Essays on Measuring and Interpreting Brand Performance Assignment

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Measuring and Interpreting Brand Performance" is a wonderful example of a Marketing Assignment. The main objective of this report is to offer substantive evaluation and interpretation of the brand performance with reference to three stages of examination. The first stage will focus on the assessment of brand performance. This is through description of the differences as well as patterns visible between the competing brands with particular interest in the Weet-Bix. In addition, the first section will concentrate on explaining the structure of the competition within the cereal market. The brand with the largest market share has substantial percentage of penetration in relation to handling the needs and preferences of the consumers in diverse markets and industries of operation.

Duplication of purchase law states that the brands share customers with other brands in line with their relative shares showing that partitioning is generally rare and often small. The second section of the report concentrates on the essence of awareness and salience. Brand salience refers to the degree to which a brand is thought about as well as come to notice when a customer is in a buying situation.

On the other hand, consumer attitude relates to the beliefs, feelings, and behavioral intentions of the consumers towards a product or brand in the course of making procurement decisions in diverse markets and industries of engagement. Moreover, the second section concentrates on the discussion of the benefits or advantages of measuring brand salience as well as the importance of building brand salience. The final aspect of the second section demonstrates the implications of the salience results for Weet-Bix with reference to marketing strategies.

The final section of the report will concentrate on demographics and segmentation. The customer profile of Weet-Bix is similar to those of its major competitors as evident in the close demographics evaluation with reference to singe, couple, and divorced or separated demographics. Brand Performance Question 1 From the provided data in relation to table 1 for the brand performance measures, the brand with the largest market share has a substantial percentage of penetration in relation to handling the needs and preferences of the consumers in diverse markets and industries of operation.

For instance, the Corn Flakes brand has about 34 percent of the market share in comparison to the Weet-Bix brand, which has 25 percent of the market share. This diversity in the market share between the two brands is also evident in the penetration percentage with the corn flakes brand having a much higher penetration percentage of 72 in comparison to the case of the Weet-Bix brand at about 52 percent of the penetration rate. Nevertheless, the two well-performing competitive brands have an equal ratio in relation to the average purchase frequency. In addition, Weet-Bix brand has a higher category-buying rate because of its lower market share and penetration percentages.

It is essential to note the category-buying rate of competitive products diminishes as the market share of the brand decreases. This is the opposite of the share of category requirements with reference to the competitive brands in the diverse market. It is essential for the organizations to adopt and implement diverse marketing strategies with the aim of increasing their market shares as well as penetration percentages with references to the needs and demands of the consumers.

References

List of References

Jenni, R., Byron, S., & Andrew, E., 2007, “Evidence concerning the importance of perceived brand differentiation.” Australasian Marketing Journal 15 (2), pp 42-54.

Aaker D. A., 2001, “Strategic Market Management (Sixth ed.). John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Barwise, P. & Meehan, S., 2004, “Simply Better: Winning and keeping customers by delivering what matters most.” Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Belch, G. E,. 2001, “Advertising and Promotion: an integrated marketing communications perspective.” Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston.

Collins, M., 2002. Analyzing Brand Image Data. Marketing Research 14 (2), 33-36.

Hoek, J., Dunnett, J., Wright, M., Gendall, P., 2000. Descriptive and Evaluative Attributes: What Relevance to Marketers?. Journal of Product & Brand Management 9(6), 415-435.

Keller, K.L., 2003. Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity (2nd ed.).Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Keller, K.L., Sternthal, B., Tybout, A., 2002. Three Questions You Need to Ask About Your Brand. Harvard Business Review 80 (9), 80-86.

Kennedy, R., Ehrenberg, A., 2001. Competing Retailers Generally Have the Same Sorts of Shoppers. Journal of Marketing Communications 7 (Special Retail Edition), 1-8.

Gaillard, E., Romaniuk, J., Sharp, A., 2005. Exploring Consumer Perceptions of Visual Distinctiveness. In: ANZMAC Conference proceedings. The University of Western Australia, Australia.

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