Successive Sets Involved in Customer Decision Making - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

successive sets involved in customer decision making n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Successive Sets Involved in Customer Decision Making PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Successive Sets Involved in Customer Decision Making

play fullscreen
1 / 18
Successive Sets Involved in Customer Decision Making
1327 Views
Download Presentation
liam
Download Presentation

Successive Sets Involved in Customer Decision Making

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Successive Sets Involved in Customer Decision Making Total Set Awareness Set Consideration Set Choice Set Decision Philips LG Samsung Sansui Onida Videocon Sony BPL Hitachi Akai National Aiwa LG Samsung Sansui Onida Videocon Sony BPL Akai Aiwa LG Samsung Sansui Onida Videocon Aiwa Sansui Onida Videocon ? FISHBEIN MULTI-ATTRIBUTE MODEL FOR BUYING

  2. Differentiation Strategies • Product • Service • Personnel • Channel • Image

  3. Product form Features Performance Conformance Durability Reliability Reparability Style Design Ordering ease Delivery Installation Customer training Customer consulting Maintenance Product Differentiation

  4. Positioning Act of designing the company’s offering and image to occupy a distinctive place in the mind of the target market.

  5. Points-of-difference (PODs) Attributes or benefits consumers strongly associate with a brand, positively evaluate, and believe they could not find to the same extent with a competitive brand Points-of-parity (POPs) Associations that are not necessarily unique to the brand but may be shared with other brands Defining Associations

  6. Points-of-Parity Points-of-parity (POPs) are associations that are not necessarily unique to the brand but may in fact be shared with other brands. These 2 types of associations 1) Category points-of-parity • Consumers view as essential to be a legitimate and credible offering within a certain product or service category. • They represent necessary conditions but not necessarily sufficient for brand choice. • Competitive points-of-parity Designed to negate competitors’ points-of-difference.

  7. Points-of-Parity Versus Points-of-Difference • To achieve a point-of-parity on a particular attribute or benefit, a sufficient number of consumers must believe that the brand is “good enough” on that dimension • There is a “zone” or “range of tolerance or acceptance” with points-of-parity • The brand does not literally have to be seen as equal to competitors, but consumers must feel that the brand does well enough on that particular attribute or benefit • With points-of-differences, the brand must demonstrate clear superiority • Often the key to positioning is not so much as achieving a point-of-difference as in achieving points-of-parity

  8. Consumer Desirability Criteria for PODs • Relevance • Distinctiveness • Believability

  9. Establishing Category Membership • Often marketers must inform consumers of a brand’s category membership. • With the introduction of new products, especially when the category membership is not apparent. • Brands are sometimes affiliated with categories in which they do not hold membership. • The preferred approach to positioning is to inform consumers of a brand’s membership before stating its point-of-difference. • There are three ways to convey a brand’s category membership: • Announcing category benefits. • Comparing to exemplars • Relying on the product descriptor .

  10. Deliverability Criteria for PODs • Feasibility • Communicability • Sustainability

  11. Low-price vs. High quality Taste vs. Low calories Nutritious vs. Good tasting Efficacious vs. Mild Powerful vs. Safe Strong vs. Refined Ubiquitous vs. Exclusive Varied vs. Simple Examples of Negatively Correlated Attributes and Benefits

  12. Addressing Negatively Correlated PODs and POPs • Present separately • Leverage equity of another entity • Redefine the relationship

  13. Criterias for POD • Decide at which level (s) to anchor the brand’s points-of-differences • At the lowest level are the brand attributes. • At the next level are the brand’s benefits. • At the top level are the brand’s values. • Research has shown that brands can sometimes be successfully differentiated on seemingly irrelevant attributes if consumers infer the proper benefit.

  14. Value Propositions • Perdue Chicken • More tender golden chicken at a moderate premium price • Domino’s • A good hot pizza, delivered to your door within 30 minutes of ordering, at a moderate price

  15. Positioning diamond Against whom? Why me? For Whom? What Am I? • Establish category to associate and compare with • Identify the essential difference

  16. POSITIONING LOW PRICE • IDLI • VEG SANDWICH • SAMOSA LOW NUTRITION HIGH NUTRITION • OATS • B.FAST CEREALS HIGH PRICE

  17. POSITIONING SOFT ON HANDS • ARIEL • SURF • HENKO POOR CLEANSER SUPERIOR CLEANSER • RIN • WHEEL • NIRMA ROUGH ON HANDS

  18. Writing a Positioning Statement Mountain Dew: To young, active soft-drink consumers who have little time for sleep, Mountain Dew is the soft drink that gives you more energy than any other brand because it has the highest level of caffeine.