Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 130 views

    8.MV - Correspondence Analysis

    Uploaded by

    Rochana Ramanayaka
    MV - Correspondence Analysis

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    8.MV - Correspondence Analysis

    Uploaded by

    Rochana Ramanayaka
    130 views17 pages
    MV - Correspondence Analysis

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    MV - Correspondence Analysis

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    130 views17 pages

    8.MV - Correspondence Analysis

    Uploaded by

    Rochana Ramanayaka
    MV - Correspondence Analysis

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    of 17

    Industrial Statistics

    MS3001 Advanced Marketing Research


    Faculty of Science University of Colombo

    Application of Multivariate Statistical Methods in Marketing Research


    Session 5 Correspondence Analysis

    December 25, 2013

    Illustration
    I am keen on understanding how consumers perceive retail chains (banners) on key attributes. I want to discover positioning gaps, if any, in the oral care category. What are the prominent imagery parameters in my category? What are the parameters where my brand is strong, and which my brand owns?

    Correspondence Analysis

    December 25, 2013

    Correspondence Analysis
    An attribute-based positioning exercise. Respondents associate objects (brands) on a set of attributes. No rating or ranking involved, only yes and no responses. The resulting frequency data are used to generate a correspondence map, often called a brand map. Too many objects (brands) and too many attributes could resulted in maps that are useless. Typically 2D outputs are forced. Maps with more dimensions have problems of interpretation.

    December 25, 2013

    Correspondence analysis provides a visual summary of brand and attribute survey data

    December 25, 2013

    What is Correspondence Analysis (CA)?


    Correspondence analysis is a technique for summarizing large tables of data in terms of a visual map CA analyses respondents perceptions of the similarity or dissimilarity of certain brands, products and services across a range of attributes Maps present simple graphical summaries of a market: for example:
    Brand positioning: the relationship between brands and attributes The relationship between current brand positioning and the ideal positioning Image ratings by brand users, segments, etc

    Research Questions Answered ? What attributes do consumers associate my brand with ? What are my brands / competitors strengths and weaknesses
    maps present results of cross-tabs or count data visually need to consider the absolute scores and relative scores in explaining the research findings

    December 25, 2013

    Data Table: Cereal Brands Image Data


    COCO POPS High in fibre Good source of energy Most nutritious breakfast Meets my familys needs Australian owned & made Children like the taste Good for kids Good value for money 3% 11% 2% 14% 6% 69% 10% 8% FRUITY BIX 11% 12% 8% 8% 5% 12% 12% 4% KELLOGG S CORN FLAKES 11% 26% 17% 36% 19% 23% 31% 35% KELLOGG S RICE BUBBLES 4% 12% 5% 17% 10% 34% 19% 16% NUTRIGRAIN 19% 46% 19% 25% 11% 32% 22% 12% VITA BRITS 41% 34% 29% 21% 18% 8% 33% 23% WEETBIX 73% 63% 65% 54% 53% 22% 66% 60% WEETBI X CRUNCH 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% MILO 1% 6% 1% 3% 2% 8% 3% 1%

    Like the taste Meets my needs


    Low in sugar Convenient My kids want it Everyone eats it A brand I trust Number 1 cereal brand

    37% 11%
    2% 33% 45% 18% 22%

    12% 7%
    4% 17% 5% 3% 10%

    43% 31%
    24% 49% 14% 48% 53%

    26% 13%
    13% 33% 21% 19% 31%

    38% 22%
    8% 36% 23% 20% 29%

    19% 20%
    37% 29% 4% 11% 26%

    47% 53%
    70% 61% 17% 46% 64%

    2% 1%
    1% 2% 1% 1% 2%

    5% 3%
    0% 6% 5% 3% 4%

    6%

    1%

    33%

    7%

    9%

    4%

    28%

    1%

    1%

    December 25, 2013

    Input for Correspondence Maps


    Attitudinal data are most common

    Brand association grids are a typical type of input

    Anything with absent / present type scores is appropriate (eg. Yes associate that brand with that attribute, or no dont associate it)

    Tables of either percentages or raw numbers are acceptable Means can be used

    Whether based on means, or percentages, correspondence maps usually provide similar results. Often maps are just based on percentage data

    December 25, 2013

    Points to consider with Correspondence analysis


    What is the minimum number of attributes?
    Sample size issues are less critical than in segmentation studies, as analysis has a qualitative feel about it Care is needed with interpretation
    But a sample size of between 200-400 would be a minimum threshold This is subjective, but a map of data with fewer than four brands (columns) or 8 attributes (rows) may be relatively uninformative

    Overplaying weak relationships Underplaying strong relationships Using overly precise language in describing the map

