Measuring and Interpreting Brand Performance - Double Jeopardy and Duplication of Law - Coursework Example

Measuring and Interpreting Brand Performance Student’s Name: Subject: Professor: University/Institution: Location: Date: Contents Contents 2 Executive Summary 3 Section 1: Brand Performance 4 Section 2: Brand Attitude and brand salience 6 Summary 10 References 11 Executive Summary In the report, Smith’s depicts both Double Jeopardy and Duplication of Law patterns of brand performance. In addition, Duplication of Law pattern exhibited by Smith’s has implications as well as likely reasons for deviations. Smith’s also operates in a repertoire market. Further, the brand attitude and brand salience of Smith’s are compared in the report and brand salience highlighted as being more important to measure as compared to brand attitude. Smith’s also meets expected performance within the total sample as well as in its client base and depicts a free choice in attitudinal construct pattern of brand attitude. However, the performance of Smith’s can be enhanced through improving its customers’ base positive attitude towards the brand. Finally, Smith’s has the same clientele base as competing brands and has no attraction on any particular client type. Consequently, the marketing manager should not unnecessarily utilize additional resources in a particular segment despite having a slightly higher number of customers in that market segment as compared to competing brands. Section 1: Brand Performance 1. Double Jeopardy is an archetypal Brand Performance Measures (BPMs) pattern that depicts the level of loyalty of the brand in relation to its magnitude. Clients for bigger brands are more and have a continuous propensity of purchasing more often as compared to customers for smaller brands that are fewer and have an on-going tendency of purchasing less often (Wright & Riebe 2010). In table 1, Smith’s has the highest sole loyalty which is 22% while sole loyalty for Red Rock Deli, as well as Jumpy’s, is 0. In addition, Smith’s has the biggest market share which is 34%. Consequently, Smith’s is a big brand in the same category market because it has high penetration that is 72% and high market share. Further, it has high loyalty. On the other hand, Red Rock Deli and Jumpy’s are small brands in the same market category. 2. De Chernatony (2010) argues that repertoire market entails the general purchasing of many brands in the same category in a short period by clients, such as a year. In addition, share-of-category requirement (SCR) is capable of being used to measure brand loyalty in repertoire categories (East, Wright & Vanhuele 2013). SCR depicts the portion of category purchases that a client gives to a particular brand over a definite time span. Further, each brand in one category in repertoire market shares the loyalty as anticipated in brand performance metrics. For instance, Smith’s is operating in a repertoire market as a result of clients purchasing numerous dissimilar brands in the same category over the same period. East, Wright and Vanhuele (2013) stipulate that Duplication of Purchase Law shows the sharing of clients by competing brands in the same market category. The average duplication declines as the penetration of a brand reduces. Bigger brands with more market share have a higher average duplication as compared to their smaller counterparts with lesser market share. Further, small brands share a majority of their clients with larger brands. However, larger brands will share lesser customers with smaller brands. From table 2, Smith’s which is a large brand is only sharing 28% of its customer with Jumpy’s that is a small brand for the same market category brands. However, Jumpy’s is sharing 65% of its clientele with Smith’s. In addition, Red Rock Deli is another small brand in the same market category with Smith’s brand. Red Rock Deli is sharing 69% of its clients with Smith’s while Smith’s is sharing 33% of its clients with Red Rock Deli. There are deviations in the Duplication of Purchase Law pattern resulting from two brands sharing more or fewer clients between them as compared to the rest of the market than anticipated (East, Wright & Vanhuele 2013). The implication is that the brands are either similar or dissimilar. Similar brands share more between them while dissimilar brands share less between them than the rest of the market than anticipated (Ehrenberg & Goodhardt, 2011). For example, from table 2, Doritos and Jumpy’s are dissimilar while Smith’s and Kettle are similar. Doritos and Jumpy’s are dissimilar because they share less with one another as compared to the rest of the market than anticipated. On the other hand, Smith’s and Kettle share more with each other as compared to the rest of the market than anticipated making them similar. Likely causes of Duplication of Purchase Law pattern deviations of Doritos and Jumpy’s may have resulted from the brand locations. For instance, the brands may likely be “state-based” brands. In addition, the Smith’s and Kettle brands might be close substitutes that are readily available in many different locations as compared to the other products in the