Worldview Overview By Chuck Edwards Worldview Overview By Chuck Edwards.
CHUCK AFRICA Final Project - Consumer Behavior - Branding
-
Upload
chuck-africa -
Category
Documents
-
view
42 -
download
0
Transcript of CHUCK AFRICA Final Project - Consumer Behavior - Branding
PRESENTED BY CHUCK AFRICA
LEATHER WORK FORCE*
BRANDING RESEARCH
09 DECEMBER
2013
Consumer Research and Survey on Brand Licensing for Leather Bags
Business Background LWF Company and ObjecRves Target Market The Business of Licensing
Research Design and Methodology
Key Findings
Conclusions / RecommendaRon
Next Steps
Appendices
1
2 3 4 5 6
�
�
�
OUTLINE
THE COMPANY
• Upstate NY luggage and leather bag company • Modest success with their own LWF brand • 2014: Launching a new collecRon of
professional leather bags • Wants to license in a new brand for young
male and female professionals
LWF’s TARGET MARKET
• Males and Females, 22-‐30 • JumpstarRng their professional careers • College graduates or graduate students • Career-‐oriented, price sensiRve • Sub-‐segment: InternaRonal students
Working Women
InternaRonal
BACKGROUND: COMPANY
Working Men
THE BUSINESS OF LICENSING BACKGROUND: LICENSING
Brand or Trademark Licensing
Ge$ng a permit for a company (licensee) to use the brand or trademark of another company (licensor), in exchange for a fee (royalty fee)
Examples of Licensing:
RL Big Pony Perfume (by L’Oreal)
Polo Men’s Underwear (by HanesBrands)
Ralph Lauren Sunglasses (by Luxo_ca Group)
Polo / Ralph Lauren Owned by Ralph Lauren Corp.
Tiffany & Co. Brooks Brothers Tory Burch
Tiffany & Co. Sunglasses
Brooks Brothers Eyewear
Tory Burch Sunglasses
Luxo_ca Group (Eyewear Manufacturer)
OBJECTIVES • To idenRfy strengths, associa4ons and fit of various
brands to be licensed for luggage/bags
• To explore various segments and percep4ons/posi4ons of brands within the exisRng office bag market
BACKGROUND: BRANDS FOR
LWF
LWF is the licensor, looking for a brand for their new collecRon of professional leather bags • Chosen based on: availability/openness to license, availability in mass retailers (these brands have no bags
currently in mass retailers), and royalty payments required
UNISEX MALES FEMALES
RESEARCH OUTCOME
Determine the right brand that’s fit for LWF leather bags and can compete against exisRng brands.
RESEARCH DESIGN &
METHODOLOGY
A. SAMPLE
B. QUESTION AREAS
C. ANALYTICAL PLAN
• Online survey, Minimum of 50 respondents • Male/Female, 23 to 30, in major ciRes across the U.S. • Currently in an undergrad or graduate program, or who have
enrolled or completed in the last three years. • Had/currently has an internship or any work experience • Composed of both U.S. and internaRonal students
• A?tudes on Work/Career and Style/Fashion • Purchase & Usage behavior of Brands and Bags
• Brand Evalua4on on AFributes
• Brand-‐Fit for Brands on Professional Bags and Purchase Intent
• Gender differences in a_tudes and bag usage • SegmentaRon based on the a_tudes on career and style • IdenRfy relevance of current brands • Correspondence Analysis and Perceptual maps for exisRng brands
and consideraRon set (licensed brands) • Test fit of licensed brand to the professional bag category based
on purchase intent.
*List of quesCons in the Appendix
KEY FINDINGS: TOPLINE
1%
SEX AND AGE
RACIAL BACKGROUND
EDUCATION AND WORK EXPERIENCE
Survey Average
97% have completed an undergraduate degree
66% are graduate students
58% are currently employed or studying & working at the same Rme
90% Have more than 1 year of work experience. 65% have 3 to 10 years.
Survey Average
No. of Years Work Experience
52% are current internaRonal students, with 68% of them living in the US for 1-‐2 years.
Survey respondents (n=71) come from the same target market as LWF.
