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.
Bringing marketing researchinto the 21st centuryJan Hofmeyr (Ph.D.)Chief Researcher: Behaviour Change               Reinve...
Contents1 A focus on the individualContents                                                         032 The dynamism of in...
Why is respondent-level validity important?The problem of mutually compensating error                                     ...
The problem is…... profiling and driver analysis are nonsense!  Claim to use brand           Claim not to use brand       ...
This was just one example…How widespread is this problem?             What is the relationship between        the answers ...
And let’s make a solemn commitment here…… because we do care about truth            If we find that it’s not very         ...
Testing survey questions on panel data           Seven data sets from the UK, the USA, and China                          ...
How often do people really use the brand they saythey use most?            UK: Past 3 months1                        USA: ...
Principle (1)                It’s not good enough to be     accurate about groups of people. You have to         be accura...
On a different trackWhat percentage of people stay loyal in a year                                                        ...
The Dynamism of Individual BehaviourFrom McKinsey 2002: Financial services and Airlines                                   ...
So this is the old Conversion ModelA segmentation: Commitment and Availability                      Commitment            ...
So this is the old Conversion ModelA segmentation: Commitment and Availability                      Commitment            ...
Principle (2)                It’s not good enough to be    accurate about groups of people. You have to         be accurat...
Models (1) Predicting behaviour/behaviourSales: A function of Power in the Mind and Power in the Market                   ...
Models (2) A General Theory of Brand RelationshipsFactors that drive commitment to a brand and the equation               ...
Models (3): Putting the Greek into English          Zipf Equation                Step One: Add the scores (10-points, 7-p...
All of this is well known…… award winners                                                                      Ipsos ‘Wall...
How the new Conversion Model compares… a more than 20% improvement                                Old ‘Power in the       ...
The Survey: Questions that measure Commitment and predictthe share of wallet that a person will give each brand           ...
Models (4): How to quantify Power in the MarketMarket Drivers: Push (presence), Barrier (weakness, failure) Market Driver...
Models (5) Driver AnalysisHow many Touch-points or Attributes do you need          Marry                   This is the que...
Models (5) In Charles Darwin’s case…… it was really only one                 Marry                                        ...
What we do..This can only be described as torture…   Financial Services                                                   ...
Models (5) Continued: Doing what people do..Using heuristics and comparative scoring..              Brands                ...
Models (5): Simple transformations that improve validityWeighted share of mentions…                           Brand1 Brand...
Models (2): Simple transformations that improve validity       (5a): Simple transformations that improve validityUnweighte...
Models (2): Simple transformations that improve validity       (5b):       (2a): Simple transformations that improve valid...
There is one more crime to which I must refer..The obvious idiocy of straight-line modelling                     P = 0.64 ...
Summary: The new ConversionModelThe pillars of brand equity, image, and motivation                       Relevant Brands  ...
Let’s summarize… We can reduce survey length by 30% to 40% Key principle (1): Stop asking questions that don’t predict v...
Our approach…                     New markets                                                                           4 ...
Waitrose (1): Equity signatureOverall market position                                                                   Sh...
Waitrose (2): CompetitorsQuantifying share gains and identifying from which competitors         Waitrose                  ...
Waitrose (3): Marketing leversIdentifying which marketing levers need to be pulled…       … and how much each one is worth...
Waitrose (4): MessagingLeverage ‘worth paying’, strengthen ‘reasonable prices’                                            ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

TNS ConversionModel seminar 9/11 - Hur ditt varumärke vinner slaget om marknadsandelarna

1,457 views

Published on

Vill du veta mer om ConversionModel - slå oss en signal eller skicka ett mail!
