Initially reading this case, I got the feeling that the company almost saw the success of Cleopatra in France as all of the market research they needed to be assured that it would work in Quebec. Steve Boyd and Stan House seemed so sold on the idea, that even in the face of contrary information they might have moved forward.
I think it is incredible that the little research they conducted before the product launch wasn't even in the target market. Toronto isn't in Quebec; it is in Ontario. Since there are strong cultural differences between different regions of Canada, any research that was conducted outside of the target market would probably not be indicative of actual results of the product launch. The case doesn't mention the size of the original test samples in Toronto, but depending on the size they might not have been statistically significant samples. Also, the results from the two sessions seemed to be qualitative not quantitative in nature. While qualitative information is definitely valuable, it needs to be paired with quantitative information for a more complete picture.
"Seeming" to like the soap and concept is not enough information to base a launch on. The case does not mention if the product was presented in context with final packaging, pricing and in comparison to other Canadian soap offerings. Even though 64% indicated that they would by the soap as soon as it was available, this might not be true when presented with reasonable alternatives.
Recently, the Colorado Springs community went through a branding process spearheaded and paid for by the CVB but incorporating as many other organizations and citizens as possible. The process took many months and final deliverables included a brand strategy that had many pieces and parts. You can see the full strategy presentation including explanations using the first link on this page. One piece of the final product delivered from the branding company was a logo execution. The back story is that there were originally 3 totally different logo concepts (some that matched the brand strategy better than others). These 3 were tested and the logo presented in the link above was by far the winner as tested by a professional research company out of Oklahoma. While I had my own thoughts and opinions about the final logo before it was released, the ultimate decision did not rest with me. (Although, it was the best of the 3). As soon as the logo was released, it was immediately panned by the local design community. One local designer made the comment in our open "townhall" style meeting with the most vocal designers that people can articulate which one is best from the options presented but when a good, more artistically sound assortment is presented they might have picked something different. I think this story mimics the research in this case. The test samples for Cleopatra weren't presented with a full picture of the product and its placement within the competitive set. (Sidenote: This is a quick oversimplification of the "logo saga." Other political and group/committee dynamics were at play. We are currently working on getting a completely new logo execution. Fingers crossed that it is better than the first! The backlash certainly wasn't fun last time. I guess that's one of those marketing scars you mentioned at the beginning of the course :) )
If Colgate-Palmolive had taken the time to do the necessary research before launch they may have been able to take a good product and market it appropriately in the new market which has different needs and strong price sensitivity. They might have also concluded that they needed to adjust the formulation to better resonate with the Quebec consumers. While it is positive that the company decided to do some post launch research, lots of the heartache and failure might have been avoided with appropriate research from the start.
No comments:
Post a Comment