1. HEMPZ: This is a mock Market Research (Theory and Statistics) group project & presentation for my Market Research course. The brand this project focuses on is Hempz skin care products. We conducted three (3) focus groups to better understand public perception of Hemp in cosmetic/body care products.

2. Overview
• Issue Identification
• Potential Causes to Research
• New Message Proposal
• New Message Goals
• Research Methodology
• Data Collection Methodology
• Recommendations

3. Issue Identification
• Hempz brand products failed to generate sales goals for 2015
• 35% of brand’s total revenue dedicated to “Smokin’ Hot Skin
Care” campaign
• 15% market share not obtained
• $10 million not maintained

4. Potential Causes to Research
• Limited understanding among target audience
• Social stigma/Marijuana association
• Lack of consumer sentiment, product appeal, or general
reception

5. New Message Proposal
• A “Higher Quality” campaign will replace the previous
• Visual Message: elegant, informative, and serious
• Stated Message: “A higher quality of skin care”:
• Message portrays line as results-driven, organic skin care with
hemp

6. New Message Goals
• Improve target perception
• Diminish negative sentiment
• Inspire attention/Motivate purchase

7. Secondary Research
• Information uncovered through database research
• Target audience sentiment toward hemp-related products

8. Sources: www.collective-evolution.com/2013/07/17/hemp-vs-cotton-the-ultimate-showdown/
www.hempbenefits.org/hemp-for-body-care/

9. Sources: www.collective-evolution.com/2013/07/17/hemp-vs-cotton-the-ultimate-showdown/
www.hempbenefits.org/hemp-for-body-care/

10. Focus Group Construction
• Screening selection process
• Regular users of organic skin care products
• Participants requested via social media networks
• Participants contacted by phone
• Discussion Guide Construction
• Consent forms/confidentiality
• Digital recordings/deletion
• Introduction
• Explanation/logistics
• Ground rules
• Questions: Initial, Situational, Corrective, and Conceptual
• Probes

11. Focus Group Results
• Brand familiarity
• A majority: Somewhat familiar
• A mixed minority: Split between familiarity and product users
• Remainder: Unaware
• Most common response:
“I’ve seen it in the store, but don’t know much about it.”

12. Focus Group Results
• How participants discovered/learned about similar products
• A majority: In-store shopping
• A mixed minority: Divided among websites, online shopping, and
friends
• Most common response:
“I learned about my hemp-based skin care product while shopping
at my local co-op.”

13. Focus Group Results
• Participants’ perceptions of hemp-based products
• Most participants: Effective
• A few participants: Unaware
• Most common response:
“It’s my understanding that products with hemp are very effective
and beneficial.”

14. Focus Group Results
• How participants research hemp/organic products
• Most participants: Online shopping
• A mixed few: Divided among websites, in-store shopping, and
friends
• Most common response:
“I search various shopping sites and read consumer reviews.”

15. Focus Group Results
• Where advertising for hemp products is commonly seen
• Most participants: Split between nowhere and online
• A few participants: In-store
• Most common responses:
“I don’t recall seeing any advertising for hemp products.”
“Unless you look it up, you won’t find any advertising.”

16. Focus Group Results
• Participants’ perceptions of ads (when seen)
• A majority: Indifferent
• A minority: Ineffective
• Remainder: Stereotypical-I
• Most common responses:
“I don’t feel one way or the other about them.”
“Some of them seem phony, tacky, and over-the-top.”

17. Focus Group Results
• When asked if hemp product marketing is effective
• Most participants: No
• A few participants: Maybe
• Remainder: Split between unsure and yes
• Most common response:
“As I’ve seen hardly any ads – and the ones I have seen are typical
pot culture nonsense - I’d say no.”

18. Focus Group Results
• Participants’ thoughts
• Opinion was mixed: Between
ineffective and stereotypical-I
• Most common responses:
“Cigarette smoke and skin care
doesn’t go together.”
“A lack of information doesn’t
inspire more research.”

19. Focus Group Results
• Participants’ thoughts
• Most participants: Ineffective
• Remainder: Stereotypical-I
• Most common responses:
“Seems a bit busy considering
the limited information.”
“Psychedelic and trippy.”

20. Focus Group Results
• Participants’ thoughts
• Everyone: Ineffective
• Most common responses:
“A pretty ad; elegant but with no
information.”
“Good vibe, not too loud, lacks
information.”

21. Focus Group Results
• When asked if there’s anything to add
• A majority: Split between adjust imagery and adjust message
• A minority: More information
• Remainder: Adjust format
• Most common responses:
“Consider toning the imagery down and making the message
clearer.”
“Shouldn’t use imagery that reinforces the marijuana stereotype.”
“Varied and inconsistent.”

22. Focus Group Results
• Do the previous ads inspire additional research
• A majority: No
• A minority: Very little
• Remainder: Perhaps
• Most common response:
“The poor messaging is a major turn-off.”

23. Focus Group Results
• Could anything be presented differently
• A majority: More information
• A minority: Split between adjust message and adjust imagery
• Remainder: No input
• Most common responses:
“A clearer message and more realistic images are needed.”
“There needs to be more descriptive language.”
“Remove marijuana references and focus on health benefits.”

24. Focus Group Results
• Participants’ thoughts
• Most participants: Effective
• A few participants:
Innovative-E
• Most common responses:
“This encourages me to learn
more.”
“Effectively promotes the hemp
qualities without being
cartoonish.”

25. Focus Group Results
• Participants’ thoughts
• Opinion was mixed: Between
effective and innovative-E
• Most common responses:
“Organic, yet edgy at the same
time – good message.”
“Definitely reaches out to a
younger group and shows the
line – good example.”

27. Focus Group Results
• Participants’ thoughts
• Most participants: Effective
• A few participants: Innovative-E
• Most common responses:
“Attractive model appealing to those in their mid-20s.”
“Good use of imagery – shows the products and has a good
message.”

28. Focus Group Results
• Which ad concepts is most appealing
• A majority: Advertisement C
• A minority: Advertisement A
• Most common responses:
“This ad conveys an elegant nature for hemp-based products.”
“The imagery, colors, and message is spot-on.”

29. Focus Group Results
• Could any of the new ads be effective in marketing the line
• Virtually everyone: Absolutely
• Remainder: Very likely
• Most common responses:
“Yes, this is how hemp skin care should be marketed to get people’s
attention. People want to make an intelligent buy; this is
intelligent.”

30. Recommendations
• Follow through with similar concepts
• Avoid marijuana stereotypes
• Keep imagery consistent across platforms
• Make sure message aligns with imagery
• Add pertinent information
• Consider format similar to concept material
• Expand media exposure (print and online)
• Create and implement a follow-up survey
• Check consumer perception
• Make sure advertising is getting proper exposure
• See if results match company objectives

31. Questions?