Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Fact-Based Branding in the Real World

1,984 views

Published on

In this presentation, Rolf Wulfsberg, global director of quantitative research at global strategic branding and customer experience firm Siegel+Gale answers the following questions critical to CMOs and brand managers:

- What is fact-based branding?
- What is the compelling truth of your brand(s)?
- How can you predict ROBI in advance of implementation?
- What are warning signs of potentially "bad" research?

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

Fact-Based Branding in the Real World

  1. 1. Rolf M. Wulfsberg, PhDFebruary 6, 2013
  2. 2. Rolf M. Wulfsberg, Ph.D.Global DirectorQuantitative ResearchSiegel+Gale+ 43 years as a survey researcher and executive+ Prior to joining S+G, worked at Enterprise IG, several leading survey research firms and the US Government+ An author and frequent speaker at professional conferences+ An expert witness before the U.S. House of Representatives and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court+ Holds a PhD and an MA in statistics from American University, and a BA (summa cum laude) in mathematics and economics from Luther College+ A former Rhodes candidate, Woodrow Wilson Fellow and NCAA Postgraduate Fellow 2
  3. 3. Agenda+ What is fact-based branding?+ What is the compelling truth of your brand(s)?+ Predicting ROBI in advance of implementation+ Warning signs of potentially ―bad‖ research 3
  4. 4. What isfact-based branding?
  5. 5. What is ―fact-based branding‖?+ “The use of rigorous quantitative measurement and forecasting techniques to make better branding decisions.”+ Fact-based branding covers the entire customer life cycle—from the acquisition of new customers to the retention and expansion of existing customer relationships. 5
  6. 6. Five reasons to embrace fact-based branding1. It builds consensus within your organization. 6
  7. 7. Five reasons to embrace fact-based branding2. It could add years, if not decades, to your tenure as CMO. 7
  8. 8. Five reasons to embrace fact-based branding3. It provides concrete metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of brand-building initiatives. 8
  9. 9. Five reasons to embrace fact-based branding4. It elevates brand and communications to a vital role within the organization. 9
  10. 10. Five reasons to embrace fact-based branding5. It’s really fun! 10
  11. 11. What is thecompelling truthof your brand(s)?
  12. 12. The role of brand in the acquisition process―Have I heard of ―Do I know what ―Does your ―Does it meet ―Did you deliver your brand?‖ category your brand meet my needs better your promises?‖ brand is in?‖ my needs?‖ than others?‖ 12
  13. 13. Potential ―centers of gravity‖ for the compellingtruth of a brand1. Infrastructure2. Products/Services3. Process/Approach4. People/Skills5. Mission/Purpose6. Emotional connection7. Emotional projection8. Personality 13
  14. 14. There are several methods researchers use todetermine the importance of brand attributes1. Ask decision makers how they make choices2. Derive importance through simple statistical tools such as correlation and regression3. Use more complex trade-off techniques such as conjoint analysis or discrete choice modeling4. Construct a ―micro-model‖ built on decision makers’ brand perceptions 14
  15. 15. A chip allocation exercise that compares brandshead-to-head establishes both preference andstrength of preference―Suppose you had 11 points to allocate between Exxon and BP to indicate how much you prefer one brand of gasoline over the other.How many of these 11 points would you give toExxon, and how many would you give to BP?‖ 15
  16. 16. Chip allocation results can be very informative 16
  17. 17. Unlike conjoint or discrete choice analysis(shown below), this model bases preference onbrand perceptions rather than forced disclosure 17
  18. 18. Perceptual maps demonstrate how variousbrands perform on key preference drivers Noncompetitive Potential Core HIGH PERFORMING Strengths Equities Equities BRAND Drivers you are Drivers that you Drivers that you ―own‖ perceived to deliver don’t ―own‖ but and are perceived toABSOLUTE PERFORMANCE well, but not as well as you can talk about deliver well another brand(s) credibly 6 Weaknesses Unmet LOW PERFORMING Drivers on which Needs you are perceived as BRAND Drivers on which weak you lead, but no brand is perceived to deliver well 0 –0.3 0 NOT COMPETITIVE WITHIN REACH BEST IN CLASS PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO BEST IN CLASS 18
  19. 19. The brand maps reveal how the brands arepositioned in decision makers’ minds Brand A (Americas) Note: Only Key and Secondary Drivers are shown 8 P High quality products C KnowledgeableACTUAL PERFORMANCE C Professional P Meet/exceed standards L Leader in UL components L Long heritage C Knowledgeable employees C Dependable and reliable C Ethical L Leader in UL assemblies L Global leader L Leader in low voltage S Responsive service S Local mfg. V Value for price S Easy catalogues S Delivers when needed L Leader in medium voltage A Added Value S Full support C Straightforward C Character S Effective, prompt response 7 L Leadership P Products S Service/Support ~ ~ V Value for Price 0 NOT COMPETITIVE WITHIN REACH BEST IN CLASS 19 PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO BEST IN CLASS
  20. 20. Predicting return onbrand investment(ROBI) in advance ofimplementation
  21. 21. A simplistic model for measuring ROBI 21
  22. 22. There are other factors that affect the businesscondition 22
  23. 23. An improved model for predicting ROBI 23
  24. 24. Warning signs ofpotentially “bad”research
  25. 25. Warning signs of potentially ―bad‖ research1. Inappropriate respondents2. Inappropriate level of detail3. Compound attributes4. Failure to recognize different use of scales by some cultures5. Inappropriate combining of scores or ratings6. Inadequate analysis 25
  26. 26. 26 2626 26 26

×