Landgate 2015 Brand Health Tracking Full Report

Landgate

2015 Brand Health Tracking – Full Report

3rd December 2015

Client Contact:

Lauren Knapp – Market Developer Digital and Demand

Prepared by:

Michelle Clark-Crumpton, B.Com Hons. – Group Account

Director

Matthew Scott B.Com (Mgt & Mkt) – Account Manager

Justin Scerri, B.Com Hons. QPMR. – Principal

2

Report Contents

Background and Objectives 3

Research Process 8

Sample Profile 12

Dashboards: Brand Health Scorecard and Summary of Key

Target Group Performance14

Market Factors 25

Target Market 33

Brand Awareness 41

Brand Comprehension 50

Brand Perceptions 56

Advertising Measures 62

The Land and Property Information Market 88

Interaction with Landgate 100

Key Findings 111

Page #

3

Background and Objectives

4

Background

• The Landgate brand came into existence on 1st January 2007

following a transition from the Department of Land Information

(DLI).

• Since 2007, Landgate has tracked its brand and advertising

effectiveness, and increasing its brand awareness has been a

priority.

• In 2009, Painted Dog Research was appointed to continue the

tracking research, which resulted in an overhaul of the

questionnaire.

• In 2015, Painted Dog conducted the tracking again and this report

details the 2015 results.

5

Key Research Outputs

• The key outputs required from this research were...

To understand Landgate’s overall brand health and relative brand equity within the WA market.

To measure any changes in the previously established set of key performance indicators.

6

Specific Research Objectives

• The specific objectives were as follows:

Awareness (unprompted and prompted) of both the Landgate brand and competitor brands

Knowledge of Landgate – including the services it provides

Attitudes towards and perceptions of Landgate

Behavioural intentions towards Landgate

Awareness of the three campaigns that ran in 2014 (unprompted and prompted)

Additional measures for two campaigns – brand linkage, message takeout, likability etc.

Bra

nd O

bjec

tives

Adv

ertis

ing

Obj

ectiv

es

7

2015 Campaign Information

• Three campaigns were evaluated in this year’s research, as shown below (each was de-branded):

• Awareness was measured for each campaign, while more in-depth analysis was conducted on the digital ads and radio ads separately.

• A summary of campaign spend is outlined below, and shown in comparison to previous years.

Smart home buyers check

before they buy (Ad 1)

2015 2014 2012 2010

Property Interest

Report

Property

Interest/Locate/Title

Watch

Mapping / History /

Earth is ArtCertificate of Title

Online $27,501 $85,000 $35,468 -

Print - $28,500 - $41,150

Radio $10,003 $30,000 - $20,682

Total Campaign Spend $37,504 $143,500 $35,468 $61,832

Spend is based on media spend only

Radio Ad (Ad 3)Smart home owners

do their checks (Ad 2)

8

Research Process

9

Methodology & Sample

• The margins of error at the 95% confidence interval for each sample location are as follows:

– WA population: +/- 4.55%

– Perth Metro: +/- 5.24%

– Regional WA: +/- 9.18%

Methodology & Sampling

Margin of Error

• The survey was conducted online from 3rd November – 17th November 2015.

• All respondents were sourced from an online panel provided by GMI (formerly Lightspeed Research), which is the same panel

provider used in 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014 to assure consistency.

• No respondent who may have completed the survey in the previous year was eligible for this year’s survey, as per previous waves.

• The average survey length was 15 minutes.

• A total sample size of n=464 was achieved amongst WA residents aged 18+.

• The sample included n=350 Perth Metro residents and n=114 Regional WA residents.

10

• After the data was collected, the sample was weighted by age, gender and location based on 2011 ABS Census statistics to be reflective of

the WA population.

• Base sizes indicated throughout the report are the unweighted bases.

• Small base sizes are indicated throughout the report with a * symbol. Results based on small base sizes should be interpreted cautiously.

• Significant differences are reported at the 95% confidence interval and calculated on the unweighted base.

– Year on year differences are indicated by triangles:

– Differences between sub-groups (within a segment) are indicated by stars:

• Data shown in charts is percentages unless otherwise noted.

– Some charts do not add to 100% due to rounding.

