MEASUREMENT Of Lux

Submitted to Prof. S.Govindarajan

Submitted By
Abhilash Das(01) Biraja Prasanna dash(12) Shovan Dash(47) Sangram Keshari Jena(42) Ravenshaw Management Centre, Ravenshaw University, Cuttack.

Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. BRAND LOYALTY MEASUREMENT 3. LEVERAGABILITY 4. BRAND EQUITY MODEL BASED ON SHARE TIER APPROACH 5. THE LOYALTY TABLE 6. THE EQUITY SHARE CALCULATION 7. THE LEVERAGABILITY INDEX CALCULATION 8. BRAND INDEX EQUITY CALCULATION 9. SHARE QUALITY INDEX CALCULATION 10. BRAND PRICE TRADE OFF TECHNIQUE 11. RECOMMENDATION APPENDIX THE QUESTIONNAIRE, THE EXCEL SHEET OF ALL THE CALCULATION

2|Page

Executive Summary
In our last study we have measured the brand image of lux by using the BAV model. The result of our research suggested that our brand lux has a good brand image. In the next step of our research we tried to find out the strength of lux by measuring its brand equity. Brand equity has the capacity to charge a premium, capability to increase sales, capacity to get a discount, capacity to withstand attacks. In the present study we have measured the brand loyalty, the price-quality classification, leveragability index, the equity share to know the strength of our brand lux. We began our study by measuring the brand loyalty by using two mathematical models. Both the models explain about the loyal customers and the potential switcher customers of the brand. We have used 2x2 matrix to relate the preferred brand and also the last brand purchased in the first model. Then we have calculated the gravity which explains about the power of the brand to maintain its customers who prefer it and the focus explains about the proportion of the sales comes from the customers who identify it as the preferred brand. In the second mathematical model we have taken the preferred brand and the no of purchases. The result of our second model explains that lifebuoy has gravity and focus ratio of 51% and 59% respectively which is higher than the lux. Then we have used the Colombo-Morrison model, to find out the loyalty index and the result showed that lux, lifebuoy and santoor has the loyalty index respectively as .662,.730 and .587 respectively. The result suggests that brand lifebuoy has more loyal customers than that of lux. Then we have followed the brand equity model based on the share tier approach where we have used the price quality classification of all the brands to know the behavior pattern of the consumers towards different brand which can be linked to brand perception and the consumer loyalty. From our analysis we have observed that our brand lux has done well in managing good price with some good quality but still
3|Page

for certain section of the people the price appears as a minor barrier. So we think lux has to do a little work in his pricing policy. After that we have calculated the leveragability of the three brands and the result suggested that lux can go for other categories because it has high leveragability than of its competitor in all the categories. Then we have calculated the loyalty table to understand the loyal respondents to all the three brand. Then we have gone for the calculation of equity share and we have found that all the three brands have equity share 38.62%, 45.55% and 15.83% respectively, which suggests that the brand lifebuoy has more equity share than lux and also from santoor. Then we have calculated the leveragability index based on the respected sales of all the three brand and by taking the price quality classification of all the brands. The result showed that all the brands have 20.91%, 46.49% and 29.86% respectively and the brand lifebuoy and santoor have more leveragability index than that of lux. Them we moved to calculate the brand equity which explained the power of each brand in the market. For the calculation we have considered the price quality classification as well as the current sales of each brand. The obtained results were lux has 95.175%, lifebuoy has 101.52% and santoor has 40.79% brand equity. Then we also calculated the share quality index by multiplying the market share with brand equity and the result showed that lifebuoy has a share quality index 42.75% in comparison to 37.57%of lux and 7.51% of santoor. Then we have used the BPTO techniques to analyze the premium charging capacity of all the three brands and we found that lux has a very good potential to charge a premium. In the end lux is seen as a very good product and if it concentrates a little bit more on its promotional and pricing strategy then it will definitely able to attract more consumers and will do well.

