Original Equipment Manufacturer Survey Findings & Recommendations Presented to Presented by
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Original Equipment Manufacturer SurveyFindings & Recommendations
Presented to
Presented by
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) survey purpose and methodology Purpose
– Discover and understand OEMs’ opinions, attitudes and purchasing of O‐ring products
– Understand Spec Seals’ brand awareness and perceptions
– Identify OEM information sources– Understand key competitor brand
awareness and perceptions– Discover important product and brand
attributes– Understand who’s involved in the OEM O‐
ring purchasing process and their role– Ultimately, survey insights to be used for
future brand strategy, positioning and key messaging development
Methodology– Convenience sampling among Spec
Seals’ entire OEM database of 670 customers and prospects
– Final sample size: N = 670– Delta: = 0 – Survey completes: 30 or 4.48% (within
the projected 3% to 10% range)– Instrument was an HTML web‐based
survey so any one, on any device, with an internet connection could conveniently complete the survey
– Incentives:• 1 new iPad with retina display• 5 iPod Shuffles• 5 $25 iTunes gift cards
2
Executive summary
The OEM survey was fielded on September 24, 2013
The OEM survey sample size was 670 and had 30 completes or 4.5% response rate –within the 3% to 10% projected response rate
Top OEM survey respondent titles were1. Purchasing agent (50%)2. Production manager (10%)3. Corporate management (10%)
Top job responsibilities included1. Purchase products based on specific requirements
(40%)2. Decision maker (30%)
Respondents’ primary industries were 1. Automotive (13%)2. Electronics (10%)3. Automation, medical products and water products/
filtration tied at 7% each
3
Company sales were distributed fairly evenly among three segments1. Less than $5MM (27%)2. $10MM to $50MM (27%)3. Over $100MM (20%)
OEM decision maker titles1. Purchasing agent/manager (43%)2. Design engineer/manager (40%)
OEM information sources1. Google search engine/company website (50%)2. Design Engineering magazine (23%)3. Machine Design (20%)4. Rubber & Plastic News (17%)
Fifty‐six percent of respondents reported their company spends less than $30Kannually on O‐rings
Suppliers with greatest brand awareness1. Parker Seal (29%)2. Spec Seals (19%)3. Hutchinson (National) (14%)4. Parco (10%)
Executive summary, cont’d
Quality assurance standards required most1. 9001‐2008 certification (78%)2. ASTM D2000 (72%)3. A2LA (67%)4. SAE AS708 and TS 16949 tied at 61% each
Most popular type of O‐ring used1. EPDM – Ethylene‐Propylene (48%)2. Nitrile (Buna‐N) and Silicone tied at 24% each3. Viton (FKM – Fluoroelastomer) (19%)4. Fluorosilicone (10%)
OEM Top 10 supplier selection criteria1. Consistently provides high‐quality O‐rings2. Delivers O‐rings on time3. Provides quick response to problems4. Provides quick turnaround on all orders5. Products/services priced competitively6. Meets quality standards7. Technically competent8. Meets O‐ring expectations9. Has sufficient inventory to meet needs10. Technically astute in all compounds and applications
Things OEMs like most about Spec Seals– Cost– Customer service– Real time inventory
Things OEMs like least about Spec Seals– Long lead times for non‐stock items– Lack of inventory– Slow to quote pricing
Things OEMs would change about Spec Seals
– Better pricing (38%)– Shorter lead times on non‐stock items (13%)– Faster delivery (13%)– Response time on quotes and problems (13%)– Communication (13%)
4
Part 1General Information
Q1. Please tell us your current job title
Most frequently mentioned job titles
– Purchasing agent (50%)– Production manager (10%)– Corporate management (10%)
“Other” job titles– Purchasing manager– Jr. buyer– Certification agency coordinator
0% 0% 0% 0%3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
10%10%13%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Respondent %
6
Q2. Please tell us your role in the selection and/or purchasing of O‐rings for your company Most respondents . . .