Analysis

Analysis

11

Sample Quotas

• The quotas were set as follows:

RequiredProportion

Required sample size Quota

Location

Metro 75% 300 Hard

Regional 25% 100 Hard

Gender

Males 50% 180-220 Soft

Females 50% 180-220 Soft

Age

18-29 23% 87-97 Soft

30-39 19% 71-81 Soft

40-49 19% 71-81 Soft

50-59 17% 63-73 Soft

60-69 12% 43-53 Soft

70+ 11% 39-49 Soft

12

Sample Profile

13

General Public Sample

Weighted

• The adherence to quotas ensured the weighted samples were almost identical from 2009 to 2015:

2015 GP

(Weighted)

n=464

%

2014 GP

(Weighted)

n=408

%

2013 GP

(Weighted)

n=413

%

2012 GP

(Weighted)

n=417

%

2010 GP

(Weighted)

n=414

%

2009 GP

(Weighted)

n=439

%

Gender (S2)

Male

Female

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

Age (Q3)

18-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

Over 60

22

17

19

19

23

23

19

19

17

23

23

19

19

17

23

23

19

19

17

23

21

19

20

17

23

21

19

20

17

23

Location (S4)

Perth Metro

Regional

78

22

78

22

78

22

78

22

75

25

75

25

Household Income (Q26)

Less than $50 000

$50,001 to $75,000

$75,001 to $100,000

$100,001 to $125,000

Over $125,000

Refused

28

15

18

12

14

12

30

17

12

10

17

14

36

14

13

9

15

13

33

16

14

7

14

16

34

15

17

9

11

13

37

15

15

10

12

12

14

Dashboards:

Brand Health Scorecard and Summary of Key Target Group Performance

15

How is the Landgate Brand Performing?

• When evaluating the health of Landgate’s brand, we must take a comprehensive view of its performance in the following areas:

Awareness

Unprompted and Prompted

Comprehension

How much does the public know

about what Landgate does?

Perceptions

Does the public have positive or

negative perceptions of

Landgate?

Intentions

Is the public willing to contact or use Landgate

in the future?

Use

How many have used Landgate

products or services?

Market Factors and Campaign Activity(e.g. # of people looking to purchase a property, # of people who recently purchased a property, campaign awareness, etc.)

16

Brand Awareness

6 814

7 511

23

32

41

30

40 39

2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015

Unprompted Prompted

Brand Comprehension

Recent Use (in past 12 months)

47 47

3338

42

80 8173

80 83

2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015

Unprompted Prompted

21 22 21

16

21

25

2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015

% Likely to Purchsase info or other products from Landgate(when next in property market)

Future Intentions

Bra

nd H

ealth

Sco

reca

rd

2009 not

comparable

Results shown are % of whole sample. Base sizes: 2009 (n=485), 2010 (n=414), 2012 (n=417), 2013 (n=413), 2014 (n=408), 2015 (n=464). Q4, Q5, Q14, Q15, Q18a/c, and Q16 data shown.

3 35

36 6

3 42

4 4

32

42

4 4

2523

25

20 2118

2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015

Obtained ANY land or property info from Landgate

Obtained free info from Landgate

Paid for info from Landgate

Obtained ANY land or Property Info

2009 only asked

‘purchased’

Sig. lower than

2012

Sig. higher than

2013

17

Brand Perceptions (top 10)B

rand

Hea

lth S

core

card

Results shown are % of whole sample. Q17 data shown.2012n=417

2010n=414

2013n=413

2014n=408

2015n=464

35 35

3027

25

47

4240

3735

3330 30

28 27

4137 36

3836

4742 40 39 39

Knowledgeable Accesible Practical Trustworthy Reliable

32

2724

16

26

34 3329

26

3230

2825

20 21

34 3330

2824

39 39

32 31 31

Approachable Dependable Unbiased A leader in its field Accurate

% Agree / Strongly Agree

18

Prompted Awareness

2015

Cam

paig

n P

erfo

rman

ce

Awareness and Effective Reach results based on % of whole sample 2015 (n=464). Brand Linkage and Message Comprehension results based on those who saw each ad (n=44, n=35,

respectively). Comparisons to the 2014 Property Interest campaign are shown as well. No radio ad was evaluated in 2014 so no comparisons have been made.

