New Product Development & Marketing - Samsung Tablet

  • 1,179 views
Uploaded on

Using Concept Testing and Nielsen Bases, defined new tablet product and launch strategy

Using Concept Testing and Nielsen Bases, defined new tablet product and launch strategy

More in: Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,179
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
45
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Rajeev 1-7
  • Rajeev
  • http://www.cnbc.com/id/39501308
  • For Tablet Industry overview
  • Increasing competition in android market. They will have to differentiate on price or features.the hardware is the next distinguishing feature for tablets. Apple’s dominant market share is already facing a challenge. For instance, features such as cameras, Flash support, USB ports, Google Apps integration and portability improvements are not available and other players in this market are cashing-in on this opportunity.
  • Reduced total cost of ownership (TCO) due to more versatility- Cinematic quality hi-def experience  with HDMI interface- Front and rear facing camera for convenience of video connectivity- Support universal web-browing with Adobe(tm) Flashplayer- Work on applications that need high-performance hardware with seamless integration on the cloud- Migration path to and from other form factors (handset, netbooks, laptops, PCs)
  • Samsung wants to become the leading player in consumer electronics. We believe this is possible by having a presence in all forms of consumer electronic goods including smartphones, tablets, netbooks and laptops. To this end even we want to be able to sell more tablets in 2011 even though it might not necessarily translate into higher market share. Our growth strategy is to continue to sell tablets in a market that is likely to explode in the next 3 years especially in the consumer side of things. We believe our ad spend in though medium in size will serve us well in increasing the awareness to 70%. The marketing budget spent on marketing and distribution will serve to increase our margins from this product line in the next the year and will help us launch more differentiated products in the futureWe want to be central to everyone’s entertainment and computingBrand awarenessPenetrationLONG RUNTablet market will help us get there1M+ units in the first year
  • Insert Product features: Bubbles
  • Insert Product features: Bubbles -<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/M-80QD5Zjyc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  • Reduced total cost of ownership (TCO) due to more versatility- Cinematic quality hi-def experience  with HDMI interface- Front and rear facing camera for convenience of video connectivity- Support universal web-browing with Adobe(tm) Flashplayer- Work on applications that need high-performance hardware with seamless integration on the cloud- Migration path to and from other form factors (handset, netbooks, laptops, PCs)
  • Reduced total cost of ownership (TCO) due to more versatility- Cinematic quality hi-def experience  with HDMI interface- Front and rear facing camera for convenience of video connectivity- Support universal web-browing with Adobe(tm) Flashplayer- Work on applications that need high-performance hardware with seamless integration on the cloud- Migration path to and from other form factors (handset, netbooks, laptops, PCs)
  • Reduced total cost of ownership (TCO) due to more versatility- Cinematic quality hi-def experience  with HDMI interface- Front and rear facing camera for convenience of video connectivity- Support universal web-browing with Adobe(tm) Flashplayer- Work on applications that need high-performance hardware with seamless integration on the cloud- Migration path to and from other form factors (handset, netbooks, laptops, PCs)
