Influencing The Customer Journey

We see countless manufacturers and retailers investing in shopper insights exploration these days. This research tends to focus on broad generalizations about how consumers purchase overall or, at best, at a category level. Yet when it comes to shopper research, we are starting to see that a one-size-fits-all approach just doesn't cut it anymore.

Our research tells us that in-store promotions and changes to product placement can make even core consumers change their mind once they are shopping. Therefore, shopper research must diagnose what is happening in -store and how to either take advantage of the environment or minimize the damage to a brand due to the in-store environment. And in order to succeed, we need to look at the path to purchase in a realistic and focused way.

Here's a case study that demonstrates how.

The Consumer Journey: the Path to Purchase

In the "dummy" biscuit category example below (see Figure 1), Brand A, B, and private label brands are getting at least their expected share of purchase in the store based on their desirability (their shopper effect index is 100 or above). Brands C and D, in contrast, are getting a significantly lower share of purchase than expected, with large shopper effects (and SE index below 100).

Since we know that Brand D has a problem, and the size of the problem, we can begin to diagnose what this problem might be. We do this by looking more closely at where the shopper decision to purchase the category is made, and where the shopper decision to purchase the brand is made. We find two kinds of shoppers that differ on this element: the Finder and the Decider.

Finders are those shoppers who decide which brand to purchase before entering the point of purchase, and who typically end up buying the same brand most of the time. These shoppers tend to be less influenced by in-store stimuli.

Deciders are those shoppers who decide which brand to buy or consume at the point of purchase, and would be heavily influenced by stimuli at the point of sale.

Based on how shoppers decide on the category and brand, we can differentiate between four paths-to-purchase "segments."

• Planned Finder - they know exactly what they want and have made both the category and brand decision before entering the point of purchase.
• Unplanned Finder - they have a brand preference selected before arriving at the point of purchase but category isn't decided upon until they are in the store.
• Planned Decider - they arrive with a category in mind, but do not select a brand until in-store.
• Unplanned Decider - they make both category and brand purchase decisions when in the store.

What follows (see Figure 2) is the development of a retail strategy that will differ for the four segments. For planners, this is typically to ensure that key brands are stocked, and that there is easy access to grabbing these brands off the shelf. For other brands, trying to get noticed in the category or to get the attention of in-store Deciders, the focus is often on special displays, in-store communications, promotions and new shelf plans, or secondary placements to shake up the category.

Now we have much of the information we need to diagnose what is going on with Brand D. When we put the shopper-type analysis together with the shopper effect index (see Figure 3), we find that the brand is stronger in the planned decider path but is underperforming (SEI below 100) in all other paths.

Why might this be happening and what can we do about it?

To answer this, we need to look at the impact (or lack thereof) of Brand D's pre-shop and in-store sales levers. Pre-shop sales levers include advertising, coupons, samples, website and direct mail offers. In-store sales levers include display, price, variety, packaging (assortment, attractiveness), in-store signage, in-store promotions and coupons, and price reductions in store.

In this case study, we find that the pre-store levers (especially advertising) are having a strong impact and this has helped to build Brand D's attitudinal equity or desirability. On the other hand, as illustrated in Figure 4, there are issues with the in-store levers; display and promotions are having a strong impact (green circles), though are not reaching enough shoppers. Importantly, variety, pack assortment and pricing, seen by most shoppers, are performing very poorly relative to competitors.

So what does this mean?

Brand D's underperformance is not related to a lack of shopper interest or marketing support. Rather, it is related to specific product issues in the channel evaluated: high price and insufficient varieties were preventing the brand from achieving its fair share. But we can go beyond diagnosing the issues, and should be offering an estimate of the ROI or value in "fixing" the problem. Through the use of a simple simulator, we calculated that by increasing the number of varieties offered and reducing pack size to improve perceived absolute price, sales of Brand D could be improved by 55 per cent. Even for a strong brand, the in-store environment was key to enabling Brand D to reach its potential.

Our research demonstrates that in order to make shopper research actionable, shopper marketing plans need to be customized for each market and by different type of retailers. One blanket strategy for all shoppers, or even by retailer or shopping mission, is unlikely to be very effective. As shopper researchers, we need to challenge ourselves to reach a more fundamental understanding of the various types of shoppers, their particular needs and perceptions, and the impact of the pre-store and in-store environment. We can make a brand stand up and stand out among the multitude of competitive shopper influences.

Want more information? A detailed version of this article will be available in the May issue of VUE Magazine.