Towards stronger differentiation of portfolio brands · PDF fileTowards stronger...
Transcript of Towards stronger differentiation of portfolio brands · PDF fileTowards stronger...
Towards stronger
differentiation of
portfolio brandsMake-up category
Cosmetics Study 1
Background and sample
In this example, we will demonstrate the insights that can be
delivered with the specific objectives of better managing an
existing brand portfolio
Sample size = 419 females aged 17+ who have used make-
up in the past month
Questionnaire scope:
Behavioural:
Experience of brands (32 brands)
Frequency of use of brands
Ranking of brands
Weight of use of brands
Attitudinal:
Reasons for choice of brands in repertoire
Image descriptors of brands in repertoire
Occasions of use of brands in repertoire
General attitudes and respondent descriptions
Cosmetics Study 1
Cosmetics Study 2
Objectives
The analysis in this case study focuses on the
L’Oreal portfolio of brands. These are:
L'Oreal Paris
Maybelline
Lancome
Body Shop
Biotherm
The analysis determines coverage of the
brands in the market and provides guidance
for developing increased differentiation
between the brands, particularly for the
L’Oreal Paris and Maybelline brands.
Within the study, we focused on the overall
brands and asked respondents to consider
any of lipstick, eye shade, mascara, blusher,
foundation, nail polish when assessing their
usage and attitudes. Visual prompts were
used to minimise brand confusion.
Cosmetics Study 2
Cosmetics Study 3
Firstly, we wish to assess usage and overlap
of the L’Oreal portfolio
We will investigate:
Usage behaviour –
awareness, incidence, frequency, weight
of use
Repertoire/competition levels
Brand profiles – demographic and
attitudinal
User profiles – demographic and
attitudinal
Cosmetics Study 3
Usage behaviour – awareness, incidence, frequency
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Pharmacy brand
Ricils
Biotherm
Clinique
Dior
YSL
Anytime
Joe Blasco
Rimmel
Body Shop
Revlon
Oriflame
Yves Rocher
Lancome
Max Factor
Kanebo
Nivea Beaute
L'Oreal Paris
Maybelline
Use nowadays Tried it, but don't use nowadays
Heard of but have never used Never heard of
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Pharmacy brand
Ricils
Biotherm
Revlon
Clinique
YSL
Dior
Anytime
Joe Blasco
Rimmel
Body Shop
Oriflame
Yves Rocher
Lancome
Max Factor
Kanebo
Nivea Beaute
L'Oreal Paris
Maybelline
Use daily A few times a week About once a week
A few times a month Use less often
For some brands, lower penetration but high frequency of use (e.g. Kanebo; YSL, Clinique)
For other brands, high penetration but lower frequency (e.g. Revlon, L’Oreal Paris, Max Factor)
Cosmetics Study 4
Cosmetics Study 5
Brand profiles – demographic and attitudinal
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Dior
Rimmel
Revlon
Oriflame
Yves Rocher
Max Factor
Kanebo
Nivea Beaute
Biotherm
Body Shop
Lancome
L'Oreal Paris
Maybelline
17 - 24 years 25 - 34 years 35 - 49 years 50+ years
Brand
Portfolio
Maybelline:
Make-up makes me feel self-confident;
I usually buy the cheapest make-up product
L’Oreal Paris:
I compare prices before I buy;
I alternate between different brands
Lancome:
I am not dressed if not wearing make-up;
Prepared to pay extra for the brand I want
Body Shop:
I am not very interested in make-up brands;
I like to have well-defined plans
Biotherm:
My aim is as natural a make-up as possible;
I like to exercise regularly
Cosmetics Study 8
Repertoire/competition levels
Three distinct groups of brands being used by the same people
May-
belline
L’Oréal
Paris Rimmel
Nivea
Beauté
Max
Factor
Any-
time Ricils
Body
Shop
Yves
Rocher
Ori-
flame Kanebo
Joe
Blasco
Lan-
côme
Bio-
therm Clinique Dior
Maybelline
L’Oréal Paris
Rimmel
Nivea Beauté
Max Factor
Anytime
Ricils
Body Shop
Yves Rocher
Oriflame
Kanebo
Joe Blasco
Lancôme
Biotherm
Clinique
Dior
YSL
Revlon
Pharmacy brands
Cosmetics Study 10
What have we learnt so far about the L’Oreal portfolio?