http://tns-sifo.se/kontakta-oss

  • Be the first to comment

TNS ConversionModel seminar 9/11 - Hur ditt varumärke vinner slaget om marknadsandelarna

  1. 1. Bringing marketing researchinto the 21st centuryJan Hofmeyr (Ph.D.)Chief Researcher: Behaviour Change Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  2. 2. Contents1 A focus on the individualContents 032 The dynamism of individual behaviourContents 023 Brand equity tracking: shorter, better, cheaperContents 034 The future: real-time, intelligent, adaptive surveysContents 03 Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012 2
  3. 3. Why is respondent-level validity important?The problem of mutually compensating error Which brands did you buy in the past three months? Coca-Cola, Sprite, and Ariel Panel Data (Retailers, Detergents) Past 12 months USA, UK, China 40% Use 60% Did not Use  The percent who said they used the brand was equal to the percent who actually used the brand  Yet, many of the people who claimed to use the brand – didn’t  Mutually compensating error: for everyone who says they used the brand but didn’t, there was another person who said they didn’t use the brand but did Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  4. 4. The problem is…... profiling and driver analysis are nonsense! Claim to use brand Claim not to use brand Actual users Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012 5
  5. 5. This was just one example…How widespread is this problem? What is the relationship between the answers people give to our questions and what they actually do? Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel 6 © TNS 2012
  6. 6. And let’s make a solemn commitment here…… because we do care about truth If we find that it’s not very good; and we find a better way – we will use the better way Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel 7 © TNS 2012
  7. 7. Testing survey questions on panel data Seven data sets from the UK, the USA, and China Not Awareness First Mention Awareness 0.92 0.57 Valid Aided Awareness 0.68 0.11 Brand Use Stated share (Last 10) 0.96 0.74 Not use, Use, Use most 0.97 0.65 Brand Most Often 0.96 0.69 Not Respondent Aggregate Needed Brand Strength Overall satisfaction 0.89 0.35 Purchase intention 0.91 0.42Equity Attributes Brand I trust 0.48 0.16 Value for money 0.86 0.24 Good quality 0.55 0.18 Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  8. 8. How often do people really use the brand they saythey use most? UK: Past 3 months1 USA: Past 6 months2 68 58 36 20 13 8 Don’t Use Use Most Often Don’t Use Use Most Often Panel Loyalty Card Record Record R: Aggregate 0.96 Respondent 0.66 Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  9. 9. Principle (1) It’s not good enough to be accurate about groups of people. You have to be accurate about individual people Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel 10 © TNS 2012
  10. 10. On a different trackWhat percentage of people stay loyal in a year Behavioural Loyalty Transition Matrix 2009 2008 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 99 100 Total A matching bunch2 of 0 2931294 9295 8325 5135 3450 2503 1883 1337 1030 818 632 570 396 352 270 217 170 166 97 53 108 1068 2969169 5 12001 2610 1556 870 474 283 150 106 70 40 32 20 24 12 11 5 2 5 0 3 14 18290 10 9335 1538 1973 1287 902 557 372 228 168 130 95 66 53 new loyals13 11 29 17 22 9 3 6 50 16864 15 5542 675 1219 1050 772 555 383 282 176 140 81 81 62 35 37 37 26 23 11 9 6 74 11276 20 3645 380 827 741 662 546 377 307 186 140 113 101 72 60 47 31 23 15 19 7 7 77 8383 25 2595 204 523 546 531 427 368 284 220 154 102 89 61 51 40 33 22 20 14 8 7 68 6367 30 1885 111 312 349 366 346 314 240 181 157 112 80 65 36 44 29 32 15 15 9 10 73 4781 35 1386 80 220 272 275 262 229 226 167 153 101 91 58 45 41 32 25 11 19 7 9 53 3762 40 1068 59 163 172 176 218 189 183 170 125 130 103 68 55 40 33 36 17 14 6 10 64 3099 45 833 38 104 145 172 145 167 132 143 127 104 83 67 76 49 45 32 22 12 8 6 53 2563 50 698 30 79 104 121 107 99 124 134 125 95 83 78 51 50 32 35 20 18 12 7 69 2171 55 560 22 57 72 76 79 92 96 75 89 100 87 79 80 64 41 38 23 17 15 8 55 1825 60 467 17 45 57 67 80 70 67 92 84 79 90 79 77 78 54 47 29 25 16 13 65 1698 65 387 8 40 57 56 64 62 56 72 77 70 79 85 60 55 69 43 30 24 21 13 56 1484 70 26% 34% slide down 297 13 29 42 41 63 44 43 57 57 50 61 68 40% stay Highly Loyal 7483 72 48 41 26 14 19 62 1304 75 271 6 24 23 38 38 28 38 46 37 60 42 60 49 66 72 47 42 24 20 11 69 1111 80 196 7 13 20 39 14 26 31 41 45 45 45 46 57 52 58 64 39 41 27 20 73 999 85 170 5 7 14 20 12 30 16 33 23 25 28 37 36 49 In absolute terms 23 62 40 52 44 41 28 795 90 118 3 6 13 15 10 7 8 10 14 12 21 28 26 just 4% of 2008’s users were 31 33 32 32 41 35 16 71 582 95 60 4 3 6 5 9 12 14 12 9 18 17 18 17 17 loyal in both years 21 18 30 23 37 39 64 453 99 112 0 3 3 10 8 11 6 11 8 9 15 17 14 18 23 16 21 21 22 39 86 473 100 821 5 23 39 51 41 37 39 44 37 42 37 35 54 48 48 51 60 76 41 78 472 2179 Ttl 2973741 15110 15551 11017 8319 6367 4950 3863 3138 2589 2107 1889 1556 1346 1207 1047 872 716 589 398 458 2798 3059628 Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012 11