    December 25, 2013

    Data Table: Cereal Brands Image Data


    COCO POPS High in fibre Good source of energy Most nutritious breakfast Meets my familys needs Australian owned & made Children like the taste Good for kids Good value for money Like the taste Meets my needs Low in sugar Convenient My kids want it Everyone eats it A brand I trust Number 1 cereal brand Average 3% 11% 2% 14% 6% 69% 10% 8% 37% 11% 2% 33% 45% 18% 22% 6% KELLOGGS CORN FLAKES 11% 26% 17% 36% 19% 23% 31% 35% 43% 31% 24% 49% 14% 48% 53% 33% KELLOGGS RICE BUBBLES 4% 12% 5% 17% 10% 34% 19% 16% 26% 13% 13% 33% 21% 19% 31% 7% NUTRIGRAIN 19% 46% 19% 25% 11% 32% 22% 12% 38% 22% 8% 36% 23% 20% 29% 9% WEETBIX CRUNCH 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1%

    FRUITY BIX 11% 12% 8% 8% 5% 12% 12% 4% 12% 7% 4% 17% 5% 3% 10% 1%

    VITA BRITS 41% 34% 29% 21% 18% 8% 33% 23% 19% 20% 37% 29% 4% 11% 26% 4%

    WEET-BIX 73% 63% 65% 54% 53% 22% 66% 60% 47% 53% 70% 61% 17% 46% 64% 28%

    MILO 1% 6% 1% 3% 2% 8% 3% 1% 5% 3% 0% 6% 5% 3% 4% 1%

    Average 18% 24% 16% 20% 14% 23% 22% 18% 25% 18% 18% 30% 15% 19% 27% 10% 3%

    18%

    8%

    31%

    17%

    23%

    22%

    53%

    1%

    December 25, 2013

    Correspondence Map: Example 1


    Cereal Brand Image Data

    Number 1 cereal brand

    KELLOGGS CORN FLAKES Everyone eats it

    Good value for money A brand I trust Meets my familys needs Meets my needs WEET-BIX Low in sugar Australian owned & made Most nutritious breakfast WEETBIX CRUNCH VITA BRITS Good source of energy FRUITY BIX Good for kids NUTRI-GRAIN MILO COCO POPS Children like the taste My kids want it Convenient KELLOGGS RICE BUBBLES Like the taste Axis 1 73.7%

    High in fibre

    = Correlation < 0.50

    Axis 2 16.8%

    December 25, 2013

    Interpreting the Map


    Brands that are close to each other are seen to have similar profiles in the eyes of the consumer Brands are located next to attributes which are their greatest relative strength (I.e. consumers feel most characterise the brand) Attributes that differentiate the brands are close to the edges. Attributes that do not discriminate (i.e. could be considered are generic to the category) are located near the centre of the map The axes also have meaning (but not in terms of positive v/s negative) the horizontal is more important than the vertical. Thus, the position of a brand relative to the horizontal axis is more important than its location vertically
    December 25, 2013

    Interpreting Correspondence Maps


    Distance from the origin to the brand or attribute: Brands furthest from the origin, particularly horizontally (east or west), are more distinct than brands nearer the middle of the map. Similarly for attributes.

    Relationships between brands and attributes: The smaller the angle between a brand and an attribute the more that attribute applies to that brand. Brands that are 180 degrees apart have the opposite positioning to each other. Brands at right angles are simply different or uncorrelated. Attributes that are at right angles to a brand have no association with that brand.

    Angle in degrees Correlation Level of Correlation/Association 0 1 Perfect +ve 15 0.97 +ve Correlation 30 0.87 +ve Correlation 45 0.71 +ve Correlation 60 0.5 Some +ve 75 0.26 Small +ve 90 0 No association 105 -0.26 Small oppostite -ve 120 -0.5 Some oppostite -ve 135 -0.71 -ve Correlation 150 -0.87 -ve Correlation 165 -0.97 -ve Correlation 180 -1 Perfect opposite ve

    December 25, 2013

    Correspondence Map: UK ST Data Example 2


    MARKS & COOP KWIK SAVE NETTO SPENCER TESCO 57 19 29 35 69 40 21 18 73 65 31 47 54 36 75 15 14 11 22 74 26 18 15 69 69 15 14 12 33 54 17 10 13 72 62 19 17 15 45 74 56 21 32 37 60 24 15 19 65 69 22 15 13 76 65 24 19 18 72 74 25 22 37 35 66 39 27 26 45 64 23 38 58 13 67 43 26 31 81 76 33 26 46 28 72 31 19 21 82 72 22 21 19 51 71 26 20 17 61 67 36 27 18 72 78 42 15 22 24 86 28 7 4 18 83