4|Page

Brand Loyalty Measurement

The brand loyalty measurement can be done using two mathematical approaches which measure the loyal as well as potential switchers. MODEL 1: (BASED ON LAST BRAND PURCHASED) In the first mode we have taken a 2x2 matrix which takes into account of the last purchase and the most preferred brand.. This model explains about the loyal customers and the customers who shift there preferences. Thus, the likelihood of purchasing a given brand is the sum of the proportion of that brands loyal and some fraction of the remainder. That fraction explains about the ability of a brand to attract the potential switchers. So the success of the brand is exclusively depending upon its loyal customers and its ability to attract the switching customers. The loyal customers have a positive attitude towards the brand and they buy that brand. The other group of customers may purchase it but they eventually prefer another brand. The model is based on the assumption that the consumer has the preference for a brand or in other terms they have a preferred brand. Based on the relative preferences and purchase the model measures the ability of a brand to attract the customers from the other brand. We explain the whole thing in a tabular form. The diagonal entries represent the number of consumers who last bought the brand which they have preferred. The off5|Page

diagonal entries represent those consumers who last bought something other than their preferred brand.

Table 1

Preferred brand by frequency matrix

Preferre d brand Last brand purchas e Lux Lifebuoy Lux x Lifebuoy y Santoor Others Santoo r z x x x Others

X: Loyals who bought the brand they preferred. Y: Switchers who prefer Lifebuoy but buy Lux Z: Switchers who prefer Lux but buy Santoor.

6|Page

Preferre d brand

Last brand purchas e Lux Lifebuoy Santoo r 2 2 3 7 Total 12 13 5 30

Lux Lifebuoy Santoor Total

6 4 1 11

4 7 1 12

In our analysis we have taken 30 respondents from the Ravens haw university campus Cuttack. The right hand of the column indicates that the people who have identified the each brand as preferred brand as shown in the table 12, 13, and 5 in case of lux, lifebuoy, and santoor. The diagonal entries indicate that the purchases of the preferred the brand. The preference measures indicate perceptions of brand quality or brand equity. The brand which has a strong consumer preference has more competitive advantage. In our case the lux has 40 % (12/30*100) preference among the preference set and lifebuoy and santoor has 43% and 17 % respectively. From the diagonal entries we come to know about the people who have purchased their preferred brand. We get the proportion of the preferences that were converted into sales. In our case lux has 50%, lifebuoy has 53% and santoor has 60%. This proportion is termed Gravitythe power of the brand to maintain consumers who prefer it. A brand with
7|Page

high gravity has consumers who are very loyal to their favorite brand. Lux was able to convert 50% of its preferred customers into sales; whereas lifebuoy has able to convert 53%.of its preferred customers into sales and 60% is in case of santoor. The gravity indicates that though the lux has some good preference shared but it still below the lifebuoy, so it may have to probably think about converting more preferred customers into sale by reducing the price. If we compare the diagonal number with the total last purchased then it may give another aspect of the market. This ratio represents the proportion of sales that come from consumers who identify the brand as most preferred and is termed focus. In case of lux it is 54% where as it is 58% and 42% respectively in case of lifebuy and santoor. A brand with high focus gets sales mostly from consumers who prefer it. Brands with low focus steal customers from other brands. In our case lifebuy has the highest focus ratio i.e. 58%. The above analysis suggests that lifebuy has a strong loyalty focus percentage and our brand lux rely on the ability to attract consumers who preferred other brands, capturing brand switchers.

Gravity and Focus Ratios

Brand Lux Lifebuo y Santoor Gravit Focus y 0.5 0.54 0.53 0.58 0.60 0.42

8|Page

Inter-brand competition and threats to loyalty can be analyzed by examining the individual off-diagonal entries. These results suggest that both lifebuoy and santoor are threatened by lux. Lux has stolen 4 out of 13 customers of lifebuoy and 1 out of 5 in case of santoor. These two ratios 4/13 and 1/5 indicate the weakness of those two bands. Lux gets 30% of people who prefer lifebuoy and 2% of people from santoor.

MODEL 2 (BASED ON NUMBER OF PURCHASES) Model I explains about the measurement of loyalty. But in our case we have taken only 30 respondents so the second model replaces the term the last purchase with number of purchase. Preferre d brand No of purchas e Lux lifebuoy Lux 24 18 32 4 54 Santoo r 6 12 11 29 Total 48 62 21 131

Lifebuoy 18 santoor Total

9|Page

6 48

Discussion and Analysis:

The analysis of the second model is done in the very similar manner as in the case of the first one. In case of preferred no i.e. 48 people purchase 24 times in case of lux i.e. 50% and it is 51% and 52% respectively in case lifebuy and santoor. The focus ratios are 50 %( 24/48) in case of lux and 60 % ( 32/54) in case of lifebuoy and 37 %( 11/29) in case of santoor. So the gravity and the focus ratios are written in the table.