In terms of the brands being used:
Maybelline and L’Oreal Paris are the two largest brands in the market, with over 30% nowadays
usage
Maybelline is used more frequently than L’Oreal Paris
Both brands have the same age profile and there is overlap in terms of the likelihood of these
two brands being used by the same respondents
A ‘premium’ sector also appears to exist in terms of similar brands being likely to be used.
These brands tends to have lower penetration but higher frequency of use.
The age profile of the two L’Oreal portfolio brands (Lancome, Biotherm) is older
What is needed now is further investigation of the occasions and reasons for using the brands to
understand current brand strengths and opportunities for growth
Cosmetics Study 10
Cosmetics Study 11
L’Oreal Paris and Maybelline are being used by the same people.
Are they being used for the same reasons?
To uncover this, we investigate:
Brand strengths and weaknesses, and
differentiation
Attributes to increase differentiation
Main drivers of choice in the market
Position of brands against these drivers
Opportunities for strengthening brands
Cosmetics Study 12
Brand strength and weaknesses and differentiation
…highlight brand strengths and weaknesses against the market
-11
-6
-6
-4
-1
-1
-1
2
4
6
10
11
14
Non-allergenic
No vivisection
High quality brand
Natural ingredients
Fun to use
Luxury brand
Stylish brand
No unnecessary packaging
Reliable brand
Value for money
Often on offer
Well-known brand
Fashionable shades
L’Oreal Paris
-3
-6
-14
-3
8
-5
-5
1
-10
11
9
3
10
Maybelline
-8
9
-5
10
8
-6
-4
-16
-15
18
-6
0
0
Lancome
17
7
32
0
-5
-9
27
0
-10
-13
7
-5
54
Body Shop
Little differentiation between L’Oreal Paris
and Maybelline
Deviations above and below the market average reported
… whereas Body Shop and Lancome have
very clearly defined positioning
L’Oreal Paris – strengths and opportunities
Distribution and ‘visibility’
key for the brand to
maintain position
Potential benefit in
promoting product features
Well-known brandGood value for money
Reliable brandHigh quality brand
Colours that suit me/ my styleSuitable for everyday use/ everyday brandPractical to use
Nice consistencyPractical packaging/ easy to use
Natural make-upEasy to spread
Not stickyGood make-up result
Quick dryingAvailable at the store I use
Good selection of shadesOld brand/ has been in market for a long time
Fun to useSpecific appearance-enhancing feature of the product
Does not cause damage for skin/ does not age the skinYou get enough colour in the applicator (brush etc.)
Promises of the brand are credibleNice coloured pot/ stick/ bottle
Make-up is easy to removeNice scent
I like the advertising of the brand
Matt/ not glossy make-upInternational brand
Non-allergenicMake-up does not come off or smudge
Stylish pot/ stick/ bottleLasting make-up
Gives me self-confidenceMakes my eyes look bigger
Leaves a pleasant feeling on the skinBrings out the best in my appearance
Gives nice colour to the skinFashionable/ trendy shades
Recommended by friends and familyAdvertises a lot
Low priceFor party/ glamour
StylishMoisturing/ does not dry the skin
Skin protecting
Strength (relative to other brands)Weakness
Significant strengths
Significant
Weaknesses
Imp
ort
an
ce
(%
of
sa
mp
le w
ith
a p
os
itiv
e a
ttit
ud
e)
100%
L’Oréal Paris MarketAverage
Key Brand DriversNiche Brand DriversOpportunitiesThreatsWeaknessesNot important to market
Cosmetics Study 16
While for Maybelline, a
focus on fun, variety and
appearance enhancing
communication could
increase differentiation
between these two brands
from the same portfolio
Maybelline – strengths and opportunities
Well-known brandGood value for money
Reliable brandHigh quality brand
Colours that suit me/ my styleSuitable for everyday use/ everyday brand
Practical to useNice consistency
Practical packaging/ easy to useNatural make-up
Easy to spreadNot sticky
Good make-up resultQuick drying
Available at the store I useGood selection of shades
Old brand/ has been in market for a long timeFun to use
Specific appearance-enhancing feature of the productDoes not cause damage for skin/ does not age the skin
You get enough colour in the applicator (brush etc.)Promises of the brand are credible