Net

Campaign

Awareness (prompted)

Awareness

of Radio Ad (Ad 3)

15%

8%

Awareness of Either

Property Interest Ads(Ad 1 & Ad 2)

11%

Brand Linkage

26%

5%

Effective Reach (Awareness x Brand

Linkage)

Message

Comprehension (correct)

2%

0.6%

25%

33%

2014 = 10%

2014 = 12% 2014 = 0.6% 2014 = 18%2014 = 5%

19

15

4

9

4

18

6

Summary of Brand Health and Campaign Performance:

General Public

Brand Awareness and Comprehension(Q4, Q5, Q14 and Q15)

Obtained Land or

Property Info

Top 5 Brand Perceptions

Q17 (% agree)

Intentions to Interact with LandgateQ16 (when next in the property market, % likely)

Unprompted awareness

Prompted Awareness

Correct Comprehension

(unprompted)


(prompted)

Base size 2015 (n=464), 2014 (n=408)

Net Campaign Awareness (prompted)

Awareness of Ad 3

15%

7%

Awareness of Ad 1

Awareness of Ad 2

7%

11%

11

39

45

83

Obtained FREE info

Obtained FREE info from

Landgate

PAID for info

PAID for info from Landgate

Obtained ANY info

Obtained ANY info from

Landgate

17%

4%

10%

4%

21%

6%

2014

Knowledgeable

Accessible

Practical

Trustworthy

Reliable

47

42

40

39

39

Visit Landgate’s website

Call Landgate

Email Landgate

Purchase products or info

from Landgate

Tell a friend or family

member about Landgate

44

34

31

25

23

43%

28%

27%

21%

20%

2014

41%

37%

36%

38%

36%

2014

5%

40%

38%

80%

2014

20

35

8

23

13

37

15


Looking to Buy a Property in Next 12 Months

Obtained Land or

Property Info


Q17 (% agree)

Base size 2015 (n=64), 2014 (n=57)

Obtained FREE info


Landgate

PAID for info


Obtained ANY info


Landgate

50%

16%

35%

15%

54%

24%

2014


Awareness of Ad 3

36%

22%

Awareness of Ad 1

Awareness of Ad 2

27%

30%


Q17 (% agree)

Practical

Knowledgeable

Sustainable

Accessible

Trustworthy

61

60

53

52

52

50%

45%

52%

47%

55%

2014



Prompted Awareness


(unprompted)


(prompted)

12

45

50

90

7%

37%

30%

88%

2014



Call Landgate

Email Landgate


from Landgate



57

44

41

42

39

61%

45%

45%

46%

49%

2014

21

31

3

22

3

36

8


Potential Investors

Obtained Land or

Property Info

Base: Looking to buy an investment property in next 3 years 2015 (n=60), 2014 (n=61)

Obtained FREE info


Landgate

PAID for info


Obtained ANY info


Landgate

24%

4%

16%

8%

32%

11%

2014


Awareness of Ad 3

25%

Awareness of Ad 1

Awareness of Ad 2

17%

15%


Q17 (% agree)


Q17 (% agree)

53

52

50

47

47

52%

51%

50%

45%

40%

2014



Call Landgate

Email Landgate


from Landgate



57

40

43

35

43

56%

35%

31%

39%

36%

2014

Knowledgeable

Reliable

Practical

Accessible

Approachable

17%



Prompted Awareness


(unprompted)


(prompted)

13

47

56

90

10%

47%

50%

87%

2014

22


Recent Property Purchasers (within past 12 months)

Obtained Land or

Property Info

Base: Have purchased a property in the past 12 months 2015 (n=36), 2014 (n=44)

Obtained FREE info


Landgate

PAID for info


Obtained ANY info


Landgate

44

17

39

17

48

25

43%

7%

26%

8%

49%

12%


Awareness of Ad 3

39%

15%

Awareness of Ad 1

Awareness of Ad 2

14%

32%


Q17 (% agree)


Q17 (% agree)

63

62

62

57

56

48%

40%

36%

43%

44%

2014

Practical

Knowledgeable

Accessible

Trustworthy

Approachable



Prompted Awareness


(unprompted)


(prompted)

19

48

48

89

2%

35%

31%

87%

2014



Call Landgate

Email Landgate


from Landgate



50

41

35

50

41

48%

32%

29%

34%

29%

20142014

23


Potential First Home Buyers

Obtained Land or

Property Info

Base: Looking to buy their first property in the next 12 months 2015 (n=30), 2014 (n=29*) *Caution small sample size