    ASDA Convenient to get to 49 Staff provide good service 60 Food and Groceries are VFM 75 Everything I need in the one shop 70 Well presented display of products 64 Always have what I want in stock 53 Better selection of high quality products 52 Wide product range and variety 70 Is close to home 44 Modern, comfortable store 63 Good quality instant foods 59 Good range of fresh products 66 Attractive and interesting promotions 56 It's easy to find what I need 52 Low prices for most items 74 Clean and hygienic store 67 Ease of parking 67 High quality fresh food 65 Spacious 68 Efficient checkout counters 61 Provides good own brand alternatives 67 Long opening hours 74 Has programs that reward regular purchases 25

    SAINSBURY MORRISONS SOMERFIELD WAITROSE LIDL ALDI 58 50 48 37 41 42 66 54 34 67 28 37 55 67 34 40 71 70 59 52 19 41 17 19 71 56 30 65 20 28 49 45 18 46 18 19 66 46 18 72 15 17 71 60 24 59 25 29 52 46 46 35 40 37 69 53 28 62 25 33 65 54 26 65 21 26 75 66 32 72 30 32 54 60 33 33 48 49 56 53 33 47 34 41 38 62 30 17 73 74 74 64 38 70 45 55 66 64 36 50 62 65 75 65 33 76 32 36 66 55 27 59 28 34 63 53 28 63 28 36 72 57 36 58 34 44 66 47 23 33 26 22 69 27 13 20 8 8

    December 25, 2013

    Correspondence Map: UK ST Data Example 2


    Staff provide good service Efficient checkout counters Better selection of high quality products WAITROSE ALDI High quality fresh food Clean and hygienic store Food and Groceries are VFM Good quality instant foods KWIK SAVE LIDL NETTO Good range of fresh Modern, comfortable store Good promotions Provides good own brand alternatives Low prices for most items Well presented display of products MORRISONS Ease of parking Spacious It's easy to find what I need ASDA Always have what I want in stock SOMERFIELD Axis 1 Wide product range and variety 61.4% MARKS & SPENCER SAINSBURY TESCO COOP Is close to home Convenient to get to

    Everything I need in the one shop

    Long opening hours

    Has programs that reward regular purchases = Correlation < 0.50 Axis 2 19% 2008 ACNielsen, 2006

    December 25, 2013

    Data Table: Cereal Brands Image Data


    KELLOGGS CORN FLAKES 11% 26% 17% 36% 19% 23% 31% 35% 43% 31% 24% 49% 14% 48% 53% 33% KELLOGGS RICE BUBBLES 4% 12% 5% 17% 10% 34% 19% 16% 26% 13% 13% 33% 21% 19% 31% 7%

    COCO POPS High in fibre Good source of energy Most nutritious breakfast Meets my familys needs Australian owned & made Children like the taste Good for kids Good value for money Like the taste Meets my needs Low in sugar Convenient My kids want it Everyone eats it A brand I trust Number 1 cereal brand 3% 11% 2% 14% 6% 69% 10% 8% 37% 11% 2% 33% 45% 18% 22% 6%

    FRUITY BIX 11% 12% 8% 8% 5% 12% 12% 4% 12% 7% 4% 17% 5% 3% 10% 1%

    NUTRIGRAIN 19% 46% 19% 25% 11% 32% 22% 12% 38% 22% 8% 36% 23% 20% 29% 9%

    VITA BRITS 41% 34% 29% 21% 18% 8% 33% 23% 19% 20% 37% 29% 4% 11% 26% 4%

    WEET-BIX 73% 63% 65% 54% 53% 22% 66% 60% 47% 53% 70% 61% 17% 46% 64% 28%

    WEETBIX CRUNCH 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1%

    MILO 1% 6% 1% 3% 2% 8% 3% 1% 5% 3% 0% 6% 5% 3% 4% 1%

    December 25, 2013

    Biplot: Example Cereals


    Cereal Brand Image Data
    Projector Projector II High in fibre VITA BRITS WEETBIX CRUNCH Low in sugar Most nutritious breakfast MILO FRUITY BIX Australian owned & made WEET-BIX Good for kids Good source of energy Good value for money Meets my needs Meets my familys needs Number 1 cereal brand KELLOGGS RICE BUBBLES NUTRI-GRAIN A brand I trust KELLOGGS CORN FLAKES Everyone eats it Convenient

    Axis 1 77.1%

    Like the taste

    My kids want it COCO POPS

    Biplots use absolute data values

    Children like the taste Axis 2 16%

    December 25, 2013

    Correspondence Analysis Summary


    CA.... Summarises large amount of information from tables succinctly and visually Identifies relationships between statements, between brands & between statements and brands Removes halo effects of brands as it is a relative analysis Probably need to show absolute scores as well
    But....
    December 25, 2013

    CA can... Be misinterpreted - map presented visually, highlights relative strengths of brands mean numbers from analysis difficult to interpret Be hard to compare different different maps - how different they are? Should be described in qualitative, or passive language...eg brands tends to be or near to

    You might also like