Gravity and Focus Ratios

Brand Lux Lifebuo y Santoor Gravit Focus y 0.5 0.5 0.51 0.52 0.60 0.37

It is very evident from the table that lifebuy has the biggest sale i.e. 54 where as lux and santoor have 48 and 29 respectively. The focus ratio tells us how many of the purchases were made with the brand as the preferred brand out of the total no. of purchases for that particular brand.

10 | P a g e

BRAND SWITCHERS The brand lux is able to stolen 30% customers from lifebuoy and 28% customers from santoor. So 58% of the selling comes from the brand switchers in case of lux. So it is a threat for the rivals. Lifebuy has a .51 gravity and .60 focus ratio. But in case of lux the focus ratio is little bit low so it really relies on the brand switchers for its objective.

Implications
A final implication of the model comes from a consideration of the off-diagonal entries. Relatively high scores indicate brands that are potential threats or targets-reasons to act upon through competitive promotions/advertising.

Brand Loyalty comes from 2 stages: The hard core loyals who are extremely loyal to the brand: brands ability to maintain loyal customers. Switchers from another brand: the brands ability to convert potential switchers. Based on the Colombo-Morrison model, loyalty index can be measured as a weighted average of and which represent repurchase and switching indices respectively. Weights assigned are 67% and 33% respectively (based purely on assumptions) = + (1- ) (expressed in percentage terms) = (1-i ) j (expressed in percentage terms)
11 | P a g e

Loyalty Index = 0.67* + 0.33*

FOR LUX
= .50+(1-.50)*.50=.750 = (1-0.51)*.50+ (1-.52)*.50 =.485 Loyalty Index =.67*.750+.33*.485=.662 FOR LIFEBUOY = .51+ (1-.51)*.60=.804 = (1-.50)*.60+ (1-.52)*.60=.588 Loyalty index= .67*.804+.33*.588 =.732 FOR SANTOOR = .52+ (1-.52)*.37=.697 = (1-.50)*.37+ (1-.51)*.37=.366 Loyalty index = .67*.697+.33*.366=.587 Brand Loyalt y index .662 0.732 0.587

Lux Lifebuo y santoor

0.75 0.74 5 0.69 7

0.48 5 0.58 8 0.36 6

12 | P a g e

Leveragability
Leveragability is the potential energy to extend a brand successfully into related, or even unrelated, product categories. Some of the brands are considered to be more flexible than others when considered for satisfying need and wants which are different from the ones which it is currently addressing. A company would want the leveragability of its brand to be high since it will help the company in related and unrelated diversification. The monetary costs of extending a current brand name to another product is much lower when compared to the cost of creating a brand from scratch. Thus leveragability of a brand is one of the crucial components of its brand equity and further helps us in deciding how valuable a brand is for the company. In our analysis we have taken four categories where the brand can go into. Then we calculate the brand leveragability of all brands.

. brand lux lifebuo y

13 | P a g e

powde deodoran Cream r t 12 11 8 5 6 4

lotion 4 3

santoo r

Brand

powde r Lux 40.00 % lifebuo 36.67 y % Santoo 20.00 r %

deodoran cloth t 26.67% 20.00% 16.67% 10.00% 13.33% 6.67%

lotion 13.33% 10.00% 3.33%

ANALYSIS
In our research we have taken some of the categories like deodorant, powder, the lotion, and the cream for the analysis of the brand leveragability. We have found that lux is the brand which is seen as the most leveragability brand in comparison to other brands. So lux can go for diversification.