Obtained FREE info


Landgate

PAID for info


Obtained ANY info


Landgate

19

2

4

2

22

2

12%

-

4%

0%

24%

-


Awareness of Ad 3

17%

9%

Awareness of Ad 1

Awareness of Ad 2

9%

12%



Prompted Awareness


(unprompted)


(prompted)

2

29

44

91



Call Landgate

Email Landgate


from Landgate



51

35

35

31

31

51%

34%

39%

24%

34%

2014


Q17 (% agree)


Q17 (% agree)

40

40

38

38

36

46%

54%

41%

37%

46%

2014

Practical

Knowledgeable

Accessible

Approachable

Trustworthy

-

22%

33%

85%

2014

2014

111

Key Insights

112

Landgate’s Brand Health has seen improvements

this year, with unprompted awareness increasing

to 11%, boosted by high awareness of recent

property purchasers. Prompted awareness that

Landgate provides land and property information

remains stable at 39%. There is room to improve

awareness among 18-29 year olds, which represent

a high proportion of those in the market for property.

Unprompted brand comprehension has seen an

improvement up to 45%. When prompted, four in

five can identify at least one of Landgate’s

responsibility. However there remains confusion

around what Landgate does, with two in three

identifying at least one incorrect responsibility.

The top brand perceptions include knowledgeable,

accessible and practical, and there’s been an

increase in those who agree that Landgate is

accurate.

113

In terms of awareness, the campaign performed

stronger than the past three campaigns tested, with

15% of the general public aware. Awareness was

particularly strong amongst key target segments,

including recent purchasers, those looking to buy

and 18 – 29 year olds. The media strategy has been

effective in reaching a large audience quickly and at

a low cost.

Brand linkage continues to be an area for

improvement, but there has been a marginal

improvement from 2014 for the digital ads.

The digital ads were perceived quite positively, and

were particularly strong in being ‘informative’, ‘easy

to understand’, and ‘believable’.

114

There were no improvements seen in message

comprehension. In fact, the radio campaign saw a

decrease in comprehension in comparison to radio

ads run in 2009 and 2010. On the positive side, the

perceptions of the radio ad are performing well,

indicating the executions could be effective, given

further exposure and therefore improved brand

linkage and message comprehension.

There is also some evidence that the campaign has

made a positive impact on intentions to interact with

Landgate, and actual website visits.

115

The market for land and property information is

stable again this year, with one in five (18%)

obtaining information in the past 12 months and half

of these people having paid for it.

Landgate still dominates the market for those

purchasing information, with around half of those

purchasing information purchasing it with Landgate.

In terms of products, it’s land title and ownership

information that Landgate holds the greatest share

in.

The general public are obtaining more products for

free from Google, Realestate.com.au and Real

Estate Agents, and these three have the greatest

market share of the majority of other land and

property information products. Does Landgate wish

to position itself as the destination for all land and

property information? Is there an opportunity to offer

more free information that the market requires in an

attempt to reach more of the general public?

116

Contact with Landgate has remained steady, with

one in four having ever contacted Landgate one in

ten having contacted in the past 12 months.

Those who have contacted Landgate continue to

have more positive brand perceptions – a reflection

of the positive experience they have when they do

interact with Landgate.

The number who intend to purchase information

or other products from Landgate has increased

from two years ago - now one in four (25%)

indicate they are likely to do so when they are next in

the property market.

Hunt Smarter.

Landgate Customer Experience Monitor

Performance Scorecards

Oct-Dec 2015

Client Contacts

Lauren Knapp – Market Developer Digital and Demand Communications & Marketing

Prepared By

Kristy Willoughby (B.Bus. Mktg & Mgmt) – Account Director

Issa Karmout (B.E. MCom) – Account Executive

Justin Scerri (B.Com Hons.) – Principal

22

How are we tracking year to date?

Q10. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied have you been with Landgate in the past 3-4 months?

Q36. How easy or hard is it to do business with Landgate?

Q11. How likely would you be to recommend Landgate to a colleague, friend or family member?

Base: Variable (All rating 8/10 for each attribute)

Tracking:

Key Performance Indicators

• All KPIs dropped this quarter, a similar trend as this time last year. In particular, Net Promoter Score has dropped significantly.

