London Metropolitan University BA Advertising and ... · Brand awareness is the level of a consumer’s knowledge of a brand and ... For example, a consumer is asked to name 5 chocolate

0

London Metropolitan University

BA Advertising and Marketing Communications and Events Management (Joint Degree)

16 June 2014

Student: Alexandra MacLeod / 10039412

Supervisor: Henrik Linden

Naïve Intent: The Correlation between Brand Awareness and Sales in an Identical Product

Category

1

Naïve Intent: The Correlation between Brand Awareness and Sales in an

Identical Product Category

Alexandra MacLeod

2

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to thank my dissertation supervisor, Henrik Linden, for the help, support

and encouragement he has given me throughout this dissertation which has been

invaluable.

I would like to thank my university colleague and dear friend, Sanna Aaltonen, who ensured

I was never short of coffee, humour or a shoulder to cry on during stressful library sessions.

I am extremely grateful to my family and friends of which there are too many to mention for

their reassurance, understanding and support throughout the last year.

My colleagues at Macmillan Digital Education have provided supportive words and

encouragement throughout this dissertation and I am particularly grateful to Matthias Ick,

Dave Mutton, Prashant Raizada and Simon Walsh for their understanding when it came to

taking last-minute time off and for their continuous support.

Finally, I express my deepest thanks to my incredibly patient and understanding partner

Jordan Scott. I could not have survived the last three years without his support, his cooking

and his amazing ability to motivate me when it was needed most. He has been an

inspiration and I am truly indebted to him.

3

Abstract

This dissertation investigates the correlation between brand awareness and sales in an

identical product category, specifically, bottled water. Similar studies have been carried out

in relation to low involvement, routine response behaviour. The studies generally support a

strong correlation between brand awareness and sales. This has not been tested on an

identical product category. There is little existing literature on the branding of identical

products and this dissertation also investigates reasons consumers choose one brand over

another.

The dissertation investigates top of mind recall, evoked set recall, aided and unaided brand

recognition and establishes the relationship with sales/brand choice. Consumers were asked

to recall and recognise brands and the combined answers were measured against sales

figures.

It was found that there is a strong correlation between top of mind recall and sales and

evoked set recall and sales. The relationship between aided and unaided brand recognition

was found to be weak.

Finally, respondents were asked which country they prefer bottled water from and this was

measured against the countries from the top of mind recall and it was found that there was

no relationship.

4

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Literature Review .................................................................................................................................. 9

Brand Awareness .............................................................................................................................. 9

Brand Recall ................................................................................................................................... 9

Brand Recognition ........................................................................................................................ 9

Type of Purchase Behaviour and Involvement .......................................................................... 10

Correlation between brand awareness and brand choice in low involvement product ....... 10

Identical products ....................................................................................................................... 11

Identical Products and Branding .............................................................................................. 12

What is a Brand?......................................................................................................................... 12

Identical Products and Branding .............................................................................................. 12

Literature Review Summary .......................................................................................................... 13

Research Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 14

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Research Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 14

Research Methodology ................................................................................................................... 14

Pilot Study ........................................................................................................................................ 15

Learnings from the Pilot Study ................................................................................................. 15

Weaknesses, Limitations and Constraints ................................................................................... 18

Findings, Analysis and Discussion .................................................................................................... 19

Conclusion/Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 34

References ........................................................................................................................................... 36

5

List of Tables

Table 1: Top of mind recall results ........................................................................................................ 19

Table 2: Evoked Set Responses ............................................................................................................. 22

Table 3: Unaided recall - correct responses .......................................................................................... 26

Table 4: Aided recall - correct responses .............................................................................................. 28

Table 5: Country Preference out of 26.................................................................................................. 32

Table 6: Country Preference from 5 ..................................................................................................... 32

Table 7: country preference compared with top of mind country responses ...................................... 33

6

List of Figures

Figure 1: Interpreting Pearson's Correlation Coefficient ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 2: Mintel Report on Bottled Water Sales ................................................................................... 17

Figure 3: top 9 Sales Brand Botted Water ............................................................................................ 17

Figure 4: top of mind recall response ................................................................................................... 20

Figure 5: Top of mind recall reponse compared against sales position ............................................... 20

Figure 6: Evoked set Reponses by percentage ..................................................................................... 23

Figure 7: Evoked Set Recall Responses Measured Against Sales Position ............................................ 24

Figure 8: Unaided Brand Recall Responses Measured Against Sales Position ..................................... 27

Figure 9: Aided Brand Recall Responses Measured Against Sales Position .......................................... 29

Figure 10: Unaided and Aided Recall Comparison ................................................................................ 30

Figure 11: Reasons for choice of identical product .............................................................................. 31

Figure 12: Country preference by percentage ...................................................................................... 32

Figure 13: Country preference compared with top sales countires preference .................................. 33

7

List of Appendices

Appendix 1: Pilot Study Questionnaire ................................................................................................ 40

Appendix 2: Research Questionnaire.................................................................................................... 41

8

Introduction

Increasing brand awareness is often one of the primary goals of advertising and marketing

(Lister, 2012; Suttle, 2011). Research suggests that brand awareness and sales are

connected; if not immediately, in the long term (Baker, et al., 1986; Brassington & Pettitt,

2006; Fill, 2009).

Research testing the connection between brand awareness and brand choice tends to find a

strong correlation within routine-response category products MacDonald & Sharp, 2000;

Hoyer & Brown, 1990).

Many marketing texts and articles suggest that differentiation through branding is extremely

important for brands to survive especially in low involvement, routine response products

(Hollis, 2011; Keller, et al., 2012; Romaniuk, et al., 2014).

However, there is little research regarding branding of identical products and whether the

awareness and sales correlation applies to this category. Bottled water is a perfect example

of identical product differentiated by branding.