Nice coloured pot/ stick/ bottleMake-up is easy to remove
Nice scentI like the advertising of the brand
Matt/ not glossy make-upInternational brand
Non-allergenicMake-up does not come off or smudge
Stylish pot/ stick/ bottleLasting make-up
Gives me self-confidenceMakes my eyes look bigger
Leaves a pleasant feeling on the skinBrings out the best in my appearance
Gives nice colour to the skinFashionable/ trendy shades
Recommended by friends and familyAdvertises a lot
Low priceFor party/ glamour
StylishMoisturing/ does not dry the skin
Skin protecting
Strength (relative to other brands)Weakness
Significant strengthsSignificant
Weaknesses
Imp
ort
an
ce
(%
of
sa
mp
le w
ith
a p
os
itiv
e a
ttit
ud
e)
100%
Maybelline MarketAverage
Key Brand DriversNiche Brand DriversOpportunitiesThreatsWeaknessesNot important to market
Cosmetics Study 17
Cosmetics Study 20
L’Oreal Paris and Maybelline have similar perceptions, supporting usage overlap
We also wish to understand the drivers of choice in this category overall and determine if these two
brands evidence some differentiation, or highlight aspects in which they can increase their
distinctiveness and positioning
Cosmetics Study 20
Cosmetics Study 21
Main drivers of choice in the market
Caresfor skin
Skin protecting
Moisturising/does not dry skin
Gives nice colour to the skin
Does not damage/age the skin
Leaves pleasant feeling on skin
Nice consistency
Easy to spread
Matt/ not glossy make-up
Natural make-up
Recommended by cosmetician
Not sticky
Quick drying
Nice scent
Sexy/ fun,
12%
Natural/
pure,
8%
Colours/
shades, 13%
Value for
money,
21%
Cares for skin,
14%
Good results,
15%
Brand
credentials,
17%
Cosmetics Study 25
How are the L’Oreal brands positioned?
Biotherm
Body Shop
Lancome
L’Oreal Paris
MaybellineBrand
credentials,
17%
Good results,
15%
Cares for skin,
14%
Value for
money,
21%
Colours/
shades, 13%
Natural/
pure,
8%Sexy/ fun,
12%
Considerable overlap of
L’Oreal Paris and
Maybelline in 3 sectors
– Value, Shades and
Sexy sectors. This
latter sector could be a
further opportunity.
Body Shop, Lancome
and Biotherm clearly
distinct from each other
Cosmetics Study 28
On which attributes could Maybelline strengthen in “Sexy/fun”?
For the Maybelline brand, promoting on
appearance enhancing benefits, as well as
functional aspects, would strengthen
association
.
Measure of association = 0.25 Sexy/fun Maybelline
Delivers on …
Fashionable/ trendy shades 18 10
Fun to use 12 8
Brings out best in my appearance 11 5
Specific appearance-enhancing features 11 6
You get enough colour in the applicator 13 6
Makes my eyes look bigger 10 14
I like the advertising of the brand 6 4
Could do better on …
Sexy brand 16 3
Glossy/ glittery make-up 15 2
Quick drying 23 5
Gives me self-confidence 16 3
Good taste 8 1
Practical to use 21 3
Easy to spread 16 1
Good selection of shades 11 3
Can identify with the advertising 4 1
Shades that suit my colouring 5 3
Cosmetics Study 32
What could L’Oreal do next?
We have now understood the drivers of choice in the market
overall, how the brands deliver to those drivers and the specific
strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for promotion for the
L’Oreal brands
The challenge for L’Oreal appears to be differentiating L’Oreal
Paris and Maybelline to ensure they clearly deliver to the
market drivers and promote distinctive and relavant strengths:
While there is significant overlap between these two brands
in terms of repertoires and brand perception, we
recommend that Maybelline emphasises appearance
enhancing and ‘results’ aspects of the brand to strengthen
differentiation. Communication should be in a confident
and fun style
L’Oreal Paris should maintain market leader/ mainstream
credentials and ensure it is accessible, top of mind and
delivers relevant, up-to-date shades/ colours and products
Lancome, Biotherm and Body Shop are clearly positioned in
the market and deliver strongly to different market drivers
Any U &A study needs to be able to understand the
present and provide direction for the future
Optima approach does that by delivering:
a rigorous in-depth understanding of current
brands and competitors
insight into strengthening positioning within a
portfolio