Business & Market Research

Drivers & Expectations

Our model assumes that consumers shop against the background of their Ideal Brand or Ideal Offer for whatever it is they’re looking, and they buy what they perceive best meets their expectations at the time.

We call this contextual background the Category Ideal. The Ideal Brand and Category Ideal are synonymous. This is entirely consumer-generated in our model.

The Category Ideal is expressed as four main drivers, illustrated as a bar chart. Each product or service category is described in four bars representing the category drivers.

Each driver differs in importance to the customer in the category, which means its importance to customers in the engagement-purchase-loyalty process.

The most important driver is on the left, the least important on the right. These are numbered #1 to #4.

These four bars collectively represent everything that consumers want from the Ideal Brand in the category.

The percent contribution each driver makes to the Ideal is illustrated here as 40%, 25%, 20% and 15%, respectively. These percent contributions are category specific, and vary from one category or service to another.

The percent contributions of the drivers refer to their relative importance to consumers in the category, and hence to their ability to engage consumers with category brands, to influence brand choice, and ultimately to secure loyalty for one brand instead of another.

For the brand owner, this also means that (for the percent contributions illustrated), a marketing investment positioned and targeted to resonate with consumers in driver #1 will potentially yield double the return for the brand as the same investment targeted at driver #3.

The height of the bars indicates the level of desire or expectation that consumers hold for each of the drivers. This is expressed as an index. The higher the index, the higher the level of expectations a consumer holds for the driver. A higher index for your brand is better than a lower one.

Consumer expectations differ from one driver to the next, and from one category or service to another. They indicate where consumers want the category to go. They therefore have high predictive value.

In Chart 1 the height of the first driver is shown at 122. This indicates that consumers have expectations for this driver that are 22% higher than the norm (100) for brands in this category or service.

A consumer may have high expectations for a less important driver, which is usually the case for category values like ‘price’ – where it is not (except among deal-seekers) the most important driver, but rather the driver for which consumers often hold high expectations: they want to pay as little as possible.

Examining the brand on a driver-by-driver basis allows you to diagnostically measure your strengths and weaknesses against the category Ideal or competitive set.

ABVs Inside the Drivers

Each driver comprises a set of attributes, benefits and values (ABVs) specific to the category under study.

The ABVs are chosen in advance of fieldwork for the category as a whole, and are derived from a combination of client knowledge and direct consumer input via focus groups.

Respondents rate the importance of each ABV during the research, and each ABV then finds itself assigned to one driver following a sophisticated statistical process. In effect, consumers assign the ABVs to the drivers.

Each ABV makes a percent contribution to its driver, with the percent contributions from the set of ABVs adding to 100%.

In every study, the ABVs for the category are identified and their individual percent contributions determined within their drivers. A typical ABV in the Category Ideal for mobile network service, for example, might be “transparent price plans” or “easily understood cost structures”.

For convenience, each main driver is usually named to reflect the dominant ABVs within it. A typical driver in the Sector Ideal for retail banking, for example, might be labelled “Corporate Image & Reputation”.

The ABVs are the tactical buttons a marketer needs to press to achieve consumer resonance and engagement with the brand in one driver rather than another.

Brand Equity

We define and measure a brand’s equity as the strength of the brand compared to the Category Ideal. The most practical way to view brand equity is the degree to which the brand is seen to meet or exceed the expectations that consumers hold for the Category Ideal.

Both charts show the Ideal Brand for this category to have an overall brand equity score of 119. This is calculated as the weighted average of consumer expectations across all four drivers.

This brand equity score of 119 for the Category Ideal represents the potential available to any brand competing in the category; it is the brand-equity bar to be aimed at if a brand wants to thrive and prosper.

For example, a brand with an overall brand equity score of 112 falls short of meeting consumer expectations in this category (represented by 119) by a substantial margin. This may represent a weakness of the brand on the one hand, but it may also indicate an opportunity.

Which it is depends on the context, on how competing brands are seen by consumers, and in which driver or drivers the brand is substantially short of meeting the Ideal.

Category Dynamics

The Category Ideal is not static, but changes and evolves over time because consumer values are forever changing and evolving. How much the Category Ideal changes over a given period depends on the nature of the product or service.

In terms of our model, the Category Ideal can change in any of the following ways:

The percent contribution each driver makes to the category
The order of importance of each driver within the category
The level of consumer expectations for one or more drivers
The percent contribution of ABVs within each driver
The emergence of new ABVs within one or more drivers

Marketers need to keep on top of these changes to see what it means for the category as a whole and for their brand in particular. This is done by commissioning an updated category and brand assessment and SWOT analysis from us, usually once or twice a year.

Reading the charts

These charts provide a strategic overview of the category and how a brand may best capitalise on emerging opportunities. When reading and interpreting one of these charts, always give the following priority to the metrics: Ideal first, brands second, ABVs third.

Order of driver importance: which driver is most important? Which next?
Percent contribution of each driver: how are driver contributions distributed?
Expectation level for each driver: what driver has the highest expectations?
Your brand: where is your brand strong or weak against the Ideal?
Competitor brands: where is each competitor strong or weak?
Opportunities & Threats: where do the greatest opportunities & threats lie?
ABVs within drivers: what ABVs are most important in the driver with most opportunity?
Leveraging competitor mistakes: are competitors covering off on key driver or key ABVs?

You now have enough for your L-plates and can begin reading and interpreting sample charts for any of our services.