73

7173

72

71 70

81

7974

70

77

69

72 71 7975

48

39

48

40 40

4951

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Feb-Apr 2014 May-Jul 2014 Aug-Oct 2014 Nov-Dec 2014 Jan-Mar 2015 Apr-Jun 2015 Jul-Sept 2015 Oct-Dec 2015

Overall Satisfaction(8,9&10)

Customer Effort Score(8,9&10)

Net Promoter Score(NPS)

54 55

52 5155

5759

51

6265 64

61 6062

6465

51 52

56

5052 53

5555

70 71

78

65

71 6974

68

58 5861

65

63

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Feb-Apr 2014 May-Jul 2014 Aug-Oct 2014 Nov-Dec 2014 Jan-Mar 2015 Apr-Jun 2015 Jul-Sept 2015 Oct-Dec 2015

Value For Money8,9&10

Suit Your Needs8,9&10

Feeling Important8,9&10

Market Leaders8,9&10

Navigation 8,9&10

Q40. Taking everything into account, how would you rate Landgate’s overall performance on…Offering products and services that represent value for money

Q40. Taking everything into account, how would you rate Landgate’s overall performance on…Tailoring products and services to your needs

Q40. Taking everything into account, how would you rate Landgate’s overall performance on…Making you feel like an important customer

Q40. Taking everything into account, how would you rate Landgate’s overall performance on…Leading the market in land and property information


Tracking:

Performance Attributes

• The ‘Value for Money’ attribute has dropped significantly this quarter, whilst most other attributes remained stable.

55

How did we perform in

October – December 2015?




Base: All respondents, excluding DK

(0-6)

Detractors

(9-10)

Promoters

(7-8)

Passives

1827

11 15

20

18

24 18

6355

66 67

Total (n=455) AccountHolders(n=33)

BusinessNon-AccHolders(n=114)

Gen-Pub(n=308)

9 94

13

79 7685

75

Total Sample(n=473)

AccountHolders(n=34)


Gen-Pub(n=323)

13

18

8 13

7562

84 79

Count(n=471)


BusinessNon Account

Holders(n=116)

GeneralPublic

(n=321)

October – December 2015:


(5) (8-10)(6-7)(3-4)(0-2)

Overall Satisfaction

KPI

Customer Effort ScoreKPI

Net Promoter Score

KPI

MeanNPS

8.26 7.91 8.58 8.30 8.15 7.50 8.49 8.45 44.8 27.3 55.3 51.2




Q40. Taking everything into account, how would you rate Landgate’s overall performance on…Leading the market in land and property information Base: All rating 0/10 *Small sample size

6 6 4 98 13

58

1216

118

22

25

1824

5141

6251

Total Sample(n=417)



Gen-Pub(n=280)

4 3 1 75 3 84

8 10 8 5

19 2313 20

65 6070 64

Total Sample(n=387)



Gen-Pub(n=258)



(5) (8-10)(6-7)(3-4)(0-2)

Value For Money

Attribute

Suit Your NeedsAttribute

Mean

6 7 29

6 75

12 10 1610

21 1725 20

55 6052 54

Total Sample(n=388)



Gen-Pub(n=263)

2 1 56 10 44

9 109 7

15 1417 15

68 66 69 69

Total Sample(n=335)



Gen-Pub(n=225)

Feeling Important

Attribute

Market LeadersAttribute

7.06 6.59 7.61 6.98 7.71 7.67 7.86 7.59 7.34 7.47 7.37 7.16 7.96 7.90 8.10 7.89

Q40. Taking everything into account, how would you rate Landgate’s overall performance on…Making it easy to find information on their website Base: All rating 0/10 *Small sample size

5 6 4 47

124 5

79

7 4

18

24

12 18

6348

72 69

Total Sample(n=459)



Gen-Pub(n=310)



(5) (8-10)(6-7)(3-4)(0-2)

Navigation

Attribute

Mean

7.56 6.91 7.84 7.95

Hunt Smarter.



July – September 2015

Client Contacts


Prepared By


Stephanie Grealish (B.Com. Mktg & Mgmt) – Account Executive


22






Tracking:


• All KPIs have increased this quarter with Overall Satisfaction and Customer Effort Score improving significantly.