  • Reduced total cost of ownership (TCO) due to more versatility- Cinematic quality hi-def experience  with HDMI interface- Front and rear facing camera for convenience of video connectivity- Support universal web-browing with Adobe(tm) Flashplayer- Work on applications that need high-performance hardware with seamless integration on the cloud- Migration path to and from other form factors (handset, netbooks, laptops, PCs)
  • Reduced total cost of ownership (TCO) due to more versatility- Cinematic quality hi-def experience  with HDMI interface- Front and rear facing camera for convenience of video connectivity- Support universal web-browing with Adobe(tm) Flashplayer- Work on applications that need high-performance hardware with seamless integration on the cloud- Migration path to and from other form factors (handset, netbooks, laptops, PCs)- Now that we understand the value prop, we have to make a go-no go. With that in mind we came up with the concept
  • Pravin
  • Need to add a couple of charts hereDistribution spend vs ACV Retailer LogosAdd bubbles for text
  • Div : Insert Excel spreadsheet
  • Subbu: Get stuff from Rajeev
  • Subbu:

Transcript

  • 1. THE ULTIMATE MOBILE ENTERTAINMENT EXPERIENCE THAT’S AFFORDABLE Subbu Subramaniam Satish Mandalika Rajeev Kalavar Praveen Kudithipudi Divyang Agrawal New Product Management
  • 2. Agenda  Market Overview  Product and Value Proposition  The Concept  Marketing Strategy  Tactics and Launch Plan  Summary Overview Product Concept Strategy Launch Plan
  • 3. Tablet Industry  The iPad was announced on January 27, 2010  In Steve Job’s words - a ‘magical device’  Initial reviews mixed - “an oversized iPhone”  Most Analysts projected modest sales  Apple released the iPad in April 2010  Sold 3 million of the devices in 80 days  iPhone 1M, DVD player 350k  In Q2 ‘10, Apple sold 4.19 million iPads around the world  Adoption Rate Fastest Ever, Passing DVD Player  Foundation for an entirely new Industry & Eco-System Overview Product Concept Strategy Launch Plan
  • 4. 75% 22% 3% iPad Android Others Overview Product Concept Strategy Launch Plan Tablet Market Share – Jan 2011 Industry Growth
  • 5. Tablet Competitive Landscape Overview Product Concept Strategy Launch Plan
  • 6. Target Universe • Households with Income > 50K • Households with WLAN connections at home • 110 MM Households • 47% Households > $50k • Total # HH > $50k => 47%*110MM = 51MM • WLAN penetration 30% of all Households • Total WLAN’s HH = 30% * 110MM = 33MM • Others • Non-overlapping % of 3G users, other consumer types = 15% of HH = 17MM • Total Target Universe = 33 + 17 = 50MM Overview Product Concept Strategy Launch Plan
  • 7. Customers Overview Product Concept Strategy Launch Plan
  • 8. Samsung Business Objectives Brand Leadership Consumer Electronics Leadership Sustained Profitability $$$$ Ubiquitous Computing ProductOverview Concept Strategy Launch Plan
  • 9. ProductOverview Concept Strategy Launch Plan Large 10.1” HD widescreen Display Dual-Core 1GHz CPU Android 3.0 – Designed for Tablets 2MP WebCam 8MP Camera 1080p Video Capture & Playback HALO
  • 10. ProductOverview Concept Strategy Launch Plan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M- 80QD5Zjyc&playnext=1&list=PLE7FACA97F 433720B Introducing Android 3.0
  • 11. Value Proposition - I Cinematic Hi-def Experience with HDMI ProductOverview Concept Strategy Launch Plan
  • 12. Front and Rear Facing 2MP/8MP Camera ProductOverview Concept Strategy Launch Plan Value Proposition - II
  • 13. Universal Web Browsing with Adobe™ Flash Player ProductOverview Concept Strategy Launch Plan Value Proposition - III
  • 14. Higher Productivity with Seamless Integration to the Cloud ProductOverview Concept Strategy Launch Plan Value Proposition - IV
