Brand Engagement Model & Study 2012

1,526 views
1,437 views

Published on

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,526
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
85
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Brand Engagement Model & Study 2012

  1. 1. Brand Engagement Index 2012 DECEMBER 2012
  2. 2. – Management & research objectives – Methodology Report – Executive summaryOverview – Meaning of brands – Measuring eNgagement – The four I’s – TOP 10 – Media exposure – Category results
  3. 3. Management &Research Objectives
  4. 4. Management & Research Objectives Develop a research tool to measure Brand eNgagement and the related I’s. Rank 116 brands based on their Brand eNgagement score amongst Belgian consumers. To support this mission, NBBDO is looking to operationalize the eNgagement concept in a quantitative survey that can be used… – … to rank a set of 116 brands based on their eNgagement performance – … to offer to its clients as a customized research tool in future projects The outcome of this project will be threefold: – Master survey that measures Brand eNgagement – Model that shows the relationship between the four I’s, Brand eNgagement and business KPI’s – Ranking of 116 brands based on their eNgagement performance 5
  5. 5. Methodology
  6. 6. Methodology  Research method – Online survey – Recruitment via InSites’ Talktochange consumer panel – Field: 11/10/2012 – 23/10/2012 – Survey length: 18 minutes – Sample: • N(Respondents) = 2.331 • N(Brand evaluations) = 11.100  Screening & quota  Screening: – Age between 18-45 – Not active in danger occupations  Quota: – Language: Dutch (60%) – French(40%) • Gender: Male (50%) – Female (50%) – Age: 18-24 years (24%) – 25-34 years (36%) – 35-45 years (40%) 7
  7. 7. Meaning of brands
  8. 8. Associations Q: To what extent do you agree with the following statements?. 2012 2011 2010 I expect brands to have a high value for money 54% 29% 14% 2% 84% 86% 94% Brands need the input of their consumers 26% 48% 23% 2% 74% 74% 79% Brands should be close to their consumers 18% 50% 27% 3% 1% 69% 70% 74% Brands should involve their consumers in the 19% 46% 29% 5%2% 65% 65% 71% development of new products and services Brands are attractive 13% 48% 31% 6% 3% 61% 61% 63% Brands should involve their consumers in their communication efforts (campaigns...) 11% 42% 38% 7% 2% 53% 51% 51% Brands can make us dream 15% 37% 34% 10% 4% 52% 51% 48% Branded products are more reliable 9% 39% 35% 13% 4% 49% 48% 55% Brands bring products closer to their consumers 8% 39% 42% 8% 3% 47% 48% 42%I find branded products more attractive than private labels 11% 35% 34% 15% 6% 46% 48% 50% Brands have to actively communicate with me 9% 33% 45% 11% 3% 41% 42% 39% Brands are a means to feel more confident 7% 28% 36% 19% 9% 35% 37% 33% Brands make people interact with each other 7% 29% 47% 14% 3% 35% 34% 27% Totally agree Rather agree Neutral Rather disagree Totally disagree N =2331 Sign. difference (95%) 9
  9. 9. Brand Engagement
  10. 10. The modelInfluence on KPI’s There are very strong correlations between brand engagement and all KPI’s. Brand engagement can predict 37% to 48% of the KPI’s. Likeability and loyalty can be best predicted by engagement, uniqueness is somewhat less predictable by engagement towards the brand Likeability r² = 0,42 Intimacy r = 0,65 Loyalty r² = 0,48 r = 0,70 Involvement Brand Consideration r = 0,65 r² = 0,42 eNgagement Index r = 0,65 Interaction Purchase r² = 0,42 intention The BEI (Brand r = 0,61 eNgagement Index) is a Influence score on 100, consisting of the scores on the four Uniqueness r² = 0,37 dimensions of engagement 11