  11. 11. The Dynamism of Individual BehaviourFrom McKinsey 2002: Financial services and Airlines Financial Airline Value People Value People Year 1 100 100 100 100 Loss due to defection -3 5 -3 3 Loss due to reduced spend -24 35 -19 35 Gain due to increased spend +25 35 +25 25 Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  12. 12. So this is the old Conversion ModelA segmentation: Commitment and Availability Commitment Availability 26% 18% 15% 12% 11% 6% 4% 8% Entrenched Convertible ^ Available Unavailable Here is where most of your new users come from Prediction: Defection and Acquisition 61% 43% 27% 13% 13% 16% 9% 6% ^ Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  13. 13. So this is the old Conversion ModelA segmentation: Commitment and Availability Commitment Availability 26% 18% 15% 12% 11% 6% 4% 8% Entrenched Convertible ^ Available Unavailable This entire way of thinking Here is where most of your is incomplete new users come from Prediction: Defection and Acquisition 61% 43% 27% 13% 13% 16% 9% 6% ^ Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  14. 14. Principle (2) It’s not good enough to be accurate about groups of people. You have to be accurate about individual people It’s not even only about individual people. It’s about fractions of people. Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel 15 © TNS 2012
  15. 15. Models (1) Predicting behaviour/behaviourSales: A function of Power in the Mind and Power in the Market Sales Consumption Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  16. 16. Models (2) A General Theory of Brand RelationshipsFactors that drive commitment to a brand and the equation Share é m æ Share ö ù Ranki ê å i =1 ç s ú ë è Rankis ÷ û ø Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  17. 17. Models (3): Putting the Greek into English Zipf Equation  Step One: Add the scores (10-points, 7-point) and turn into shares and ranks PMnd Zipf  Examples: 1 Share  R1 (3 brands): 14, 13, 11; Shares: .37, .34, .29 Ranks: 1, 2, 3 é m æ Share ö ù 1 Ranki êå i=1 ç s ú  R2 (3 brands): 16, 14, 10; Shares: .40, .35, .25 Ranks: 1, 2, 3 ë è Rankis ÷ û ø  R3 (4 brands): 16, 12, 12, 11; Shares: .31, .24, .24, .21 Ranks: 1, 2.5, 2.5, 4  There is still an ‘s’, but it’s set to ‘1’. No exponential transform needed.  Calculate share/rank R1 .37/1 = .37 R2 40/1 = .40 R3 31/1 = .31 .34/2 = .17 35/2 = .18 24/2.5 = .10 .29/3 = .10 25/3 = .08 21/4 = .05 Sum = .64 Sum = .66 Sum = .62 [.37; Share .29] .34; [.40; Share .25] .35; [.31; Share .21] .24; é m æ Share ö ù 58; 27; 16 é m æ Share ö ù 61; 27; 12 é m æ Share ö ù 60; 15; 15; 10[1; 2; 3]å i=1 ç Ranks ÷ ú ê X .64 è [1; 2; êå i=1X .66 ú 3] ç è Rankis ÷ û êå X .62 [1; 2.5; 4] i=1 ç Ranks ÷ ú ë i øû ë ø ë è i øû Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  18. 18. All of this is well known…… award winners Ipsos ‘Wallet Allocation Rule’ Rank 2 Attitudinal Equity (1- )´( ) 1 No Brands+1 No Brands é m æ 1 öù Rankis ê å i=1 ç ú ë è Rankis ÷ û ø Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  19. 19. How the new Conversion Model compares… a more than 20% improvement Old ‘Power in the Mind’ R = 0.51 Ipsos ‘Wallet Rank 2 Allocation Rule’ R = 0.59 (1- )´( ) No Brands+1 No Brands 1 Ipsos ‘Attitudinal R = 0.59 é m æ 1 öù Equity’ Rankis ê å i=1 ç ú ë è Rankis ÷ û ø Share New ‘Power in the R = 0.62 é m æ Share ö ù Mind’* Rankis ê å i=1 ç ú ë è Rankis ÷ û ø Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  20. 20. The Survey: Questions that measure Commitment and predictthe share of wallet that a person will give each brand  Establish Personally Relevant products, services, brands  Brand Performance  Affective Connection  It takes about 46 seconds Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  21. 21. Models (4): How to quantify Power in the MarketMarket Drivers: Push (presence), Barrier (weakness, failure) Market Drivers Association  Accessibility  Push factors (positive)  Affordability  Barriers (negative)  Product Survey time: 48 secs  Purchaser Respondent Correlation  Monopolies  From R = 0.62…  … to R = 0.74  Regulations Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  22. 22. Models (5) Driver AnalysisHow many Touch-points or Attributes do you need Marry This is the question Not Marry Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel 23 © TNS 2012
