Troller

BACKGROUNDA Market Launch clinic is required to confirm the appeal, pricing, product positioning and imagery for a future off-road vehicle under development by Troller. This research is required to provide voice of customer feedback on the final exterior and interior design (including market specifications and pricing).To align the timing of the research results with Market Equation input, this Market Launch clinic has to run immediately after the conclusion of SUV Market Launch fieldwork (Project 13BRA404).Markets: Brazil only This Market Launch project will be locally bid out and managed by FSAO GCI office (Fernando Pfeiffer and Fabio Barile).

OBJECTIVES

The overall aims of the Market Launch clinic were:Test overall product appeal to confirm Market Equation to support the Program Approval <PA> Gateway.Test price elasticity, Imagery and (qualitatively) communication positioning opportunities.Test Build-a-vehicle within series, feature bundles and take rates. More specifically:Evaluate the final Vehicle competitiveness (exterior/interior styling, features and pricing) relative to key competition.Evaluate proposed price points relative to competition in order to provide guidance for final pricing.Conduct pricing elasticity research to validate pricing assumptions and for input into final vehicle pricing.

Understand consumer perception of the Vehicle strengths and weaknesses to support communications strategy development and product improvements.Explore customer perceived product position and capability of the Vehicle relative to competition. That is, spontaneous associations, brand imagery and perceptions and vehicle image personification (using respondent generated image collages to represent the new vehicle).

São Paulo – Brazil MAY 2013

CONFIDENTIAL

RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

Stage 1: Quantitative Face-To-Face Interviews: Quantitative face-to-face 3 hours interviews based on a structured questionnaire using electronic data collection method (CAPI). Vehicle Assessment: Initial impression ratings of all vehicles in the main vehicle hall. Initial choice asked based on initial impression of exterior appearance. 

Evaluation of vehicle exterior: Overall appearance from fixed views around the vehicle, proportions, imagery. Overall exterior preference.

 Evaluation of vehicle interior: Initial impression, overall interior appearance, evaluation of 1st and 2nd row seating positions including cargo area. Ingress, egress and harmony of interior to exterior design.

 Overall vehicle evaluation: Overall vehicle assessment (exterior + interior), overall vehicle suitability for needs, vehicle purchase interest, estimated price.

 Choice preference: Ranking of vehicles, in order of preference based on exterior and interior designs (considering suitability for needs). Choice preference then asked based on reveal of (1) specification features, (2) Primary brand and finally (3) price. Price sensitivity analysis: Exploring demand at varying price points and assessing any brand premiums / discounts. Final Build-A-Vehicle exercise testing features and options. Post clinic questions and clinic check-out. Invite back for qualitative stages. Qualitative Stage 2: 4 x Re-Invite Mini Focus Group Discussions: 

1,5 hour group duration (90 minutes) Additional Focus Group respondent requirements were: Respondents for focus group discussions re-invited back from Stage 1 QuantitativeEach group should had different age representationRecruitment should quota model ownership to ensure each group structure is representativeA balanced mix of brands and models within each group was required'Accepters' put the new TR-X as first preference (overall after brand and price)'Rejecters' put a competitor as first preference (overall after brand and price)Troller brand rejecters were excluded from the focus group discussions 

SAMPLE SIZE

Total sample size N=75

Owners (bought in last 2 years) 53

Instenders *(will buy 4x4 vehicle within 12 months) 22

Target Customer Definition (sub sample) Minimum 35

* Ownership and intention to be qualified by specific model. Target customer quota to be within the owner and intender sample

The distribution of focus groups was as follows:

SAMPLE SIZE BRAZIL

Accepter Focus Groups (TR-X is 1st choice)

2 groups(Mixed gender)

Rejecter Focus Groups (Competitor 1st choice)

1 group(Mixed gender)

Current owners 1 group

(Mixed gender)

Total Groups 4

Additional Focus Group respondent requirements were: -Respondents for focus group discussions re-invited back from Stage 1 Quantitative

-Each group should had different age representation

- Recruitment should quota model ownership to ensure each group structure is representative