1. Purchase products based on specific requirements (43%)
2. Decision maker (30%)3. Develop product specifications
and influence the decision, tied at 10% each
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Respondent %
7
Q3. Please tell us your company’s primary industry
Automotive (13%) Electronics (10%) Automation, medical products and water
products/filtration tied at 7% each Other (37%)
– Irrigation– Injection molded products– Pharmaceutical– Sporting goods– Pneumatic valves– Petroleum industry– Wireline perforating– Flow control valves– Beverage dispense– Food equipment– Plastics manufacturing
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Semiconductors
Pumps & Valves
Lighting Products
Cable Connectors
Appliances
Aerospace
Water Products/Filtration
Medical Products
Automation
Electronics
Automotive
Other
Respondent %
8
Q4. Please tell us the annual sales of your company Combined, 25% of respondents
say their company has sales of less than $5MM
Twenty percent have sales of $20MM to $49.9MM
$100MM to $249.9MM (10%) Don’t know or wouldn’t say
(17%)
0%
3% 3% 3%
7% 7% 7%
10%
17%
20%
23%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Respondent %
9
Q5. Within your company, who are the key decision makers for selecting/purchasing O‐rings Most frequently mentioned
“decision maker” job titles – Purchasing agent/manager (43%)– Design engineer/manager (40%)
“Other” titles, include– Moldshop manager– Commodity buyers/engineers
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Respondent %
10
Q6. Please tell us what primary information sources you use to identify/select O‐ring products and suppliers
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Respondent %
11
TOP PUBLICATIONS & WEBSITES
1. Design Engineering (23%)2. Machine Design (20%)3. Rubber & Plastic News (17%)4. Internet Sites & Other (50%)
• Google search• Thomas Registry• PAI• Company search/website
Q7. Please tell us the annual purchase volume of O‐rings for your company More than half of respondents
report their company purchases less than $30K of O‐rings annually (56%)
– Over 33% of respondents report annual purchases of less than $15K
– Another 23% purchase $15K to $30Kannually
Thirty percent purchase more than $30K per annum
The balance, 13%, either didn’t know or would not report annual sales of O‐rings
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Respondent %
12
Part 2Marketing & Brand Information
Q1. When you think of O‐ring companies and brands, what ONE company comes to mind first Parker Seal has the greatest share‐
of‐mind (29%) Spec Seals has the second greatest
SOM (19%) Hutchinson (National) has the third
greatest SOM (14%) Parco and Freudenberg NOK have
10% or less SOM “Other” companies include
– Newman– Presision Rubber– Fusion– Satori Seal
0% 0% 0%
5%
10%
14%
19%
24%
29%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Respondent %
14
Q2. Please tell us the ONE thing you like MOST about the company you selected (top four companies)
Respondents mostly like Parker Seal’s product variety/ breadth
They also noted Spec Seals’ and Parco’s pricing as the most liked
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Spec Seals
Parker Seal
Hutchinson (National)
Parco
15
Spec Seals’ and Parco’s pricing is most liked
Respon
dent %
Parker’s product variety/ breadth is most liked
Q3. Please tell us the ONE thing you like LEAST about the company you selected – top four companies
Spec Seals’ perceived short‐comings include
– Long lead times– Lack of inventory– Slow delivery times– Slow to quote pricing
Parker Seal’s pricing was least liked as was Hutchinson’s (National’s) pricing
Parco’s long lead times and slow response to inquiries were least liked
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Spec Seals
Parker Seal
Hutchinson (National)
Parco
16
Respon
dent %
Q4. Please tell us about your experiences with and/or perceptions of the ONE company selected (top four companies)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Spec Seal Yes
Spec Seal No
Spec Seal Don't Know
Parker Seal Yes
Parker Seal No
Hutchinson (National) Yes
Hutchinson (National) No
Parco Yes
Parco No
Not Important
17
Respon
dent %
3. Spec Seals’ Deficiencies:
• Can’t meet short lead times
• Insufficient inventory
2. Spec Seals• Priced competitively• Meets quality standards• Has excellent brand reputation• Consistently provides high‐quality O‐rings
1. Parker• Meets quality standards• Has excellent brand reputation• Consistently provides high‐quality O‐rings• Very familiar with the brand• Delivers on time
Q5. When it comes to quality assurance standards and certifications, which of the following best describes your company’s requirements
More than 70% of respondents report the two most common requirements are
– 9001‐2008 Certification (78%)– ASTM D2000 (72%)
More than 60% say the following assurance standards are important
– MIL‐STD‐413 (67%)– A2LA (67%)– SAE AS708 (61%)– TS 16949 (61%)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Respondent %
18
Q6. What type of O‐rings does your company use most
Most popular type of O‐ring used by OEMs1. EPDM – Ethylene‐Propylene (48%)2. Nitrile (Buna‐N) (24%)3. Silicone (24%)4. Viton (FKM‐Fluoroelastomer)
(19%)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Respondent %
19
Q7. When thinking about the companies that serve the O‐ring marketplace, how familiar are you with
Respondents are very familiar with
– Parker Seal (56%)– Spec Seals (50%)– Parco (39%)
Respondents are not familiar with– Dichtomatick North America (74%)– Freudenberg NOK ( 68%)– Hutchinson (National) and RT Dygert
(tied at 65% each)
Almost 30% of respondents are not familiar with Spec Seals
20
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Very Familiar
Somewhat Familiar
Not Familiar
Respon
dent %
3.
1. 2.
