Brand Identity Development Case Study
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Brand Identity Development Case Study

on

  • 509 views

Using qualitative, quantitative and in-home research to develop a brand identity in the antimicrobial market.

Using qualitative, quantitative and in-home research to develop a brand identity in the antimicrobial market.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
509
Views on SlideShare
508
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
18
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.pinterest.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Brand Identity Development Case Study Brand Identity Development Case Study Presentation Transcript

  • ingredient1 brand Visual & verbal Branding case study December 2011 Aegis Antimicrobials Firefly Research Millward Brown Research www.maxruckman.com
  • background2 antimicrobial company that produces a product treatment technology designed to prevent damage caused by microorganisms like fungi, mold, bacteria, algae
  • background3 the technology can be applied to virtually any product during the manufacturing process making for a large, ubiquitous opportunity
  • background4 business growth required extending the brand beyond B2B, direct to the consumer
  • background5 build awareness and generate demand among consumers who buy the host brand’s products with the built in technology
  • background6 to achieve this vision
  • background7 the entire branding platform and go-to-market strategy needed to be reconsidered
  • challenge8 awareness levels among consumers was very low for this ingredient brand awareness
  • challenge9 the brand name was difficult to pronounce and provided no clues to help consumers understand functionality or derived benefits
  • challenge10 The brand lacks positioning clarity
  • challenge11 visual and verbal expression was confusing
  • challenge12
  • challenge13 unlock the enormous potential of this ingredient brand identify how to position it to win over the hearts and minds of consumers
  • Strategic path14 the path to solving this challenge required executing a number of strategic initiatives
  • Strategic path15 information discovery
  • Strategic path16 management interviews
  • Strategic path17 qualitative consumer ‘frame of reference’ research
  • Strategic path18 senior executive work session
  • Strategic path19 name positioning tagline exploration
  • Strategic path20 qualitative positioning, name & tagline research
  • Strategic path21 in-home ethnographic research
  • Strategic path22 quantitative research name positioning tagline
  • Strategic path23 the knowledge generated from these steps enabled us to identify an optimal brand name and positioning from which we developed the visual and verbal brand identity
  • solution24 new positioning
  • solution25 shifting it from the idea of protection to prevention
  • solution26 consumers best understood this as an ingredient that helps them to proactively prevent the growth and breeding of microbes
  • solution27 research also helped identify a new brand name that clearly helped consumers understand how this ingredient lays down a barrier on the surface of a treated product
  • solution28 the tagline also reinforced the prevention / barrier idea
  • solution29 our visual identity was derived through a vigorous visual exploration
  • solution30 this image demonstrates how a consumer may see the product when it launches next year
  • Success metrics31 we anticipated strong in-market results based on quantitative research learning
  • Success metrics32 the concepts performed extremely well on key measures of success and outperformed Millward Brown’s normative data
  • Research partners33
  • Case Study34 the goal was to develop the ideal product positioning relevant to the target consumer for a unique new product
  • Case Study35
  • Case Study36 there was a need to gauge consumer reaction to three concepts
  • Case Study37 determine how to optimize the strongest concept
  • Case Study38 preferred ascertain the name for the new product
  • ANALYTICAL APPROACH39 a multi-lens analytic approach allowed us to examine the positioning concepts from multiple angles Monadic score card Concept Text highlighting optimization
  • ANALYTICAL APPROACH40 a multi-lens analytic approach allowed us to examine the positioning concepts from multiple angles Monadic enables us to understand what score card positioning concepts demonstrate potential Concept Text highlighting optimization
  • ANALYTICAL APPROACH41 a multi-lens analytic approach allowed us to examine the positioning concepts from multiple angles Monadic enables us to understand what score card positioning concepts demonstrate potential identifies opportunities to take Text highlighting Concept strong concepts and make them optimization even better
  • RESEARCH OBJECTIVE42 evaluate and optimize the strongest of 3 positioning concepts
  • RESEARCH OBJECTIVE43 enduring protection beyond what a disinfectant can do
  • RESEARCH OBJECTIVE44 well being for your family and peace of mind for you
  • RESEARCH OBJECTIVE45 prevention of microbe damage
  • RESEARCH OBJECTIVE46 determine the preferred name for the new product
  • RESEARCH OBJECTIVE47 following qualitative research, quantitative research was conducted online in May ’11 among 8,100 respondents
  • CONCEPT ASSESSMENT48 each of the three concepts performed very well on key response metrics MB Key Metric Summary Concept E Concept W Concept P Concept Top 2 Box % % % Average MB has norms to Opinion 86 86 88 55 compare concept results to Relevance 76 76 76 55 Product Appeal 70 68 68 55 Fit with Product Description 74 B 71 72 60 Believability 82 82 82 78 New and Different 81 B 74 80 B 32 Purchase Likelihood 83 82 83 55 Overall Performance Score 80 79 80 NA Base: (2702) (2701) (2702) 43 concepts A B C A/B/C – Significantly higher than indicated column at the 95% confidence level Note: Overall Performance Score is a combination of the performance of 6 key metrics (Opinion, Relevance, Product appeal, Fit with product description, Believability and New & Different.