Brand Equity Model based on share tier approach

Then we followed the share tier approach for measuring the brand equity. In this model we have taken the price/quality classification of all three brands. It will help us in identifying the behavioral pattern of the customers towards the brand. The data obtained from the Price/Quality classification will be used to calculate the percentage
14 | P a g e

of sales made by each category of respondents (for instance say a respondent has a perception that lux superior quality and price is not a barrier for him.. For the purpose of our analysis we have assumed that the respondent base represents the total market and therefore the cumulative sum of percentages will equal the total sales i.e. 100% of the sales made by the brand. The percentage figures in each box in the 4x4 grid will represent the percentage of total shares for respondents who think that the brand belongs to that Price/Quality classification. The loyalty share for the four cells viz Q1P1, Q2P1, Q1P2, Q2P2 was calculated based on their responses to the Price/Quality classification and the responses to the loyalty based questions in the questionnaire. Hence we could find out the percentage of loyal respondents for the three brands in all the four cells. We have then calculated the equity share for the brands using the loyalty contribution data for each brand which was obtained from the percentage of loyal customers for each brand. This metric reflects the relative percentage that a brand owns of the sales attributable to all loyal customers in the category. It represents the brands share of the categorys most desirable, and profitable, customers. The leveragability index was calculated based on the loyalty data and the sales in the cells of the price quality grid. These metrics attempts to measure the relative importance of product quality with respect to price, suggesting that if the degree of quality perception is much stronger than price, there is a potential to leverage that perception into other areas beyond the immediate market.

15 | P a g e

The measurement of brand equity index and the share tier index to find out a composite index for brand equity was the next logical step and a model was developed to calculate this which will be explained in detail in the analysis part. Good Superio qualit r quality y 0.27 0.1 0 0 0.3 0.17 0 0 Quality Acceptabl not e quality acceptabl e 0.1 0 0 0.03 0 0 0.03 0

lux Price not a barrier Price minor barrier Price sufficien t barrier Price absolute barrier

lifebuoy

Good Superio qualit r quality y 0.23 0.27

Quality Acceptabl not e quality acceptabl e 0 0 0 0

Price not 0.2 a barrier Price minor 0.23 barrier

16 | P a g e

Price sufficien 0 t barrier Price absolute 0 barrier

0 0

0.03 0.03

0 0

santoor Price not a barrier Price minor barrier Price sufficien t barrier Price absolute barrier

Good Superio qualit r quality y 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.23 0.13 0 0

Quality Acceptabl not e quality acceptabl e 0.13 0.03 0.07 0.03 0 0.03 0.03 0

ANALYSIS
As it can bee seen from the table that in case of lux

57% of people considered price is not a barrier for them for the good and superior quality of lux where as 27% of people believed that price is a minor barrier to them for the good and superior quality of lux. But in case of lifebuoy price is not a barrier for 43% people for good and superior quality but 50% of
17 | P a g e

people believed that price is a minor barrier. So good number of people finds good quality of lux and for them price is not a barrier.

Loyalty Table
The loyalty share for the four cells viz Q1P1, Q2P1, Q1P2, Q2P2 was calculated based on their responses to the Price/Quality classification and the responses to the loyalty based questions in the questionnaire. Hence we could find out the percentage of loyal respondents for the three brands in all the four cells. The following data was obtained from the above mentioned analysis
Quality

Superi or lifebuo santo lux y or Price Sensiti Non vity e lux lifebuo y santoor 62 % 54% 53% 35 % 53% 47%

Good lifebu santo lux oy or 58 % 61% 48%

Mino 46 r lux % lifebuo y santoor

34%

32%

18 | P a g e

EQUITY SHARE CALCULATION

The main reason for the calculation of the equity share because with this we can know the particular sales of the brand due to its loyal customers. These customers are really responsible for bringing profit for the organization.

METHODOLOGY
We have taken the market share of three brands and their sales. Then we calculate the proportionate market share. We have already know the loyalty contribution percentages of different brands and taking that into account we have calculated the loyal sales and the equity share of different brands.

19 | P a g e

BRAND LUX Lifebuoy Santoor Category Total

Sales (Rs. Crore) 1125 1200 525 2850

Market Share

Proportionat e Market Share 15% 39% 16% 7% 38% 42% 18% 100%

Loyalty Contribution 66.00% 73.00% 58.00%

Loyalty Sales 742.5 876 304.5 1923

Equity Share 38.62% 45.55% 15.83% 100.00%

ANALYSIS The equity share represents the relative percentage of each brands loyal customers on the basis of the total customers in the category. Lux has a good current market share than its competitor. But in our study we have found that the equity share of lifebuoy is more than that of lux. Because lifebuoy has more loyal customers and therefore the loyal sales is also very high. One thing lux can do is they should try to have more loyal customers and try to increase their sales.