46%
54%
1%
36%
24%
27%
11% 10%
16%
39%
26%
10%
KEY FINDINGS:
VALS
Respondents scored highly on the following aoributes: • Career-‐orientaRon
(4.14)
• PracRcality (3.94)
• OrganizaRon(3.89)
KEY FINDINGS:
VALS
Aoributes which are similar/correlated can be classified using Factor Analysis using k-‐means 3-‐cluster. The analysis, aqer varimax rotaRon, showed three main aFributes groups.
CharacterisRcs D1 D2 D3 I like to Stand Out 0.702 -‐0.136 0.274 I see myself Stylish/Fashionable 0.694 0.050 0.247 Dress to Impress 0.673 0.100 0.406 Style more important than comfort 0.671 0.017 -‐0.019
Know the latest Trends or Fads 0.621 -‐0.181 0.155 Bags are criRcal to overall style 0.580 0.171 -‐0.030 Well Organized and Follow a RouRne -‐0.020 0.807 -‐0.046
Consider Myself a Formal Person 0.062 0.655 0.269 Not Carefree -‐0.172 0.260 -‐0.046 Consider Myself a PracRcal Person -‐0.178 0.238 0.446 Career-‐Oriented 0.219 0.066 0.821 Do everything for Career Goals 0.222 0.007 0.670 Financial Success 0.309 -‐0.135 0.452 Values in bold correspond for each variable to the factor for which the squared cosine is the largest
Factor paoern aqer Varimax rotaRon
C: CAREER
A. STYLISH
B: STRUCTURED
No. of Respondents: 33 (47%)
No. of Respondents: 17 (24%)
No. of Respondents: 19 (27%)
KEY FINDINGS: SegmentaRon
Aqer assigning each respondent in their D1-‐D3 groups, and examining each of the average scores for the clustered aoributes, a consumer segmenta4on emerged from the combinaRon of high-‐low indices among the aoributes.
Segments from Factor Analysis
STYLE STRUCTURE CAREER ResulRng segment profiles
(% to Sample Pop) Ave. Score of Aoributes
Index vs Total
Ave. Score of Aoributes
Index vs Total
Ave. Score of Aoributes
Index vs Total
D1 High 4.16 125 3.40 103 3.99 120 “Stylish Go-‐Geoers” (27.1%, Mostly Female)
D1 Low 2.39 72 3.43 103 3.77 114 “No-‐style Work Geek” (20.0%, Mostly Male)
D2 High 3.20 96 4.24 128 3.84 116 “Formal professionals” (17.1%, Mostly Female)
D2 Low 3.44 104 2.33 70 3.88 117 “Unorganized Careerist” (7.1%, 50:50 M-‐F)
D3 High 3.48 105 3.52 106 4.69 142 “Pure Workaholics” (12.9%, 50:50 M-‐F)
D3 Low 2.95 89 3.15 95 3.09 93 “Carefree Living” (15.7%, Mostly Female)
Total Ave 3.32 3.42 3.86
KEY FINDINGS: WORK BAGS
• Men: 75% of men bring one bag to work • Women: 50% bring one bag, 50% bring two • Purchase: Men tend to purchase in department stores than in any other,
while women tend to purchase in bouRque stores and online.