  • 15. Bridging the gap with traditional PCs ProductOverview Concept Strategy Launch Plan Value Proposition - V
  • 16. Concept ConceptOverview Product Strategy Launch Plan
  • 17. Purchase Intent from Concept 20.0% 42.0% 24.0% 10.0% 4.0% Definitely would buy Probably would buy Might/might not buy Probably would not buy Definitely would not buy 17.0% 29.0% 30.0% 15.0% 9.0% • Measure consumer interest, motivation and preference. • Help validate that the defined need can be met through the proposed concept. ConceptOverview Product Strategy Launch Plan
  • 18. Adjustment for Need and Timing Overstatement Adjustment Adjustments Concept Testing Results Product 1 Sample Size (N) 305 Price $450 Overstatement elasticity 1.00 % Need 49.0% Timing of purchase 59.0% Purchase Intent PI (%) Conv. Rate Weighted PI Adjusted PI Definitely would buy 20.0% 28.7% 5.73% 1.66% Probably would buy 42.0% 16.9% 7.10% 2.05% Might/might not buy 24.0% 7.5% 1.79% 0.52% Probably would not buy 10.0% 5.9% 0.59% 0.17% Definitely would not buy 4.0% 4.4% 0.18% 0.05% Total Weighted PI 15.4% Concept Testing Results Product 2 Sample Size (N) 310 Price $550 Overstatement elasticity 1.05 % Need 40.0% Timing of purchase 50.0% Purchase Intent PI (%) Conv. Rate Weighted PI Adjusted PI Definitely would buy 17.0% 27.3% 4.6% 0.93% Probably would buy 29.0% 16.1% 4.7% 0.93% Might/might not buy 30.0% 7.1% 2.1% 0.43% Probably would not buy 15.0% 5.6% 0.8% 0.17% Definitely would not buy 9.0% 4.2% 0.4% 0.08% Total Weighted PI 12.7% ConceptOverview Product Strategy Launch Plan
  • 19. Product Category Comparison <=20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 Weighted PI 2 1 Intensity of Liking 1,2 Price/Value Mean 2 1 Uniqueness Mean 1,2 1 = Priced @ $450 2 = Priced @ $550 • Comparative Quintile Ranking in Category ConceptOverview Product Strategy Launch Plan
  • 20. Marketing Strategy Customer Innovative “Product” Brand Awareness with unique messaging “Promotion” Superior distribution channels “Place” Value “Price” StrategyOverview Product Concept Launch Plan
  • 21. Distribution Walmart, 15% Target, 7% Costco, 20% Best Buy, 25% Frys, 10% Amazon.com, 1 5% Other, 8% Total Channel Dist(%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% % (ACV) Low Spend ($10k) % (ACV) Medium Spend ($30k) % (ACV) High Spend ($50k) Distribution vs ACV StrategyOverview Product Concept Launch Plan • Channel spend allocation (High, Med, Low) •Overall Channel Distribution across retailers
  • 22. StrategyOverview Product Concept Launch Plan 0.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 20,000.00 25,000.00 30,000.00 35,000.00 40,000.00 45,000.00 50,000.00 TV Advertising Print/Other advertising Internet Ad Radio Ad Consumer Promotion Trade Promotion Ad Spend Across Media Channels Low Medium High Media Buy TV Advertising Quantity Total TV Ad Budget ('000) $46,000 Cost /GRP ('000) $5 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Total Quarterly Spend 50% 25% 5% 20% 100% Total HH GRPs ('000) $23,000 $11,500 $2,300 $9,200 $46,000 Target GRPs 4,600 2,300 460 1,840 9,200
  • 23. Price: $450 or $550 StrategyOverview Product Concept Launch Plan Product 1 - Price: $450 ($$ in '000) Spend Type Trial Rate # Units Revenue Ad Spend Distr Spend EBITDA Low 0.33% 166 $ 74,511.40 $ 50,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ (19,604.78) Medium 1.32% 662 $ 298,045.60 $ 70,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 62,580.89 High 2.32% 1,159 $ 521,579.80 $ 100,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 134,766.55 Product 2 - Price: $550($$ in '000) Spend Type Trial Rate # Units Revenue Ad Spend Distr Spend EBITDA Low 0.18% 90 $ 49,397.52 $ 50,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ (29,565.21) Medium 0.72% 359 $ 197,590.09 $ 70,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 22,739.15 High 1.26% 629 $ 345,782.65 $ 100,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 65,043.50