  23. 23. Models (5) In Charles Darwin’s case…… it was really only one Marry Not Marry Children — (if it Please God) — Constant Freedom to go where one liked — choice of companion, (& friend in old age) who will Society — Conversation of clever men at feel interested in one, — object to be clubs — Not forced to visit relatives, & to beloved & played with. — better than a have the expense & anxiety of children — dog anyhow. — Home, & someone to take perhaps quarrelling — Loss of time. — A nice soft wife on a sofa care of house — Charms of music & female chit-chat. — These things good for ones cannot read in the Evenings — fatness & idleness — Anxiety & responsibility — less health. — Forced to visit & receive relations money for books &c — if many children but terrible loss of time. — forced to gain ones bread No, no wont do. Only picture to yourself a nice soft wife on a sofa with good fire, & books & music perhaps. Marry, marry, marry QED Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel 24 © TNS 2012
  24. 24. What we do..This can only be described as torture… Financial Services Packaged goods – 50+ attributes The makers of this brand understand my needs in a laundry detergent product Delights my senses (sight, smell, feel) Makes it easy to figure out what product is right for me This brand does what it promises Offers scents that I wish were available in other products besides laundry detergent I feel a connection to other people who use this brand This is a brand I can trust Has scents that are better than any other brand This brand has a clear and distinct point of view This brand provides the right level of cleaning for me Offers the best variety of scents This brand aims to fulfill a purpose beyond mere profit making Is an excellent product for the money Leaves laundry with a long-lasting scent I can identify with the values that this brand represents Simplifies the laundry process Provides scents that make doing laundry more enjoyable The values that this brand stands for are highly relevant to me Is a brand I would recommend my friends to buy Has a scent I prefer This brand inspires me to talk about the brand and its values Keeps colors bright Offers scents I canÆt get enough of I engage with others about the values that this brand represents Leaves clothes smelling fresh Has great-looking packaging Removes stains better than any other detergent Keeps clothes looking their best The best smelling way to get laundry done Cleans better than any other detergent Is good for all the laundry I do Makes the laundry experience more enjoyable than I would expect Is an authority on taking care of fabrics Is a reliable laundry detergent Helps me feel in control of the laundry process Prevents colors from fading better than any other detergent Is an effective laundry detergent Helps me feel I am taking good care of my family Provides superior whiteness Provides a deep down clean This brand makes me feel confident This brand makes my clothes soft Provides superior results in any type of load I feel like this brand acts in my best interest Keeps clothes looking like new Is effective at removing odors This brand makes me feel proud of my laundry results Provides benefits that justify the price Leaves clothes feeling their best This brand helps me feel good about myself I love this brand Gets my clothes clean even in cold water Allows me to present my family at their best I would miss this brand if it went away Works on clothes of all colors Helps me to always make a good impression with my appearance I try to buy this brand whenever I can Is effective at removing stains Makes fabrics more enjoyable to wear This is pretty much the only brand I would buy Brand doesnæt let me down Is a pleasure to use This brand is fun I always have a consistently positive experience with this brand Provides thoughtful solutions to my own needs Helps me get my familyÆs recognition Everything I see from this brand is consistent (in store, TV, online, etc) This brand is innovative Is a pleasure to shop for This brand provides a more natural solution for detergent Is a good member of the community Is youthful Helps me feel I am spending my money wisely by buying this brand This is an honest brand Is safe for those with sensitive skin This brand makes me feel like a smart shopper Is currently a leading brand Does not cause allergic reactions Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel 25 © TNS 2012