3. Briefcase 18% 4. Tote Bag 16% 5. Laptop Bag 15%
1. Backpack 42% 2. Messenger 30% 1. Purse 79% 2. Tote Bag 64%
3. Lunch Bag 15% 4. Backpack 12%
82% of the surveyed men and women bring the following bags to work:
TOP BAGS USED BY MEN TO WORK TOP BAGS USED BY WOMEN TO WORK
Career%Oriented%
Stylish%/%Fashionable%Person%
Do%Everything%to%%Reach%Career%Goals%
Work%to%Live,%%Not%Live%to%Work%
People%to%think%I%am%%financial%success%
Well%Organized%
Carefree%Person%
Formal%Person%
Standout% PracHcal% Last%to%know%latest%%fads%and%trends%
Style%over%Comfort%
Comfort%over%Style%
Dress%to%Impress%
Bags%are%criHcal%to%style%
Bags%are%NOT%criHcal%to%style%
Casual&Backpack&+&Women&
Tote&bag&&+&Women&
Purse&&+&Women&
Regular&laptop&bag&
&&+&Women&
Hybrid&laptop&bag/backpack&&
&+&Women&
Messenger&bag&&+&Women&
Lunch&Bag&+&Women&
Casual&Backpack&+&Men&
Duffel&bag&&+&Men&
Tote&bag&&+&Men&
Purse&&+&Men&
Regular&laptop&bag&&+&Men&
Hybrid&laptop&bag/backpack&&+&
Men&
Messenger&bag&&+&Men&
Stroller&&+&Men&
Briefcase&&+&Men&
!0.8%
!0.6%
!0.4%
!0.2%
0%
0.2%
0.4%
!0.4% !0.3% !0.2% !0.1% 0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6%
F2&(21.42&%)&
F1&(30.33&%)&
Symmetric&plot&
(axes&F1&and&F2:&51.76&%)&
KEY FINDINGS: WORK BAGS MAPPING
Mapping the types of work bags used and the different customer segments can show the type of bags used by each segment.
Career%Oriented%
Stylish%/%Fashionable%Person%
Do%Everything%to%%Reach%Career%Goals%
Work%to%Live,%%Not%Live%to%Work%
People%to%think%I%am%%financial%success%
Well%Organized%
Carefree%Person%
Formal%Person%
Standout% PracHcal% Last%to%know%latest%%fads%and%trends%
Style%over%Comfort%
Comfort%over%Style%
Dress%to%Impress%
Bags%are%criHcal%to%style%
Bags%are%NOT%criHcal%to%style%
Casual&Backpack&+&Women&
Tote&bag&&+&Women&
Purse&&+&Women&
Regular&laptop&bag&
&&+&Women&
Hybrid&laptop&bag/backpack&&
&+&Women&
Messenger&bag&&+&Women&
Lunch&Bag&+&Women&
Casual&Backpack&+&Men&
Duffel&bag&&+&Men&
Tote&bag&&+&Men&
Purse&&+&Men&
Regular&laptop&bag&&+&Men&
Hybrid&laptop&bag/backpack&&+&
Men&
Messenger&bag&&+&Men&
Stroller&&+&Men&
Briefcase&&+&Men&
!0.8%
!0.6%
!0.4%
!0.2%
0%
0.2%
0.4%
!0.4% !0.3% !0.2% !0.1% 0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6%
F2&(21.42&%)&
F1&(30.33&%)&
Symmetric&plot&
(axes&F1&and&F2:&51.76&%)&
KEY FINDINGS: WORK BAGS MAPPING
Mapping the types of work bags used and the different customer segments can show the type of bags used by each segment.
Formal Professionals
Unorganized Careerists
Carefree Living
Stylish Go-‐GeFer
Pure Workaholics No-‐style Work
Geek
Career%Oriented%
Stylish%/%Fashionable%Person%
Do%Everything%to%%Reach%Career%Goals%
Work%to%Live,%%Not%Live%to%Work%
People%to%think%I%am%%financial%success%
Well%Organized%
Carefree%Person%
Formal%Person%
Standout% PracHcal% Last%to%know%latest%%fads%and%trends%
Style%over%Comfort%
Comfort%over%Style%
Dress%to%Impress%
Bags%are%criHcal%to%style%
Bags%are%NOT%criHcal%to%style%
Casual&Backpack&+&Women&
Tote&bag&&+&Women&
Purse&&+&Women&
Regular&laptop&bag&
&&+&Women&
Hybrid&laptop&bag/backpack&&
&+&Women&
Messenger&bag&&+&Women&
Lunch&Bag&+&Women&
Casual&Backpack&+&Men&
Duffel&bag&&+&Men&
Tote&bag&&+&Men&
Purse&&+&Men&
Regular&laptop&bag&&+&Men&
Hybrid&laptop&bag/backpack&&+&
Men&
Messenger&bag&&+&Men&
Stroller&&+&Men&
Briefcase&&+&Men&
!0.8%
!0.6%
!0.4%
!0.2%
0%
0.2%
0.4%
!0.4% !0.3% !0.2% !0.1% 0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6%
F2&(21.42&%)&
F1&(30.33&%)&
Symmetric&plot&
(axes&F1&and&F2:&51.76&%)&
KEY FINDINGS: WORK BAGS MAPPING
Mapping the types of work bags used and the different customer segments can show the type of bags used by each segment.