  11. 11. Recommendation Reasons Q: You said you would recommend this brand to others. Please indicate why you would recommend this brand to others? Q: Can you think of other things that would trigger you to recommend this brand to others?My personal experience with this brand triggers me to 46% recommend this brand to others My price/quality perception of this brand 44% The products and services of this brand 40% I just love the brand 35% The promotions from the brand 24% This brand puts a lot of efforts in its consumers 17% The buzz (campaigns, events, etc.) about this brand 9% triggers me to do so The mission of this brand 9% The activities from the company behind the brand 8% None of these 5% N =4458 / F= Only if they would recommend the brand 12
  12. 12. No recommendation ReasonsQ: You said you would not recommend this brand to others. Please indicate why you would not recommend this brand to others?Q: Can you think of other things that prevents you from recommending this brand to others? I just don’t love the brand 28% My price/quality perception of this brand 17%My personal experience with this brand triggers me 16% to not recommend this brand to others The products and services of this brand 13% This brand does not put a lot of efforts in its 8% consumers The (lack of) promotions from the brand 7%The lack of activities from the company behind the 6% brand The mission of this brand 5% The buzz (campaigns, events, etc.) about this 4% brand does not trigger me to do so None of these 35% N =2548 / F= Only if they would not recommend the brand 13
  13. 13. The 4 I’s 14
  14. 14. Sectors with lower & higher engagement DECEMBER 2012
  15. 15. ▸ low engagement categories (52 – 53,9) - Energy – Dairy – Margarines - Beer▸ Medium engagement categories (54 – 56,5) - Water - Automotive – Magazines – Juices – Banks – CSD – Coffee – Chocolate snacks▸ High engagement categories (57 – 61,4) - Salty snacks – cellphones – telecom – retail
  16. 16. Low engagement DECEMBER 2012
  17. 17. The 4 I’sEnergy Energy Intimacy 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Influence 0% Involvment Electrabel Luminus Eneco Essent Lampiris Interaction Nuon Belpower 18
  18. 18. The 4 I’sDairy products Dairy products Intimacy 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Influence 0% Involvment Campina Joyvalle Inex Inza Danone Nestlé Lactel Interaction Kraft 19
  19. 19. The 4 I’sButter Butter Intimacy 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Influence 0% Involvment Solo Planta Bertolli Becel Alpro Interaction 20
  20. 20. The 4 I’sBeers Beers Intimacy 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Influence 0% Involvment Stella Artois Jupiler Maes Duvel Palm Vedett Hoegaarden Leffe Interaction 21
  21. 21. Medium engagement DECEMBER 2012
  22. 22. The 4 I’sWater Water Intimacy 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Influence 0% Involvment Spa Perrier Vittel BRU Contrex Chaudfontaine Interaction Evian 23
  23. 23. The 4 I’sCars Cars Intimacy 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Influence 0% Involvment Volvo Mercedes BMW Audi Volkswagen Interaction MINI Toyota 24
  24. 24. The 4 I’sMagazines Magazines Intimacy 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Influence 0% Involvment Dag Allemaal Humo Libelle Story Flair P-magazine Feeling Interaction Goed Gevoel Knack TV Familie Vitaya 25
  25. 25. The 4 I’sFruit juices Fruit juices Intimacy 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Influence 0% Involvment Minute Maid Appelsientje Looza Materne Sunland Interaction Capri Sun Tropicana 26
  26. 26. The 4 I’sBanks Banks Intimacy 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Influence 0% Involvment KBC Belfius ING BNP Paribas Fortis Argenta AXA Interaction 27
  27. 27. The 4 I’sCola Cola Intimacy 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Influence 0% Involvment Coca-Cola Coca-Cola light Pepsi Pepsi Max River Interaction Lidl Cola 28
  28. 28. The 4 I’sCoffee Coffee Intimacy 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Influence 0% Involvment Douwe Egberts Illy Nespresso Dolce Gusto Jacqmotte Interaction Nescafé 29
  29. 29. The 4 I’sChocolate Chocolate Intimacy 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Influence 0% Involvment Mars Snickers M&Ms Leo KitKat Interaction Twix Maltesers Côte dOr KinderBueno Milka 30