LEVERAGABILITY INDEX CALCULATION The leveragability index calculation is done to have

an idea about the perception of the customers about the quality and price. Which thing is taking into account or giving more importance. METHODOLOGY FOR THE CALCULATION

20 | P a g e

We have taken into the loyalty percentage of each brand and we have calculated the Q1P2 and also Q2P1 by multiplying the price quality with the existing sales. Then we have calculated the leveragability index. We have done the calculation in the excel sheet.
BRAND lux lifebuo y santoo r Q1P2 Q1P2 Sales Loyalty 112.5 276 52.5 46% 53% 47% Q1P2 Loyalt y Sales 51.75 146.28 24.675 Q2P1 Sales 337.5 276 120.7 5 Q2P1 Loyalt y 58% 61% 48% Q2P1 Loyalty Sales 195.75 168.36 57.96 Leveraga bility Index 20.91% 46.49% 29.86%

21 | P a g e

ANALYSIS The actual reson for taking the Q1P2 sales into account because it explains about those customers for which the brand is able to give some good quality but for these customers price can be a minor barrier. The above table shows that the leveragability index of lifebuoy is higher than that of lux. So peoples perception about the quality offered by lux is little bit low than that of lifebuoy. For the future lux should take into account of this index.

BRAND EQUITY INDEX CALCULATION

The next step in the analysis is the brand index calculation. This will help us to estimate the power of each brand in the market.

lux Price not a barrier Price minor barrier Price sufficien t barrier Price absolute barrier

Good Superio qualit r quality y 304 113 0 0 338 191 0 0

Quality Acceptabl not e quality acceptabl e 113 0 0 34 0 0 34 0

22 | P a g e

lifebuoy Price not a barrier Price minor barrier Price sufficien t barrier Price absolute barrier

Good Superio qualit r quality y 240 276 0 0 276 324 0 0

Quality Acceptabl not e quality acceptabl e 0 0 36 36 0 0 0 0

santoor Price not a barrier Price minor barrier Price sufficien t barrier Price absolute barrier

Good Superio qualit r quality y 105 53 0 0 121 68 0 0

Quality Acceptabl not e quality acceptabl e 68 16 37 16 0 16 16 16

23 | P a g e

WEIGHTS W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 12% 10% 8% 6% 5%

Brand lux lifebuo y 42% santoor 18%

BRAND MARKET EQUITY SHARE INDEX 39% 95.175 101.52 40.7925

SHARE QUALITY INDEX 37.57% 42.75% 7.51%

Methodology
For the calculation of the brand equity index we have taken into account of the current sales of each brand and also we have used the price quality classification table. The price quality percentage figure was multiplied with the sales to find out the turn over volume of each quadrant. Then we have used the
24 | P a g e

decrease weight and also the share tier approach for the calculation of brand equity. Then also we have calculated the share quality index of each brand. ANALYSIS Form the above calculation we have seen that the brand equity index of lux is lower than that of lifebuoy and also the proportionately market share for lux is also very low .

SHARE QUALITY INDEX CALCULATION Then we have calculated the share quality index and it was calculated as by multiplying the market share with the brand equity. Lifebuoy has more share quality index than the brand lux. BRAND PRICE TRADEOFF TECHNIQUE
Introduction BPTO is a method of marketing research and it is considered to be one of the simplest ways of finding out the relative value of the brand when compared to its competitors in the same product category. In this method, several brands or products are shown at once and the customers are asked to choose their preferred brand at the same comparable price level. Then prices are adjusted and then the customer is asked to choose again from the same adjusted price level list. The end result is that ranking of preferred brand can be inferred in relation to the prices the customers can pay or are willing to pay. The result allows building a model which shows the likely purchase of the brands at different prices. This model
25 | P a g e

speaks about the ability of the leader to charge a premium and helps to estimate the price elasticity of the product. This also helps in isolating the brand equity as the extra revenue which can be achieved just by the use of the name of the brand. Methodology we have taken 30 respondents from various background to know the premium charging capacity of the all three brands. We have asked them about different prices they were ready to offer for their preferred brand and based on their responses we have calculated the premium. We have taken Rs 10/- which is the market rate for a general soap.