Formal Professionals
Unorganized Careerists
Carefree Living
Stylish Go-‐GeFer
Pure Workaholics No-‐style Work
Geek
Stroller-‐Men
Laptop Bag-‐Men
Hybrid Laptop Backpack-‐Men
Casual Backpack Women
Duffel Bag-‐Men
Purse-‐Women Laptop Bag-‐Women
Casual Backpack Men
Messenger Bag -‐Men / Women
Lunch Bag -‐Women
Tote Bag -‐Men/Women
Career%Oriented%
Stylish%/%Fashionable%Person%
Do%Everything%to%%Reach%Career%Goals%
Work%to%Live,%%Not%Live%to%Work%
People%to%think%I%am%%financial%success%
Well%Organized%
Carefree%Person%
Formal%Person%
Standout% PracHcal% Last%to%know%latest%%fads%and%trends%
Style%over%Comfort%
Comfort%over%Style%
Dress%to%Impress%
Bags%are%criHcal%to%style%
Bags%are%NOT%criHcal%to%style%
Casual&Backpack&+&Women&
Tote&bag&&+&Women&
Purse&&+&Women&
Regular&laptop&bag&
&&+&Women&
Hybrid&laptop&bag/backpack&&
&+&Women&
Messenger&bag&&+&Women&
Lunch&Bag&+&Women&
Casual&Backpack&+&Men&
Duffel&bag&&+&Men&
Tote&bag&&+&Men&
Purse&&+&Men&
Regular&laptop&bag&&+&Men&
Hybrid&laptop&bag/backpack&&+&
Men&
Messenger&bag&&+&Men&
Stroller&&+&Men&
Briefcase&&+&Men&
!0.8%
!0.6%
!0.4%
!0.2%
0%
0.2%
0.4%
!0.4% !0.3% !0.2% !0.1% 0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6%
F2&(21.42&%)&
F1&(30.33&%)&
Symmetric&plot&
(axes&F1&and&F2:&51.76&%)&
KEY FINDINGS: WORK BAGS MAPPING
For LWF, the target should be the Stylish Go-‐Geoers and the Formal Professionals – largest in market size, which fits the type of new bags from LWF.
Formal Professionals
Unorganized Careerists
Carefree Living
Stylish Go-‐GeFer
Pure Workaholics No-‐style Work
Geek
Stroller-‐Men
Laptop Bag-‐Men
Hybrid Laptop Backpack-‐Men
Casual Backpack Women
Duffel Bag-‐Men
Briefcase -‐Men
Purse-‐Women
Lunch Bag -‐Women
Tote Bag -‐Men/Women
Laptop Bag-‐Women
Casual Backpack Men
Messenger Bag -‐Men / Women
VALUED SEGMENTS OF LWF
When asked what the respondents look for in a bag they bring to work:
KEY FINDINGS: WORK BAGS Aoributes
Pareto: Top 80%
Using a Pareto chart, we choose the top aoributes which can fulfill 80% of the requirements of bag users.
Looking into the top aoributes, we find that respondents go for func4on (high quality, fit and protecRon) and emo4on (Style + Professionalism) in choosing a bag for work. KEY
FINDINGS: WORK BAGS Aoributes
Pareto: Top 80%
FUNCTIONAL
EMOTIONAL
We also find similari4es and differences among male and female respondents on aoributes that are important for a work bag.
