchase any other form of brand in the market. Idealistically, they form the group of people who are repeat buyers and who have the capacity to increase the sales volumes of the brand through an increase in their average purchase frequency (Zeithaml et al 2009, p.17). The cornflakes brand in this specific market enjoys a 22% sole loyal clients. The implication and interpretation is that these are the clients who bring much business to the organization through this brand and through high levels of APF. If the brand marketers could ensure that they concentrate their marketing strategies on this top heavy 20%, then they would be ensured of revenues and with that they can go forth and try to capture another market. Question Four. Brand salience and attitude are two forms of brand visibility measurement that show how people in the market perceive a particular brand (Dalgarno, Bennett & Kennedy, 2013, p.30). The two forms of measurements can be differentiated. Attitude is just a mere and shallow first perception people have towards something. Attitude could be developed even without the people having laid their sights on the particular product (Barak, 2013, p.4). On the other hand, salience is a more detailed form of perception. It shows the feeling that people have towards a certain brand in the market. It shows the kind of feel people have when they walk into the market and see the brand or when they think about the brand. Building up brand salience is more vital in essence than the build-up of attitude. Attitude does not last and most times it changes subject to many factors. Brand salience is a more lasting feeling and customers will always have the feeling always (Sihab, 2012, p.2279). Question Five Table 2 shows various patterns that are related to brand salience. The table shows four metrics that are used to measure the salience of a brand. These are top of mind awareness, overall brand awareness and whole sample’s salience and users only salience. These metrics have been used to measure the salience patterns of this brand as follows. From tables 2 and with a distinctive contrast with the other brands in this market, the cornflakes brand is seen to have a salience level that is higher than any of the other brands in this market if the four metrics are anything to go by. The only metric where it is not ranked first in this market is the metric of salience (users only) where a salience of 42% is lower than that of the Just Right brand with 43%. If tableaus 1 and 2 could be combined, then the cornflakes brand can be seen to be performing as expected within this market. The first table has metrics that measure the strength of the brand as seen in question one. These are market share, market penetration, average purchase frequency, category buying rate, share of category requirements and sole loyalty and in all these metrics, the brand comes out strongly. The salience measurements in table 2 justify these results and cornflakes brand could be seen to be performing as expected in this market. Question Six. The results of the salience brand have one implication. As much as they show that the brand is performing as expected, there is still some levels through which this brand hasn’t been able to cover and the salience results indicate this. This shows that the brand hasn’t been employing its marketing strategies wholesomely and this could be one of the reasons why the cornflakes hasn’t be able to capture that market and attain high levels of brand salience. To improve on this, the company could employ a number of marketing strategies through forms of advertisements, there are a number of cue that could be used to ensure that the brand gains some form of salience. These cues could be highlighted below; 1. Good packaging 2. Should show different tastes like mango, strawberry, vanilla etc. 3. Pricing of the brand 4. Unique logo 5. Mark of quality in the brand 6. Different colors 7. Available in different sizes 8. Slogan of the brand 9. Nutritional quotient of the brand 10. Available in different shapes Section 3 Question Seven. The tables 3-5 show the demographic relationship status of the customer who shop in this market. The The difference between customer profiles in this market and for the cornflakes brand is minimal. The income levels are very close meaning that the market segmentation in lines of income is minimal averaging at 70000 dollars. The differentiation along the lines of gender is also not much thought the data in table 5 show that along the lines of gender, female purchase chocolate more frequently than the males. Apart from that the analyses could conclude that there are really no significant differences in this market for the cornflakes brand to be much worried about. Question Eight. The statistical and demographic data in this report show that there are no major implications along the lines of demographic relationship and for this reason, the brand should concentrate mainly on building up its brand salience and visibility. References Barak, M, 2013, ‘Closing the Gap Between Attitudes and Perceptions About ICT-Enhanced Learning Among Pre-service STEM Teachers’, journal of science education and technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 2-9. Dalgarno, B, Bennett, S & Kennedy, G, 2013, “Australasian journal of educational technology”, Australasian journal of educational technology, Vol.29, No. 4, pp.1- 46. Mason, R, 2007, “The external environment’s effect on management and strategy, A complexity theory approach”, Management Decision Journals, Vol.45, No.1, pp. 10-28. Montes et al, 2003, "Factors affecting the relationship between total quality management and organizational performance", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.189 – 209. Romaniuk, J, & Sharp, B, 2004, ‘Conceptualizing and measuring brand salience’, Marketing theory, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 327-342. Schmittlein, D,C, Cooper, L & Morrison, D, 1993, ‘Truth in Concentration in the Land of (80/20) Laws’, Marketing Science, Vol, 12 , No,2, pp. 167-183. Sihab, M, 2012, ‘The Study on Strategic Planning and Organizational Performance in the Regional Government Owned Banks in Indonesia’, International Journal of Humanities and Applied Sciences (IJHAS), Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 2277 – 4386. Sherif, K, 2006, “An adaptive strategy for managing knowledge in organizations”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10, No.4, pp. 72-80. Smith, A, 2004, “Complexity theory and change management in sport organizations”, Emergence, Complexity & Organizations journals, Vol. 6, No.1, pp. 70-79. Waarden, L, 2013, ‘The impact of reward personalization of frequent flyer programmes, perceived value and loyalty’, journal of services marketing, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 183-194. Wilson et al 2008, ‘Services Marketing – Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm’, 1st Edition, McGraw Hill. Zeithaml et al 2009, ‘Services Marketing – Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm’, Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill. Read More