same market category. Duplication of Purchase Law has the implication of brands in the same market category having an inclination of sharing clients as per their market share magnitude. Large brands with more penetration share lesser customers with small brands characterized by lesser penetration. Section 2: Brand Attitude and brand salience 3. Brand salience means the extent of a brand being noticeable by a client who is in a buying scenario. For example, buyers’ ease of accessing a brand name from their memory (Romaniuk & Sharp 2004). In addition, it is founded on buyers and many persons thinking of a particular brand’s products in a more frequent manner. Further, brand salience is mirrored in the presence of relations via a variety of attributes such as the degree of freshness or relevancy brand information link in the memory of a buyer. On the other hand, brand attitude means an enduring assessment that is capable of being a mental reminder that leads to action (Sharp & Ehrenberg 2010). In addition, it is documented that attitudes’ impact on future conduct is feeble as a result of their infrequent or weak motivation when recalled (East, Wright & Vanhuele 2013). Further, brand attitude does not link to behaviour much as well as being rarely recalled in purchase situations. Therefore, brand attitude has a weak effect on brand choice. However, salience differentials contribute a lot to explaining market share discrepancies between brands at an aggregate level (Liu, et al. 2012). The impact of brand salience is dissimilar to the effect of brand attitude. For instance, brand attitude assesses the brand while brand salience entails a brand being noticeable to the client in a buying scenario. Brand salience is more important to measure as compared to brand attitude because it enables brand managers to know how the consumers remember a brand (Whan et al. 2010). For example, people remember things when they hear as well as see them more frequently leading to greater influence to them in buying the product. Further, persons’ description of things is through naming of special points that drew their attraction to the things. However, attitude of individuals has minimal impact on influencing them to purchasing a brand that result from attitudes and future conduct having a poor association. 4. From table 3, free choice in attitudinal construct pattern is depicted. It entails persons relating any number of brands to an attitudinal statement. Further, the free choice involves individuals’ attitude to a brand matching its share of the market. Large brands with more market penetration have more persons saying negative things about them as compared to small brands with lesser market penetration that have fewer individuals saying negative things about them. For instance, Smith’s which a large brand with 72% penetration has a negative attitudinal response in the total sample of 68%. On the other hand, Jumpy’s and Red Rock Deli that are small samples have negative attitudinal response in the total sample of 48% and 36%, respectively. People utilizing the same brand say identical things about the brand in proportion to its market share. For, example a large brand has more users saying positive things about it while a small brand has fewer brand users saying good things about it. For instance, Smith’s which a large brand with 72% penetration has a positive attitudinal response in the total sample of 56%. On the other hand, Jumpy’s and Red Rock Deli that are small samples have positive attitudinal response in the total sample of 34% and 29%, respectively. Smith’s performs as expected within its customer base and the total sample. Smith’s as a large brand is expected to have more users than the other smaller brands with both positive and negative attitudinal responses for brands in the same market category. Smith’s has the highest total sample positive and negative attitudinal responses as compared to other brands in the same category such as Jumpy’s and Red Rock Deli. Smith’s has 56% total sample users with a positive brand attitude while Red Rock Deli and Jumpy’s have 34% and 29% total sample users with a positive brand attitude, respectively. In addition, Smith’s has the highest users’ only positive attitudinal response as compared to other brands in the same market category as expected. Smith’s has 65% users only with a positive brand attitude while Red Rock Deli and Jumpy’s have 64% and 59% users only with a positive brand attitude, respectively. Further, Smith’s has 68% total sample users with a negative brand attitude while Red Rock Deli and Jumpy’s have 48% and 36% total sample users with a negative brand attitude, respectively. Smith’s also has the highest users’ only negative attitudinal response as compared to other brands in the same market category as expected. Smith’s has 65% users only with a negative brand attitude while Red Rock Deli has 64% users only with a negative brand attitude, and Jumpy’s has 59% users only with a negative brand attitude 5. Yes, Smith’s customers’ attitude needs to be altered because 74% percentage of its users only has a negative attitude on the brand as compared to 65% who