KEY FINDINGS: WORK BAGS Aoributes
Pareto: Top 80%
FUNCTIONAL
EMOTIONAL
FEMALES MOST IMPORTANT ATTRIBUTES
MaFers a lot (%) Index
1. "Be large enough to carry ALL my things in one place." 72.97 112
2. "Protect documents from becoming wet or damaged." 67.57 102
3. "Be made of high quality materials." 65.79 94 4. "Look stylish." 60.53 103 5. "Be lightweight." 56.76 93 9. "Match my oucit or shoes." 33.33 108
LEAST IMPORTANT ATTRIBUTES Does Not MaFer (%) Index
14. "Be different from the bag I used in college." 75.68 111
15. "Match my purse." 77.78 100
MALES MOST IMPORTANT ATTRIBUTES
MaFers a lot (%) Index
1. "Fit a laptop." 84.38 129 2. "Be made of high quality materials." 75.00 107 3. "Be tough and sturdy." 71.88 114 4. "Be lightweight." 65.63 108 5. "Protect documents from becoming wet or damaged." 64.52 97
10. "Alternate among the other bags I also bring to work." 25.81 114
LEAST IMPORTANT ATTRIBUTES Does Not MaFer (%) Index
14. "Be noRceable" 53.13 95 15. “Be different from the bag I used in college." 59.38 87
Note that only females have emoRonal aoributes among their top 5.
KEY FINDINGS: BRANDS
Brands surveyed have high overall awareness among both males and females.
100%$97%$97%$97%$
94%$91%$
88%$85%$85%$
61%$
100%$82%$
79%$70%$
67%$64%$
61%$36%$
33%$
0%$ 80%$
North$Face$Banana$Republic$
Zara$Louis$VuiBon$
Oakley$Kenneth$Cole$
Jansport$Victorinox$/$Swiss$Gear$
J.$Crew$TUMI$
RaySBan$Florsheim$Bentley$
Moleskine$Parker$Pen$
Porsche$Design$Tissot$
Warby$Parker$OBerBox$Case$
100%$97%$97%$97%$
94%$91%$
88%$85%$85%$
61%$
100%$82%$
79%$70%$
67%$64%$
61%$36%$
33%$
0%# 80%#
North#Face#Banana#Republic#
Zara#Louis#Vui:on#
Oakley#Kenneth#Cole#
Jansport#Victorinox#/#Swiss#Gear#
J.#Crew#TUMI#
RayKBan#Florsheim#Bentley#
Moleskine#Parker#Pen#
Porsche#Design#Tissot#
Warby#Parker#O:erBox#Case#
100%$100%$97%$
92%$92%$92%$
87%$76%$
71%$68%$
66%$
92%$66%$
61%$58%$58%$
39%$37%$
32%$32%$
0%# 70%#
Banana#Republic#Louis#Vui4on#
J.#Crew#Kenneth#Cole#
Zara#Michael#Kors#Tory#Burch#Longchamp#
Victorinox#/#Swiss#Gear#TUMI#
Jansport#
RayIBan#Gilt#Groupe#Moleskine#
Tissot#Ivanka#Trump#
dVb#by#Victoria#Beckham#Warby#Parker#O4erBox#Case#
Parker#Pen#
100%$100%$97%$
92%$92%$92%$
87%$76%$
71%$68%$
66%$
92%$66%$
61%$58%$58%$
39%$37%$
32%$32%$
0%# 70%#
Banana#Republic#Louis#Vui4on#
J.#Crew#Kenneth#Cole#
Zara#Michael#Kors#Tory#Burch#Longchamp#
Victorinox#/#Swiss#Gear#TUMI#
Jansport#
RayIBan#Gilt#Groupe#Moleskine#
Tissot#Ivanka#Trump#
dVb#by#Victoria#Beckham#Warby#Parker#O4erBox#Case#
Parker#Pen#
100%$100%$97%$
92%$92%$92%$
87%$76%$
71%$68%$
66%$
92%$66%$
61%$58%$58%$
39%$37%$
32%$32%$
0%# 70%#
Banana#Republic#Louis#Vui4on#
J.#Crew#Kenneth#Cole#
Zara#Michael#Kors#Tory#Burch#Longchamp#
Victorinox#/#Swiss#Gear#TUMI#
Jansport#
RayIBan#Gilt#Groupe#Moleskine#
Tissot#Ivanka#Trump#
dVb#by#Victoria#Beckham#Warby#Parker#O4erBox#Case#
Parker#Pen#Male Average = 78%
Female Average = 71%
% Aware among Men % Aware among Women
Brands Considered by LWF Brands Considered by LWF
However, the brands considered by LWF have drasRcally lower awareness. Only 3 of the considered brands for males and 1 for females have higher awareness than the average.
