1.
Challenging Brand
Preference
- A Triangulation
Study
3rd International Consumer Brand
Relationship Colloquium
September 27, 2013
Rollins College
Winter Park, Florida

2.
The Data Source
 Prosper International – Worthington, OH
● Online data gathering started in U.S. in 2002
● Consumer Intentions and Actions (CIA) and Media
Behavior and Influence (MBI) studies
● CIA monthly, MBI twice yearly
● Both conduct online questionnaires in U.S.
● 8,000 responses in CIA, 22,000+ responses in MBI per
wave
● Nationally projectable – using 14 U.S. Census age/sex
format
● Product purchases in 8 categories – present and future
● Media use and influence – 31 external media forms, 23

3.
We’ve Now Aggregated and
Combined 10 Years of CIA and
MBI Data
 1,100,375 consumer responses analyzed
 73 FMCG product categories
 1,529 individual brands
 31 media forms consumed – online and offline
 23 in-store media forms reported
 Media consumption (minutes per day) and media
influence by media form

4.
10 Year AGR for Brands, Stores
and No Brand Preference
 Brand AGR -1.68%
 Store AGR -0.98%
 No Preference +1.38%
AGR = Average growth/decline rate for the 10
year
aggregated period

5.
Are Brands Really in
Trouble?
 Manufacturer brand preference is
declining
 Not being taken up by store brands
 Being replaced by No Brand
Preference….commoditization?
 The “signs” aren’t good

6.
Internet
TV

7.
Can Social Media be
“Killing Brands….Softly?”

8.
Some Speculation on Why
 Most brand theory and concepts developed in
1970s-1990s – age of mass media - common
consumer denominators
 Brands are an artifact of large mass media
investments – primarily television
 Mass media advertising provided widespread icons,
languages, understanding and acceptance among
large consumer base
 Traditional brand success was built, and still
depends, on mass audiences, mass acceptance and
mass understanding – brands are all about “scale”

9.
The Triangulation Study
 Two other brand research organizations
are finding the same results - declines in
brand preference
● Y&R BAV – attributes it to “declining brand and
organizational trust”
● Brand Keys (CEI) – suggests it’s “inability to
create meaningful engagements due to the lack
of product differentiation”

10.
We Compared Three Product
Categories
 Our findings (BIG data), BAV and Brand
Keys
● BAV – 40,000 responses per year, 20 years –
global - monitors brand strength and stature
● Brand Keys – 30,000 responses per year, 13
years – U.S. only – measures engagement with
brand
 Three categories: cosmetics, ready-to-
eat cereals and allergy medications

11.
BIG Data: Cereal Brand
Preference
Brands greater than 1% Share
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 AGR
Kelloggs 13.9 12.8 11.6 11.5 12.6 12.3 14.0 15.5 -5.6
Cheerios 9.3 9.2 9.7 10.6 11.5 12.5 12.7 12.7 3.3
General Mills 4.5 3.8 2.9 3.6 3.1 3.3 2.9 3.1 -25.7
Post 3.8 3.6 3.2 3.6 2.7 2.7 2.2 2.1 -18.2
Special K 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.4
Store Brand 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 0.6
Frosted Flakes 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.8 -3.9
Kashi 1.1 1.4 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.0 8.8
Raisin Bran 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.2 -11.4
Quaker 1.3 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.7 -14.0
Honey Buns 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 0.9 1.1 1.2 -0.6
Corn Flakes 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 -10.9
Maltomeal 1.7 1.4 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 -1.8
No Preference 32.7 33.9 37.5 32.3 32.1 30.4 30.6 28.4 2.6

12.
BAV Cereals
2002 2012

13.
Allergy Medication Brand
Preference
Brands greater than 1% Share
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 AGR
Store Brand 6.7 5.8 5.3 4.8 5.8 4.9 5.3 5.2 -2.7
Benadryl 5.5 5.8 5.4 4.0 4.4 5.1 5.1 4.7 -1.3
Tylenol 8.1 6.1 5.3 4.6 3.7 3.6 3.2 2.4 -15.6
Sudafed 5.6 5.3 4.4 3.3 3.5 3.3 2.9 2.7 -11.0
Claritin 2.1 2.3 3.6 3.4 3.7 4.2 3.7 3.3 5.8
Equate 2.4 2.3 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.8 2.1 1.9 -2.7
Advil 3.0 2.1 1.7 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.5 -10.7
No
Preference
57.6 60.2 62.9 69.6 66.0 65.3 65.3 65.1 1.5

14.
BAV Allergy Meds
2002 2012

15.
BIG Data Cosmetic Brand
Preference
2012 2011 Difference
Share NPS Share NPS Share NPS
All Users -20.1 -24.1 3.9
Cover Girl 19.2 27.5 20.8 27.9 -1.6 -0.4
Maybelline 13.1 11.9 12.8 6.5 0.3 5.5
Revlon 7.6 17.5 7.0 -3.4 0.5 20.9
L’Oreal 6.7 17.2 6.2 25.9 0.5 -8.7
Avon 5.5 38.9 7.0 29.4 -1.5 9.6
Clinique 4.1 53.6 4.2 48.5 -0.1 5.5
Mary Kay 3.5 49.2 3.9 45.1 -0.4 4.1
MAC 3.1 39.0 3.3 41.1 -0.2 -2.1
Oil of Olay 2.0 -1.2 1.4 22.6 0.7 -23.8
Almay 1.8 37.1 2.1 13.7 -0.2 23.3
Estee Lauder 1.7 53.5 2.1 48.0 -0.4 5.5
Other 31.8 29.3 2.5

16.
BAV Cosmetics 2002
2002 2012

17.
Brand Keys “Brand Engagement”
Category Year Mean Variance
Range
(max-min)
Cereals
2004 123.36 28.05 19.00
2013 118.09 3.29 6.00
Cosmetics
2004 128.17 41.24 17.00
2013 128.58 2.81 4.00
Allergy Meds
2004 111.33 20.67 12.00
2013 110.00 9.60 9.00
● Variance in the Engagement Index has fallen drastically in all 3 categories from
2004 to 2013
● Range in the Engagement Index is much smaller in 2013 than in 2004

18.
Hierarchical Cluster Analysis
# Clusters in 2002 # Clusters in 2012
Cereals 5 2
Cosmetics 4 1
OTC Allergy Meds 4 2
Results are consistent irrespective of methodology

19.
BAV Cereals Cluster Analysis
● K-means cluster analysis with two clusters.
● Decreasing distance between the two clusters over time

20.
Don E. Schultz, PhD
dschultz@northwestern.edu
For the paper “Killing Brands… Softly”,
contact: