Research Division Population Services International

1120 Nineteenth Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036

Concept Paper

BRAND-MAP (Strategic Brand Research for Management Action Planning)

PSI Research Division

2009

Author:

W. Douglas Evans, Ph.D.

The George Washington University

Contact Information Kim Longfield Research Director Population Services International 1120 19th Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: +1 202 785 0072 Fax: +1 202 785 0120 Email: klongfield@psi.org

W. Douglas Evans, Ph.D. The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services Washington, DC Email: sphwde@gwumc.edu

1

INTRODUCTION

The goal of this concept paper is to provide a roadmap for PSI brand research and evaluation of

specific branded products and their product categories. PSI currently uses branding as a component of its

global social marketing programs to promote healthy behaviors and product purchases. This concept

paper outlines an agenda for using brand measurement and research techniques to improve PSI’s

understanding of target audiences, to aid in applying branding strategically in areas such as HIV

prevention through promoting condom purchase and use, and to evaluate brand-related outcomes.

Brands are central to PSI’s global social marketing strategy. As a critical asset in the

organizational mission, PSI needs data both on brand development (FoQus), and also on how brands are

experienced and perceived by consumers and their effects on promoting health behaviors such as condom

use (TRaC). Brands represent major investments for PSI, but little is known about their value and role in

accomplishing organizational objectives, how they function in behavior change, and when specific brands

may need repositioning or new brands are needed to meet the demands of a changing environment.

The primary branding metric is brand equity, which has been used and validated extensively in

the commercial business and market research literature (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1999). Recently, this metric

has been successfully applied in the public health and social sectors to the branding of health behaviors,

or behavioral branding (Evans et al., 2005; Evans et al., 2008). PSI will develop a brand equity

framework for its global marketing research and evaluation activities. To this end, we will examine a

series of marketing environment scenarios – ranging from PSI market dominance to highly competitive

markets with a mix of commercial, subsidized and freely available products – and examine competitive

dynamics, brand research, and the role of brands in a Total Market Approach (TMA).

Specific objectives of this concept paper are to:

1. Design a conceptual framework and research methodology with standardized metrics of

brand equity, mediators of health behavior change and consumer purchase behavior;

2. Develop a mid-term strategy to extend existing PSI consumer purchase methods and

brand measurement and analysis; and

3. Develop a long-term strategy to implement a brand research agenda.

2

1.1 Background and Problem Statement

PSI has developed research tools and methodologies that provide its marketers with evidence for

use in designing messages, developing campaign strategy, tracking progress, evaluating outcomes, and

allocating resources accordingly. MAP provides insights into a product’s availability and a given target’s

access to that product. TRAC generates dashboard tables that segments risk groups based on behaviors

and statistically relevant determinants of those behaviors, monitors change in key indicators over time,

and measures the impact of exposure to PSI programs and campaigns. FoQus for Marketing Planning

builds on TRAC’s segmentation by providing qualitative audience insights, leading to a rich “archetype”

target definition that combines opportunity, ability, and motivation (OAM) determinants of behavior

under the PERFoRM Framework with other subjective measures such aspirations, life styles, emotions,

etc. This target audience profile connects information about audience segmentation and specific

marketing inputs, particularly as it relates to positioning and marketing concept development.

These tools provide useful insight to marketers, but there remain unmet needs within PSI’s

approach to understanding target audience behavior. Current dashboard analysis segments primarily on

the basis of product or service use (as a measure of behavior), and also risk reducing behaviors, but to-

date has not considered the purchase decisions target audiences must make as a prerequisite for that use.

Therefore, PSI needs to understand target audiences’ purchase decisions, or “choice” to buy a product,

and their associated determinants, as well as the context in which those decisions are made. This

understanding will enable marketers to develop more effective marketing strategies using all 4 Ps (place,

price, product, and promotion). It will also aid the in development of source-of-volume projections and

resource allocation based on purchase patterns (e.g., shifting brand switchers to increasing loyalty).

1.2 Brands and Brand Equity

Brands have been defined as “a set of associations linked to a name, mark, or symbol associated

with a product or service” (Calkins 2005, p. 1). As this definition implies, the significance of brands is in

the associations they represent, and the resulting behavior they can engender.

Brand equity is the overarching construct that characterizes brands and brand identification

among target audiences (Evans and Hastings, 2008). Aaker (1996) defines brand equity as “…a set of

3

assets (and liabilities) linked to a brand’s name and symbol that adds to (or subtracts from) the value

provided by a product or service to a firm and/or that firm’s customers. The major asset categories are: 1)

Brand name awareness; 2) brand loyalty; 3) perceived quality; 4) brand associations.” Brand equity can

be measured through specific variables on each of the asset categories.

Keller (1999) argues that the power of brands to drive consumer behavior lies in the product-

consumer relationship, or the experiences consumers have when they encounter the brand and what they

learn from those experiences. In turn, this has consequences for the brand and its management, as the

brand’s development (e.g., think of the “New Coke” fiasco in the 1980s) will be decided by consumers.

Managers must understand what consumers’ learned attitudes and beliefs are before deciding on new

placement, pricing, product offering, or promotional efforts.

Brand equity is what the brand stands for in the hearts and minds of consumers, and as a metric it

captures their identification with and intentions to purchase, use, and engage with the brand. It is a

primary driver influencing product choice, especially for health commodities with little product attribute

differentiation (e.g., condoms or bed nets). Given that most purchase decisions are made within the

market context of various brand choices (e.g., a luxury brand of condoms, inexpensive, or perhaps free),

purchase analysis requires reliable measures of existing brand equity, both in terms of use and perceived

characteristics. Many PSI brands have existed for years and thus have established brand equity, whether

or not that equity has been actively managed or measured. However, PSI does not currently have a

research methodology to assess brand equity and its relevance and appeal to target audiences.

In addition to its role in the consumer purchase decision, the need to measure brand equity is

magnified by the changing epidemiology of some diseases, in particular for HIV and the role condoms

play in prevention efforts. This is not unlike the situation many commercial brands face in an evolving

marketplace, with new competition and lifestyle preferences driving consumer decision making (think of

the declining market share and threat from Pepsi that led Coca-Cola to introduce the ill-fated New Coke).

When most PSI condom brands were launched, they were positioned to appeal to youth given that

group’s perceived high risk profile. However, the original audience members have now aged and recent

evidence suggests that older cohorts are now most at risk given concurrent partner behaviors. In

response, marketers may be tempted to re-position existing brands to this older audience (in many cases

the same individuals in their original target segment). However, this cannot be done with precision

without a clear understanding of existing brand equity and audience segmentation data.

Similarly, marketers may wish to alter a brand’s equity based on a new benefit (e.g., shifting a

condom brand’s primary benefit from HIV prevention to contraception), or based on an increased price

for cost recovery. However, these shifts may compromise a brand’s existing equity. Brand equity is

based in part on a price point, and the metric ‘price premium’ (or ‘willingness to pay’). The marketer

needs to understand a brand’s equity among purchasers to effectively manage and promote the brand.

1. Brand Research Agenda

1.1 Objective 1: Design Conceptual Framework and Research Methodology

The first objective in developing a PSI brand research agenda is to define what we mean by brand

equity, how it applies to PSI marketing activities, and the framework for how we will measure it. Evans et

al., 2008 define brand equity as a “mediator” of the relationship between consumer marketing exposure

and behavior. Exhibit 1 captures this conceptual model of brand equity:

Exhibit 1. Brand equity conceptual model

Product/categorypurchase/use

Brand Equity

BrandExposure

Reactions/receptivity

Mediators(attitudes/beliefs,efficacy, norms)

Social, cultural & physical environment moderate each pathway

Brand equity occurs when individuals who are exposed to brands form associations with them. In

turn, by forming the right kinds of associations, individuals will view the target behavior as more

4

5

beneficial (or less costly) and will be lead toward behaving in the right way – that is, to use the product or

category in ways that promote health and prevent disease – as a matter of self-interest. There is a causal

hypothesis implicit in this view: Exposure to a brand promotes (hopefully positive) associations, which in

turn lead to some level of equity in the brand, and in turn lead to changes in behavioral determinants

(mediators) and finally to behavior. For example, target audience who view PSI’s Trust brand advertising,

which promotes the condom as part of a young, hip lifestyle, leads to positive associations, which in turn

leads to product purchase and repeat use (Evans and Haider, 2008).

In operational terms, public health brand equity functions as a mediating factor in the relationship

between brand exposure and health behavior. In other words, the hypothesized behavioral mechanism

through which public health brands are associated with prevention and health promoting behavior is

brand equity.

Brand equity is most often conceptualized as an individual level phenomenon – individuals build

equity in brands such as Trust by being exposed to brand promotion advertising, using the product (or

engaging in the behavior), interacting with the brand through specific placements, and so on. Most brand

research has focused on this individual form of brand equity and its effects on consumer and other

behavioral outcomes. However, brand equity also has important social and organizational functions, such

as building brand equity in an organization through its associations with multiple products or behaviors

and larger social movements (eg, Virgin Group and its family of brands, or MoveOn.org and its

movement to change society through multiple volunteer activities and causes). Exhibit 2 summarizes a

potential evaluation framework that PSI can use to capture the mediating role of brand equity (through

specific brand associations) that lead to behavioral, consumer purchase, and organizational outcomes.

Adapted from: Schulz and Schulz 2005

Brand Recognition Associations

Individual behavior Social environment Financial benefit

• Product purchase (health behavior adoption)

• Brand relationship

• Brand stakeholders (shareholders, social network)

• Organizational reputation

• Profit

• Organizational value

Exhibit 2. Brand Evaluation Framework

Evaluation of public health branding campaigns can be conducted in order to: 1) assess that brand

messages are understood and relevant to target audiences (pre-testing), 2) determine whether the target

audience was adequately exposed to brand messages (monitoring), and 3) measure the effects of exposure

to branded health messages on related attitudes, beliefs and behavior (outcome evaluation). Exhibit 3

summarizes the evidence sought at each of the three stages of branding evaluation.

Exhibit 3. Evidence Requirements by Stage of Branding Research & Evaluation Pre-testing:

(1) The brand and brand-related messages use channels that effectively reach the attention of the target audience

(2) The brand-related messages capture the attention of the target audience (3) The target audience comprehends the messages associated with the brand and finds

them personally relevant. (4) The target audience can identify the brand associated with brand-related messages (5) The target reacts favorably to potential messages associated with the brand (6) Exposure to the brand can prompt the target audience to engage in health promoting

behaviors (7) The images and associations held by the target audience do not prompt unintended

negative reactions or behaviors. Monitoring:

(1) Evidence of substantial exposure of the target audience to the campaign brand (2) Evidence that the target audience reacted positively to the campaign brand

TRaC (evaluation dashboard): (1) Evidence that exposure to the campaign brand influenced targeted beliefs, attitudes,

6

7

and intentions (a) Evidence that the effects of campaign brand exposure were more strongly

associated with changes in targeted beliefs than changes in nontargeted beliefs (b) Evidence that changes in targeted beliefs were associated with behavior (e.g.,

health promoting or protecting behaviors) (c) Evidence that the brand equity intervenes between campaign exposure and

behavior (i.e., that it mediates the behavioral outcomes of campaign exposure) (2) Evidence that brand equity was associated with behavior (3) Evidence that change in behavior were not attributable to some other factor (e.g., other

interventions, changes in the price of products, secular trends, or selection bias) Note: Adapted from Evans, Blitstein, and Hersey (2008)

PSI brand research will involve specific, standardized metrics and methodologies to collect and

analyze metrics at each stage. Brand equity is a measurable, higher-order construct or, in operational

terms, a latent variable that is in turn composed of multiple component constructs. FoQus for TRaC

Improvement captures this category of construct. PSI will develop a FoQus for TRaC Improvement

component for brand equity. In public health research, these constructs have been operationalized to

reflect the asset categories of public health brands (Evans et al., 2005). For example, “brand loyalty” can

be translated as maintenance of a health behavior (e.g., avoiding smoking, consistently using a condom,

consistently purchasing a particular brand of condom) once the behavior has been initially adopted in

response to a branded health message (e.g., from anti-tobacco campaigns such as Legacy’s truth or a

condom brand promotion campaign such as PSI’s Trust). This can represent loyalty to a specific condom

brand like Trust or to the “category” – the “branded behavior” of consistently using condoms when

having sex. Other asset categories (or groups of measured associations) involve the functional and social

characteristics of the brand.

In behavioral branding, individuals form complex associations with a behavior or group of

behaviors like condom use. Just as with product branding, individuals realize value (eg, feeling personally

safer, feeling hip because using condoms is ‘in’) from the brand relationship. As a result, they make a

commitment to living a certain lifestyle (i.e., never smoking or always using condoms when having sex).

Thus, the application of brand equity measures to health behavior-based lifestyles is in many ways similar

to product and service brand equity. Aaker (1996) developed a multi-dimension scale to measure brand

equity along 10 dimensions, the Brand Equity Ten. To examine the level of brand equity in the truth

tobacco countermarketing campaign, Evans, Wasserman, Bertolotti, and Martino (2002) developed a

8

variant of Aaker’s model. This model has been adapted to other subject matter, such as nutrition and

physical activity (Evans et al., 2007). We propose to adapt the model as a template for PSI brand equity

measurement. Exhibit 4 summarizes these dimensions and their relevance to PSI condom brands, which

can serve as a model for relevance to other brands.

Exhibit 4. Brand Equity Dimensions and PSI Brands Brand Equity Dimensions

Relevance to PSI condom behavioral and consumer product brands

Price Premium Category: Condom use has a social or personal benefit cost (e.g., loss of status, stigma, perceived loss of pleasure), so premium is individual's investment of time and effort associated with lifestyle choice. Product: Perceived premium qualities (e.g., reliability, social status, hipness) of brand relative to cost and other brands

Satisfaction/loyalty Category and product: Direct measure of how willing customers are to stick to a brand, how much they trust and believe in it. Standard measures include whether the customer would recommend the product to a friend. This is highly relevant to social diffusion of lifestyle choice among peers, both for behavioral and consumer product promotion.

Perceived Quality Category: Condom use promotion has two kinds of competitors (and measures): 1) media influences and 2) peer and other social influences. Product: Quality is highly associated with other brand identity measures, including specific functional benefit variables (what does this product do for me). Perceived quality measures typically ask the respondent to compare the product to competitors.

Leadership/popularity Category: It is difficult to define a relative leadership position for a behavior like condom use but brand promotion ads can be rated by respondents (ads promoting [condom use behavior] are ‘for people like me’ or ‘becoming more popular among people my age’. Product: How does the product rate compared to others (Is it the number one product?), how "in" it is, and how innovative it is perceived to be.

Perceived (monetary) value

Category: Since behavior isn't purchased with money, perceived value is not applicable. Product: How much would you pay for the product? How much would you pay for a competitor (i.e., direct measures of willingness to pay for two or more products, such as brands of condoms).

Brand personality Category: These are the personal associations people make with the brand, and how customers differentiate it from other brands. Promotion seeks to create a social image of an appealing lifestyle by engaging in the target behavior(s). Product: Product advertising attempts to create an idealized social image that includes use of the product. By using the product or service, I gain promoted emotional (rather than functional) benefit.1 That's the essence of a "brand war" between - consumer maximizes social benefit through promoted product rather than competitor(s).

Organizational associations

Category and product: Measures of the customer's perception of the relationship between the producer with the product. People like to buy products from trusted organizations. Product characteristics are surrogates for the organization. For behaviors, measures are surrogates for source credibility of recommended action (e.g., who would teenager most trust as source of contraception advice?).

1 For purposes of measuring brand equity, emotional benefits can be distinguished into individual emotional benefits (e.g., how I feel about myself through brand association) and social benefits (e.g., feeling that I gain social status through brand association). We measure both types of emotional benefits in brand equity.

9

Brand Equity Dimensions

Relevance to PSI condom behavioral and consumer product brands

Brand awareness Category and product: Standard measure of the presence of the product in the mind of the customer. As contrasted with personality, which is about the attributes the brand confers on them through use, awareness is about perception of the branded product characteristics. When they think of the product, they think of what? For example, how aware is audience of specifically about awareness of key brand promotion messages.

Market share Category and product: Can be measured by dividing target audience by self-reported behavior or product purchase.

Market price Category: Market price is not applicable because behavior isn't purchased with money. Product: What is the product’s price point given competing products? Measures of perceived hierarchy of competitors (e.g., value v. premium brand characteristics).

1.2 Objective 2: Develop Mid-term Strategy

Objective 2 is to develop an immediate strategy to apply brand equity metrics, research methods,

and analytics to new and existing PSI brands. As described under Objective 1, brand research methods

apply to the full spectrum of social marketing research and evaluation – from formative to outcome. We

propose to develop a brand research agenda by initially applying brand equity measurement to formative

research on one new PSI brand through the FoQus for Marketing Planning and TRAC’s segmentation

processes, and process/outcome evaluation of one existing PSI brand, such as Trust in PSI-Kenya or

Favorite in PSI-Romania.

To broaden established OAM Dashboard analysis to consider market-based purchase decisions,

the existing PERForM Dashboard can be adapted to provide monitoring, segmentation and evaluation

tables based on the consumer purchase process. By definition, this analysis focuses primarily on that

segment of the population that is, to some degree, “behaving” – that is they have exhibited the desired

purchase behavior at some point in the past.

