Prepared for: Prepared by: Report Issued (DATE) General Aviation Study CLIENT THIS IS A SAMPLE REPORT USING DATA FROM AN ACTUAL STUDY. SOME OF THE DATA HAS BEEN CHANGED. THE NAME OF THE CLIENT COMPANY HAS BEEN CHANGED TO “CLIENT”. THE PRODUCT CATEGORY HAS BEEN CHANGED TO (PRODUCT) Amy Hoffman
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
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Report Issued (DATE)
General Aviation Study
CLIENT
THIS IS A SAMPLE REPORT USING DATA
FROM AN ACTUAL STUDY. SOME OF THE
DATA HAS BEEN CHANGED. THE NAME OF
THE CLIENT COMPANY HAS BEEN
CHANGED TO “CLIENT”. THE PRODUCT
CATEGORY HAS BEEN CHANGED TO
(PRODUCT)
Amy Hoffman
Sample Report
Amy Hoffman
2
Analysis Contents
Page #
Introduction 3-4
Executive Summary 6-7
Recommendations 8
Detailed Findings
Awareness and Usage 10-15
Importance and Product Satisfaction 17-21
Image of (CLIENT) 23-26
Purchase Process 28-29
Demographics 32-33
Appendix
Sample Report
Amy Hoffman
3
Introduction
Background
(CLIENT) Corporation currently markets the (Product) to general aviation pilots. According to CLIENT, the (Product) is the technology leader in the market and is also the most expensive (Product) available at $XXX. CLIENT would like to conduct a study with general aviation pilots to try to better understand their shopping and purchase behaviors with regards to aviation (Products) with the goal of better understanding how these pilots make their purchase decision. Ultimately, CLIENT would like to know how to increase their market share in this category.
Objectives
The primary objectives of this research are to…
• Measure awareness of the CLIENT brand relative to other (Product) brands among general aviation pilots
• Understand what goes into a general aviation pilot’s decision to purchase one brand of (Product) over another. That is, what are the key drivers for making a (Product) purchase?
• Understand how they learned about the (Product) that they own and what resources are used in making a decision to purchase a new Products.
• Measure interest in the CLIENT (Product) and try to determine what, if any, obstacles exist for this product in the general aviation market
• Identify usage demographics of general aviation pilots
Sample Report
Amy Hoffman
4
Introduction
Research Methodology
A sample of pilots from an FAA-sponsored on line data base was utilized by AAA Research Company. Respondents were screened for the following:
• Pilot status verification (Private, Instrument, Multiengine or commercial)
• Between the ages of 25 and 64
• Not competitively employed
• Own at least one pilot (Product)
A total of 500 interviews were conducted via telephone from January 9 – 19, 20XX.
Qualified pilots were asked about their awareness and purchase behavior, satisfaction and likelihood to purchase a new (Products) and a CLIENT (Product), and lastly, demographics.
Reporting Notes
All statistical testing has been conducted at the 90% confidence level. Statistical differences between groups are shown in the report and noted by lower case letters.
Base sizes which are less than 30 respondents should be considered directional.
Executive Summary and Recommendations
Sample Report
Amy Hoffman
6
Executive Summary
The CLIENT BRAND commands fairly high awareness in the general aviation market; however, the dominance
of the Competitor A brand name combined with CLIENT’s high price appear to deflate usage of CLIENT’s
(product).
• Competitor A (Products) are the predominant name in the pilot (Products) market among general aviation pilots.
With unequalled top-of-mind awareness, the Competitor A (products) dominate current usage as well.
• While CLIENT has the second highest level of unaided awareness, usage is not commensurate with awareness
with just an 8% awareness to usage conversion, among the lowest of all brands.
• Price is the primary reason for not considering CLIENT’s (Product).
CLIENT users are quite satisfied and to some extent more content than the Competitor A users. Further, the
product has a good reputation in the industry even among non-users.
• Ratings for CLIENT are strong on the important attributes of communication clarity, noise reduction, comfort and
weight. Further these ratings exceed those for Competitor A among their respective users.
• CLIENT’s ratings among non-users tend to parallel users’ ratings on the key dimensions. Price is an area where
the two groups disagree, however.
