New Product Management (6)

Chapter 6: Analytical Attribute Approaches: Introduction and perceptual mapping

Products are groups of attributes – a product is really nothing but attributes (Three types: features, functions, and benefits). A person may buy a pair of shoes because he likes the appearance of leather (feature), excellent walking capability (function), or because they are very comfortable (benefit). The three basic types of attributes occur in sequence – a feature permits a certain function which leads to a benefit.

Analyzing product attributes for concept generation and evaluation

Analytical attribute techniques allow us to create new product concepts by changing one or more of its current attributes, or by adding attributes, and to assess the desirability of these concepts if they were to be developed into products. These are more useful in Western culture as thought goes heavily toward rearranging things (Eastern tend to start work anew). Commodity type products are a major focus as slight rearrangements can differentiate one item from its competitors (allowing it to carry higher price). There are a variety of quantitative and qualitative attribute analysis techniques. One common quantitative technique is perceptual gap analysis (frequently used in concept generation and throughout new product development, during launch, and beyond), while another is conjoint analysis (to be introduce later) – as for qualitative techniques are dimensional analysis, checklists, relationships analysis, and analogy.

Gap analysis is a statistical technique whose maps of the markets are used to determine how various products are perceived by how they are positioned on the market map. The open spaces are gaps, and a map that shows gaps is called a gap map. Gap maps are made in three ways:

1) Determinant gap maps (managerial expertise and judgment is used to plot products on a map). Usually made up of two dimensions. Ex. crunchiness and nutrition value are thought to be important in snack. The scales ran from low to high on both factors and each brand on the market is scored by the managers. While the scoring may seem arbitrary and subject to managerial error, it is often a good place to start (many maps could be prepared, each with different pair of attributes, and they can also be three dimensional). Managers would have valuable and useful beliefs and judgments that may be very helpful in guiding concept generation. Attributes used should be differentiating or important (such attributes are called determinant attributes), as they help determine what snacks are bought. Our purpose in this is to find the spot where a gap offers potential as a new item which people might find different and interesting. This map is speedy and cost efficient, but it involves only managerial judgment. Customer perceptions may be quite different.

2) Perceptual gap maps based on attribute ratings (AR) – (a manager uses customer attribute ratings to get data from users). This method asks market participants (buyers and users) to tell what attributes they believe the products have. It is based on marketplace perceptions of reality, which may or may not be accurate. It begins with a set of attributes that describe the product category being considered, then we gather customers’ perceptions of the available choices (brands, firms) done by using 1-5 or 1-7 scales. This results in a huge data cube (not very helpful). Then we reduce the cube into something more manageable – a perceptual map. Factor analysis – a statistical technique which is used to reduce the attributes to a small number of underlying dimensions that serve as the axes of the perceptual maps. Cluster analysis can then be used to group individual respondents together into benefit segments based on their preferences. The info is based on how customers perceive the products; it may be unlike what managers had previously believed. And the perceptual map does not have all the info contained in the snake plot. But the two most important factors underlying customer perceptions are retained.

3) Perceptual maps based in overall similarities (OS) – (a manger uses overall similarities to get data from users). The problem with the AR was that users sometimes make purchase decisions using attributes they cannot identify, and some have difficulty scoring attributes because of various aspects of focus groups settings. AR essentially views products as bundles of attributes, for it to be effective, the attribute set needs to be complete. For perfume, customers’ decisions may be driven more by brand image, aesthetics or other attributes that are difficult to verbalize (Customers also could not clearly describe the attributes of pillows and could not communicate the attribute they wanted. OS techniques run on perceptions of overall similarities between pairs of brands (for 5 choices, there are 10 pairs). Respondents could rank the pairs from most similar to most dissimilar

It is important to note that gap analysis discovers gaps, not demand – and gaps often exist for goods reasons (fish-aroma air freshener). New products people have to see if the gaps they discovered represent things people want. And as in all of ideation of new products, people must avoid being bound by what is now impossible. For years map on painkillers showed a big hole where strength was paired with gentleness. The strong/ gentle part of the map was always empty – a painkiller that was potent and yet did not irritate the stomach could not be made. But Extra-Strength Tylenol proved everyone wrong. The most popular soaps were positioned as either deodorant or moisturizers (Dove), and a perceptual gap exists (a brand that offers both attributes). Lever 2000 successfully filled that gap as a combination deodorant/ moisturizing.