- Renault Koleos generated 27 user posts from September to October 2008 in Bulgarian media. Promoters and detractors of the brand were almost equal, with a slight edge to promoters. - Promoters praised the car's overall quality, design, price, extras, and fuel consumption, while detractors focused on criticizing its "ugly" design. - The strongest drivers of discussion were overall quality and design, with quality receiving both positive and negative comments and design mainly negative reactions.

1. RENAULT KOLEOS AND THE CROSSOVER & SUV SEGMENT
PRE‐CAMPAIGN AND POST‐CAMPAIGN
COMPETITIVE BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
IN BULGARIAN USER‐GENERATED MEDIA

2. Key Findings
• The analysis of Bulgarian user‐generated media (UGM) in the period from
September 1st to October 31st 2008 generated 149 relevant posGngs on the chief
compeGtors in the crossover and SUV sectors ‐ Volkswagen Tiguan, Peugeot 4007,
Nissan Qashqai, Toyota RAV4, Renault Koleos, Ford Kuga, Honda CR‐V, Hyundai
Santa Fe, Opel Antara, Suzuki Grand Vitara, Citroen Crosser and Kia Sportage.
• Renault Koleos and Nissan Qashqai accounted for the largest share of UGM buzz in
the analyzed period (27 posGngs each) followed closely by Ford Kuga with 24
posGngs.
• Peugeot 4007 and Honda CR‐V were next with 14 and 13 posGngs respecGvely
while Volkswagen Tiguan and Opel Antara brought up the tail of the list with 6
relevant posGngs each.
• The compeGtor that managed to a[ract the largest percentage share of brand
promoters was Suzuki, whose Grand Vitara was among the compeGtors with the
smallest share of coverage. The Grand Vitara generated five posGngs promoGng the
brand out of a total of 7 posGngs.
• Hyundai Santa Fe also a[racted a great share of promoters – 6 out of a total of nine
posGngs.

3. Key Findings
• Nissan Qashqai generated the largest share of brand detractors (15 detractors out
of 27 posGngs).
• Koleos had 11 detractors out of 27 posGngs.
• Toyota RAV‐4 followed with four detractors out of a total of nine posGngs.
• Volkswagen Tiguan was the only compeGtor that had no detractors at all, while
Citroen Crosser had the largest share of posGngs that demonstrated no preference.
• As regards drivers of coverage, overall quality was by far the most discussed topic
across all compeGtors followed by design.
• Renault Koleos’ overall qualiGes were the most keenly discussed. The largest share
of a[enGon as regards design was focused on Ford Kuga.
• InteresGngly enough, users expressed their dislike of Koleos’ design in eight out of
the 10 posGngs speaking about design, while Kuga’s design was posiGvely
appreciated by users in eight out of the 11 posGngs on the vehicle’s design.
• Pricing was also a topic that generated significant buzz especially for Ford Kuga.
• Fuel consumpGon only appeared as top driver of coverage with Nissan Qashqai and
here it received only posiGve menGons.

4. Key Findings
• Extras, on the other hand, were among the top drivers of coverage for Toyota RAV‐4
only and were discussed in a negaGve tone.
• The analysis of emoGonal connectors, or the emoGonal Gnge of users’ comments,
yielded interesGng results.
• Hyundai Santa Fe was the car to receive the largest share of approval, while Suzuki
Grand Vitara was the most admired car.
• Toyota RAV‐4 was the compeGtor with the least emoGonally connected coverage,
while Nissan Qashqai triggered mostly disappointment.
• Renault Koleos had the largest share of criGcal posGngs. It was also the only
compeGtor that had skepGcism as an emoGonal connector.
• Renault Koleos was also the compeGtor that triggered the greatest variety of
emoGonal connectors.
• The top source of user comments on the analysed models was offroad‐
bulgaria.com, which featured user generated coverage on the majority of
compeGtors analyzed.
• Vbox7.com and automedia.bg were the second most prolific sources with six
threads each.

5. Point made that the periods compared
differ a lot in length, i.e. before the
campaign we covered a years’ volume of
publicaGons, while the second period
covers only two months ader the launch of
Renault Koleos, it has to be noted that as
regards the volume of posGngs, in just a
couple of months Koleos has moved from
fidh to the leading posiGon, which it
shares with Nissan Qashqai.

6. The share of neutral posGngs about
Renault Koleos has dropped considerably
in the second period, increasing the share
of posiGve and negaGve posGngs and
proving a greater awareness of the brand
among Bulgarians and the fact that they
have formed an opinion about it.
The share of posGngs about Volkswagen
Tiguan has dropped considerably in the
second period and thus the brand has
moved from the leading posiGon in the
first period to lagging behind with just 6
posGngs in the second period.

7. The graphs in percentage points show a
clearer picture of how the share of brand
promoter and detractors has changed in
the second period.