(Products) with passive noise reduction dominates usage 2:1 over active noise reduction. However, those
owning active noise reduction products tend to be more satisfied. Yet this feature may not be perceived as
enough of an advantage to justify the higher price for CLIENT.
• Although noise reduction is a critical feature in pilot (Products), pilots are generally pleased with their (Product’s)
ability to achieve this attribute. The difference in passive versus active may not be enough to differentiate the
market.
• Competitor C users, and some extent Competitor A users, are more dissatisfied with the noise reduction qualities
of their Products.
• Those who own active noise reduction models tend to have better ratings on three of the top four important
factors (communication clarity, noise reduction, and comfort.)
Sample Report
Amy Hoffman
7
Executive Summary
Ability to try on (Products) is important and likely impacts brand purchase, especially in higher priced models.
• Since weight and comfort are two key factors in the purchase of a pilot (Products), trying on the (Products) becomes a critical way to evaluate a product before purchasing it.
• One-half of the pilots were able to try on their (Products) before buying it, but this increases to 58% among those with active noise reduction (Products) -- the higher-price models.
• Further, those who tried their current (Products) on before buying it, tend to have better ratings on two of the important factors – noise reduction and comfort.
Cell-phone usage in the cockpit is not very common.
• Currently less than one-third of the pilots use their cell phones in-flight and this could be due to the current inability to interface usage with (Products) or perceptions of legality. The option of Products/cell phone interface appeals to over half of the pilots.
Awareness of CLIENT’s active noise reduction feature is fairly well known, but the higher price appears to deflate purchase. Additionally, installment payment plans hold some merit, but awareness of this option needs to be increased in order to result in additional sales.
• Four in five are aware of the active noise reduction feature of CLIENT (Products). Nevertheless, positive purchase interest is just 29%. Reasons indicate price and a need to compare are the factors holding back interest.
• Less than 10% are aware of the installment billing program by CLIENT. Once made aware, over one-quarter believe this option would influence their decision to buy CLIENT.
At the present time Competitor C is not a major competitor. However, compared to CLIENT, Competitor C has a stronger awareness to trial conversion ratio and a better price perception. If Competitor C increases marketing and sales efforts, CLIENT may be hit hard.
• Competitor C is the only brand with comparably strong ratings,even for noise reduction. Further, their rating on price is much better than CLIENT’s. Awareness is where Competitor C falls short. Therefore, CLIENT should be on the defensive if Competitor C enhances marketing efforts and focuses on noise reduction at a lower price (versus CLIENT).
Sample Report
Amy Hoffman
8
Recommendations
Awareness of CLIENT (Products) is not an issue. Converting the awareness to purchase is a major issue, however.
• Trying before buying is a key variable in the purchase process since important factors such as comfort and weight can only be evaluated in this manner. The ability to demonstrate or try on CLIENT (products) in a flight shop would go far to achieve this objective. Perhaps a demo program similar to to the consumer flight noise reduction (Products) trial program should be considered. Additionally, if CLIENT had a presence in Sporty’s –the top retailer – pilots would be able to see, touch, feel and perhaps try the product before buying it.
• Flight instructors tend to be a source of awareness second to magazine ads. This is especially true for Competitor A. Perhaps a demo program among flight instructors would serve to increase awareness among the newer pilots and at the same time allow student pilots or those in the market for a new (Products) the ability to try on the product. This might help displace Competitor A as the recommended brand from flight instructors.
While it is known that active noise reduction is a product differentiating feature for CLIENT, at present this feature is not critical enough to justify CLIENT’s higher price.
• Any R&D studies on noise reduction pointing to a real benefit for active noise reduction might be considered for magazine ads.
• Advertisements featuring testimonials from users might also be another method to increase saliency of this feature.
Cell-phone interface is a concept worth exploring, pending investigation of legal issues.
• Currently in-flight cell phone usage is not very common and could be due to the current inability to interface usage with (Products). The option of (Products)/cell phone interface appeals to over half of the pilots.
Combining the existing features with cell phone interface, marketing the payment plan, creating the ability to upgrade and selling this as a package at the existing price might place more value on the CLIENT (products) and increase usage.
• However, keep in mind that just one in five pilots are in the market for a new (Product) in the coming year, so market potential must be weighted by this variable.