1.3 Objective 3: Develop Long-term Strategy

Objective 3 is to develop and implement a long-term strategy for applying brand equity metrics,

methods, and analytics across the lifecycle of PSI brands. We will develop a process for integrating brand

equity methods into the planning process for all new PSI brands. Evaluation planning will include a

process for developing brand-specific outcome metrics based on the standardized brand equity scales. The

PERForM Dashboard and other analyses will incorporate new brand equity analytic methodologies.

10

As this long-term strategy involves developing a full-scale brand research agenda, detailed plans

will be described in a follow up document. As a first step in developing the long-term strategy, PSI will

design a pilot brand equity scale and related measures, and pilot the new scale with one existing PSI

brand during 2009. Results will be used to develop the long-term strategy.

3. Consumer Purchase Segmentation

3.1 The Consumer Purchase Cycle

Branded product and category purchase and use can be divided into five stages – the consumer

purchase cycle. This categorization scheme forms a basis for proposed analyses, and has been used for

research implemented previously by PSI-Romania. The purchase cycle suggests a linear progression in

depth of brand affinity and purchase. Marketers need to understand the barriers to this progression,

particularly since there will be a common objective to have as many in the defined target audience reach

the “loyal” stage of the cycle. Brand equity and related behavioral determinants can be used to construct

these categories and measure the distribution of a target audience by category.

Stages in the consumer purchase cycle may be summarized as follows2:

1. Awareness – there are three levels of awareness to be considered: top-of-mind (first brand

mentioned), unaided (all brands mentioned), and prompted (all brands aware when prompted);

2. Trial – this is defined as those in a population that have “ever purchased” a product at any point

in memory (e.g., defined as past year);

3. Penetration – this is defined as those in a population that have purchased and used a brand or

product in the recent past (e.g., defined as past 30 days);

4. Repeat – those that have purchased and used a brand at least twice in the recent past (e.g., defined

as past 30 days);

5. Loyal – those that purchase a particular brand “most of the time” or “all of the time.”

Two basic types of tables can be developed using the consumer purchase cycle stages: 1)

segmentation based on brand equity and related behavioral determinants (which are used to construct the

2 Note that some potential cases, such as past users, are not directly covered by this cycle. We will measure and categorize these cases as well. See behavior measures in Exhibit 5.

11

purchase cycle stages); and 2) monitoring of stages, and movement between stages, over time. The

following discussion and tables illustrate purchase cycle analyses based on brand equity and behavioral

determinants segmentation, and how it can be used for monitoring purposes.

3.2 Segmentation and Monitoring Analyses

As discussed earlier, the market environment is a critical segmentation factor. PSI brands’ equity,

and other brands’ equity, is a function of the market environment. Brand management is in part governed

by the level and type of competition (public sector v. commercial) in a market. Brand managers in a

highly competitive market with a mix of socially marketed, public (free) and commercial condom brands

(e.g., Favorite in PSI-Romania) face very different marketing challenges from those in markets

dominated by PSI (e.g., Number One in PSI-Laos). As shown in Exhibit 5, one type of segmentation

analysis would be to examine brand equity (among PSI and other in-market brands) and other OAM

determinants between total market categories.

Exhibit 5. Sample Segmentation Table – OAM Determinants by Total Market Categories1 Categories (% agreement by item/scale) Brand equity and OAM

determinants Socially marketed (PSI)

Public (free) Commercial

Brand awareness Awareness of each brand in category

Aided brand promotion awareness Aided awareness of specific brand advertisements in target market

Unaided (confirmed) brand promotion awareness

Unaided (confirmed) awareness of brand advertisements in target market

Reactions to brand promotion Receptivity to promotional messages Brand equity for each brand in category

Price premium Satisfaction/loyalty Perceived quality Leadership/popularity Perceived value Brand personality Organizational associations Brand awareness Market Share Market price

Market barriers/supports Brand costs more than I would expect

Would be willing to pay more for

12

Categories (% agreement by item/scale) Brand equity and OAM determinants Socially marketed

(PSI) Public (free) Commercial

brand Perceived value for price of brand

Behavioral intentions Brand purchase intent Category use intent (eg, of condoms in general)

Self-reported likelihood of purchase within 30 days

Self-reported likelihood of category use within 30 days

Likelihood of promoting brand use to others

Likelihood of promoting category use to others

Social cognitive mediators Self efficacy to use category Outcome efficacy that category will be effective

Descriptive norms for category use (perceived frequency of use by peers)

Subjective norms for category use (perceived acceptability of use by peers)

Behavior Use of category in last 30 days Brands purchased last 30 days Brands used in last 30 days Brand purchase prior to last 30 days (never, more than 1 year ago, 6 months to 1 year, 3 to 6 months, 1 to 3 months)

Social environment Perceived popularity of category (use by peers)

Perceived popularity of brands (use by peers)

Perceived availability of category Perceived availability of brands Number of opportunities to use category in past year

Number of times category used in past year

1 Note: This table or similar format could be used to present between-group statistical comparisons (e.g., crosstabs) across columns or multivariable analyses.