73

7173

72

71 70

81

74

70

77

69

72 71 79

48

39

48

40 40

4951

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Feb-Apr 2014 May-Jul 2014 Aug-Oct 2014 Nov-Dec 2014 Jan-Mar 2015 Apr-Jun 2015 Jul-Sept 2015









Tracking:


54 55

52 5155

5759

6265 64

61 6062

64

51 52

56

5052 53

55

70 71

78

65

71 69 74

58 5861

65

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Feb-Apr 2014 May-Jul 2014 Aug-Oct 2014 Nov-Dec 2014 Jan-Mar 2015 Apr-Jun 2015 Jul-Sept 2015





Navigation 8,9&10

• All attributes have continued their upward trend from the start of 2015.

55


July – September 2015?





(0-6)

Detractors

(9-10)

Promoters

(7-8)

Passives

13 17 11 13

2225

19 21

6558

70 66

Total (n=520) AccountHolders(n=59)


Gen-Pub(n=348)

10 11 11 8

81 82 80 81

Total Sample(n=544)



Gen-Pub(n=365)

14 18 15 9

79 76 78 83

Count(n=538)


BusinessNon Account

Holders(n=116)

GeneralPublic

(n=360)

July – September 2015:


(5) (8-10)(6-7)(3-4)(0-2)


KPI


Net Promoter Score

KPI

MeanNPS

8.48 8.39 8.53 8.51 8.45 8.27 8.50 8.56 51.2 40.7 59.3 53.5





5 2 7 86

75 7

87 7

11

21 23 2319

59 61 59 56

Total Sample(n=475)



Gen-Pub(n=312)

4 4 4 53 0 5 36

47 7

24 33 20 18

64 60 65 68

Total Sample(n=451)



Gen-Pub(n=289)



(5) (8-10)(6-7)(3-4)(0-2)

Value For Money

Attribute


Mean

4 4 3 64 5 3

15 14 18 11

22 2029

19

55 5748

60

Total Sample(n=458)



Gen-Pub(n=297)

2 0 4 46

2

8 7

16

16

2012

7482

6474

Total Sample(n=348)



Gen-Pub(n=214)

Feeling Important

Attribute


7.43 7.58 7.46 7.24 7.79 7.77 7.70 7.91 7.43 7.41 7.37 7.52 8.29 8.66 7.95 8.20


5 7 4 44 3 5 44 3 5 5

2231

2213

6556

6475

Total Sample(n=530)



Gen-Pub(n=353)



(5) (8-10)(6-7)(3-4)(0-2)

Navigation

Attribute

Mean

7.78 7.39 7.79 8.17

Hunt Smarter.



April – June 2015

Client Contacts


Prepared By


Stephanie Grealish (B.Com. Mktg & Mgmt) – Account Executive


22






Tracking:


• Net Promoter Score has slightly increased this quarter while other KPIs hold steady.

73

7173

72

71 70

74

70

77

69

72 71

48

39

48

40 40

49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Feb-Apr 2014(n=757)

May-Jul 2014(n=730)

Aug-Oct 2014(n=310)

Nov-Dec 2014(n=209)

Jan-Mar 2015(n=636)

Apr-Jun 2015(n=436)









Tracking:


54 55

5251

5557

6265 64

61

6062

51 52

56

50 52 53

70 71

78

65

71 69

5858

61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Feb-Apr 2014 May-Jul 2014 Aug-Oct 2014 Nov-Dec 2014 Jan-Mar 2015 Apr-Jun 2015





Navigation 8,9&10

• All attributes remain consistent to previous quarter.

55


April – June 2015?





(0-6)

Detractors

(9-10)

Promoters

(7-8)

Passives

14 13 13 17

23 25 25 20

63 63 62 64

Total Sample(n=413)



Gen-Pub(n=260)

1623

1610

7061

75 73

Total Sample(n=436)



Gen-Pub(n=275)

20 3017 12

7164

75 75

Total Sample(n=432)


BusinessNon Account

Holders(n=99)

GeneralPublic

(n=272)

April – June 2015:


(5) (8-10)(6-7)(3-4)(0-2)


KPI


Net Promoter Score

KPI

MeanNPS

7.97 7.74 8.16 8.00 8.08 7.83 8.24 8.17 48.7 50.0 48.5 47.7





6 7 3 96 3 9

710 12 10 9

21 2418 19

57 53 60 57

Total Sample(n=396)



