fishbein powerpoint presentation - beer
Post on 12-Apr-2017
283 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
MICAH FLORESCAITLIN BRADLEYRACHEL FURLONG
ASHTON WACKERMANCODY WINTER
Meet The Brands
Purpose & Methodology
Primary Target Market
Demographics and Psychographics
Findings
Analysis of Data
Recommendations
Overview
High School Graduate
Lower to Middle Class
Male
Confidence in who you are
High School GraduateLower to Middle ClassMale
Refreshing and fun
High School Graduate
Middle Class
MaleFun, Bonding, Celebration
College
Middle to Upper Class
Male
Fun, Environmental, Creative
College
Upper Middle Class
Male
I Deserve the best, I earned it
Cost
Flavor
Convenience
Calories
Alcohol Content
Attributes
To assess the current attitudes of consumers towards specific brands of beer in the marketplace.
To choose one brand to change and improve the attitude of, based on the data collected from the distributed survey
Purpose
Distributed Survey via email, Facebook and twitter 57 Respondents
Scenario: Assume you are planning a backyard BBQ with your friends and family. You have been put in charge of purchasing all of the beer for this event.
Likert Scale [Very unlikely, Unlikely, Somewhat Unlikely, undecided, Somewhat Likely, Likely, Very Likely]
Open Ended Questions, Demographics & Psychographics
Methodology
Demographics – Gender, Age, Annual Household Income
Psychographics – Favorite Activities of Consumers, Events Consumers Participate in, What they value in the beer they choose to consume
Survey Results
39%
61%
Male Female
Gender
27%
41%
11%
9%9% 4%
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74
AGE
Household Income14%
9%
11%
29%
18%
20%
$0 to $15,000 $15,001 to $35,000 $35,001 to $50,000$50,001 to $75,000 $75,001 to $100,000 $100,000+
Activities of Consumers 39%
20%11%
30%
Outdoor Indoor Playing Sports Working
Enjoy Going to Sporting Events with Friends
30%
30%
11%
9%
4%4% 13%
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat DisagreeDisagree Strongly Disagree
Quality over Price in Choice of Beer
36%
34%
16%
4% 7% 4%
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree NeutralSomewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Primary Target Market
18-34
Female
Income less than $75,000
Primary Target Market
23%
46%
8%
8% 8%8%
Choose Quality over Price(Females, Ages 18-34)
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Disagree
Primary Target Market
46%
31%
15% 8%Enjoy Going to Sporting Events with Friends
(Females, Ages 18-34)
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly Disagree
Analysis of Data – Choice of Benchmark and Our Brand
Due to the fact that Miller Light, Coors Light, and Bud Light are in a similar category of “Light Beer” (as opposed to Sam Adams and New Belgium which can be classified as “Craft Beers”) We chose to compare two brands that fell within the same category. We decided to choose our benchmark brand and our brand from data provided by the global measure.