Another segmentation analysis would be to compare PSI and other brands head-to-head. This

analysis would be based on brand equity and OAM determinant measures such as those outlined in

Exhibit 5. Analysis would compare PSI and other brands in-market to identify statistically significant

differences by outcome (comparisons done analytically based on self-reported responses regarding each

13

individual brand, not direct comparisons between brands by respondents). For example, as illustrated in

Exhibit 6, differences can be compared between purchase of brands in-market by determinants.

Exhibit 6. Sample Segmentation Table – PSI Brand Equity and Determinants v. Competitors Statistically significant determinants (from Exhibit 5)1

Socially marketed (PSI) 2

Public (free) Commercial

Leadership/popularity Brand personality Likelihood of promoting brand use to others

Self-reported likelihood of purchase within 30 days

Descriptive norms for category Self efficacy to use category Outcome efficacy that category will be effective

Perceived popularity of category 1 Note: Determinants are illustrative. Analysis assumes an environment of true competition, such as PSI-Romania. Demographics such as ability to pay (see Exhibit 7) may be used as co-variates. 2 Note: Cells would be a statistic capturing relationship between determinant and brand purchase/use, such as regression coefficient (R2).

PSI markets subsidized products such as condoms aimed at a particular socio-economic segment

of the total market – those who have enough income to buy condoms, but not enough to buy

commercially marketed condoms at retail prices. In a total market approach (TMA), PSI seeks to avoid

“crowding out” (i.e., taking market share away from) commercial brands. Thus it fills a critical niche, but

one that must be actively managed. In market environments with multiple competitors, such as PSI-

Romania, this is a complex endeavor that requires enhanced brand equity and related data. Exhibit 7

illustrates a potential segmentation analysis comparing PSI v. other brand purchase/use by income level.

It seeks to answer the question whether PSI is completing effectively within – and not beyond - its

mandated market space.

Exhibit 7. Sample Segmentation Table Comparing Brand Purchase by SES Target Audience1

Ability to pay for category Brand purchase behavior

Too poor to buy condoms

Enough income to buy subsidized

Enough income to buy commercial

PSI brand purchase Commercial brand X purchase Free brand Y use 1 Note: This table allows marketer to examine possible encroachment on commercial market and movement over time between free, subsidized, and commercial markets by SES target audience.

14

The purchase segmentation may be analyzed based on OAM determinants specific to purchasers’

shopping habits (where they shop, planned vs. stimulus purchase, who buys) and brand equity asset

categories (see Exhibit 4 above) for specific brand purchase behavior.

Purchase cycle stages can also be used to design monitoring analyses. Exhibit 8 illustrates how a

PSI brand such as Trust or Favorite could be monitored over time.

Exhibit 8. Sample PSI Brand Monitoring by Purchase Cycle Stage PSI brand monitoring by year (% respondents in category) Purchase cycle stage 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

1. Awareness 2. Trial 3. Penetration 4. Repeat 5. Loyal

Another application of purchase cycle stages would be to compare PSI and other brands at a point

in time in a total market approach within a country setting. Exhibit 9 provides an example for PSI-

Romania, a highly competitive and dynamic marketplace.

Exhibit 9. Sample Brand Comparison of all Brands within 2009 Romania Total Market1

2009 Romania brand comparison (% respondents in category) Purchase Cycle Stage

Favorite Public (free) Commercial brand 1

Commercial brand 2

1. Awareness 2. Trial 3. Penetration 4. Repeat 5. Loyal 1 Assumes point-in-time data comparing brands by consumer purchase category

3.3 Market environment

In the above sample measures and tables, we assume market dynamics in which market share is

divided to some extent between PSI and other brands – a market in which there is a level of true

competition. But it is important to recognize multiple market environment scenarios in a total market

(public and private brands included). In a total market approach, the need for and uses of brand

management, brand measurement and research efforts will differ depending on market environment.