Gen-Pub(n=246)

5 4 4 64 2 4 58 9 7 7

21 2916

19

62 5669 62

Total Sample(n=380)



Gen-Pub(n=236)



(5) (8-10)(6-7)(3-4)(0-2)

Value For Money

Attribute


Mean

10 11 9 95 5 4

10 117

13

2225

25 16

53 4755 56

Total Sample(n=382)



Gen-Pub(n=238)

5 4 4 65 2 5 9

1716

1818

69 75 69 64

Total Sample(n=304)



Gen-Pub(n=179)

Feeling Important

Attribute


7.29 7.19 7.50 7.17 7.63 7.45 7.84 7.58 7.03 6.75 7.11 7.23 7.90 8.02 7.99 7.70


3 2 2 47 7 8 68 8 5 10

2131

1418

6152

7062

Total Sample(n=425)



Gen-Pub(n=267)



(5) (8-10)(6-7)(3-4)(0-2)

Navigation

Attribute

Mean

7.68 7.41 7.92 7.70

Hunt Smarter.



January – March 2015

Client Contacts

Gemma Bidstrup – Digital Marketing Manager

Prepared By

Kristy Willoughby (B.Bus. Mktg & Mgmt) – Senior Account Manager


22






Tracking:


• All KPIs continue to remain steady this quarter.

73

7173

72

71

74

70

77

69

72

48

39

48

40 40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Feb-Apr 2014 May-Jul 2014 Aug-Oct 2014 Nov-Dec 2014 Jan-Mar 2015


Customer Effect Score(8,9&10)







Tracking:


54 55

5251

55

6265 64

61

60

51 52

56

50 52

70 71

78

65

71

5858

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Feb-Apr 2014 May-Jul 2014 Aug-Oct 2014 Nov-Dec 2014 Jan-Mar 2015





Navigation 8,9&10

• Performance Attributes remain steady. Market Leader looks to have recovered slightly from the drop last quarter.

55


January – March 2015?





(0-6)

Detractors

(9-10)

Promoters

(7-8)

Passives

1811

22 21

2423

25 22

5866

53 56

Total Sample(n=609)



Gen-Pub(n=318)

1414

1513

71 7770 67

Total Sample(n=636)



Gen-Pub(n=332)

15 1414 17

72 75 71 69

Total Sample(n=631)


BusinessNon Account

Holders(n=107)

GeneralPublic

(n=330)

January - March 2015:


(5) (8-10)(6-7)(3-4)(0-2)


KPI


Net Promoter Score

KPI

MeanNPS

8.08 8.02 8.01 7.78 8.09 8.29 8.05 7.93 40.1 56.5 31.1 34.5





6 3 6 96 7 6 6

10 910 11

24 26 2123

54 55 56 52

Total Sample(n=1814) (A)

AccountHolders

(n=295) (B)

BusinessNon-AccHolders

(n=415) (C)

Gen-Pub(n=1104) (D)

5 3 4 74 4 5 48 8 9 8

2119

23 20

62 6660 61

Total Sample(n=1718) (A)

AccountHolders

(n=291) (B)

BusinessNon-AccHolders

(n=382) (C)

Gen-Pub(n=1045) (D)



(5) (8-10)(6-7)(3-4)(0-2)

Value For Money

Attribute


Mean

8 10 105

45

1415

15 13

2019

2319

52 5646 52

Total Sample(n=1733)



Gen-Pub(n=1077)

67

67 7

1716

17 18

71 7669 66

Total Sample(n=1440)



Gen-Pub(n=853)

Feeling Important

Attribute


7.28 7.45 7.37 6.99 7.50 7.73 7.36 7.38 7.02 7.32 6.86 6.86 8.00 8.26 8.06 7.59


6 5 6 87 7 8 75 6 4 5

24 24 26 21

58 58 57 59

Total Sample(n=627)



Gen-Pub(n=329)



(5) (8-10)(6-7)(3-4)(0-2)

Navigation

Attribute

Mean

7.28 7.45 7.37 6.99

Hunt Smarter.

Landgate 2015 Brand Health Tracking Full Report

Documents

Transcript of Landgate 2015 Brand Health Tracking Full Report