• Instrument-certified pilots represent a slightly more viable target as they have more frequent cell phone usage, pay more for their (Products) and see more value in upgrading but at the same time, they already own more (Products) than others and are more likely to be the CLIENT users.
Awareness and Usage
Sample Report
Amy Hoffman
10
Unaided Products Brand AwarenessQ. 2, 3
• More pilots are aware of Competitor A Products than any other brand. They are top of mind for over one-
half of the general aviation pilots. CLIENT is second to Competitor A based on both top-of-mind and total
unaided awareness.
Base: Total Respondents (500)
First Mention Other Mentions
56
9
5
5
3
2
1
2
75
42
20
13
11
7
6
6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Competitor A
Client
Competitor B
Competitor C
Competitor D
P
So
Si
Sample Report
Amy Hoffman
11
Total Brand AwarenessQ. 2, 3, 4
Total Unaided Aided
75
42
20
11
13
7
3
4
96
86
84
74
45
48
38
32
0 20 40 60 80 100
Comp. A
Client
Comp. B
Comp. C
Comp. D
P
S
O
Base: Total Respondents (500)
• Virtually all general aviation pilots have heard of the Competitor A brand. CLIENT and Comp. B have
strong awareness levels as well, although not the extent of the leader.
Sample Report
Amy Hoffman
12
Source of Initial AwarenessQ. 12
31
19
17
4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Magazine
ad
From a
friend
From an
instructor
Store/store
display
Base: Total Respondents (500)
CLIENT users: 47%
Competitor A users: 23%
Comp. B users: 14%
Instructors create more
awareness among those
who fly <50 hours (23%)
• A combination of sources create awareness, but magazine ads are most often mentioned. CLIENT users
in particular cite this source. The flight instructors become a more important source among the less active
pilots and the Competitor A users.
Sample Report
Amy Hoffman
13
Current and Previous Brand Usage
7
8
8
9
45
3
3
3
Base: Total Respondents (500)
Q. 6, 7
1
2
3
2
2
8
11
37 Comp. A
Comp. B
Comp. C
Comp. D
Client
S
P
Si
Current Products Used Most OftenPrevious Products Used
CLIENT is most popular
among pilots with Instrument
Certification (11%) and active
type (Products) (17%)
• Not only does Competitor A dominate awareness but also has a decided edge in current and past usage
as well.
• Competitor A exceeds all brands in the ability to convert those aware into users.
Awareness
to Usage
Conversion
Ratio*
46%
11%
12%
18%
8%
NA
6%
NA
% use currently
%Total aware* Calculation =
Sample Report
Amy Hoffman
14
(Products): Number, Type, and Trial
• Aaaa
Q. 1, 11,15
61
5032
7
50
Active
Passive
Don’t Know
Base: Total Respondents (500)
42
34
24One
Two
Three or
more
Mean = 2.7
(Products)
Who Owns the Most (Products)?
Yes
No
Number of (Products) Owned
Type of Noise Reduction
in (Product)Tried Before Buying
• On average, these pilots own almost three pair of (Products). More sets are owned by pilots with instrument certification,
those in the mid range of flight hours and those with active noise reduction. Passive noise reduction dominates usage,
however.
• Although among the general population trial before buying is split evenly, active noise reduction (Product) owners are more
likely to have tried the product before buying than passive owners.
* Caution very small base
size. Interpret with caution.
Active 58%
Passive 47%
Average No.
of Headsets
Pilot Certification
Private (276) a 2.5
Instrument (70) b 3.2 ad
Multi Engine (18*) c 3.5 a
Commerical (136) d 2.7
Hours Flown Annually
<50 (217) e 2.1
51-150 (187) f 3.0 ej
151-225 (43) g 3.5 efj
226-300 (16*) h 4.6 efj
Over 300 (37) j 2.2
Type of Headset Owned
Active (161) k 3.3 m
Passive (305) m 2.4
Sample Report
Amy Hoffman
15
Ability to Connect with Cell Phone/Value/Frequency of Using Cell Phone
48
21
15
16
Frequency of Cell Phone Use
Frequently
Occasionally
Rarely
Never
357
40
Q. 19, 20A, 20B
Don’t Know
See
value
See No
Value
Value of Ability to Connect Cell
Phone to Pilot Products
Base: Total Respondents (500)
Just 4% have
have (Products)
with ability to
interface with
cell phones.