Generally speaking, there are 3 types of scenarios (with variations within and between them):

• Scenario 1: Total or near total PSI market share (e.g., Zambia)

15

• Scenario 2: PSI near total public market share, with commercial market competition (e.g.,

Kenya)

• Scenario 3: PSI one among many competitors in market (e.g., Romania, China)

The marketers’ need for brand equity data differs to some extent depending on which of these

scenarios, or their variants, he or she faces. For example, in scenario 1, the PSI marketer needs regular

brand equity data not to compete head-to-head, but to keep the brand fresh, relevant, and appealing to the

market, and to expand the total number of category consumers. The goals are 1) maintenance, and 2)

expanding the total market size over time. The value of understanding brand equity in this scenario is to

maintain brand position and to identify conditions in the market environment (e.g., new products, lifestyle

or epidemiological changes) that may affect brand choice. If market conditions change, brand research

can identify how this impacts consumers and brand choice, and can help marketers develop a new or

revised strategic brand marketing plan in response. In that case, monitoring analyses such as those

illustrated in Exhibits 8 and 9 would be especially valuable.

In scenario 2, the range of competition may be limited, but the issue arises whether PSI brands

are hitting their intended target within the total market. In this case, active brand management to compete

head-to-head on brand equity associations (e.g., creating and maintaining a more appealing brand

personality or building popularity or loyalty) are essential. Segmentation analysis such as that illustrated

in Exhibit 6 would be informative, as well as continuous monitoring.

In scenario 3, PSI may be trying to gain market share but still needs to avoid encroaching on

commercial brands. In this case, active brand management is even more challenging, so more frequent

head-to-head brand equity comparisons may be needed. Also, to avoid encroachment on an audience

intended for public or commercial brands, analyses such as Exhibit 7 may be important.

4. Measurement and Analysis Objectives

We will develop and validate a set of standardized metrics for use across PSI brand research.

They will reflect the items and scales described in Exhibit 5, and will be based on previously validated

measures (Evans, Blitstein, and Hersey, 2008). These metrics will need to be customized to the content of

specific brands, but the standardized metrics will serve as a reliable template for this process in each case.

16

Based on the enhanced brand equity and OAM determinants measures and illustrative output

tables described earlier, PSI will have the opportunity to conduct more extensive analyses of product

purchase and category use behaviors and their determinants. Exhibits 5-9 illustrate the types of output that

can be expected for segmentation and monitoring purposes.

4.1 Detailed Analysis Questions and Tables

Additionally, there are a number of specific topics and analytical objectives that will be achieved

through the proposed brand research program. We will be able to answer the following types of analysis

questions. For each question, we can envision a potential analysis table.

• What is target audience awareness of PSI and other free and commercial brands?

Exhibit 10. Sample Brand Awareness of Romanian Condom Brands 2009 Romania brand comparison (% agreement with left hand

column items by brand) Measures of brand awareness and reactions

Favorite Public (free) Commercial brand 1

Commercial brand 2

Brand awareness Awareness of each brand in category

Aided brand promotion awareness

Aided awareness of specific brand advertisements in target market

Unaided (confirmed) brand promotion awareness

Unaided (confirmed) awareness of brand advertisements in target market

• What are audience reactions to PSI and other brands?

Exhibit 11. Sample Brand Reactions to Romanian Condom Brands 2009 Romania brand comparison (% agreement with left hand

column items by brand) Measures of brand awareness and reactions

Favorite Public (free) Commercial brand 1

Commercial brand 2

Reactions to brand promotion (repeat items below for multiple messages)

Credibility of promotion Likeability of promotion Promotion gave good reasons to purchase brand

Promotion made me want to tell my friends to purchase brand

Receptivity to promotional messages (repeat items below

17

2009 Romania brand comparison (% agreement with left hand column items by brand)

Measures of brand awareness and reactions

Favorite Public (free) Commercial brand 1

Commercial brand 2

for multiple messages) Agreement with main theme or point of message

Agreement with main attitude or belief promoted by message

• What is target audience brand equity in PSI and other brands (head-to-head comparisons on

brand associations)?

Exhibit 12. Sample Brand Equity Scale Scores for Kenya Condom Brands Categories (% agreement by item & overall scale) Brand equity scale

Trust Public (free) Commercial Brand equity scale score (and for individual constructs below)

Price premium Satisfaction/loyalty Perceived quality Leadership/popularity Perceived value Brand personality Organizational associations Brand awareness Market Share Market price

• What differences are there in product purchase and category use between key audience

segments, including product loyalty and SES segments?

Exhibit 13. Kenya Condom Brand and Category Use by SES Ability to pay for category Brand purchase behavior

Too poor to buy condoms

Enough income to buy subsidized

Enough income to buy commercial

Category used in last 30 days? Number times category used?