Global Measure – Entire Population
New Belg
ium
Coors
Light
Miller L
ite
Bud Light
Sam Adam
s
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Global Measure – Entire Population30%
20%11%
5%
34%
New Belgium Sam Adams Miller Lite Coors Light Bud Light
Global Measure – Target Market
33%
33%
13% 13%
7%
New Belgium Bud Light Miller Lite Sam Adams Coors Light
Table of Grand MeansAttribute Importanc
eCoors Light
Bud Light Gap Strength Weakness
esEi Bi EiBi Bi EiBi Coors Light–Bud
LightCost -0.2 2.0 -0.4 2.2 -0.4 0.0 StrengthFlavor -0.5 -1.8 0.9 -1.8 0.9 0.0 StrengthLocational Convenience
0.6 2.6 1.6 2.4 1.4 0.1 Strength
Calories -1.7 0.6 -1.0 0.7 -1.2 0.2 StrengthAlcohol Content -0.3 -1.0 0.3 -1.2 0.4 -0.1 Weakness
Total Attitude 1.3 1.1
Table of Grand MeansAttribute Importanc
eMiller Lite New Belgium Samuel Adams
Ei Bi EiBi Bi EiBi Bi EiBiCost -0.2 2.2 -0.4 -0.9 0.2 -1.1 0.2Flavor -0.5 -1.7 0.9 0.1 -0.1 0.6 -0.3Locational Convenience
0.6 2.5 1.5 1.0 0.6 1.9 1.1
Calories -1.7 0.9 -1.5 -1.1 1.9 -1.2 2.0Alcohol Content -0.3 -1.2 0.4 0.8 -0.2 0.7 -0.2
Total Attitude 0.7 2.4 2.9
Attribute Importance
Series1
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
-0.2-0.5
0.6
-1.7
-0.3
Cost Flavor ConvenienceCalories Alcohol Content
Brand Belief Weighted by Importance ~ EiBi
Cost Flavor Convenience Calories Alcohol Content
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
-0.4
0.91.6
-1
0.3
-0.4
0.91.4
-1.2
0.4
Coors Light Bud Light
Total Attitude
Total Attitude0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0.7
2.4
1.11.3
2.9
Miller Light New Belgium Bud Lite Coors Light Samuel Adams
Analysis of Data
Strengths• Cost• Flavor• Convenience• Calories
Weaknesses• Alcohol Content
Due to the fact that our brands are so similar, and that the situation was not very high risk, it can be noted that there are not very many weaknesses because all of the brands are perceived as possessing the same attributes
Due to this, we chose to change a weakness (alcohol content) but also promote the strengths of Coors Light
Importance Vs Coor’s Score-0.3 0.3
Improve Coors Light’s Weakness of the belief of low alcohol content
Creating a new version of Coors Light with a higher alcohol content
Ex. Bud light offers higher alcohol content choices such as “Bud Light Platinum” and “Bud Light Ritas”
Change Attitude of Coors Light Beer by Adding Alcohol Content
By Adding an Attribute
Importance Vs Coor’s Score-0.5 -1.8
Along with alcohol content we have decided to capitalize on the flavor aspect of Coors Light
We had many open ended responses looking for more and different flavors
“Variety for a party”, “Fruity taste”, “Taste. Seasonal beers.”
Ex. Bud Light “Ritas”
Change Attitude of Coors Light Beer by Adding FlavorBy Adding an Attribute
New Positioning for Coors LightNew Position Target Segment Reasons for New Position
FriendshipFlavorFeminine
Demographics:Age: 21-34FemaleIncome: Under $75,000Education: High school GraduatedSocio-Economic Status: Lower to Middle Class
Psychographics:
Activities: BBQ’s, Gathering with friends, College and pool Parties
Interests: Light inexpensive beer, variety of flavor, Watching/Attending Sporting Events
Opinions: Values friendship
1. Target Market expressed interest in participating in activities that involved hanging out with friends (92%)
2. Increase in flavor and variety – flavor was the third highest attribute of importance (-0.5), and Coors Light was ranking the same as the benchmark brand (0.9). We would like to exceed the the benchmark brand when it comes to flavor.
3. From our target segment, we found that Coors Light was not a beer that Females, ages 18-34 chose. They are missing out on a large population and we believe that by promoting a fruity and flavorful beer we will capture this demographic.
Affiliation – a psychological need that is similar to a social need and reflects ones desire for friendship, acceptance and belonging
From our data we found that the target market enjoys going to sporting events with friends
Ad portrays a group of friends hanging out together, laughing and having a good time
Advertisement Strategy - Theory
Trio of Needs
Superego – individuals internal expression of society’s moral and ethical codes of conduct
Our ad portrays people hanging out and enjoying drinks with one another which is an socially acceptable way to pass the time in our society
Advertisement Strategy
Freudian Theory
Classical Conditioning – the process of using an established relationship between one known stimulus and a response to bring about the learning of the same response to a different stimulus
Advertisement Strategy
Classical Conditioning
Unconditioned Stimulus-Raspberries & LimesConditioned Stimulus-Coors Light
Conditioned Stimulus-Coors Light
Unconditioned Response-Fruity, Fresh, Flavorful
Conditioned Response-Fruity, Fresh, Flavorful
top related