Licensed brands: 55% Licensed brands: 65%
Cheap&
Tough&Made&from&&High&Quality&&Materials&
Outgoing&
Sexy&
Stylish&
Casual&
Old&Fashioned&
Feminine&
Expensive&
On&the&Move&
Basic&
Professional& Able&to&protect&&my&things&
Cool&
Up&to&Date& Banana$$Republic$
Tumi$
Kenneth$Cole$
Victorinox$/$$Swiss$Gear$
Warby$$Parker$Zara$
Jansport$
Bentley$OCerBox$
Florsheim$
RayEBan$
North$Face$
Oakley$
J$Crew$
Parker$Pen$
Porsche$Design$Tissot$
Louis$VuiCon$ Moleskine$
!1.1$
!1$
!0.9$
!0.8$
!0.7$
!0.6$
!0.5$
!0.4$
!0.3$
!0.2$
!0.1$
0$
0.1$
0.2$
0.3$
0.4$
0.5$
!1.2$ !1.1$ !1$ !0.9$ !0.8$ !0.7$ !0.6$ !0.5$ !0.4$ !0.3$ !0.2$ !0.1$ 0$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.3$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 0.6$ 0.7$ 0.8$ 0.9$ 1$ 1.1$ 1.2$
F2$(2
2.21$%)$
F1$(41.42$%)$
Symmetric$plot$(axes$F1$and$F2:$63.63$%)$
These brands are then scored on 15 aoributes, as perceived by the respondent. The results will be plooed on a correspondence map. This will show how the brands in consideraRon by LWF will perform or posi4oned against the exis4ng brands in the market, based on the percep4on of the consumer. KEY
FINDINGS: BRAND
MAPPING
FUNCTION STYLE
INEXPENSIVE
HIGH END
MEN
On#the#Move#
Basic#
Professional#Able#to#protect##my#things#
Cool#Up#to#Date#Stylish#
Casual#
Old##Fashioned#
Feminine#
Cheap#
Tough#Made#of##
High#Quality##Materials#
Outgoing#Sexy#
Banana$$Republic$
TUMI$
Kenneth$Cole$
Victorinox$/$$Swiss$Gear$
Warby$$Parker$
Zara$ Jansport$
Ivanka$Trump$
OGerBox$Case$
Tory$Burch$
RayHBan$
Michael$Kors$
Moleskine$
J.$Crew$
Parker$Pen$ Tissot$dVb$by$$Victoria$Beckham$
Louis$VuiGon$
Gilt$Groupe$
Longchamp$
!0.5%
!0.3%
!0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.5%
0.7%
!1.2% !1% !0.8% !0.6% !0.4% !0.2% 0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8%
F2$(21.17$%)$
F1$(47.79$%)$
Symmetric$plot$(axes$F1$and$F2:$68.96$%)$
KEY FINDINGS: BRAND
MAPPING
FUNCTION STYLE
HIGH END
INEXPENSIVE
WOMEN
These brands are then scored on 15 aoributes, as perceived by the respondent. The results will be plooed on a correspondence map. This will show how the brands in consideraRon by LWF will perform or posi4oned against the exis4ng brands in the market, based on the percep4on of the consumer.
The following shows the compeRRve posiRoning summary of exisRng bags and the considered brands, coming the correspondence analysis. KEY
FINDINGS: BRAND
MAPPING
COMPETITIVE POSITIONING Exis4ng Brands LWF Considered Brands
COOL PROFESSIONALS Cool, Professional Kenneth Cole
HIGH END STYLE Expensive, High quality, Stylish Louis Vuioon
PROFESSIONAL TOOLS Made from high quality, professional
TUMI
HIGH UTILITY Able to Protect, Tough North Face, Victorinox
SEXY FASHION Feminine, Sexy
Tory Burch, Michael Kors
STYLISH BASICS Up to date, Stylish
Zara, J Crew, Banana Rep, Longchamp
BASIC FUNCTIONALITY Cheap, Casual, Basic Jansport none
From here, LWF will know which brands they will compete against depending on the brand they plan to use and license for their new line of bags.