8. Here, overall quality has been assigned to
posGngs commenGng the different car
makes in general, without details on a
parGcular feature. So, in terms of most
discussed product feature, design tops the
list, followed by pricing and fuel
consumpGon.
Renault Koleos has kept the share of
posiGve, negaGve and neutral posGngs on
overall quality unvaried between the first
and second period. The situaGon changed
with design – while before the campaign
there were some neutral posGngs about
the make’s design, ader the campaign
people were either posiGve or negaGve –
again, a marker for greater brand
awareness.

9. As regards the emoGonal Gnge of users’
posGngs, the overall situaGon has
changed a lot: neutrality on the segment
as whole prevails in the first period and
more varied emoGonal connectors
appear in the second period. This could
probably be a[ributed to the fact that
the launch campaign has generated
more conversaGons on the segment as a
whole.

10. The same data as the previous slide,
this Gme showing the change in
percentage points of each emoGonal
connectors. More ‘pink’ in the second
graph shows more love for the segment
as a whole.

11. To be noted – the drop in sarcasm and
the raise in approval and admiraGon in
the second period.

12. Renault Koleos
Renault Koleos

13. Key Findings
• Renault Koleos generated 27 user posGngs in the period from September 1 to
October 31, 2008.
• The promoters and detractors of the brand were almost equally distributed in
Bulgarian UGM with a slight prevalence for promoters – 12 posGngs against 11
posGngs for detractors.
• Promoters praised the car above all for its overall qualiGes claiming it had good
design, reasonable price, many extras and low fuel consumpGon.
• Users also referred to Koleos as a “great family car, safe and sturdy.”
• Design was also a reason for praising the Koleos, which some users referred to as
amazing, good looking and cool.
• Two users claimed that the a[racGve package of extras that comes with the car
would certainly boost its sales.
• Detractors focused above all on the car’s design calling it downright “ugly.” One
user said Koleos was “the most ridiculous car in the world”, while another claimed
it was “Renault’s worst car ever.”
• Three out of the eleven detractors were disgruntled by the “Korean connecGon”
calling the car a “Korean miracle” and “the child of a Korean prosGtute.
• One of them went so far as to say he would never drive a Korean car.

14. Key Findings
• There were also four posGngs that expressed no preference. It is, however, worth
noGng that according to one of these four users “consumers are as a rule suspicious
to new models and because of the heated compeGGon in the segment Renault
should offer be[er guarantees if they want to conquer market share.”
• There was also a user who commented on the TV ad for Koleos, which he called
cool and very good.
• The overall quality of the car was the strongest driver of coverage as regards the
Koleos.
• User senGments varied largely in this respect with 5 posiGve posGngs and 5
negaGve ones, all of them being respecGvely promoters and detractors. There were
also three neutral posiGng as regards the overall quality of the car.
• Design was another driver of UGM buzz. As menGoned earlier, it triggered chiefly
negaGve posGngs.
• Users demonstrated a posiGve aktude to Koleos’ pricing (2 posiGve and 1 neutral
posGngs) as well as to the adverGsing campaign, the car’s extras, its safety and fuel
consumpGon.
• Its interior and off‐road capabiliGes, on the other hand, triggered only negaGve
coverage.

15. Key Findings
• Approval was the emoGonal connector most oden associated with Renault Koleos.
People approve of the car because of the balance between its overall qualiGes,
price, fuel consumpGon and extras.
• CriGcism was the second most common emoGonal connector with users criGcizing
Koleos above all for its design.
• Three people loved the car because it is “cool,” “amazing” and “the best family car.”
• Two people mocked it for being ridiculous and two were openly frustrated with it,
one of them going so far as to call it “a piece of shit.”
• Renault’s fan site, renault‐bg.com, was the source of three threads menGoning the
Koleos. InteresGngly enough, two of the relevant posGngs on these threads were
negaGve for Koleos one calling it ugly and the other claiming that “anyone who
buys a Koleos would regret it.”
• ArGcles on Koleos in the online ediGon of the Dnevnik daily newspaper also
generated three relevant threads.

16. The neutral share of posGngs in the
first period has come down in the
second, while due to the bigger buzz in
the second period both posiGve and
negaGve posGngs have come up.

17. Although overall quality is the greatest
driver of coverage in the second period,
we also noGce a more varied set of
features being discussed ader the
campaign.
17

18. There has not been a significant change
in the emoGonal Gnge of posGngs on
Koleos. Percentage‐wise, neutrality has
dropped, while approval and criGcism
have increased – again, to be a[ributed
to the fact that thanks to the campaign
people have begun to form opinion
about the brand.
18

19. There is a greater number of threads in
different outlets in the second period –
including a thread on major Bulgarian
online daily, Dnevnik.
19