  30. 30. High engagement DECEMBER 2012
  31. 31. The 4 I’sRetail Retail Intimacy 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Influence 0% Involvment Delhaize Carrefour Colruyt Lidl Aldi Interaction Makro 32
  32. 32. The 4 I’sTelco Telco Intimacy 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Influence 0% Involvment Belgacom Proximus Mobistar Base Telenet Mobile Vikings Interaction VOO 33
  33. 33. The 4 I’sCellphones Cellphones Intimacy 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Influence 0% Involvment Nokia Sony Samsung Apple HTC BlackBerry LG Interaction 34
  34. 34. The 4 I’sSalty snacks Salty snacks Intimacy 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Influence 0% Involvment Lays Smiths Croky TUC Pringles Interaction 35
  35. 35. The 4 I’s Salty snacks 2012 2011 2010 52% This brand is present in places that I frequently visit 50% 43% ntimacy 30% This brand is very much present in my daily life 34% 31%This brand succeeds in reaching me as it is present at the right place 40% 44% and at the right moment 36% 23% I feel involved with this brand 25% 18% 18% I feel involved in the actions this brand undertakes 11% 18% nvolvement 17% This brand involves me in its communication efforts 14% 8% 24% This brand stimulates conversations about itself 25% 19% This brand stimulates interaction with its users by organizing things 25% that fit to their consumers lifestyles 20% 17% nteraction By evoking buzz (campaigns, events, etc) this brand induces a 26% 26% dialogue between consumers 18% 61% I would recommend the brand to others 66% 23% 23% I have recently spoken about this brand to someone 22% 20% 18% nfluence The brand has triggered me to join conversations about it 18% 15% Sign. difference compared to last year 95%) 36
  36. 36. 4 I’s score for Lays (2010-2011-2012) Intimacy 80 60 2010 2011 40 2012 20 Influence 0 Involvement Interaction
  37. 37. Top 10DECEMBER 2012
  38. 38. Top 10 2011 Overall© InSites Consulting Brand eNgagement Index 39
  39. 39. Top 10 2011 Overall - Users© InSites Consulting Counts below 30 Sign. difference (95%) . = Not tested in 2010 Brand eNgagement Index 40
  40. 40. Top 10 2012Overall In TOP10 2011 Not in TOP 10 (colruyt, delhaize en zero are new brands) No significance difference 41 . = Not tested this year
  41. 41. Top 10 2012Overall users In TOP10 2011 Not in TOP 10 (eneco & colruyt are new brands) Sign. difference (95%) 42 . = Not tested this year
  42. 42. Media exposure DECEMBER 2012
  43. 43. Media exposure Above the line exposureQ: On which of the following occoasions did you encounter the brands that are listed below? In printed media: newspapers, magazines Radio spots On another website On the website of the brand VARIANCE) On other social media I have encountered the brand TV advertisements in a conversation with a Other On Twitter I have seen this brand in a friend/family member store On Pinterest DIMENSION 1 (11% EXPLAINED In the street: abri, billboard, etc. I have seen this brand at a In public places: flyers, street friend’s place animation, sampling, tasting, On Facebook etc Athletes that are sponsored by the brand At sponsored events/festivals Significant on dimension 1 Significant on dimension 2 Significant on both dimensions DIMENSION 1 (65% EXPLAINED VARIANCE) 44
  44. 44. Media exposure Q: On which of the following occoasions did you encounter the brands that are listed below? Choco- Auto- Cell- Distri- Maga- Marga- Salty Dairy Banks Beer late Coffee Coke Energy Juices Telco Waters motive phones butie zines rines snacks products snacksTV advertisements 66% 44% 41% 42% 63% 55% 49% 20% 42% 39% 38% 52% 52% 64% 59% 42%In the street: abri, billboard, etc. 49% 38% 25% 25% 24% 26% 30% 26% 20% 18% 21% 13% 23% 44% 25% 14%In printed media: newspapers, 47% 43% 27% 32% 19% 28% 25% 39% 36% 20% 37% 23% 22% 44% 24% 20%magazinesI have seen this brand at a friend’s 39% 14% 45% 44% 35% 33% 