The paper 'Measuring and Interpreting Brand Performance - Kit Kat Brand " is a perfect example of a marketing case study. The aim of this report is to demonstrate the performance of the Kit Kat brand in the market. By using brand performance metrics, the brand’ s performance can be measured and interpreted in relation to its position among its competitors; Nestle Gold, Twix, Snickers and Mars Bar. According to the results, it is clear that the brand is experiencing stiff competition from the aforementioned rivals. Moreover, Kit Kat is operating in a repertoire market whereby consumers have preference share, buy the brand because they want it, and have a wide variety of alternatives from which to choose.
Moreover, in this market, buyers are loyal to the brand as compared to those in the subscription market. It is also imperative that Kit Kat considers the customers’ behavior in order to devise appropriate marketing strategies. This implies that both heavy and light buyers should be involved in the process of marketing. It is also critical that the brand’ s marketing director notes that light buyers are more loyal to the brand than the heavy buyers. In terms of salience and awareness, the marketing director ought to know the difference between the brand salience and to top of mind awareness.
Moreover, it is important to build brand salience through the employment of certain visual cues and elements that can give a brand a competitive advantage over its competitors. In demographics and segmentation, the customer profile is compared among the competing brands. Therefore, Kit Kat has to enhance its marketing strategy in order to beat its competitors in the market. Brand performance In the brand performance metrics shown in the table, it is explicit that Kit Kat is closely competing with Mars Bar in all the categories.
Mars Bar’ s market share is higher than Kit Kat’ s by 10%. In addition, Mars Bars are leading with a penetration of 72 % in relation to Kit Kat’ s penetration rate of 50%. Another performance difference between Kit Kat and Mars Bar is in terms of category buying rate (CBR). While Kit Kat’ s CBR is 6.0, Mars Bar’ s is at 5.6. The share of category requirements in Mars Bar is higher than Kit Kat’ s by 3%.
In terms of the sole loyalty of the two brands, Mars Bar’ s is higher than Kit Kat’ s by 9%. Nevertheless, the two brands have an equal average purchase frequency of 2.2. On the other hand, Kit Kat brand has other competitors that include Snickers, Twix and Nestle Gold. Snickers brand has its market share slightly lower than Kit Kat’ s by 3%, and penetration of 48% as compared to the Kit Kat’ s 50%. In terms of the average purchases frequency, Snickers’ is lower than Kit Kat’ s by 0.2.
Surprisingly, Snickers has category buying rate of 7.2 as compared to Kit Kat’ s 6.0. Kit Kat has a higher share of category requirements of 37% compared to Snickers’ 28%. Besides, Kit Kat has a higher sole 8% than Snickers’ 4%. In other categories, Kit Kat has higher figures except for the category buying rate that is higher than Kit Kat’ s in most of the brands.
Birn, R 2004, Effective Use of Market Research: How to Drive and Focus Better Business Decisions, Kogan Page, London. Pp. 95-110.
Ehrenberg, ASC, Uncles, MD & Goodhardt GJ 2004, ‘Understanding brand performance measures: Using Dirichlet benchmarks’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 57, no. 12, pp.1307-1325. http://www.mendeley.com/research/understanding-brand-performance-measures-using-dirichlet-benchmarks-1/
Hax, AC 2009, The Delta Model: Reinventing Your Business Strategy, Springer, New York. Pp. 33-35.
Hutt, MD & Speh, TW 2010, Business marketing management: B2B, South-Western CengageLearning, Mason, OH. Pp. 211-214.
Liu, Y 2007, The long-term impact of loyalty programs on consumer purchase behavior and
Loyalty’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 71, no.4, pp. 19-35. http://www.mendeley.com/research/the-longterm-impact-of-loyalty-programs-on- consumer-purchase-behavior-and-loyalty/
Mundt, K 2005, Brand loyalty in subscription markets: is it possible to out-perform competitors, University of South Australia, Belmont. Pp. 14-16.
Sharp, B &Wright, M & Goodhardt, G 2002, ‘Purchase Loyalty is polarised into either
Repertoire or Subscription Patterns’, Australasian Marketing Journal, vol, 10, no.3, pp. 1-11. http://byronsharp.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/repsubscription.pdf
Sharp, B 2010, How Brands Grow, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne. Pp. 23-28.
Shajanhan, S 2004, Relationship marketing: text & cases, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi. Pp. 44-45.
Stern, P & Hammond, K 2004, ‘The relationship between consumer loyalty and purchase
incidence’, Marketing Letters, vol, 15, no.1, pp. 5-19. http://www.jstor.org/pss/40216511
Wansink, B & Park, SB 2000, ‘Methods and measures that profile heavy users’, Journal of Advertising Research, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 61-72.