Case Study
Adam Madacsi (HRYRTQ) –
Product and Brand Strategies Case Analysis
2
2012.04.15.
(ACV) is estimated 58%, thus after the Marketing plan adjustment the trial rate is 0.313*0.37*0.58 =0.0672, or 6.72%. The concept test indicated average purchase amounts of 1.2 units for the ―Toppingconcept‖.
Therefore the trial volume is 95.5 million households * 6.72% * 1.2 average purchaseunits = 7.7 million and the repeat volume is 7.7*22% (repeat rate)*2 (repeat purchase occasion)*1(average repeat transaction amount) = 3.388 million units. [Table D, Exhibit 9] II./2. Estimation for “Pizza Only” concept The concept purchase intent for ―Pizza Only‖ according to the BASES II research study is 15%for ―definitely would buy‖ and 43% for ―probably would buy‖ [Exhibit 21]. Similarly to the above presented calculation, the adjusted trial using the industry rule of thumb is 24.9%. After theenvironmental and marketing plan adjustment phase the trial rate equals to 5.34%, so it is less than the case of ―Pizza with Toppings‖ concept. The concept test indicated average purchase amounts of
1.1 for ―Pizza O nly ‖. T hus the trial volume of this concept is 5.61 million units. Therefore the repeat volume is 5.61*22% (repeat rate)*2 (repeat purchase occasion)*1 (average repeat transactionamount) = 2.4684 million units, which is significantly lower than the repeat volume of the ―Toppingconcept‖. [Table D, Exhibit 9] II./3. Demand Estimation in case of Separating Users and Non-Users
In my opinion the above presented calculations are not completely accurate, because responseswere differed among consumers who had used a previous Contadina product from those who were non-users . Therefore I present a calculation which differentiates the users and the non-users of Contadina products.Contadina use share at the time of the pizza introduction was estimated at 25%. Therefore22.92 million users and 72.58 million non-users are on the nationwide market. For the
Product and Brand Strategies Case Analysis
2
2012.04.15.
(ACV) is estimated 58%, thus after the Marketing plan adjustment the trial rate is 0.313*0.37*0.58 =0.0672, or 6.72%. The concept test indicated average purchase amounts of 1.2 units for the ―Toppingconcept‖.
Therefore the trial volume is 95.5 million households * 6.72% * 1.2 average purchaseunits = 7.7 million and the repeat volume is 7.7*22% (repeat rate)*2 (repeat purchase occasion)*1(average repeat transaction amount) = 3.388 million units. [Table D, Exhibit 9] II./2. Estimation for “Pizza Only” concept The concept purchase intent for ―Pizza Only‖ according to the BASES II research study is 15%for ―definitely would buy‖ and 43% for ―probably would buy‖ [Exhibit 21]. Similarly to the above presented calculation, the adjusted trial using the industry rule of thumb is 24.9%. After theenvironmental and marketing plan adjustment phase the trial rate equals to 5.34%, so it is less than the case of ―Pizza with Toppings‖ concept. The concept test indicated average purchase amounts of
1.1 for ―Pizza O nly ‖. T hus the trial volume of this concept is 5.61 million units. Therefore the repeat volume is 5.61*22% (repeat rate)*2 (repeat purchase occasion)*1 (average repeat transactionamount) = 2.4684 million units, which is significantly lower than the repeat volume of the ―Toppingconcept‖. [Table D, Exhibit 9] II./3. Demand Estimation in case of Separating Users and Non-Users
In my opinion the above presented calculations are not completely accurate, because responseswere differed among consumers who had used a previous Contadina product from those who were non-users . Therefore I present a calculation which differentiates the users and the non-users of Contadina products.Contadina use share at the time of the pizza introduction was estimated at 25%. Therefore22.92 million users and 72.58 million non-users are on the nationwide market. For the