  • CONCEPT ASSESSMENT49 but concepts E & P were seen as ‚new and different‛ MB Key Metric Summary Concept E Concept W Concept P Concept Top 2 Box % % % Average MB has norms to Opinion 86 86 88 55 compare concept results to Relevance 76 76 76 55 Product Appeal 70 68 68 55 Fit with Product Description 74 B 71 72 60 Believability 82 82 82 78 New and Different 81 B 74 80 B 32 Purchase Likelihood 83 82 83 55 Overall Performance Score 80 79 80 NA Base: (2702) (2701) (2702) 43 concepts A B C A/B/C – Significantly higher than indicated column at the 95% confidence level Note: Overall Performance Score is a combination of the performance of 6 key metrics (Opinion, Relevance, Product appeal, Fit with product description, Believability and New & Different.
  • HIGHLITER TOOL50 concept text appeal text highlighting allows respondents to indicate likes and dislikes within each concept ORIGINAL RESPONDENT CONCEPT HIGHLIGHTED CONCEPT USING ON-SCREEN MARKER…
  • HIGHLITER TOOL51 a heat map is produced to show the proportion identifying particular areas of the concept as positive or negative triggers
  • HIGHLITER TOOL52 identifies key drivers of success and if any element of the concept has underperformed
  • HIGHLITER TOOL53 text highlighting allows respondents to indicate likes and dislikes within each concept Scale APPEAL 11-20% BARRIER 21-30% 31-40% 41-50%
  • HIGHLITER RESULTS54 concept P - appeal & barrier consumers are drawn to the product’s main benefit… Appeal Barrier xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx. Xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx you xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx. Xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx. Key 0 - 10% 11 - 20% …but the reason to believe (‚Center X‛ using the product) 21 - 30% generates a negative response. 31 - 40% 41% +
  • FACTOR ASSOCIATION CATEGORY55 factor association showed the 3 concepts performed comparably on the most important factors ‚protects my family" and ‚effective & long lasting‛ Attribute Factors Concept E Concept W Concept P Top 3 Box (8-10) % % % Protects my family 61 63 63 Effective & long lasting 70 70 69 Kills germs/bacteria 66 68 69 A Environmentally friendly 52 56 A 54 Base: (2702) (2701) (2702) A B C
  • TRADE – OFF (CONJOINT) EXERCISE56 traded off 16 alternative benefits
  • TRADE – OFF (CONJOINT) EXERCISE57 with 7 reasons-to-believe
  • TRADE – OFF (CONJOINT) EXERCISE58 to determine the combination most preferred by consumers
  • TRADE – OFF (CONJOINT) EXERCISE59 making them most likely to try the product
  • TRADE – OFF (CONJOINT) EXERCISE60 choice respondents were asked a series of 16 questions (choice tasks) in the following format • Statement A • Statement D • Statement B • Statement E • Statement C • Statement F
  • TRADE – OFF (CONJOINT) EXERCISE61 purpose of the analysis is to validate potential strategies and language for driving incremental product trial
  • TRADE – OFF (CONJOINT) EXERCISE62 leveraging a conjoint approach that assesses the extent to which consumer prefer alternative versions of concepts vs. the concepts assessed in their original form
  • TRADE – OFF (CONJOINT) EXERCISE63 blending elements of different concepts often nets a stronger positioning than the original concept statements taken into the research
  • CONCEPT OPTIMIZATION64 the concept optimization evaluation results were entered into trade-off (conjoint) exercise
  • CONCEPT OPTIMIZATION65 ultimately concept P exhibited the most significant gains in potential incremental trial based on optimizing across both benefits and reasons to believe
  • CONCEPT OPTIMIZATION66 concept with the best alternative benefit / 75 E 79EW 70 reason to believe Concept E Concept W Concet P E/W/P - Significantly higher than indicated column at the 95% confidence level
  • CONCEPT OPTIMIZATION67 concept with 2 best 89 EW 82 82 alternative benefits / reason to believe ‚continuously destroys microbes on all surfaces‛ / ‚prevents foul-smelling odors‛ and rtb ‚trusted by healthcare facilities‛ Concept E Concept W Concet P E/W/P - Significantly higher than indicated column at the 95% confidence level
  • NAME SELECTION68 lastly, the name Top 2 Concept E - Concept W - Concept P - selection exercise Box Results Enduring Protection Well Being Prevention revealed that ‚Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name A‛ is clearly rated the % A % B % C % D % A % B % C % D % A % B % C % D highest across all of Product 49 B 16 17 18 41 B 14 14 17 44 B 22 18 16 Appeal the concepts... Product 57 B 22 23 24 51 B 22 21 22 53 B 27 22 22 Fit Likelihood to 42 B 18 19 18 40 B 18 16 17 39 B 19 18 18 Purchase Base: (419) (460) (463) (445) (473) (460) (455) (437) (471) (436) (405) (476) Asked A B C D A B C D A B C D Rank w/in Concept 1 2 1 2 1 2 A/B/C/D - Significantly higher than indicated column within the Concept at the 95% confidence level
  • NAME SELECTION69 …which was confirmed when consumers were exposed to all of the names and asked to choose their favorite 1st Name Chosen Name A 61% Name B 12% Name C 12% Name D 9%
  • RESULTS70 research findings each of the 3 concepts performed extremely well and will provide strong in-market support for product X 3
  • RESULTS71 research findings in particular, concept ‚E‛ and concept ‚P‛ are seen as ‚new and different‛
  • RESULTS72 research findings ‚Name A‛ is clearly the preferred name
  • RESULTS73 recommendations a revised version of concept ‚P‛ represents the most significant opportunity
  • RESULTS74 recommendations trade out core benefit ‚spend less time cleaning‚ and replace with ‚continuously destroys microbes" and ‚prevents foul smelling odors‛
  • RESULTS75 recommendations trade out reason to believe ‚used by center X‛ and replace with ‚trusted by healthcare facilities‛
  • RESULTS76 business outcome we will use the recommendations from the research as we begin creative development for the new product launch
  • ingredient77 brand Visual & verbal Branding case study December 2011 Aegis Antimicrobials Firefly Research Millward Brown Research www.maxruckman.com