In 2011, 262 billion litres of bottled water was consumed worldwide (an increase from 196

billion litres in 2006) and it is predicted that this will increase to circa 440 billion litres in

2021 (Zenith International, 2012).

Bottled water has been described as “the biggest scam in marketing history” (Royte, 2008,

p4) and critics have questioned why consumers would choose one brand over another when

water is the same and available for free from a tap (Doria, 2006; Gleick, 2010).

Too many situational factors exist at time of purchase, such as availability and point of

purchase cues, to establish exactly why consumers choose one brand over another in an

identical product category.

This research aims to measure the correlation between brand awareness and sales in an

identical product category as well as identifying factors which consumers consider to be

influential when choosing an identical product brand.

This dissertation has 5 chapters including this introduction. Chapter 2 presents a literature

review in which existing literature in relation to brand awareness and its correlation with

sales is discussed along with literature relating to branding of identical products. The next

chapter discusses the research methodology and reasons for choosing particular methods

and discusses confinements of the research. In the next chapter, the findings will be

analysed and described and any correlations positive or negative will be noted and

discussed. The final chapter is the conclusion which discusses the implications of the

findings on future research while the limitations of the research are further defined in order

to present a fair picture of the findings.

9

Literature Review

In this chapter, the differences between brand recall and brand recognition are described

and their importance to the purchase relationship are discussed. The relationship between

type of purchase involvement level is discussed.

Brand awareness and its relationship with brand choice and sales in low value routine

response products will be discussed in detailed and previous studies in this area will be

deliberated.

Finally, branding of identical products is briefly discussed due to there being little research

currently in this topic and this study aims to further explore the branding of identical

products.

Brand Awareness

Brand awareness is the level of a consumer’s knowledge of a brand and is measured by

brand recall and brand recognition (Keller, et al., 2012):

Brand Recall

Brand recall is a consumer’s capability to recall a brand when provided with a product

category. For example, a consumer is asked to name 5 chocolate bars from memory (Keller,

et al., 2012). The first brand they provide is their ‘top of mind recall’ and advertisers strive

to become and stay the top of mind recall as it is widely associated with brand choice

(Baker, et al., 1986). The first 5 brands together would be considered to be the ‘evoked set’

which is the set of brands a consumer immediately thinks of when given a product category

(Fill, 2009). Entering and staying within the evoked set is also thought to be highly

associated with brand choice and is accomplished by advertising and marketing (Brassington

& Pettitt, 2006; Fill, 2009; Underhill, 2000).

Consumers typically make purchase decision from brands that they recall from memory

(Keller, et al., 2012; Fill, 2009; Underhill, 2000)which is why advertisers would want

consumers to be able to recall their brand (MacDonald & Sharp, 2000). Adis & Hyung Jun,

(2013) also found that brand recall had a direct effect on purchase intention.

Brand Recognition

Brand recognition is a consumer’s capability to recognise a brand when provided with a cue

such as a marketing slogan, for example, the category is chocolate bars and they are asked

to identify which brand’s slogan is “work, rest and play” (Keller, et al., 2012). Alternatively,

the consumer could be presented with images associated with a brand’s marketing, or

packaging with logo removed, and asked to name the brands from the cues.

Brand recognition is said to be extremely important within a purchase situation such as a

shop as consumers are likely to choose a brand they recognise over an unrecognised brand

(Keller, et al., 2012; Esch, et al., 2006).

Brand awareness “plays and important role in consumer decision making” (Keller, et al.,

2012, p.60) and brand awareness is one of the primary goals of advertising for this reason

(Fill, 2009). According to Brassington & Pettitt (2006, p113) awareness lays the

10

“foundations for long term repeat purchase behaviour” and is therefore why advertisers

invest heavily in marketing communications.

Type of Purchase Behaviour and Involvement

The level of involvement associated with bottled water purchase is disputed. Royte (2008)

believes it is routine response behaviour whereby a consumer gives little or no thought to

the purchase and acts almost without thinking (Fill, 2009). This is supported by Forsyth,

(2010). Routine response buying generally tends to apply to low involvement, low value

products with little risk (Fill, 2009) and Brassington and Pettitt (2006) claim that routine

problem solving is the most common type of purchase behaviour and “most grocery

shopping fall into this category” (pp.112).

However, Gleick (2010) argues that it falls into limited problem solving category; according

to his research, risk perception is high because consumers purchase bottled water due to

(generally unfounded) fear of contamination from tap water, thus it is more complex than

routine response behaviour. He found that consumers take time to read the labels and

consider mineral content before deciding on a brand.

The conflict in involvement type has implications for marketers as different purchase

behaviours require different marketing messages to establish or maintain brand relationships

(Keller, et al., 2012; Fill, 2009; Brassington & Pettitt, 2006). Parkinson (1979) describes that

the evoked set size varies according to the importance of the product class. Thus for one

consumer the evoked set size may be small, but for another it could be larger and this will

have an effect on recalled brands (Gruca, 1989).

Given that there is little to support Gleick’s (2010) assertion regarding bottled water and risk

perception, for this research, bottled water is considered a routine-response buy.

Correlation between brand awareness and brand choice in low involvement

product

A study by Hoyer & Brown (1990) found that brand awareness was highly significant when it

comes brand choice. Subjects were asked to choose between brands in a product category

that they do no usually purchase (peanut butter), and it was established that even when

purchasing an unfamiliar product, subjects would choose brands they were aware of over

brands they had no knowledge of, with 93.5% of subjects choosing brands they were aware

of. The study concluded that brand awareness was indeed correlated with brand choice.

The study was later replicated by MacDonald & Sharp (2000) using a different product

(orange squash) but with subjects also having limited experience with the product. Their

results generally supported Hoyer and Brown’s findings, with 85.5% of their subjects

choosing a brand they were aware of over an unknown brand. MacDonald & Sharp (2000)

concluded that brand awareness was a “powerful influence on brand choice with a repeat

purchase” (p.5).