- A balanced mix of brands and models within each group was required

-'Accepters' put the new TR-X as first preference (overall after brand and price)

-'Rejecters' put a competitor as first preference (overall after brand and price)

- Troller brand rejecters were excluded from the focus group discussions

The Competitor Vehicles were:

Jeep Wrangler Sport 3.6 I Gas

Mitsubishi Pajero Dakar HPE 3.2 Diesel

Mitsubishi Pajero TR4 4x4 AT 2.0

Key Research Hypotheses TR-X will:

• Lead in overall final choice (with specifications, brand and price revealed)

• Lead in overall exterior appearance

• Be among the leaders for overall interior appearance

• Be among the leaders for overall package.

Team Actions •Provide insights into the Market Equation and expected sales volumes.

•Determine design elements, if any, that require further development (for mid-cycle product actions).

•Confirm design leadership & package targets.

•Test choice preference and design theme competitiveness.

•Confirm vehicle imagery.

•Customer input into the communication/launch planning

Mini Focus Group Discussions: - HIGHLIGHTS 1) Composition of GroupsGroup 1- AcceptorsParticipants: 2 women and 4 menAge: 40/50 y.o.Family composition: married with childrenActivity: civil servant, liberal professional, small business, retiredHobbies: sports, cycling, hiking Group 2 - RejectersParticipants: 2 women and 4 menAge: 40/50 y.o.Family composition: married with childrenActivity: free Lancer, a civil servant, small businessHobbies: travel, sports, dance, trails

Group 3 - Troller OwnersParticipants: 6 menAge: 30/40 y.o.Family composition: married with children, unmarried, widower Activity: liberal professional, small businessHobbies: hiking, aeromodelling, travel, trails Group 4 - RejectersParticipants: 1 woman and 5 menAge: 20/40 y.o.Family composition: married with children, unmarried, separatedActivity: liberal professional, small businessHobbies: travel, sports, hiking, trails

2) Current VehicleWhy have a 4 x 4?For those who do track or travel "off road":- comfort, speed, performance, security, stabilityFor urban use:- Safety, designWhy have a Troller?- performance, easy to maneuver, small, economical, "second wife", reliable (doesn't wrap), different in style

3) General preference in the clinic

Group 1- Acceptors4 participants prefer the B (T4 model): by design, draws more attention, is new, charming, compact, diesel engineOnly 1 participant put the (B) in last place: "as prototype, had glue”

Group 2 - RejectersThe overall preference is for the vehicle (B): gives more status, by designReferences to the vehicle (B): aggressive, strong, different, modern, a jeep to quagmire. Negative mentions: bad finish, internal discomfort, it seems Chinese car. Group 3- Troller OwnersThe preference falls on the vehicle (B): different, novelty in the market, advanced design, rugged, has the face of Troller, as the diesel, remtravel. Group 4- RejectersThree participants manifest themselves positively in relation to the vehicle (B): meets my needs, is unheard of. The criticisms are: the lack of internal comfort and the difficulty of access to the interior of the vehicle.

4) Evaluation of the vehicle (B) - TrollerGroup 1- AcceptorsFrontShows power, strength, robustnessSidePositive mentions: harmonious, appropriate height from the groundNegative mentions: fragility of the stirrup, design "too square"Rear

This part is the most critical for the participants of the Group: "come to the front and back is gone ...", we just see the tire, it seems that you are missing a piece of the bumper.InteriorThe major criticisms fall on the interior of the vehicle: lack height adjustment of the driver's seat, the dashboard is analog, gear shift too far away from the driver, the Panel is in very high position, the visibility is bad, the second row of seats is too tight (car for 2 people only).

Group 2- RejectersFrontShows strength, sturdiness, advanced designSideNegative mentions: front and rear have harmony but on the side does not haveRearPositive mention: is in harmony with the frontNegative mention: steppe hinders visibility, rear lantern is very small, the exhaust pipe should be higher in order to be able to walk in ´ water.InteriorThe major criticisms fall on the interior of the vehicle: gear shift too far away from the driver, the Panel is in very high position, the visibility is bad, the second row of seats is too tight (car for 2 people only), you cannot carry luggage. Group 3- Troller OwnersFrontShows aggression, is different.SidePositive mentions: harmonious, the design of the stapes, the rear side windowsRearPositive mentions: is in harmony with the front, opening the trunk got better Negative mentions: lost the aggressiveness of the front, steppe hinders visibility, the taillight is very small.