Brands purchased last 30 days? Number times each brand purchased?

Brands used last 30 days? Number times each brand used?

4.2 Guidance to Marketers

Results of these analyses will enable PSI managers and marketers to address larger strategic

questions such as, ‘What are the implications of PSI brand equity outcomes for revising audience

18

segmentation and brand evolution?’ The situations in which market research will be conducted, and

marketers will utilize results, will vary and this needs to be considered in deciding on how to respond. For

example, the market environment and dynamics discussed earlier will need to be considered. However,

there are some simple rules of thumb that can be used to make decisions based on results of the kinds of

analyses described earlier.

1. Maximize brand awareness: For PSI brand and any category branding that we do, the manager should always seek very high brand awareness of over 90 percent among target audience, and continuing goal should be to maintain awareness over time.

2. Cost effective ad budgets: For aided brand awareness, manager should compile data on cost to achieve varying thresholds of awareness (50, 60, 70, 80%+) and then conclude what is a cost-effective campaign in terms of reach and frequency. Results should be used for maintaining brand awareness and future promotional ad spend.

3. Brand equity goals: Managers should have specific brand positioning goals in terms of brand equity measures (e.g., loyalty, personality). Managers should always aim to achieve or exceed positioning goals based on brand equity scale scores.

4. PSI subsidized brand preference: Managers should always aim to maximize the gap between brand equity scale scores for PSI subsidized brands and free products.

5. Brand repositioning cues: If brand awareness is high and brand equity goals achieved, but purchase is low (lack of correlation), then consider repositioning the brand. Conduct pre-testing of repositioned brand.

6. Category branding cues: If brand awareness is high and brand equity goals achieved, but product use is low (not purchase, but use), then brand advertising funds may be productively invested in category branding (e.g., condom benefits, not product) to promote use.

7. Crowding out: If commercial market share is decreasing, and PSI brand equity scale scores exceed that of the commercial brands, then crowding out is occurring and manager should develop an action plan to mitigate the effect. It should be recognized that such an action plan will be complex and require continued development and monitoring though brand research over time.

19

5. Next Steps

Based on this concept paper, there are 4 immediate follow up steps to advance the PSI brand

research agenda:

1. Clarify and align concepts of brand equity and segmentation/dashboard analysis

(comments above).

2. Fully develop the conceptual framework for health behavior change and consumer

purchase measurement (Objective 1) by integrating with PERFoRM framework

3. Develop the research methodology and test the integrated framework (from step 2) based

on standardized metrics of brand equity, mediators of health behavior change and

consumer purchase behavior (Objectives 1-2).

i. Modify FoQus for TRaC Improvement to develop brand equity and determinant

constructs.

4. Select one new PSI brand for FoQus testing using the new standardized metrics, and one

existing brand for a TRaC study using the new metrics (Objective 2).

5. Based on results of this work, develop a standardized methodology for PSI brand

research (Objective 3)

Following completion of these steps, we will develop a long-term plan to systematize the brand

equity research methodology for all future PSI research and metrics activities. We will develop a work

plan and schedule for the activities 1-5 outlined above.

20

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. Building strong brands. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Inc. 1996. Calkins, T. The Challenge of Branding. In: A.M. Tybout and T. Calkins Eds., Kellogg on Branding. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Evans, W.D, and Hastings, G. (Eds.). Public Health Branding: Applying Marketing for Social Change.

Oxford University Press. London, United Kingdom. 2008. Evans, W.D., Hersey J., and Blitstein J. Evaluation of Public Health Brands: Design, Measurement, and

Analysis. In Public Health Branding: Applying Marketing for Social Change, W.D. Evans and G. Hastings (Eds.), Oxford University Press. London, United Kingdom. 2008.

Evans, W.D., and Haider M. Public Health Brands in the Developing World. In Public Health Branding:

Applying Marketing for Social Change, W.D. Evans and G. Hastings (Eds.), Oxford University Press. London, United Kingdom. 2008.

Evans, W.D., Necheles, J., Longjohn, M., and Christoffel, K. The 5-4-3-2-1 Go! Intervention: Social

Marketing for Nutrition.” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 2007; 39(2)(S1): S55-S59. Evans D, Price S, Blahut S. Evaluating the truth® Brand. Journal of Health Communication. 2005; 10(2):181-192. Keller, K.L. The Brand Report Card. Harvard Business Review on Marketing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Business School Press. 1999.