11

The above studies involved interviews and focus groups to stimulate discussions around

brand awareness and choice and did not involve a real purchase situation..

Warc (2006), describes that it is unreliable to use awareness as a predictors for sales in a

controlled test environment due to the various situational factors that apply in a real

purchase situation, and finds that brand awareness simply isn’t a dependable indicator of

brand choice. Warc claims that tracking purchase behaviour over time as well as continuinal

brand awareness testing may lead to indications on the realistic effect of brand awareness

on sales.

A study by branding agency, Blue Marlin, the agency responsible for designing Isklar’s

‘glacier’ bottle, found that there was very little loyalty in the bottled water market and

situtional factors played a large role in consumer choice: despite brand awareness, most

consumers don’t seek out a certain brand of bottled water they simply pick the brand which

is right in front of them taking milleseconds to decide (Williams, 2014).

According to Dickson & Sawyer (1986) consumers make purchase decision with 12 seconds

of entering the product category and it can be inferred from this timeframe that they use

their memory to process the brand information they are presented with in the aisle

(Romaniuk, et al., 2014). This implies that the recalled evoked set is important in when

making a quick purchase decision as well as recogniton.

Esch, et al., (2006) found in their research that brand awareness was a determinant of short

term purchase behaviour but it was not an indicator of long term purchase behaviour. While

brand awareness may certainly have a positive effect on future purchases, the relationship

was in fact weak.

Identical products

For the purpose of this research, an identical product is defined as a product which is

essential exactly the same. For example, 500mg of parecetamol is the same, whether it is

branded by a big name pharmaceutical company or a supermarket’s own brand. The

packaging, the size of the pill and many other brand attributes may be different, but the

product ingredients are identical in chemical composition and therefore they are classed as

identical. A value product and premium product are not identical products but rather

substitute products; they can be used for the same purpose, but they are not

indistinguishable.

Commodities such as gas and electricity are often cited as identical products but due to the

none physical nature of the product they are also well associated with the service provider’s

brand and therefore classed as a service. Services cannot be classed as identical due to the

uniqueness of services – no two services are ever the same (Mansharamani, 2005) though

some parallels in commodities, services and identical branding are drawn below due to the

limited literature that exists in relation to identical branding.

12

Water from various sources around the World has different mineral levels, however, for the

purpose of this research water is deemed identical. The quality may differ marginally, but in

essence, the product is uniform across suppliers.

Identical Products and Branding

What is a Brand?

While there are many definitions of what a brand is, they all agree that it is very difficult to

define it. According to Batey (2008) “A product becomes a brand when the physical product

is augmented by something else – images, symbols, perceptions, feelings – to produce an

integral idea greater than the sum of its parts”. (Keller, et al., 2012, p.24) states “what

distinguishes a brand from its unbranded counterpart and gives it equity is the sum of

consumers’ perceptions and feelings about the product’s attributes and how they perform,

about the brand name and what it stands for and about the company associated with the

brand”. The Intellectual Property Office (2014) deems that while a brand can be “anything

that is used to distinguish a specific product, service or business”, it may also be defined as

“’a promise of an experience’”. The Design Council (2013) describes a brand as “a set of

associations that a person (or group of people) makes with a company, product, service,

individual or organisation”. It goes on to say that the associations “may be intentional…or

they may be outside the company’s control”. When referring to the difference between a

brand and a product, Batey (2008) purports “You buy a product for what it does; you

choose a brand for what it means”. The common theme running through these various

definitions is certainly the intangibility of the nature of a brand, and feelings that brands

evoke.

Strong brands are believed to lead to brand loyalty (Belleghem, 2013; Hollis, 2011), but this

has not been tested on an identical product.

Identical Products and Branding

Blind taste testing has consistently found that consumers cannot distinguish bottled water

by taste when several brand are compared and when chilled tap water is also included in the

test (Abrahams, 2011; Gleick, 2010; Royte, 2008). Therefore, choice must be driven by

branding and marketing (Forsyth, 2010).

According to Stark & Stewart, (2013) branding is the key way to differentiate in an identical

market. However, literature about branding identical products is conflicting: it is established

that the product is identical, but it is also recommended that brands must find their USP

(Dolak, 2005; Hofstrand, 2005; Stark & Stewart, 2013). According to Hofstrand, (2005)

when it comes to identical products “perceptions are everything” and advertising should

focus on convincing customers that you have the better product. Again, this is difficult

apply to identical products as a brand would effectively be promoting a product category

rather than their own brand.

However, Hofstrand (2005) advises that having a brand will help you to “create a

differentiated product”; thus, the brand itself becomes the product’s USP. This is echoed by

Busnelli (et al., 2012, p52), writing for McKinsey, whom describe utility companies’ brands

13

as “one of the main assets utilities can exploit, leveraging brand equity as a competitive

advantage”.

Literature Review Summary

Brand recall and brand recognition are metrics used to measure brand awareness and which

is believed to be highly associated with brand choice and sales. Generally the literature

supports a correlation between brand awareness and brand choice, however the strength of

the relationship is disputed. The relationship is often tested on low value repeat purchase

products, though it is yet to be tested in an identical product category.

Branding is essential to differentiate identical products and the brand can be used as the

product’s USP. Since the product is identical to that of a competitor its the only way to

differentiate without promoting the product category rather than a brand.

14

Research Methodology

Introduction

This chapter outlines the research objectives, research methodology, sampling framework

and discusses the limitations of the research.

Research Objectives

The research aims to find out if there is a correlation between brand awareness and brand

choice in an identical product category as well as identifying other attributes that influence

identical product choice.

1. Test bottled water brand recall and compare with sales figures to establish the level

of relationship.

Recall will be measured in two parts:

a. Top of mind recall

b. Evoked set recall

2. Test unaided brand recognition using label-less and lid-less packaging, comparing

correct answers with sales figures to establish the level of the relationship.

