Summary
Overall, this study used an online survey to examine consumer preferences for three brands of chewing gum (Eclipse, Extra, and Orbit). All brands focused upon a mint-flavored type of gum but conveyed their image in various ways. Eclipse used a romantic allure, Extra exploited its refreshing nature, and Orbit alluded to seduction. A form of copy testing was conducted where respones from pre- and post- ad exposure were analyzed for each brand.
A total of 67 respondents was collected. This data was then analyzed using a variety of statistical methods, including a correlated t-test, between-group t-test, chi-squared significance test, frequency count, simple linear correlation, regression analysis, discriminant analysis, ANOVA/MANOVA, factor analysis, and cluster analysis. Significance of these tests (p ≤ 0.15) was determined and the results projected to the population. In other words, in 85 or more samples out of every 100 samples taken from the same population, it would be expected that the result would be the same.
Brand index scores indicated that respondents had an average preference for all three brands of chewing gum, where Orbit reported the highest brand index score (Mean=29.9, Std Dev=6.1), followed by Eclipse (Mean=27.0, Std. Dev=4.7) and then Extra (Mean=25.7, Std. Dev=6.2). All these results were deemed significant and qualified to be projected to the population. This result could be explained from the higher global visibility that Orbit maintains over the Eclipse and Extra brands.
Furthermore, Eclipse had the highest positive change in preference scores while Orbit had the lowest. In fact, Orbit's score decreased significantly. Extra experienced virtually no change. Evidently, points taken from Orbit were then awarded to Eclipse. This could be explained by a few reasons. First, the Eclipse ad could have generated more positive perception over the Extra and Orbit ad. Second, the Orbit ad could have instigated more negative feelings over the Extra and Eclipse ad. Finally, a combination of both likeability of the Eclipse ad and disgust for the Orbit ad could have explained the change in scores.
For Extra, the Advertising Index Score (mean=5.6, std.dev.=3.7) based on a range from 1 through 10, shows that respondents had an average positive perception toward the print ad. This corresponds with the other data that indicate a lack of change in preference for this brand. These findings coupled with the descriptive statistics for each item of the AIS (Appendix A) show that respondents generally see the Extra ad to be one more piece of the media clutter.
Finally, a few specific aspects of the brands were analyzed in more depth. For instance, females more than males were found to view Eclipse chewing gum better than brushing one's teeth. However, the overall average score of this specific attribute was very low (mean=1.9, std.dev.=0.9), and the overwhelming majority of female respondents over males would possibly strengthen their mean score for this item. Moreover, the factor analysis shows us that the attributes of "good", "refreshing", and "recommendation to family" are sufficient indicators of the responses to the 10 Likert item attributes for all three brands.
Although many of the analyses performed in this study can be projected to the population, some limitations do exist. For instance, the sample size of 67 respondents is relatively small and not randomized. This has potential to skew the findings. Additionally, the lack of a control group could also have an effect on responses. Finally, because the responents were of diverse and international backgrounds but were still responding to American products and print ads disseminated in the United States, this would have a large effect on the pereceived effectiveness of all three ads.
<<Previous Next>>