  • 24. Analysis and Forecast EBITDA StrategyOverview Product Concept Launch Plan 166 662 1,159 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Low Medium High # Units('000) # Units('000) $(19,605) $62,581 $134,767 $(40,000) $- $40,000 $80,000 $120,000 $160,000 Low Medium High EBITDA('000) EBITDA('000) • Negative EBITDA for Low Spend, does not make sense • Target higher profitability, not market share
  • 25. Tactics  Channel Distribution (HIGH SPEND)- $50M  Shelf space in retails and mass merchandise  Retail promotion  Advertising (HIGH SPEND)- $100M  TV Advertising  ESPN, American idol, CNBC, MSNBC  Print/Other advertising  Gaming, Wired, New York Times, Wall street journal, outdoor display, display in malls.  Internet Ad  Electronics blogging sites, Facebook , twitter, Amazon.com promotion  Radio Ad  Popular radio channels in metro areas.  Trade Promotion  Retail booth, CES Launch PlanOverview Product Concept Strategy
  • 26. Launch Plan June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May Total Spend(MM) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 TV Advertising $46 National cable $16 National network $30 Print/Other advertising $20 Wired $10 Gaming $10 Internet Ad $20 Radio Ad $2 Consumer Promotion $0 Trade Promotion $12 $100 Launch PlanOverview Product Concept Strategy
  • 27. Ongoing Metrics and Mktg ROI Launch PlanOverview Product Concept Strategy Ratio Value ROMI 44% ROMI Ratio 1.44 Payback/Breakeven (for ongoing efforts) .35 ROMI= Marketing generated Contribution/Mar keting Investment  Brand Awareness & Positioning  Brand Consideration  Purchase Intent vs Non Purchase Intent Payback/Breakeven (on ongoing efforts): Expense/Return * Time Period
  • 28. Summary  Launch Date: June 25, 2011  Price point: $450  Units Manufactured: 1.15M  Color(s): 60% Silver (690K) 40% Black (460K)  Pilot: Nationwide Launch  Media Channel: Spread  Tagline: Premium Product, Value Pricing Cheap Ain’t Never Been This Good!  Overview Product Concept Strategy Launch Plan
  • 29. Product Management Team  Product Planning - Subbu Subramanian  Brand Management - Rajeev Kalavar  Marketing Communications - Divyang Agrawal  Product Marketing - Praveen Kudithipudi  Sales Management - Satish Mandalika Q&A Overview Product Concept Strategy Launch Plan
  • 30. Backup Slides
  • 31. Concept Test Results Concept Testing Results Product 1 Product 2 Sample Size (N) 305 310 Price $450 $550 Overstatement elasticity 1.05 Purchase Intent PI (%) Conv. Rate Weighted PI PI (%) Conv. Rate Weighted PI Definitely would buy 20.0% 28.7% 5.7% 17.0% 27.3% 4.6% Probably would buy 42.0% 16.9% 7.1% 29.0% 16.1% 4.7% Might/might not buy 24.0% 7.5% 1.8% 30.0% 7.1% 2.1% Probably would not buy 10.0% 5.9% 0.6% 15.0% 5.6% 0.8% Definitely would not buy 4.0% 4.4% 0.2% 9.0% 4.2% 0.4% Total Weighted PI 15.4% 12.7% Key Measures Product 1 Product 2 Scale Value % Value Value % Value Weighted PI 15.4% 12.7% Overall Liking Mean 6.0 4.2 70.0% 4.1 68.3% Price/Value Mean 5.0 3.6 72.0% 3.2 64.0% Uniqueness Mean 5.0 3.3 66.0% 3.3 66.0% Believeability Mean 5.0 3.4 68.0% 3.4 68.0% Intent to Recommend Mean 5.0 3.5 70.0% 3.4 68.0% % Need (Yes %) 49.0% 40.0% Compared to Similar Product - Better 59.0% 50.0% Timing of Purchase (within 6 months) 52.0% 42.0% Comparative Quintile Ranking in Category <=20 21-40 41-60 61-80 80+ Weighted PI 2 1 Intensity of Liking 1,2 Pric e/Value Mean 2 1 Uniqueness Mean 1,2 1= low price 2=high price