3. Test aided brand recognition using label-less packaging but with a lid, comparing

correct answers with sales figures to establish the level of the relationship.

4. Identify any other common attributes which consumers recognise as deciding factors

in choosing a particular brand of an undifferentiated product. This may be used for

future research purposes.

Research Methodology

A total of 95 responses were collected with 65 usable due to incomplete data on 30 of the

responses and took place in May 2014. The respondents were students from business

related degrees at a UK university as well as employees of large UK publishing company. All

respondents were UK based but of various nationalities.

Participants were asked to complete an online survey with an introduction to the nature of

the research and demographic information was collected at the end of the study.

The focus product was bottled water and consumers were asked to complete a

questionnaire which is at Appendix 2. The respondents were asked questions on brand

recall and brand recognition and the methodology for each objective is further detailed

below.

15

Pilot Study

The author conducted a short pilot survey aimed at discovering which brand attributes

influenced consumers’ purchase decision in an identical product category and bottled water

was the test product. The questions were mainly qualitative as this was investigative study

aimed generating ideas for this research and no preconceptions were made. A copy of the

questionnaire is at Appendix 1. 38 complete responses were collected. The questionnaire

took place in August 2013.

A couple of interesting points arose from the answers to the questionnaire which have

influenced the current research:

Learnings from the Pilot Study

1. Packaging was deemed to be a highly influential purchase attribute. It is not clear

exactly what about the packaging what influential, though some responses referred

to the size being easy to carry.

Packaging has been described as one of the most underrated marketing tools which

is highly influential in brand choice (Stewart, 1996; Underhill, 2000). For these

reasons the brand recognition tests will ask respondents to identify brands from

label-less bottles.

2. Source or origin was another attribute which was mentioned a few times as

influential. Source/origin is one of the eight attributes that Keller (2009) suggests

brands can use to differentiate themselves and therefore the respondents are asked

to choose between sources.

Date Collection Method

The data was collected as an online questionnaire. This method was chosen so that

respondents are free to take their time thinking about responses especially for the

recognition test and so that they are not influenced by other participants which could be the

case in focus groups. Using an online study meant that respondents could not move on to

the next question without responding to the previous and limited the incomplete data. It is

also used for ease of data sorting; the completed responses can be exported to a spread

sheet and data can be captured as necessary without time consuming manual input, which

can also limits data entry mistakes.

Methodology by objective

1. Test bottled water brand recall and compare with sales figures to establish the level of

relationship. Recall and sales relationship will be measured in two parts:

a. Top of mind recall

b. Evoked set recall

Respondents are asked to list 5 brands of bottled water. Their first response is the ‘top of

mind’ response. The top of mind recall responses will be collated by brand the results will

16

be presented in numbers and percentages. The top of mind brand responses will then be

compared against bottled water sales figures obtained from Mintel (2014) using Excel to plot

a line chart as a visual representation of the correlation. The correlation strength will be

calculated in Excel using Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient which is a very

effective correlation measure used in marketing research (Chisnell, 2001; McDaniel & Gates,

2005).

Strength of Association Positive Negative

Weak .1 to .3 -0.1 to -0.3

Strong .4 to .7 -0.4 to -0.7

Very Strong .8 to 1.0 -0.8 to -1.0 Table 1: Interpreting Pearson's Correlation Coefficient

The above table has been created after researching various sources (Chisnell, 2001;

McDaniel & Gates, 2005; Keller, et al., 2012) and indicates how the correlations will be

interpreted.

The second part of the brand recall test will involve combining the entire top 5 brands to

create an evoked set of responses which will be compared against sales figures brands

again using Excel and Pearson’s correlation coefficient.

The results for both parts will be presented in line graphs to provide a visual representations

and the correlation coefficient will be described and analysed. This is similar to the way

MacDonald & Sharp (2000) presented the findings of their study on brand awareness and

choice.

2. Test unaided brand recognition using label-less and lid-less packaging, comparing

correct answers with sales figures to establish the level of the relationship

-and-

3. Test aided brand recognition using label-less packaging but with a lid, comparing

correct answers with sales figures to establish the level of the relationship

As packaging has been established as influential, it will be used for aided and unaided brand

recognition. The bottles of the top 9 brands sales from 2013 will be photographed with

labels removed and respondents will be asked to name the brand. The bottle lid colours

may be too recognisable so there will be two photograph sets: the first without labels and

without lids is the unaided recognition, and the second without labels but with lids is the

aided recognition.

Keller (2009) suggests that to measure attention when testing brand recognition, a decoy

can be used. Often when shown a non-existent product name or packaging, respondents

claim to recognise it (Keller, et al., 2012; Chisnell, 2001). As the author is not in possession

of packaging prototype to include in this study, a premium brand of bottled water which is

not in the top 9 but has quite distinctive packaging will be included in the photograph sets.

The decoy brand is Voss whose packaging has won awards for its innovative design (Zenith

International, 2013).

17

Packaging recognition tests will then also be compared with sales in the form of a line graph

and the correlation will be calculated and analysed. Only correct answers to recognition

tests will be used.

The unaided recall test and aided recall test result will also be compared against each other

to compare the difference between the two.

4. Identify any other common attributes which consumers recognise as deciding factors in

choosing a particular brand of an undifferentiated product. This may be used for future

research purposes.

There is little literature specifically addressing which product attributes are influential to

choice in identical products, and this study will give respondents an opportunity to indicate

the attributes which are important to their choice of brand of bottled water. They are free

to write anything. The results will manually be compared to look for themes and will be

described in the findings and recommendations for future research may be drawn.

As source/origin was found to be an influential factor, there will also be question on source:

According to Fine Waters (2013), there are 46 countries in the World which export water.