Frequent cell phone users are
more likely to be instrument
(21%) and commercial
certified pilots (21%).
• Cell phone usage in flight is fairly uncommon as just three in ten report frequent or occasional usage.
Likewise, the ability of the Products to interface with the cell phone is rare (just 4%). However, over half
see the ability to interface the two devices as valuable.
• During the interview several pilots mentioned that usage of a cell phone in the cockpit is illegal.
Importance and Product Satisfaction
Sample Report
Amy Hoffman
17
Importance of Product Features
4.0
4.4
4.4
3.4
5.8
5.2
6.8
7.1
7.9
5.7
7.6
9.2
9.0
4.4
4.5
4.7
4.8
5.2
5.7
6.3
6.4
7.4
7.0
7.4
8.1
8.8
9.39.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Battery life
Auto shut off feature
The way it looks
Recommendation from flight instructor
Ability to try/receive a demonstration
Recommendation from a friend
Warranty
Customer service
Weight
Price
Reputation of the brand
Noise reduction
Comfort
Clarity of communication
Importance of these features was rated on a scale from 10 to 1, where 10 = “Extremely important” and 1= “Not at all important.”
Average
CLIENT usersTotal
Q9
More important to CLIENT
users than pilots in general
• Clarity of communication and comfort are clearly the two most important attributes in pilot (Products).
CLIENT users tend to be like the pilots in general in what they deem important, although they place more
emphasis on noise reduction, customer service and ability to try/demonstrate before buying.
• They place less emphasis on price and recommendation from a flight instructor.
Sample Report
Amy Hoffman
18
Mean Ratings for Brand UsedQ. 8, 10
Letters to the right of a number indicate a significant difference at the 90% confidence level.
• Generally pilots are satisfied with the brand they use most often. Highest satisfaction levels are for
performance-related attributes (clarity, noise reduction) and aesthetics (comfort, weight).
• CLIENT users tend to be more satisfied overall and on the performance-related and aesthetic attributes
compared to most other brand users, including Competitor A. CLIENT performs poorly on price, however.
• Competitor C users are similar to CLIENT users in their high satisfaction levels, but Competitor C also has
an advantage in price.
Total Client
Comp
A
Comp
B
Comp
C
Comp
DBase: Total Respondents (472) (34) (224) (39) (40) (43)
a b c d e
Overall Rating 8.2 9.2 bcde 8.4 7.5 8.6 ce 7.7
Clarity of Communication 8.6 9.2 bce 8.8 ce 8.1 9.1 ce 8.3
Comfort 8.0 8.6 bce 8.0 c 7.4 8.8 bce 7.8
Noise Reduction 7.9 9.1 bce 7.7 7.6 9.0 bce 7.1
Weight 7.4 8.1 bce 7.3 7.0 8.2 bce 7.3
Price 7.1 5.3 6.6 a 7.7 ab 8.1 ab 7.5 ab
Customer Service 7.1 7.4 7.1 7.2 7.9 be 6.2
Warranty 6.9 7.3 e 7.1 e 6.9 7.5 e 5.8
The way it looks 6.6 7.1 e 6.4 7.4 be 6.7 6.1
Battery life 5.6 5.6 5.2 5.6 7.8 b 5.3
More
Less
Imp
ort
an
ce
Sample Report
Amy Hoffman
19
Strategic Performance Matrix - CLIENT
High Importance/Low Performance
Low Importance/Low Performance
Low Importance/High Performance
Warranty
Battery life
Price
Customer service
The way if looks
ComfortNoise reduction
Weight
Clarity of communication
Performance
Imp
ort
an
ce
High Importance/High Performance
Q. 9, 10
• Aaaa• CLIENT performs well on the more important attributes. Room for improvement exists in customer service.
Sample Report
Amy Hoffman
20
Dissatisfaction with Current ProductsQ. 17
Letters to the right of a number indicate a significant difference at the 90% confidence level.
Total Client
Comp
A
Comp
B
Comp
C
Comp
DBase: Total Respondents (472) (34) (224) (39) (40) (43)