The paper "Consumer Behavior and Business Buyer Behavior" is a great example of a Marketing Term Paper. The report focused on the analysis of different competing brands: Smith’ s, Thins, CC’ s, and Doritos. Important areas covered by the report include brand performance, mental availability, and demographic and segmentation. Based on the brand performance, the report analyzed various measures that reflect market share, penetration, average purchase frequency, the share of category requirements, and sole loyalty for each of the brands. Moreover, a detailed analysis of the duplication of purchase law for each brand.
Concerning mental availability, the report defined the concept of attitude and mental availability. To establish the significance of mental availability, the report analyzed the mental market share, mental penetration, and the network size for each brand. The report established the methods of building and improving mental availability, the appropriate marketing strategies of building mental availability, and the categories entry point that Kettle brand needs to include in its advertisement. On demographics and segmentation, the report analyzed gender, and, and total household income of all the brands. Moreover, the report concluded with the analysis of the implication of demographic and segmentation strategy in Kettle. Marketing Analysis for Different Brands SECTION 1: Brand Performance Analysis of the difference and patterns between the competing brands The market is becoming highly competitive that businesses are investing many resources to acquire their desired competitive advantage (Fitzgerald, 2004, 83).
Concerning the market share, Kettle performs the poorest with Smith’ s occupying the biggest share of the market stands at 37% against Kettle’ s 4%. On the other hand, Thins, CC’ s, and Doritos occupy 26%, 21%, and 12% of the market share. Organizational penetration and purchase frequency play an important role in determining the market share of the business.
Moreover, the product’ s performance in the market depends on organizational strategies to manipulate the consumption behaviours of the consumers. Smith’ s penetration stands at 72 while Kettle’ s performs the poorest at 18, which also relates to its market share. Thins’ , CC’ s, and Doritos’ penetration stand at 49, 46, and 34 on average. On the average purchase frequency, Smith’ s and Thins perform equally and the best among the competing brands with each having an average purchase frequency standing at 2.2.
The kettle has the lowest average purchase frequency standing at 1.0. CC’ s and Doritos have an average purchase frequency of 1.5 and 1.9 respectively. However, concerning the category buying rate, Kettle registered the highest value at 8.9 while Smith’ s registered the lowest value, 5.0. Consequently, Thins, CC’ s, and Doritos registered category buying rates of 5.4, 6.6, and 6.9 respectively. On the share of category requirements, the trend remained similar to Smith’ s registering the highest and Kettle the lowest at 43 and 11 respectively. Thins, CC’ s, and Doritos had their share of category requirements standing 41, 30, and 22 respectively reflecting that much effort required to attain the desired competitive advantage.
However, with reference to the sole loyalty, Doritos and Kettle registered a zero performance with Smith’ s registering the highest sole loyalty that stood at 20. Thins and CC’ s had a sole loyalty of 7 and 4 reflecting the biggest gap with the market’ s best performer, Smith’ s. Cereal’ s Market Analysis Kettle’ s major competitors are Smith’ s Thins, CC’ s, and Doritos. To achieve the desired market share, Kettle’ s Marketing Director would have to develop marketing strategies with the ability to positively influencing the consumption patterns of the consumers.
From the cereal market, it is clear that Smith’ s is the dominant brand in the market. Smith enjoys the highest penetration and experienced purchase by the other competitors. The market structure is oligopoly considering the few firms within the market and the ability of Smith’ s to influence the market (Etro, 2009, 105). Moreover, the brands purchase from one another in a bid to create their desired competitive advantage.
East, R., Wright, M., & Vanhuele, M. 2008. Consumer behaviour: Applications in marketing. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Etro, F. 2009. Endogenous market structures and the macroeconomy. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Fitzgerald, R. 2004. Building fire performance analysis. Chichester: Wiley.
Kannan, P. 2004. Commentary on “Understanding Brand Performance Measures: Using Dirichlet Benchmarks”. Journal of Business Research, 57(12), 1326-1328.
Lam, D., & Ozorio, B. 2013. Duplication of Purchase Law in the gaming entertainment industry—A transnational investigation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33(5), 203-207.
Parsons, E., & Maclaran, P. 2009. Contemporary issues in marketing and consumer behaviour. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.
Pooler, J. A. 2002. Demographic targeting: The essential role of population groups in retail marketing. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate.
Romaniuk, J., Troillo, G., Romaniuk, J., & Jenni, N. 2011. How do brands compete for consideration? A duplication analysis approach. European Marketing Academy, Bocconi Unversity.
Sharp, B. 2012. Chapter 2: Consumer Behaviour and Business Buyer Behaviour. In Marketing: Theory, evidence, practice. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press.
Sibireva, E., & Gartner, W. C. 2014. Customer-based brand equity model (CBBE) for measurement of MICE destinations brand performance: Master thesis. Ljubljana: E. Sibireva.