47% 28% 11% 31% 40% 30% 48% 34% 31% 28%placeI have seen this brand in a store 33% 10% 69% 55% 68% 61% 70% 51% 8% 70% 57% 72% 71% 35% 68% 69%In a conversation with a 31% 25% 22% 29% 13% 18% 23% 28% 20% 10% 19% 13% 13% 33% 15% 8%friend/family memberOn the website of the brand 25% 23% 10% 25% 9% 13% 12% 24% 18% 8% 14% 9% 14% 31% 10% 7%Radio spots 22% 31% 16% 7% 10% 11% 12% 17% 31% 8% 25% 7% 9% 39% 8% 8%At sponsored events/festivals 20% 23% 27% 13% 7% 8% 26% 5% 10% 7% 11% 3% 11% 29% 13% 5%In public places: flyers, street 20% 17% 23% 14% 17% 19% 29% 20% 14% 16% 11% 13% 23% 29% 13% 15%animation, sampling, tasting, etc.Athletes that are sponsored 9% 15% 5% 6% 3% 4% 11% 5% 7% 2% 3% 2% 4% 14% 7% 5%by the brandOn Facebook 9% 6% 7% 12% 7% 7% 10% 6% 5% 4% 7% 4% 8% 14% 5% 3%On another website 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 1% 3% 2% 3% 4% 2% 2%On Pinterest 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1%On Twitter 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 5% 2% 2%On other social media 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2%Other 2% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% 3%None of the above 10% 14% 8% 13% 7% 10% 10% 12% 16% 10% 11% 10% 7% 7% 9% 11% 45
  45. 45. Categorie results DECEMBER 2012
  46. 46. Category results 47
  47. 47. Category resultsCoke TOP 3 among total TOTAL USERS NON-USERS 1 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2 Average 52,7 53,8 56,5 54,5 55,3 57,7 35,6 38,7 44,2 3 Coca Cola 66,2 68,1 70,1 66,2 68,8 70,2 60,0 26,7 63,3 Cola Light 59,6 63,6 61,4 60,8 64,6 62,5 42,7 46,3 48,7 Pepsi 50,2 53,8 54,7 51,0 54,5 55,1 40,4 46,8 49,8 TOP 3 among users Pepsi Max 53,8 53,6 54,3 55,4 54,7 55,2 38,8 41,7 44,8 Lidl cola 45,9 44,9 48,2 50,2 47,7 49,6 29,9 30,9 41,7 1 River cola 38,6 39,0 44,1 39,3 38,9 45,3 33,1 39,5 34,9Coca-cola Zero . . 62,7 . . 64,0 . . 50,1 2 3 Sign. difference (95%) 48
  48. 48. Executive summary DECEMBER 2012
  49. 49. ExecutiveSummary
  50. 50. Executive SummaryConclusions • The overall feeling towards brands is consumers need to receive high value for money. In addition brands need to listen to their consumers. They should be close to their consumers and listen to their needs and even involve them in the development of new products and services. • These two characteristics are key for brand recommendation. A good price/quality perception and the personal experience are the main drivers of brand recommendation. There is no willingness to recommend when either these two characteristics are not present or there is no ‘love’ between the consumer and the brand (or its services/products). • This points out the importance to engage with consumers as a brand. The brand eNgagement index is a model to measure brand engagement. This model focuses on 4 dimensions: Involvement, Influence, Intimacy and Interaction. These dimensions explain the majority of the variance in the brand engagement index. The brand engagement index influences the brand KPIs such as likeability, loyalty, consideration, purchase intention and uniqueness.
  51. 51. Executive SummaryConclusions • The brand eNgagement index (BEI) integrates the scores on each of the four dimensions and can reach a maximum score of 100. • On a brand level Coca Cola, Colruyt, Apple, Samsung, Douwe Egberts, Cote D’or, Proximus, Telenet, Delhaize & Coke Zero are the best scoring brands out of the 116 evaluated brands. Four new brands came in the Top10, whereof two retailers : Colruyt and Delhaize. Coke Zero took the place of Coke Light. Unlike Telenet, last year n°2, just remained in the top 10. Among users only, Coca Cola and Apple perform well but smaller brands such as Mobile Vikings, Argenta and Eneco that are in the top. • On category level, the 3 best scoring categories are retail, telecom and cellphones. • Media exposure remains a driver of brand engagement. There is a direct positive effect on brands which have more exposure on their BEI score.
  52. 52. THANK YOU

×