1	"Brand Awareness & Positioning for..." Brand Awareness & Positioning for a Technology Based Service A Case Study September, 2007 Prepared by Rockbridge Associates
2	Study Background A brief overview of the objectives of this research effort and the methodology used
3	Background and Objectives The Client: A leading provider of web-based technology services for consumers and businesses. The Issue: Our client was interested in creating a strong brand identity in a market experiencing increasing competitive pressures and price cutting. Our client had also just completed a merger, creating potential confusion over their identity and image. Objectives: Our client wanted to learn: Awareness and familiarity of its own brand names and of competitors Interrelationship between its multiple brand names The image of its brands and competitor brands Important brand attributes which drive preference Results were needed by a number of segments varying by size, usage and channels Outcomes: The client needed this information to guide communications strategies. They needed to identify and execute a positioning that optimized preference for the most valuable market segments. They also needed guidance to plan post-merger communications.
4	Methodology Interviews were conducted by telephone Why telephone? Even though we had conducted many internet surveys for this client, a telephone approach was chosen because of its ability to gather more sensitive information on brand awareness. It also allowed us to identify and pre-qualify the right individuals in the organizational samples. And, it produced a higher cooperation rate in a situation where surveys had to be blind. The interview averaged 15 minutes A total of 1,100 consumers/businesses were interviewed, stratified by 8 key market segments; half were businesses Results were weighted based on population characteristics Rockbridge applied special analysis tools to add greater insight: Key Driver analysis to quantify the importance of different image attributes in determining preference Perceptual maps to show the relative positioning of different brands
5	Instrument Design In designing the questionnaire, we used our Brand Development Model of how marketing communications ultimately changes behavior towards a service (see next slide) A brand must begin by building basic awareness, then increasing the depth of awareness, then changing opinions towards the brand, and finally building trial usage and preference For example, in assessing whether the brand is “Respected,” we used the following question to measure momentum of the brand: “Do you think the reputation of Company X will be “a lot better,” “better,” “the same,” “worse,” or “much worse” in the next few years?” Where a brand falls on this Brand Development continuum may influence marketing and advertising strategy – in the earlier stages, the organization may focus on merely getting the audience to recognize its name, while later stages may focus on educating the audience about its brand
6
7	Findings The results of the Brand Study
8	The Study Assessed the Strength of Different Brand Identities in a Post-Merger Environment Our client switched brand names after its merger. One of the central issues was the relative strength of the Original Brand name (used before the merger) and the New Brand name (used after the merger, and adopted from another company with a different business). Findings… The Original Brand name proved to be the most salient in the market. It was top-of-mind (first mention on an unaided basis) more often than the New Brand name and all competitor brands. More important, the Original Brand name was best known among the heavy users of the product. There was a lot of confusion in the market over the switching of names, so the study was designed to capture awareness of the linkages between brand identities. The figure below shows the level of unaided awareness of both the Original and New names after accounting for the merger. For example, 35% of the heavy users could identify both names unaided and knew the were the same company. A similar share could only identify the Original name unaided, even when asked if they knew whether a merger had occurred.
9	Each Technology Brand had a Distinct Image which Varied by Market Segments… Perceptual mapping was used to show the relative position of different brand names, allowing management to peruse a coherent story from hundreds of image data points. While the Original Brand name showed merit on attributes related to stability and responsiveness, the New Brand name was better positioned among non-customers. One key competitor was beating the brand on value and service, a reflection of a competitive marketplace with price cutting.
10
11	The Original Brand Name Suffered from Perceptions of Poor Value…
12	The New Brand Name Faced Similar Issues of Poor Value Perceptions… Like the Original Brand Name, the New Brand Name was seen as a stable company, an industry leader, and a trusted company. However, these attributes were not as important in driving its preference for the brand, and its image was not supported by a tradition. One possible explanation may have been the fact that it operated in a market niche where all providers were seen as offering similar quality and stability. The New Brand Name had the same weaknesses related to value and responsiveness as the Original Brand Name.
13	Implications
14	The Case of the Original Brand Name versus the New Brand Name… This effort provided an understanding of the merits of the Original Brand name and the New Brand name in supporting communications and sales efforts. The evidence included the following… The Original Brand name had an edge in overall equity, based on level of awareness, depth of awareness, favorable reputation and brand preference The company was more often identified by the Original Brand name than by the New Brand name The Original Brand name’s image shared similar strengths as the New Brand name’s, but was more positive among existing customers in a market where relationships were important The Original Brand was more closely identified with offering the core services of the company (based on prompting on user knowledge in the survey) Users seemed to be able to deal with the dual identity – those with higher awareness and heavy users knew of the relationship between the two Many less savvy users were confused once the Original Brand name was removed from circulation – a substantial share of the market only knew of the Original Brand name, while others did not realize the names were connected The New Brand name had merits of its own, such as being more recognizable to new customers and being associated with certain types of services
15	The Imagery for both Names Needed to be Developed Further… There was ample evidence that the two brands needed to refine their images in the market, particularly to counteract competitors who were strong in certain segments or who were gaining in share. Fortunately, the market believed our client belonged to the future, and would see its reputation rise. An important differentiator for both brands in a cluttered market was their stability – they were industry leaders, had a reputation for reliability and were trusted – so these qualities needed to be exploited as a foundation. A major vulnerability that the brands needed to work on was value. Even if they were not the lowest cost provider, they needed to overcome perceptions of being too high priced and/or not being worth a premium. The company needed to address the reality of how it priced (e.g., promotions, packages, volume discounts?) as well as the value perception. Rockbridge was able to add more insight from other work it conducted for the client, particularly focus groups: Some of the “value” issues were linked to the concept of “competing fairly” and a perception of one of the brands of being a monopoly. Since time is money, value perceptions were potentially tied to another weakness of not being easy to do business with. We recommended addressing the reality (streamlining and testing processes in doing business) and the perception (of being bureaucratic). Stability was linked to low risk, which could be used to justify value.
16	What Happened? Marketing Communications began to stress an image of trust, stability and reliability. The campaign also dealt with value by explaining why a solid company was a better value in the long-run. The company worked hard to address realistic weaknesses in pricing, processes, and products. For example, it improved service and offered more innovative pricing schemes. The Original Brand name was eventually called back from retirement and used to identify key services.