Essays on Measuring and Interpreting Brand Performance - . Kettle and Smiths Assignment

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Measuring and Interpreting Brand Performance - Kettle and Smith’ s" is an outstanding example of a marketing case study.   The brands in the case demonstrate significant competition, each brand claiming a significant portion of the market. Smith’ s and Kettle are the two most competitive in terms of market share and penetration. As seen in the first table, the variance in market share has a significant influence on other measures like purchase frequency and share of category requirements. Table two reveals that the brands share to great extent share customers among themselves.

This shows high competition among the brands; the brand with low market share still managing to share up to 28% of the major brand’ s customers. While particular patterns are expected based on the Duplication of purchase law, the table reveals significant deviations. These have been discussed in the paper. The paper also compares brand attitude and brand salience, investigating the definition of the concepts and discussing how they influence consumer behaviour. As will be seen in the paper, brand salience continues to draw increasing interest and organizations continue to use effective advertising to build their brand salience.

It is also directly related to customer behaviour and therefore becomes important to measure compared to brand attitude. Organizations can also enhance their brand equity and value to influence customer decision. Smith’ s should consider enhancing its brand image to be able to attract the customers who may not be buying the brand as a result of negative attitudes towards the brand. Smith’ s should work on increasing positive attributes of the brand to attract new customers and at the same time keep the existing customers satisfied.

Given the segmentation revealed in demographics and segmentation tables, Smith’ s should see opportunities to enhance its brand and win new customers that are now loyal to other brands. Q1: Differences or patterns between competing brands There is significant competition among the brands, each brand claiming a significant portion of the market. Kettle and Smith’ s, however, share more than half of the market each one commanding 24% and 34 % respectively. These two brands, therefore, remain the most significant in the market. Smith’ s has managed to command a big percentage of the market due to its bigger market penetration which has enabled it to access more customers and win their commitment.

As Bass (1993) observes, brands involved with fast-moving consumer goods show greater variance in the number of loyal customers than any other measure. This means that brands with a greater share of the market also manage to achieve a significantly higher penetration as compared to those with lower market share. Market share also influences other brand performance measure like purchase frequency and share of category requirements (Ehrenberg, Uncles & Goodhardt, 2004).

This is easily revealed in the table. Smith’ s has maintained a leading edge in its claim to the market and has enhanced its penetration. This means that customers can become loyal and become confident that their demands will be met easily by Smith’ s. This loyalty is demonstrated by the high average purchase frequency of 2.2 as compared to Jumpy’ s’ 1.2. Bhattacharya, Fader, Lodish & Desarbo (1996) define a share of category requirements as a brand’ s share among the households under consideration who purchased the brand within a given time period.

Smith’ s has recorded the greatest value in this category, a clear indication of its unmatched customer loyalty and penetration. With sole loyalty of 22 (in a market whose average is 6.9) Smith’ s has worked hard, not only in growing its market size but also in ensuring that its customers buy more of its products. Jumpy’ s and Red Rock Deli scored 0.0 Sole Loyalty, and have not claimed significant market shares. These brands are performing poorly.

References

List of References

Bhattacharya, CB, Fader, PS, Lodish LM & Desarbo WS, 1996, The Relationship Between the marketing Mix and Share of Category requirements, Marketing Letters, 7(1): 5-18

Bass FM, 1993, The future of research in marketing: Marketing Science, Journal of Marketing Research, 30: 1-6

Ehrenberg, ASC, Uncles, MD & Goodhardt, GJ, 2004, Understanding brand performance measures: using Dirichlet benchmarks, Journal of Business Research, 57: 1307-1325.

Ehrenberg, ASC, 1996, Towards an integrated theory of consumer behaviour, Journal of the Market Research Society, 38 (4): 395-427

Sharp, B, Sharp, A, 1997, Loyalty programs and their impact on repeat-purchase loyalty patterns, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14: 473-486.

Park et al, 2010, Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 (November): 1–17

Romaniuk, J & Sharp, B, 2004, Conceptualizing and measuring brand salience, Marketing theory, 4 (4): 327-342

Solomon, MR, 1992, Consumer Behaviour: Buying, Having, and Being, Needham Heights, MA, Allyn and Bacon

Van der Lans, R, Pieters, R, Wedel, M, 2008, Competitive Brand Salience, Marketing Science, 27 (5): 922-931

Hoeffler, S & Keller KL, 2003, The marketing advantages of strong brands, Brand amanagement, 10 (6): 421-445

Ghodeswar BM, 2008, Building brand identity in competitive markets: a conceptual model, Journal or Product & Brand Management, 17 (1): 4 - 12

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us