Those All-Important, Intent to Purchase Scores (subtitle: Always use a Benchmark)

Over the years we have developed a high dependency on the Intent to Purchase ratings. I have even seen companies that will collect Intent of Purchase scores in concept evaluation tests and use them to project annual sales of the brand they have yet to create, do not know the cost of manufacturing, do not know the price of the brand, do not know the level of satisfaction with the brand, or the degree to which the brand lives up to its promise.

 Another major concern I have is the dependency on historical databases as they relate to the Intent to Purchase scores. We seem to lump all ratings into the database pot without regard to how they are collected, the product category, who collects the data, where the data are collected, etc. All play a major role in the absolute scores.

Presence and Absence of the Definitely would Buy contingency question

(Contingency question = If the respondent does not say "definitely would buy," the respondent is asked to explain why.)

 In a controlled study involving four concepts and 600 panelists, we found that the average DWB score among the four concepts when the contingency question was used was 35%. But when there was not a contingency question, the average score was 16%. You may say that since you always use the contingency question, the difference is irrelevant. Not true, if you use multiple data collection protocols such as self-administered questionnaires and interviewer administered ones. If a self-administered questionnaire is utilized, the respondent sees the contingency question in advance. If the test is interviewer-administered, the respondent does not see the question and thereby answers it similarly to a method without the contingency question.

Scores by Product Category

In our research we have found large differences in scores of products from different categories. In 290 research studies where there were no contingency questions and conducted in six product categories, we found a 233% difference among the category averages. In 539 studies conducted among seven product categories where the contingency was utilized, we found category averages varying by 160%. There are two product categories that should test the limits of the DWB score variation. However, I do not have enough tests to feel comfortable in reporting the results. The two categories are desserts and home health remedies. My limited data show DWB results in one category in the 60's while the other is in the single digits.

Scores by Regionally Balanced City Groups

In this study we had two groups of five cities, each regionally balanced. Four concepts were involved in the study. The average DWB scores for each concept varied by 160% between the two groups of cities.

 Scores by Agencies

In this study, we had two of the largest consumer research agencies assess five concepts. The average differences in the DWB concept scores was 186%. Note: The interview outlines used by the agencies were identical.

 In another study involving two agencies and nine concepts, the variations were even much larger. Reporting averages in this study would be inappropriate since we have DWB scores for concepts with differences of 0% vs. 16%, 0% vs. 37% and 4% vs. 30%.

 Our research goes well beyond the above. The bottom line is, relying on Historical Databases can be dangerous. I do believe in utilizing databases but they are always in context with a benchmark used in every test.

 Know the source and composition of any databases that you elect to utilize in your analysis.

1998 Year in Review

There are a lot of "Thank Yous" to hand out. I would like to thank all who invited me to share my points of view with their associates and students. My time was about equally split between giving presentations and attending corporate meetings. My presentations covered the following topics: Researching Research, Unique Tools in consumer Research, keeping the Pipeline Full, and Ten Step approach from Idea Generation to Market.

 All presentations were given more than once. The "Researching Research" was given five times. Presentations were for the first time about divided equally between Universities, companies and Conventions. The corporate meetings were usually devoted to the discussion of various research protocols or organizational structure for consumer and market research.

 I thank you and I know my "Charity of Choice" (currently Mary Queen of Heaven Building Fund) thanks you for your kind support. For those who don't know, I do not accept payment for my time. I ask that if the sponsor is willing, a check of any amount be sent to a charity. In November we had the groundbreaking for the science, computer and multi-purpose rooms at the school.

 Mary Ellen and I have added a new charity to our list. We have joined the efforts of a small group of local people for the purpose of building "Houses of Worship" in poverty areas. Mary Ellen and I will be focusing our attention on the building of a church and the renovation of a nursing home (population 180) in Cali, Colombia. One of the families in the group is taking responsibility for the building of 15 churches in Mexico. All of our efforts will be in poverty areas. Also the churches will be very basic. The average cost of a church in these areas is less than one-fourth the cost of an average U.S. home. Also thanks to Herb Sorensen of Sorensen Associates and Roger Bacik of Elrick & Lavidge for their continued support of my efforts. They cover much of the expenses of my work that is not covered by the sponsoring companies such as office expenses and expenses related to travel to universities for presentations.

 A thank you to those who filled out my questionnaire. Hopefully now that the holidays are over, I will get a few more returns. I will summarize and publish the results next month.