The following sample charts are based on recent projects, but simplified to make a clear point. In each case the client’s identity, together with the category, the brands and metrics have been disguised. We also do not disclose the component ABVs here.

Sample 1 (BrandWorks)

What are the main drivers in my category? How do consumers see my brand and my main competitor? Why is my competitor doing better in the marketplace? What are my options?

The metrics for the Category Ideal are first determined and charted; the standing of each brand is then inserted alongside. The key points to note are:

Family Choice as driver #1 dominates the Category Ideal, this is because it accounts for 40% of driver importance. Expectations are also high in this driver at 122. Neither brand, but especially the client’s, comes near to meeting consumer expectations in this key driver. This is an opportunity.

Although the competitor is significantly ahead of the client in this first driver, everything is still to play for there. It is in this driver that the battle for share will be won and lost, due to its dominance and unfulfilled expectations. This is the source of the client’s trouble, and this is where the brand must focus its positioning and marketing efforts.

The top scoring ABVs in the first driver indicate exactly how the client should position the brand. This also serves as a tight brief for the ad agency.

The client’s brand more or less meets the Ideal in the three remaining drivers – which indicates that it is a strong brand, but this cannot compensate for its marked deficiency in the all-important first driver. Nor does the competitor’s shortfall in the third driver hold it back much when it is already well ahead in driver #1.

The overall brand equity score for both brands is the same at 113, but the competitor has the edge because it currently has the lead in the driver which counts the most. The client now has the insight and opportunity to overturn this lead and regain share.

Sample 2 (AdWorks 1)

The client had doubts and reservations about its new TV ad. Are the doubts justified? Should the campaign be fully supported? Or should the client think about pulling it and considering a replacement?

As before, the metrics for the Category Ideal are determined and charted; then the standing of the brand without its advertising, and then with it, are inserted.

The client brand without its advertising falls significantly short of meeting the Ideal in all four drivers. The brand is clearly in need of revitalisation and a lift.

With its TV ad, the brand receives a great boost across all drivers. This means that heavy airing of the ad has the potential in time to transform how consumers see the brand. The transformation will take the brand from where it is now to everything the ad expresses and associates with the brand.

The brand with its advertising will be lifted to meet or exceed the Ideal in each of the first three drivers because the ad is strong enough to engage consumers with the brand in each of these drivers.

Its brand equity score also stands to increase from its current 122, potentially to 132. An increase in brand equity of this magnitude is predictive of a significant uplift in sales for the brand.

The ad should therefore be fully supported.

Sample 3 (AdWorks 2)

The client’s public relations dept is recommending that its service brand should sponsor a major annual public event. Others would prefer to support the brand through TV advertising and programme sponsorship via an attractive deal negotiated with TV3. The budget won’t stretch to both. Which option should the brand choose, and why?

This issue comes down to determining in advance how much the brand stands to benefit from each option, which option would bring most benefit, and whether this is a sufficient return.

The brand’s current standing shows it meeting or almost meeting the Ideal in the final three drivers, which is a good sign. So it needs no further support in these. But the brand is substantially below the Ideal in the first and most important driver. This means the brand is exposed and vulnerable to a competitor in that driver.

The event sponsorship option resonates very strongly for the brand in the fourth driver; it also provides some directional uplift in the third driver. But it does nothing at all for the brand in the first driver where support is most needed; in fact the brand stands to be degraded a little there.

Strategically and financially, the event sponsorship option would be a poor investment for the brand.

On the other hand, the TV3 advertising option concentrates support for the brand in the first two drivers, particularly in driver #1. This would potentially lift the brand there to within a whisper of the Ideal. Brand equity would also receive an uplift. This clearly is the best option to choose.

Note that the event sponsorship option pumps up the brand’s standing in the fourth driver to substantially above what consumers demand and expect there. This represents a waste of resources because the brand already satisfies consumer expectations there and cannot therefore earn a tangible return by offering more.

Sample 4 (MediaWorks Plus)

To what extent will the brand benefit from an ad campaign running on TV only? Would a multimedia campaign across several platforms be significantly better for the brand? How much better? What combination of media options promises the optimum return for the brand and the investment?

Look first at the category Ideal (blue) and note how the level of consumer expectations is highest by far in the first and most important driver.

Now examine how the client brand in the absence of any media context (green) measures up to the category Ideal.

The client brand falls significantly short of meeting the Ideal in the first and fourth drivers, but comes close to meeting the Ideal in the second and third drivers.

The brand most needs support in the first driver where expectations are highest. It would also benefit from some support in each of the remaining three drivers. The strategic aim is to have consumers perceive the brand as meeting or exceeding their Ideal for the category.

Now look at the engagement effect of TV on its own (yellow). It lifts the brand substantially in the first driver, to just above the Ideal. This would be a good outcome for the brand strategically, but it provides no uplift for the brand in the second driver and very little in the two remaining drivers. Is there a better option?

The multimedia campaign illustrated (orange) would provide substantial uplift for the brand in all four drivers, exceeding the Ideal in every instance.

Eleven different multimedia combinations were identified from this research, with the one illustrated being the optimum investment choice for the brand.

Note that this result reflects the brand’s media presence only, and is quite separate from any engagement effects due to the brand’s advertised message. More than 20 different media touch-points were assessed.

Past 60-day sales data among a robust sample of brand-exclusive users were collected separately. The correlation between the eleven multimedia groupings and the corresponding average past 60-day purchases of the client brand was high at 0.78.