Q8. When selecting O‐ring products, how important are these factors in the decision making process
Top 10 factors in the decision making process1. Consistently provides high‐quality O‐rings2. Delivers O‐rings on time3. Provides quick response to problems4. Provides quick turnaround on all orders5. Products/services priced competitively6. Meets O‐ring quality standards7. Technically competent8. Meets O‐ring expectations9. Has sufficient inventory to meet needs10. Technically astute in compounds and
applications
Sixty‐nine percent of OEM respondents say “custom compounds” are either not important or only somewhat important
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Very Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important
21
Respon
dent %
Top 10 supplier selection criteria
Ranked Least Important to Most Important
Q9. When thinking of the companies you’re very familiar with, what’s the one thing that comes to mind first
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Spec Seals
Parker Seal
Hutchinson (National)
Parco
22
Respon
dent %
1. Spec Seals’ competitive pricing2. Parker is expensive3. Spec Seal’s and Parker’s quality
Q10. How familiar are you with the company, Spec Seals
One third (33%) of respondents report being “very familiar” with Spec Seals
The majority (48%), said they were only “somewhat familiar” or “not familiar” with Spec Seals
Of those not familiar, 14% said they wanted to learn more about Spec Seals
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
VeryFamiliar
SomewhatFamiliar
Not at allFamiliar
Not familiar,would like toknow more
Spec Seals
23
Q11. Spec Seals – Please tell us about your experiences and/or perceptions (rank numbers are selection criteria)
100% of Spec Seal respondents said– They’re very familiar with the brand– Spec Seals is technically astute in O‐ring
compounds and applications– Products/services are competitively priced– Meets their O‐ring quality standards– Consistently provides high‐quality O‐rings
80% of Spec Seal respondents said– Provides quick turnaround on all O‐ring
orders– Has excellent brand reputation– Delivers O‐rings on time– Can design custom O‐rings to spec– Can design and manufacture custom O‐
rings
60% said– Spec Seals can not meet short lead times
on non‐stock items– They didn’t know the Company could
deliver prototypes in weeks vs months– Spec Seals does not have sufficient
inventory to meet their needs
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Yes
No
Don't Know
Not Important
24
Respon
dent %
80%
100%
60%
Q12. If there were one thing you could change about Spec Seals, what would it be
Pricing– A constant theme for most brands
and segments, and not surprising
Shorter lead times on non‐stock items
– Continues to be an issue for Spec Seals and is either a legitimate concern or unreasonable request
Communication and faster delivery
– New themes of concern and should be explored further
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Respondent %
25
Summary of key OEM findings
Key decision makers
1. Purchasing agent/manager2. Design engineer/manager
Brand awareness
– Survey found 33% of respondents are “very familiar” with Spec Seals
– Conversely, almost 50% are only “somewhat” or “not at all” familiar with Spec Seals
Things liked most
– Pricing – ranks #5 on selection criteria
Things liked least
– Long lead times – ranks 13th– Lack of inventory – ranks 9th– Slow delivery – ranks 2nd (and/or 13th)– Slow to quote pricing – not ranked
Selection criteria, in rank order
1. Consistently provides high quality O‐rings2. Delivers O‐rings on time3. Provides quick response to problems4. Provides quick turnaround on all orders5. Products/services competitively priced6. Meets O‐ring quality standards7. Technically competent8. Meets O‐ring expectations9. Has sufficient inventory to meet our needs10.Technically astute in all O‐ring compounds
and applications
Perceived Spec Seals deficiencies
1. Can not meet short lead times (60%)2. Insufficient inventory to meet our needs
(60%)3. Didn’t know Spec Seals could deliver
prototypes in weeks vs months (60%)4. Didn’t know Spec Seals could meet O‐
ring expectations (60%)26
Recommendations
Raise brand visibility among key decision makers/target audiences
Communicate Spec Seals’ success with the top 10 OEM selection criteria
1. Consistently provides high‐quality O‐rings2. Delivers O‐rings on time3. Provides quick response to problems4. Provides quick turnaround on all orders5. Products/services priced competitively6. Meets our quality standards7. Technically competent8. Meets O‐ring expectations9. Has sufficient inventory to meet needs10. Technically astute in compounds and applications
Key messages should be delivered through
– Vertical print– Direct marketing– Google search and SEO/SEM practices– Improved Spec Seals’ website
Additional consideration should be given to co‐branded direct marketing and collateral materials
Key decision makers/target audiences are
– Purchasing Agent//Manager– Design Engineer/Manager
27
28
NEXT STEPS
Discuss survey implications Determine marketing communications budget Develop marketing communication plan
– Execute, measure, refine
Related Documents
![[En] Innovation in market research - Global Market research event](https://static.cupdf.com/doc/110x72/546e1796af79590b198b5847/en-innovation-in-market-research-global-market-research-event.jpg)