Respondents will be asked to choose from the 46, and then from the 5 countries which

between them produce the top 9 selling brands. They are asked which is most appealing

and why. They will have the option “no preference” and they will also be asked why they

chose a country or why not. Preferences will be presented in percentages in a pie chart and

any themes will be described and recommendations will be made.

The final question simply asks “You are in the bottled water aisle. All bottled water brands

are the same price. Which do you choose?” “Why?”. The answers will be manually

reviewed and themes will be discussed.

Figure 1Figure 2: Mintel Report on Bottled Water Sales (Clifford, 2014)

Figure 3: top 9 Sales

Brand Botted Water

1. Volvic

2. Evian

3. Highland Spring

4. Buxton

5. Pure Life

6. Glaceau VitaminWater

7. San Pellegrino

8. Brecon Carreg

9. Abbey Well

18

The top 9 brands have been calculated by Mintel (Clifford, 2014) using combined sales

values, volume and market share. This is the table being used in the awareness to sales

comparison with Volvic being number 1, Evian number 2 and so forth.

Weaknesses, Limitations and Constraints

Sample Size: the sample size is not large enough to apply findings to general population

(McDaniel & Gates, 2005) but assumptions can be drawn and recommendations for further

research on larger scale can be made.

Lack of research on topic: there is a lack of a research on the topic of identical product

branding meaning there is little to compare the results against. Instead, the results are

being discussed alongside similar studies in routine response buys and comparisons will be

made.

Data collection: often it is not apparent until after results have been collected that certain

questions were not phrased appropriately, or a question was missed out (Chisnell, 2001).

Any missing questions, or difficulties with data collection will be described in the findings.

The full survey is found at Appendix 2.

19

Findings, Analysis and Discussion

The full survey results can be found at appendix 2 and the results are described and analysed per objective below:

1. Test bottled water brand recall and compare with sales figures to establish the level of relationship. Recall and sales relationship will be

measured in two parts:

a. Top of mind recall

Brand Evian Volvic Buxton Highland Spring

Supermarket Own Brands

San Pellegrino

Vittel Life One Brecon Carreg

Perrier

Total

Number of Top of Mind Responses

40 6 5 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

65

Percentage of top of Mind Recall

62 9 8 8 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

100

Table 2: Top of mind recall results

Top of mind recall. Total responses: 65

Highlighted brands indicate top of mind responses which are not in the top 9 sales.

20

The strongest top of mind response was Evian with 62%. Volvic was second with 9%. In

total there were 11 different top of mind responses.

Figure 4: top of mind recall response

Figure 5: Top of mind recall response compared against sales position

Correlation coefficient: 0.692663 Strong positive correlation. From the visual representation the correlation appears fairly weak but the correlation

calculation indicates a strong positive correlation between top of mind recall and sales.

40 62%

6 9%

5 8%

5 8%

2 3% 2

3% 1 1%

1 1%

1 1%

1 2%

1 2%

4 6%

Top Of Mind Recall Evian

Volvic

Buxton

Highland Spring

Supermarket Own Brands

San Pellegrino

Vittel

Life

One

Brecon Carreg

Perrier

1 2

3 3 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6

2 1

4 3

10

7

10 10 10

8

10

5 6

8 9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Top of mind position

Sales Position 2013

21

Discussion/Implication:

Evian was significantly high in the top of mind recall but is actually the second highest seller.

Volvic as top seller came second in top of mind recall. Highland Spring and Buxton as third

and fourth in sales respectively were joint third in top of mind recall.

The overall correlation score supports a relationship between top of mind recall and brand

sales. This corroborates the findings of (MacDonald & Sharp, 2000; Hoyer & Brown, 1990)

that brand awareness is related to brand choice.

There are no similar studies in identical products to compare the results against.

The sample size limits the accuracy of the findings and further research using a larger

sample size would verify (or not) the findings and could be more widely applied.

22

2. Test bottled water brand recall and compare with sales figures to establish the level of relationship:

B - Evoked set recall:

Table 3: Evoked Set Responses

Evoked set responses: 267. Highlighted brands indicate evoked set responses which are not in the top 9 sales.

Evian Highland Spring

Buxton Volvic Perrier San Pellegrino Vittel One Voss

Brands with 4 or less (30 different named brands)

62 33 29 27 24 17 9 5 5 56 267

23 12 11 10 9 6 4 2 2 21

100

23

The evoked set included a total of 39 different brand responses. Responses with

4 or less have been categorised as a one group.

Figure 6: Evoked set Reponses by percentage

62, 23%

33, 12%

29, 11%

27, 10%

24, 9%

17, 6%

9, 4%

5, 2%

5, 2%

56, 21%

Evian

Highland Spring

Buxton

Volvic

Perrier

San Pellegrino

Vittel

One

Voss

Supermarket and other brands eachwith 4 or less (30 different namedbrands)

24

Figure 7: Evoked Set Recall Responses Measured Against Sales Position

Brands not represented in top 9 sales were given a number of 10 so that the representation

was clearer: if they were number with a ‘0’ the correlation it would have skewed because it

would appear higher in sales than the top 9 which were numbered with 1 being the highest

score.

Correlation 0.676346.

Strong positive correlation. The visual representation appears to support a strong positive correlation as the lines are

more closely mirrored than top of mind recall. The correlation coefficient indeed confirms a

strong positive correlation however slightly lower than with top of mind recall.

Discussion/Implication:

As with top of mind recall Evian was top of the evoked set. In second was Highland Spring

which is third in sales, and in third and fourth respectively were Buxton and Volvic. So again

the top four were still in the top four position. Volvic the best seller actually came fourth in

evoked set recall.

However, as with top of mind recall, the overall correlation score supports a relationship

between evoked set recall and brand sales. This again corroborates the findings of

(MacDonald & Sharp, 2000; Hoyer & Brown, 1990) that brand awareness is related to brand

choice.

There are no similar studies in identical products to compare the results.