InteriorPositive mentions: is more beautiful, more robust, the Panel of dials is well evaluated.Negative mentions: the windshield was too narrow, missing holder object, the visibility deteriorated, lack an autopilot.

Group 4- RejectersFrontShows aggression, is a Troller, vehicle for track design, more friendly design, modern.SideExcellent height from the groundRearExternally is futuristic.InteriorThe major criticisms fall on the interior of the vehicle: poor inside, there was no improvement in comparison with the current model, manual gearbox, the second row of seats is too tight (car for 2 people only). 5) Vehicle Image B-TrollerGroup 1- AcceptorsVehicle sports, recalls adventure, faces everything, is a Troller. Group 2- RejectersPositive mentions: robust vehicle, different, draws attention.Negative mentions: does not have comfort, difficult access, barely finished, no trunk. Group 3- Troller OwnersPositive mentions: makes you want to have, draws attention, innovated enough.Negative mentions: it is more an urban vehicle, lost the features of off road.

Group 4- RejectersExternally pleases, is futuristic, is a breakthrough, but internally it does not please.   6) Specifications

Group 1- AcceptorsValued/desirable: six-speed, dual air conditioning, traction control, washable interior.Not valued/expendable: audio control on the steering wheel. Group 2- RejectersValuable/desirable: air bag, traction control, rear wiper, sunroof, digital air conditioning, snorkel, washable interior, version with automatic gear. Group 3- Troller OwnersValued/desirable: automatic gear, dvd player, motor and battery indicators, missing place to store the sunroof.

Group 4- RejectersValued/desirable: six-speed, washable interior, traction control, air bag on-off button, ABS brakes.

7) Choice of versionsGroup 1- AcceptorsXLT: flashy, the colors are beautifulREX: is a sports car both internally and externally, modifications in the bumper are positive, good value for money. Group 2- RejectersXLT: the colors are beautiful, the look is better.REX: aggressive and sporty, good value for money. Group 3- Troller OwnersLimited: better cost-benefit ratio, buy for wifeREX: good value for money Group 4- RejectersLimited: were interested by the visualREX: composition of colors, the interior is more beautiful, it is more suitable for off road use.

8) Option of flex versus diesel vehicle

Group 1- AcceptorsDiesel advantages: increased engine durability, greater autonomy.Part of the participants considers it interesting to have both versions. Group 2- RejectersDiesel advantages: stronger engine, loyal customersAdvantages of flex: less noisy, less polluting, larger potential audience with the reduction in price. Group 3- Troller OwnersThe preference is for diesel: more autonomy, flex option mischaracterizes the Troller, is how changing woman. Group 4- RejectersDiesel advantages: stronger engine with higher torque.Advantages of flex: for urban use, largest potential audience with the reduction in price.

9) Option of Troller with five doors and trunk greater

Group 1- AcceptorsPositive reaction: expands the audience, maintains the Troller identity Group 2- RejectersPositive reaction: extends the target audienceNegative reaction: have strong competitors in the current market – Pajero, Mitsubishi, Wrangler  Group 3- Troller OwnersPositive reaction: expands the audience, maintains the Troller identityNegative reaction: have strong competitor in today's market-Wrangler 

Group 4- RejectersPositive reaction: extends the target audienceNegative reaction: have strong competitors in the current market-Wrangler, Dakar 

10) Pick-up Troller option

Group 1- AcceptorsPositive reaction: extends the target audience Group 2- RejectersPositive reaction: enlarges the audience, brings greater reliability Group 3- Troller OwnersThe participants are divided: for some it is a good thing because it widens the range of options. For others it is negative because mischaracterizes the brand. Group 4- RejectersPositive reaction: widen the audience and bring benefit to the brand.