  25. 25. Models (5) Continued: Doing what people do..Using heuristics and comparative scoring.. Brands  Personally relevant brands (3 – 7)  Personally relevant attributes (8 – 17)  The 80 x 12 matrix becomes 12 x 6  Response items reduce from 960 to 72 Attributes  Survey time reduced from 13 mins to 3 mins  Share of mentions modeling  Correlation goes from R = 0.31 – R = 0.62 Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel 26 © TNS 2012
  26. 26. Models (5): Simple transformations that improve validityWeighted share of mentions… Brand1 Brand2 Brand3 Brand4 Brand5 … Brandi Power in the Mind 0 56 0 22 9 13 Attribute1  … Attribute2   … Attribute3    … Attribute4   … … … … … … … … Attributej …  Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  27. 27. Models (2): Simple transformations that improve validity (5a): Simple transformations that improve validityUnweighted share mentions…Weighted share of of mentions… Brand1 Brand2 Brand3 Brand4 Brand5 … Brandi Power in the Mind 0 56 0 22 9 13 Attribute1  100 … Attribute2 50  50  … Attribute3  33  33  33 … Attribute4  50  50 … … … … … … … … Attributej 100 …  Value= 100 ´ (1/ Number of Attributions) Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  28. 28. Models (2): Simple transformations that improve validity (5b): (2a): Simple transformations that improve validityUnweighted share mentions…Weighted share of of mentions… Brand1 Brand2 Brand3 Brand4 Brand5 … Brandi Power in the Mind 0 56 0 22 9 13 Attribute1  100 … Attribute2 50 57  50 43  … Attribute3  33 50  33 38  33 12 … Attribute4  50 20  50 80 … … … … … … … … Attributej 100 …  æ Number Brand Attributesö Value = 100 ´ ç ÷ è Total Attributes ø Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  29. 29. There is one more crime to which I must refer..The obvious idiocy of straight-line modelling P = 0.64 P = 0.28 Day-to-day P = 0.08 Use Relevant Endorsement Market Visibility Planned Power in the Mind Communications Commitment Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel 30 © TNS 2012
  30. 30. Summary: The new ConversionModelThe pillars of brand equity, image, and motivation Relevant Brands  Consider 54s Salience  Stated Share Commitment to All  Performance 46s Relevant Advantage  Involvement Personal Connection Brand Drivers Image  Relevant Attributes 120s  Share of Mentions Motivation Market Drivers  Push Factors 48s Presence  Market Barriers Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel © TNS 2012
  31. 31. Let’s summarize… We can reduce survey length by 30% to 40% Key principle (1): Stop asking questions that don’t predict very well Key principle (2): Stop torturing respondents – ask them what’s relevant Key principle (3): Fix simple and obvious mistakes of modeling Key principle (4): Tie everything to market share and market share flows Leads to highly actionable results, very specific recommendations Real example: 50 mins to 24 mins; $3 million to $1.6 million Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel 32 © TNS 2012
  32. 32. Our approach… New markets 4 3 More customers 2 New New products customers & services 1 Today’s Loyalty & business new spend More money from each customer Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel 33 © TNS 2012
  33. 33. Waitrose (1): Equity signatureOverall market position Share gained from New UsersAcquisition 3.9% 2% Current market share Opportunity 5.4% 7% Implicit market share Increase spend from existing users Decreased spend by 1.5% Gains are most likely to existing users At risk come from new users -0.3% -0.5%Defection Share lost due to defections Steady -0.2% 2.0% Decrease Increase Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel 34 © TNS 2012
  34. 34. Waitrose (2): CompetitorsQuantifying share gains and identifying from which competitors Waitrose 1.2% 1.2% +4.9% 0.8% 0.6% 2.5% Sainsbury’s Tesco Asda Morrisons Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel 35 © TNS 2012
  35. 35. Waitrose (3): Marketing leversIdentifying which marketing levers need to be pulled… … and how much each one is worth: net GBP 5.1 billion Waitrose 1.5% 1.3% +4.9% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 2.5% Affordability Convenience Proximity to Offered Good Other factors other shops Specials measured Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel 36 © TNS 2012
  36. 36. Waitrose (4): MessagingLeverage ‘worth paying’, strengthen ‘reasonable prices’ Your Your Business Competitors Attributes Waitrose Tesco Asda Sainsbury’s Morrisons Produce is fresh and good quality Stores are clean and hygenic Prices are reasonable Worth paying a bit more to shop there Strong Average Weak Reinventing Tracking… with the new ConversionModel 37 © TNS 2012

×