1

4

3

2

9

6

7

10 10 10

5

10 10 10

2

1

4

3

10

7

10 10 10

8

10

5

6

9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Position in Evoked Set

Sales Position 2013

Linear (Position in Evoked Set)

Linear (Sales Position 2013)

25

The sample size limits the accuracy of the findings and further research using a larger

sample size would verify (or not) the findings and could be more widely applied.

26

Objective 2: Test unaided brand recognition within an undifferentiated product category: compare against leading brand

sales and establish whether a relationship exists

A B C D E F G H I J

Evian Brecon Carreg

Pure Life Abbey Well Highland Spring

San Pellegrino

Buxton Vitamin Water

Voss Volvic

Correct responses:

31 0 0 0 7 12 2 2 14 5

Table 4: Unaided recall - correct responses

27

Figure 8: Unaided Brand Recall Responses Measured Against Sales Position

The position is sales had to be reversed in order to represent the data; Evian scored highest

on recognition but as number two in sales the correlation would have been skewed. So

Volvic became 10, Evian became 9 and so forth.

Correlation: 0.224073

Weak positive correlation. The correlation indicates that the relationship between unaided

brand recognition and sales is existent though weak.

Evian the second in sales was most recognised, and Voss, the decoy came second. San

Pellegrino was third, though seventh in sales.

Four of the top 9/10 were not recognised at all.

Implications:

The second most recognised brand was Voss, the decoy brand. This indicates that perhaps

packaging is not as significant as previously found in identical products sales as the decoy

was very well recognised.

Weakness/Learning: However, this may not be the case; Voss is a glass bottle and all the

other brands are plastic. This may have been a poor choice of decoy as it may not

accurately represent intention as glass bottles are generally poorer in the sales of bottled

water (Young, 2014). Further research should use decoy plastic water bottle as a more

appropriate measure.

31

0 0 0

7

12

2 2

14

5

9

3

6

2

8

4

7

5

0

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Unaided recall correctresponses

Reverse Sles Posiiton

28

Objective 3: Test aided brand recognition within an undifferentiated product category (bottled water): compare against

leading brand sales and establish whether a relationship exists

Table 5: Aided recall - correct responses

A B C D E F G H I J

Evian Brecon Carreg

Pure Life Abbey Well

Highland Spring

San Pellegrino

Buxton Vitamin Water

Voss Volvic

Correct Responses

26 0 0 0 18 13 5 2 16 5

29

Figure 9: Aided Brand Recall Responses Measured Against Sales Position

The position is sales had to be reversed in order to represent the data; Evian scored highest

on recognition but as number two in sales the correlation would have been skewed. So

Volvic became 10, Evian became 9 and so forth.

Correlation: 0.249634

Weak positive correlation. The correlation indicates that the relationship between aided

brand recognition and sales is existent but weak.

Evian was most recognised in aided recall however it was less recognised than in the

unaided test. The lid had the most significant impact for Highland Spring which was second

in aided brand recall and third in sales. Voss, the decoy was third in recognition this time.

Three of the top 9/10 were not recognised.

Contrary to research, the results found that the lids lead to confusion rather than higher

recognition. Possibly due to most of the lids being various shades of blue with one of the

exceptions, Highland Spring whose bottle lid is purple, which saw a significant increase in

recognition.

Weakness/Learning: As with the unaided recognition, the glass bottle Voss may not have

been an appropriate choice and in further research a decoy plastic water bottle should be

used as a more appropriate measure.

26

0 0 0

18

13

5

2

16

5

9

3

6

2

8

4

7 5

0

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Aided Brand Recall

Reverse Sles Posiiton

30

Figure 10: Unaided and Aided Recall Comparison

Very strong correlation: 0.910921 The comparison between aided and unaided recall shows a very strong correlation.

Participants provided very similar answers for both with and without lids. Interestingly Evian

scored lower. Highland Spring showed the strongest improvement when lid was included.

But, in the main, the recognition only changed minimally between the two tests.

The correlation result means that difference between unaided and aided recall is very

minimal. This has significance in packaging design as colours and labels may not be as

influential in identical products. Further testing is required to verify this and should certainly

be tested on a larger sample size. This is discussed further in the conclusion.

26

0 0 0

18

13

5

2

16

5

31

0 0 0

7

12

2 2

14

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Aided Brand Recall

Unaided recall correctresponses

31

4. Identify any other common attributes which consumers recognise as deciding factors

in choosing a particular brand of an undifferentiated product. This may be used for

future research purposes.

a. Participants were asked what makes them choose one brand over another.

The responses were categorised and collated:

Figure 11: Reasons for choice of identical product

Reason for choosing a particular brand of bottled water

Familiarity was most the popular choice which included responses such as habit, recognition.

This tends to mirror findings that brand recall and brand sales are connected.

The above table is presented for information purposes as it may be useful for future

research. The taste issue is difficult for brands to counteract and this is further described in

the conclusions.

1 3

5

13

2

8

20

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

Choice of Identical Product

votes

32

Country preference

Canada Fiji Finland France Greenland Iceland Italy New Zealand

Norway Russia Romania Switzerland United Kingdom

1 4 2 6 3 5 2 2 3 1 1 3 31 Table 6: Country Preference out of 46

64 13 chosen out of 46 options

England France Italy Wales Scotland

21 7 2 3 32

Table 7: Country Preference from 5

Figure 12: Country preference by percentage

England 32%

France 11%

Italy 3%

Wales 5%

Scotland 49%

England

France

Italy

Wales

Scotland

33

Table 8: country preference compared

with top of mind country responses

Figure 13: Country preference compared with top sales countires preference

Correlation between top of mind recall and pick of top 5: -0.16003

When asked to choose which country they prefer water from from the countries of the top 9

sellers, 49% of respondents chose Scotland, 32% England, 11% France, Italy was 3% and

Wales was 5%.