  • 32. Product 1 – P/L Concept Testing Product 1 ($450) Unit Price $450 Spend Low Spend Medium Spend High Spend Weighted purchase intent 15.4% 15.4% 15.4% * Year 1 ACV distribution 42% 68% 84% * Year 1 awareness 20% 50% 70% Adjustments * Need 49% 49% 49% * Timing of purchase 52% 52% 52% = Year 1 trial rate 0.33% 1.32% 2.32% * Trial units / purchase 1 1 1 * Target universe 50,000 50,000 50,000 = Year 1 estimated # units sold ('000) 166 662 1,159 # Units 166 662 1,159 * Unit Price $450 $450 $450 = Revenue ('000) $74,511 $298,046 $521,580 Ad Spend $50,000 $70,000 $100,000 + Channel Spend $10,000 $30,000 $50,000 = Marketing Spend ('000) $60,000 $100,000 $150,000 # Units 166 662 1,159 * Cost/unit $200 $200 $200 = COGS ('000) $33,116 $132,465 $231,813 Revenue $74,511 $298,046 $521,580 - COGS $33,116 $132,465 $231,813 = Gross Margins('000) $41,395 $165,581 $289,767 - Marketing Spend $60,000 $100,000 $150,000 -G&A/R&D Spend $1,000 $3,000 $5,000 = EBITDA('000) ($19,605) $62,581 $134,767
  • 33. Product 2 – P/L Concept Testing Product 2 ($550) Unit Price $550 Low Spend Medium Spend High Spend Weighted purchase intent 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% * Year 1 ACV distribution 42% 68% 84% * Year 1 awareness 20% 50% 70% Adjustments * Need 40% 40% 40% * Timing of purchase 42% 42% 42% = Year 1 trial rate 0.18% 0.72% 1.26% * Trial units / purchase 1 1 1 * Target universe 50,000 50,000 50,000 = Year 1 estimated # units sold ('000) 90 359 629 # Units 90 359 629 * Unit Price $550 $550 $550 = Revenue ('000) $49,398 $197,590 $345,783 Ad Spend $50,000 $70,000 $100,000 + Channel Spend $10,000 $30,000 $50,000 = Marketing Spend ('000) $60,000 $100,000 $150,000 # Units 90 359 629 * Cost/unit $200 $200 $200 = COGS ('000) $17,963 $71,851 $125,739 Revenue $49,398 $197,590 $345,783 - COGS $17,963 $71,851 $125,739 = Gross Margins('000) $31,435 $125,739 $220,044 - Marketing Spend $60,000 $100,000 $150,000 -G&A/R&D Spend $1,000 $3,000 $5,000 = EBITDA('000) ($29,565) $22,739 $65,044
  • 34. Why 6-month timeline
  • 35. Distribution – Low Spend Channel Distribution LOW SPEND Ch. Dist (%) Ch. Penetration ACV Factor ACV % Dist. (ACV) Penetration Factor 0.5 Hyper-marts Walmart 15% 70% 1.4 47% 7% Target 7% 70% 1.1 39% 3% Costco 20% 80% 1.1 44% 9% Electronics Best Buy 25% 80% 1.0 40% 10% Frys 10% 70% 1.0 35% 4% Internet Amazon.com 15% 100% 1.0 50% 8% Other 8% 60% 1.1 33% 3% Total Distribution 100% 42%
  • 36. Distribution – Medium Spend Channel Distribution MEDIUM SPEND Ch. Dist (%) Ch. Penetration ACV Factor ACV % Dist. (ACV) Penetration Factor 0.8 Hyper-marts Walmart 15% 70% 1.4 76% 11% Target 7% 70% 1.1 62% 4% Costco 20% 80% 1.1 70% 14% Electronics Best Buy 25% 80% 1.0 64% 16% Frys 10% 70% 1.0 56% 6% Internet Amazon.com 15% 100% 1.0 80% 12% Other 8% 60% 1.1 53% 4% Total Distribution 100% 68%
  • 37. Distribution – High Spend Channel Distribution HIGH SPEND Ch. Dist (%) Ch. Penetration ACV Factor ACV % Dist. (ACV) Penetration Factor 1.0 Hyper-marts Walmart 15% 70% 1.4 95% 14% Target 7% 70% 1.1 77% 5% Costco 20% 80% 1.1 88% 18% Electronics Best Buy 25% 80% 1.0 80% 20% Frys 10% 70% 1.0 70% 7% Internet Amazon.com 15% 100% 1.0 100% 15% Other 8% 60% 1.1 66% 5% Total Distribution 100% 84%
  • 38. Advertising – GRPs and Competition Advertising Spend Budget Low Medium High Advertising Spend ('000) $50,000 $70,000 $100,000 Awareness 0.20 0.50 0.70 Competitive Ad Spend Analysis Apple (10k) # Products Budget ('000) Budget in 2008 4 $486,000 Budget in 2009 4 $501,000 Budget in 2010 5 $691,000 % ad spend growth /yr 10% Budget in 2010 $691,000 - Budget in 2009 $501,000 = Budget increase in 2010 $190,000 - Ad spend increase of 2009 products $50,100 = Budget for new product (iPad) $139,900 Media Ad Spend Distribution for Category (source : Ad age) Media Channel Spend (%) Spend Print 32 18% TV 64 36% Radio 16 9% Internet 25 14% Other 39 22% Total 176 100% TV Advertising Quantity Total TV Ad Budget ('000) $46,000 Cost /GRP ('000) $5 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Quarterly Spend 50% 25% 5% 20% 100% Total HH GRPs ('000) $23,000 $11,500 $2,300 $9,200 $46,000 Target GRPs 4,600 2,300 460 1,840 9,200