88"
92"
95"
96"
96"
98"
104"
104"
111"
115"
O+erBox"
Parker"
Oakley"
Warby"Parker"
Florsheim"
Tissot"
Porsche"Design"
Bentley"
RayDBan"
Moleskine"
88"
92"
95"
96"
96"
98"
104"
104"
111"
115"
O"erBox(
Parker(
Oakley(
Warby(Parker(
Florsheim(
Tissot(
Porsche(Design(
Bentley(
Ray<Ban(
Moleskine(
The respondents were also shown the licensed brands and asked how likely they are to purchase the new line of bags. The top 4 brands, averaging above the average, are shown. KEY
FINDINGS: LWF
BRAND-‐FIT
86#
88#
88#
92#
94#
105#
105#
120#
121#
Ivanka#Trump#
O5erBox#
Parker#
Tissot#
Warby#Parker#
dVb#by#Victoria#Beckham#
Gilt#Groupe#
RayHBan#
Moleskine#
86#
88#
88#
92#
94#
105#
105#
120#
121#
Ivanka&Trump&
O-erBox&
Parker&
Tissot&
Warby&Parker&
dVb&by&Victoria&Beckham&
Gilt&Groupe&
Ray@Ban&
Moleskine&
Average Price Expected to be Paid: $122.50 • Porsche and Bentley: 20-‐25% higher ($148-‐$150) • Ray-‐Ban: At par ($122.50) • Moleskine: 13% lower ($106.25)
Average Price Expected to be Paid: $115.14 • dVB by Victoria Beckham: 20% higher ($137.50) • Ray-‐Ban and GILT: At par ($115) • Moleskine: 9% lower ($105)
% Likelihood of Purchase: Ranked based on Mean Score
Index Index MEN WOMEN
Moleskine and Ray-‐Ban : Consistent topped for both genders
Each gender then had specific brands that followed:
Bentley and Porsche for men (from the “High End Style” brand group)
and Gilt Groupe and dVB for women (from the “Sexy Fashion”
brand group).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
For Stylish Go-‐GeFers and Formal Professionals • Largest market; LWF’s bag fits these segments
• Score high on “Career” aoributes, with one being more “Stylish” while the other more “Organized”
Top Aoributes of work bags they are looking for: • FuncRonal: High quality, ProtecRon, and Size
• EmoRonal: STYLE: Especially for women
Brand recommendaRons: Ray-‐Ban and/or Moleskine for both genders • Brand percepRon as “Cool Professionals” and “Professional Tools”
• Have the highest awareness among the considered brands, can compete against exisRng brands
• Already have high interest and openness to purchase among surveyed consumers.
• If discussions with those companies don’t work out, they can be subsRtuted by Bentley / Porsche Design for men and Gilt Group or DVB for women.
NEXT STEPS ON RESEARCH AND FOR LWF
1. Conduct larger scale quanRtaRve research in key ciRes 2. Conduct in-‐depth qualitaRve survey on chosen brands
• Can get or mine for deeper insights from consumers • Check to see acceptance that an exisRng non-‐bag brand will
have a line of professional bags • Refine posiRoning statements based on discussion points
from qualitaRve survey
3. Possible conduct a controlled test market in a small locaRon • As the licensed brand doesn’t have an exisRng bag collecRon
at mass retailers, this test can check whether the bag can stand on its own at the shelves.
• This can also be a test whether there is market acceptance by mass retailers (ie. purchasing department at Walmart or Macy’s)
4. For LWF, share research with the target licensed brands.
PRESENTED BY CHARLES AFRICA
THANK YOU! LEATHER WORK FORCE*
BRANDING RESEARCH
09 DECEMBER
2013
Consumer Research and Survey on Brand Licensing for Leather Bags