have a positive brand attitude. Consequently, brand growth can be enhanced by creation of better brand perception among its particular users. Section 3: Demographics and Segmentation 6. Ehrenberg and Kennedy (2001) found out that brands in the same market category have the same clientele base with no attraction on any particular market segment. The study used data from TGI in the United Kingdom whose equivalent in Australia is Roy Morgan Data. Brands from 42 industries were used for the marketing segmentation study. The study measured variables such as demographics. Comparison of average client base profiles between a brand and the entire category was conducted in determining whether brands had clients from different market segments. Further, the utilization of Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) quantified the dissimilarity of average client base profiles between a brand and the entire category (Kennedy & Ehrenberg 2001). From table 4, the relationship status aggregated average Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) for the entire category is 2.3. However, that of Smith’s is 2.2 due to a negligible difference in client attraction between Smith’s and the other competing brands. The difference is negligible because the deviations are too small to be worthy of separate actions of marketing (Ehrenberg, Uncles & Goodhardt 2004). Red Rock Deli is the brand with the highest relationship status aggregate MAD at 2.4, which is also quite small. From table 5, the household income aggregated average Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) for the entire category is 2.6. However, Smith’s is at 5.5 due to a negligible difference in client attraction between Smith’s and the other competing brands. The difference is negligible because the deviations are too small to be worthy of separate actions of marketing. Smith’s has the highest household income aggregate MAD at 5.5. From table 6, the gender aggregated average Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) for the entire category is 1.6. However, that of Smith’s is 1.6 due to a negligible difference in client attraction between Smith’s and the other competing brands. Consequently, Smith’s and other competing brands have the same clientele base with no attraction on any particular market segment. 7. The implication of the demographic and segmentation outcomes for Smith’s is that it has the same clientele base as competing brands and has no attraction on any particular client type. Consequently, the marketing manager should not unnecessarily utilize additional resources in a particular segment despite having a slightly higher number of customers in that market segment as compared to competing brands. Summary In the report, Smith’s has both Double Jeopardy and Duplication of Law patterns of brand performance. In addition, Duplication of Law pattern exhibited by Smith’s has deviations as well as implications. Smith’s also operates in a repertoire market. Further, the brand attitude and brand salience of Smith’s were compared, and brand salience highlighted as being more important in measuring as compared to brand attitude. Smith’s also meets expected performance within the total sample as well as in its client base and depicts a free choice in attitudinal construct pattern of brand attitude. However, the performance of Smith’s can be enhanced through enhancing its customer base positive attitude towards its brand. Finally, Smith’s has the same clientele base as competing brands and has no attraction on any particular client type. References De Chernatony, L, 2010, From brand vision to brand evaluation: the strategic process of growing and strengthening brands, Routledge. Wright, M., & Riebe, E, 2010, Double jeopardy in brand defection, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 44 no. 6, pp 860-873. East, R, Wright, ., & Vanhuele, M, 2013, Consumer behaviour: applications in marketing. Sage. Kennedy, R & Ehrenberg, A 2001, ‘There is no brand level segmentation’, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. Spring, pp. 4-7. Romaniuk, J & Sharp, B 2004, ‘Conceptualizing and measuring brand salience’, Marketing Theory, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 327-342 Sharp, B., & Ehrenberg-Bass institute for marketing science Melbourne, Australia, 2010, How brands grow: What marketers don't know, Vol. 189, South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Liu, F., Li, J., Mizerski, D., & Soh, H., 2012, Self-congruity, brand attitude, and brand loyalty: a study on luxury brands. European Journal of Marketing, vol.46, no.7/8, pp 922-937. Whan Park, C, MacInnis, D, J, Priester, J, Eisingerich, A, B, & Iacobucci, D, 2010. Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers, Journal of Marketing, vol.74, no.6, pp 1-17. Ehrenberg, A, S, C, & Goodhardt, G, J, 2011, Models of Buyer Behavior, Chapter 18: Repeat Buying of a New Brand: A 10-Point Case History, Marketing Classics Press. Ehrenberg, A, S, Uncles, M, D, & Goodhardt, G, J, 2004, Understanding brand performance measures: using Dirichlet benchmarks, Journal of Business Research, vol. 57 no. 12, pp 1307-1325. . Read More