Analysis
First we have taken the case of lux. We have interviewed 30 respondents out of which 10 people were ready to give maximum 18 Rs for lux, and 12 people were ready to give maximum 14 Rs for lux while 3 people were ready to give maximum 12 Rs for lux and 5 people were ready not to give more than 10 Rs for lux. The maximum price that was considered to be optimal for lux is Rs 15 by 6 people while four of them considered it Rs 11/- as the optimum price. So the capability of charging a premium for the brand lux varies from Rs 2/- to Rs 8/- . Then the next preferred brand is lifebuoy for which 9 people were agreed to pay 14 as the maximum price while 14 people are ready to pay 13 as the maximum price and the rest 9 people were ready
26 | P a g e

to pay maximum Rs 12/- . so the premium that can be charged by the brand is varied between Rs 2/to Rs 4/. Then in case of santoor the premium that the brand can charge varies between Rs 1/- to 3Rs3/-. After the calculation of premium that all the brand can charge then we moved for the inter brand comparison. In case of lux the people are ready to give maximum Rs 8/- but after that they may move to the next preferred brand. So what we have seen from the analysis is that lux has some very good capacity to charge a premium because it has good hold in the minds of the consumer.

Recommendation From all the analysis we came to know that people see lux as a very good brand. They see lux is a brand with good quality with good price. But the focus ratio and the gravity ratio of lux is low than to its competitor. So lux has to concentrate more on its promotional and sales strategy to attract the customers. Lux has also low market equity and brand equity as compared to its competitors and also it has low loyal sales.. The BPTO technique gives us the idea that lux has the god capacity to charge premium but the only problem as disused earlier is the problem of holding or attracting the consumers. So in the end we will recommend that lux should be more focus in building the loyal customers as well as bringing some new customers. The current market share of lux is good but if it want to do consistently well then it must come up with some very good sales
27 | P a g e

and promotion strategy to attract different customers from different areas.

Questionnaire
Which is the brand you like most? lux lifebuoy Santoo Other r
1.

2.how satisfied do you on your brand lux ? Not satisfied Little satisfied Fully satisfied 3.how likely are you to repurchase lux? Not at all Some what Fully likely likely 4.how likely are you to recommend lux to your friend? Not at all Some what Fully likely likely 5. do you agree that lux has the ability to deliver what it promises?
28 | P a g e

Strongly disagre disagre e e

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

6. Please tick the bran which you will purchase in the future or most likely to purchase Brand Likely More likely Definitely Lux Lifebuoy Santoor 7.tick the most favorite brand of yours Lux Lifebuoy Santoor Others 8. Please tick the last brand which you have purchased Lux Lifebuoy Santoor Others 9. How many times you have purchased lux? 0 1 2 3 4 5 10. How many times you have purchased lifebuoy out of your last five purchases?
29 | P a g e

11. How many times you have purchased santoor out of your last five purchases? 0 1 2 3 4 5 12. To which of the following categories do you think that your brand can be entered ? Brand powder lotion Deodoran cream t Lux Lifebuoy Santoor 13. Please put a tick in the box which conforms your believe about the quality and price aspect of your brand Brand (lux) Price is not a barrier Price is a minor barrier
30 | P a g e

price is a sufficien t barrier Price is an absolute barrier 14 . please put a tick in the box which conforms your believe about the quality and price aspect of your brand Brand (lifebuoy ) Price is not a barrier Price is a minor barrier price is a sufficien t barrier Price is an absolute barrier

31 | P a g e

15. Please put a tick in the box which conforms your believe about the quality and price aspect of your brand Brand (santoor ) Price is not a barrier Price is a minor barrier price is a sufficien t barrier Price is an absolute barrier 16. what is the maximum price you can pay for lux as your preferred brand ? 10 1 13 14 15 16 18 more 2 17. what is the maximum price you can pay for lifebuoy as your preferred brand ? 8 11 10 12 13 14 15 mor
32 | P a g e

e 18. What is the maximum price you can pay for santoor as your preferred brand? 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 mor e

33 | P a g e