Top of mind recall responses were categorised by country and converted to percentages and

compared against the countries respondents choose from the 5 countries of the top 9 seller.

The correlation between top of mind recall and preferred country is -0.16003. This is a very

weak negative correlation indicating that there is almost no relationship between sales

countries and the country preference.

Respondents claim that they would prefer Scottish and English brands, but they tend to

recall French brands. As advised by Keller (2009), marketing should focus on promoting the

source and this is further described in the conclusions.

Country

Top of Mind Recall by Country

Pick of 5 countries in survey

France 76 11

England 11 32

Italy 3 3

Scotland 8 49

Wales 2 5

Percentage 100 100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

France England Italy Scotland Wales

Top of Mind Recall byCountry

Pick of 5 countries insurvey

34

Conclusion/Recommendations

The purpose of the research was to establish the level of relationship between brand

awareness and sales in an identical product category and identify other attributes influential

in choosing between identical product brands.

The findings supported a strong relationship between brand awareness and sales which is

in-line with similar studies in routine response buys (Hoyer & Brown, 1990; MacDonald &

Sharp, 2000).

The top result in the top of mind recall was not the number one is sales but second, Evian.

Evian invest heavily in advertising but this has not always resulted in sales for them;

according to Edwards (2013), when their viral success video, ‘Evian Roller Babies’ attracted

50 million views on YouTube in 2009, sales actually dropped by 25%. Marketing research

texts frequently stress the need to measure brand recall to measure awareness, though

there is little research to suggest that recall actually results in sales. While the combined

top of mind recall correlation and sales was strong, the most recalled brand was not top of

sales and this is worth further future investigation on a larger scale.

Evoked set recall correlation with sales was also found to be strong positive, indicating that

the evoked set is also important in identical products and sales similarly with routine

response buys. Again, the data is limited by the sample size and warrants exploration on a

larger scale to verify the findings.

The correlation between unaided brand recognition and sales was a weak but positive.

Evian was again the most recognised with biggest seller Volvic taking only 7% of the most

recognised brands vote. Four of the top sellers were not recognised at all. This indicates

that contrary to some studies, brand recognition is not as correlated with sales and

previously thought, and further research should be undertaken on a larger scale using

identical products.

Aided brand recognition was a weak positive correlation. As previously mentioned,

marketing research texts tend to stress importance of brand recognition (both aided and

unaided) but do not provide evidence that brand recognition is correlated with sales and this

research finds that it is not strongly correlated. Sample size limits the accuracy of the

results, as well as the demographics: 22% of the respondents’ were not from the UK and

though UK based, this may have had an impact on recognition and recall of brands available

in the UK. With a larger sample size this could be verified and further testing with UK

nationalities may be required for accurate results.

Unexpectedly the correlation between aided and unaided recall was very strong, indicating

that there was little difference in aided and unaided recall. This contradicts previous findings

that the differences could be substantial. A larger scale study could confirm this.

While some brands, Highland Spring in particular, saw a sharp rise when recall was aided,

that was not the case in most brands. The implication being that the difference in aided and

unaided recognition is minimal and therefore identical product brands should concentrate on

3D packaging shape rather than artwork which made little difference in recognition. The

airline Norwegian changed their bottled water brand to Isklar which has a very distinctive

35

packaging shape compared with many other brands and they immediately saw bottled water

sales increase by 40%. It was found that the bottle shape was very recognisable from a

distance when it was impossible to recognise the artwork (Effective Design, 2012; Dahlen,

et al., 2010). This confirms the author’s suggestion that 3d packaging design should be

considered very influential in differentiating identical products.

When asked to describe why they choose one brand over another, familiarity was a strong

reason with 38% of respondents listing brand awareness and habit as their reason. This

seems to correspond with the findings that brand awareness and sales are highly correlated.

And indicates that advertising is important for long term effectiveness.

The second highest response was taste with 24% citing it as a reason. This is difficult for

marketers because blind tests have consistently proven that consumers can’t actually taste

the difference between bottled waters (Abrahams, 2011; Royte, 2008; Gleick, 2010) so how

can they convince someone who believes this to switch brands? Claiming that your brand

tastes better than another would be to lie, so to convince these people switch is extremely

challenging and should be investigated further.

Country of origin was also found to be important as it was in the pilot study, though what

respondents recorded as their preferred origin did not correlate with sales. Respondents

overwhelmingly claimed they preferred Scottish, Welsh and English water (86%) though

these countries only account for 34% of the top 9 sales by brand. Marketing should focus

messages around country of origin. Highland Spring for example packaging features a

thistle which is synonymous with Scotland.

This research was limited by sample size and demographics. A larger sample size could

provide more reliable results and stronger connections can be drawn and it is suggested that

identical product brand differentiation, awareness and choice is further researched.

36

References

Abrahams, M., 2011. Studies reveal that water tastes like water. [Online]

Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/aug/08/bottled-water-taste-research

[Accessed 23 04 2014].

Adis, A.-A. A. & Hyung Jun, K., 2013. Antecedents of Brand Recall and Brand Attitude towards.

Journal of Business and Management, 5(18), pp. 58-67.

Baker, W., Hutchinson, J. W., Moore, D. & Nedungadi, P., 1986. Brand Familiarity and Advertising:

Effects on the Evoked Set and Brand Preference. Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 13, pp.

637-642.

Batey, M., 2008. Brand Meaning. New York: Routledge.

Belleghem, S. V., 2013. Why loyalty is declining and what brands can do about it. [Online]

Available at: http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1223029/why-loyalty-declining-brands

[Accessed 12 04 2014].

Brassington , F. & Pettitt, S., 2006. Principles of Marketing. 4 ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Business Insider, 2013. 15 Outrageous facts about the bottled water industry. [Online]

Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-bottled-water-industry-2011-10#the-first-

documented-case-of-selling-bottled-water-was-in-boston-in-the-1760s-1

[Accessed 17 11 2013].