  • 39. Advertising – Low, Med, High Advertising Spend Distribution LOW SPEND Total Ad Spend Budget $50,000 Media Channel Category Avg. % Dist. Spend ('000) TV Advertising 36% 46% $23,000 Print/Other advertising 18% 20% $10,000 Internet Ad 14% 20% $10,000 Radio Ad 9% 2% $1,000 Consumer Promotion 11% 0% $0 Trade Promotion 11% 12% $6,000 Total 100% 100% $50,000 Advertising Spend Distribution MEDIUM SPEND Total Ad Spend Budget $70,000 Media Channel Category Avg. % Dist. Spend ('000) TV Advertising 36% 46% $32,200 Print/Other advertising 18% 20% $14,000 Internet Ad 14% 20% $14,000 Radio Ad 9% 2% $1,400 Consumer Promotion 11% 0% $0 Trade Promotion 11% 12% $8,400 Total 100% 100% $70,000 Advertising Spend Distribution HIGH SPEND Total Ad Spend Budget $100,000 Media Channel Category Avg. % Dist. Spend ('000) TV Advertising 36% 46% $46,000 Print/Other advertising 18% 20% $20,000 Internet Ad 14% 20% $20,000 Radio Ad 9% 2% $2,000 Consumer Promotion 11% 0% $0 Trade Promotion 11% 12% $12,000 Total 100% 100% $100,000
  • 40. Sales – Forecast (competition) Sales Research and Projections 2010 2011* 2012* Sales (MM) % of total Sales (MM) % of total Sales (MM) % of total Apple iPad 9.2 89% 19.4 80.83% 30.1 74.14% Samsung Galaxy 1 10% Dell Streak 0.1 1% US Tablet Installed base, 2010-2012 Year # in millions % of population 2010 10.3 3.03% 2011 24 7.60% 2012 40.6 12.80% Source: http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1008098
  • 41. Questionnaire - I  Assuming you were going to purchase a new Tablet, how likely would you be to purchase this product if it were available in a store where you normally shop, at a price you would normally pay.  Definitely Would Buy  Probably Would Buy  Might or Might not buy  Probably would not buy  Definitely Would Not Buy  What, if anything, do you particularly LIKE about the Tablet?  What, if anything, do you particularly DISLIKE about the Tablet?  Which statement describes how much you like or dislike the product? Select 1 answer.  Like extremely  Like very well  Like quite well  Like somewhat well  Like slightly  Do Not like at all
  • 42. Questionnaire - II  In general, how do you feel about the value for money of this tablet?  Very good value  Fairly good value  Average value  Somewhat poor value  Very poor value  How new and different, in general, do you think this tablet is compared to others on the market?  Extremely different  Very different  Somewhat different  Slightly different  Not at all different  Does this Tablet solve problems or fulfill needs you have now?  Yes  No
  • 43. Questionnaire - III  Assuming this tablet was available in your area, which statement best describes how soon after you became aware that it is available you would make the decision to purchase?  Within the next 30 days  31-60 days  3-6 months  7-12 months  1-2 years  More than 2 years  Don’t know  How does the tablet compare to other offerings now on the market?  Better than other products now on the market  The same as other products now on the market  Worse than other products now on the market  At what type or types of stores would you expect a new Tablet to be sold?  Hypermarkets  Electronic retail stores  Online
  • 44. Questionnaire - IV  How believable, in general, do you think the product offering is?  Extremely believable  Very believable  Somewhat believable  Slightly believable  Not at all believable  How likely would you recommend this Tablet to friends?  Definitely would recommend  Probably would recommend  Might or Might not recommend  Probably would not recommend  Definitely would not recommend  If a friend recommends this product how likely would you buy it?  Definitely would buy  Probably would buy  Might or Might not buy  Probably would not buy  Definitely would not buy