Busnelli, G., Shantaram, V. & Vatta, A., 2012. Winning the battled for the home of tomorrow,

London: McKinsey and Company.

Chisnell, P., 2001. Marketing Research. 6 ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.

Clifford, E., 2014. Bottled Water - UK - March - 2014, London: Mintel.

Dahlen, M., Lange, F. & Smith, T., 2010. Marketing Communications: A Brand Narrative Approach.

London: John Wiley & Sons.

Design Council, 2013. The power of branding. [Online]

Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/power-branding

[Accessed 12 04 2014].

Dickson, P. R. & Sawyer, A. G., 1986. Point-of-purchase behaviour and price perceptions of

supermarket shoppers. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Dolak, D., 2005. How to Brand and Market a Commodity. [Online]

Available at: http://www.brandchannel.com/papers_review.asp?sp_id=570

[Accessed 22 04 2014].

Doria, M., 2006. Bottled Water versus Tap Water: Understanding Consumers' Preferences. Journal of

Water and Health, 04(2), pp. 271-276.

37

Edwards, J., 2013. Evian's Babies, The Most Successful Viral Ad Campaign Of All Time, Roll Again.

[Online]

Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/evians-babies-the-most-successful-viral-ad-campaign-

of-all-time-roll-again-2013-4

[Accessed 23 05 2014].

Effective Design, 2012. Design awards 2012. [Online]

Available at: http://2011.effectivedesign.org.uk/2010/packaging/isklar.php

[Accessed 23 05 2014].

Esch, F.-R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B. & Geus, P., 2006. Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and

relationships affect current and future purchases. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 15(2),

pp. 98-105.

Fill, C., 2009. Marketing Communications: Interactivity, Communities and Content. 5 ed. Harlow:

Pearson Education Limited.

Fine Waters, 2013. Woldwide Bottled Water Brands Listed by Country. [Online]

Available at: http://www.finewaters.com/Bottled_Water/index.asp

[Accessed 12 04 2014].

Forsyth, H., 2010. Bottled water has become liquid gold. [Online]

Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11813975

[Accessed 16 11 2013].

Gleick, P., 2010. Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water. Washington

DC: Island Press.

Gruca, T., 1989. Determinants of Choice Set Size: an Alternative Method For Measuring Evoked Sets.

Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 16, pp. 515-521.

Hofstrand, D., 2005. Commodities Versus Differentiated Products. [Online]

Available at: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c5-203.html

[Accessed 02 04 2014].

Hollis, N., 2011. It Is Not A Choice: Brands Should Seek Differentiation and Distintctiveness, London:

Millward Brown.

Hoyer, W. D. & Brown, S. P., 1990. Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a Common, Repeat-

Purchase Product. Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 17, pp. 141-148.

Intellectual Property Office, 2014. What is a brand?. [Online]

Available at: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-about/t-whatis/t-brands.htm

[Accessed 23 05 2014].

Keller, K. L., Aperia, T. & Georgson, M., 2012. Strategic Brand Management. 2 ed. Harlow: Pearson

Education Limited.

38

Lister, J., 2012. Objectives in Awareness Advertising. [Online]

Available at: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/objectives-awareness-advertising-31418.html

[Accessed 12 04 2014].

MacDonald, E. K. & Sharp, B. M., 2000. Brand Awareness Effects on Consumer Decision Making for a

Common, Repeat Purchase Product: A Replication. Journal of Business Research, Volume 48, pp. 5-

15.

Mansharamani, V., 2005. Towards a Theory of Service Innovation: An Inductive Case Study Approach

to Evaluating the Uniqueness of Services, Massaschusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

McDaniel, C. & Gates, R., 2005. Marketing Research. 6 ed. Danvers: John Wiley and Sons.

Parkinson, T., 1979. An Information Processing Approach to Evoked Set Formation. Association for

Consumer Research, Volume 6, pp. 227-231.

Romaniuk, J., Sharp, B., Paech, S. & Driesener, C., 2014. Brand and Advertising Awareness: A

Replication of a Known Emperical Generalisation. Australasian Marketing Journal, 12(3), pp. 70-80.

Royal Society of Chemistry, n.d. Is bottled water better than tap?. [Online]

Available at: http://www.rsc.org/get-involved/hot-topics/drinking-water/bottled-water-tap-

water.asp

Royte, E., 2008. Bottlemania. New York: Bloomsbury.

Stark, K. & Stewart, B., 2013. Can you differentiate yourself in a commodity market. [Online]

Available at: http://www.inc.com/karl-and-bill/can-you-differentiate-yourself-in-a-commodity-

market.html

[Accessed 12 05 2014].

Stewart, B., 1996. Packaging as an Effective Marketing Tool. London: Kogan Page.

Suttle, R., 2011. Goals & Objectives in Advertising. [Online]

Available at: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/goals-objectives-advertising-25273.html

[Accessed 12 04 2014].

Telegraph, 2013. Bottled water 'not as safe as tap variety', London: Telegraph.

Underhill, P., 2000. Why We Buy. UK: Orion Business.

Warc, 2006. If my ad awareness goes up, will my sales increase too?, London: Warc.

Williams, G., 2014. Bottled Water Branding [Interview] (29 05 2014).

Young, K., 2014. Plastic versus Glass: the great water bottle debate. [Online]

Available at: http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/beauty/news-features/TMG10559289/Plastic-versus-

Glass-the-great-water-bottle-debate.html

[Accessed 12 05 2013].

Zenith International, 2012. 2012 Global Bottled Water Congress. Webinar, Zenith International.

39

Zenith International, 2013. 10th Global Bottled Water Congress. [Online]

Available at: http://www.zenithinternational.com/events/106

[Accessed 12 04 2014].

40

Appendix 1: Pilot Study Questionnaire

41

Appendix 2: Research Questionnaire

42

Appendix 3: Record of Meetings with Dissertation Supervisor