Back to overview

Why relevance drives benchmarking in health and not only database size

August 16, 2015

When tracking your brand health, you want to ensure that your long-term brand performance will be ahead of the competition’s. This requires a comparison to competitor products and a sound understanding and interpretation in the context of a new, more relationship-oriented economy.

Benchmarking the traditional KPIs on product uptake, such as awareness, trial and usage, seems like common sense, whether based on a small or huge database. However, to make it more relevant in a changing market with an increasing number of touchpoints, it’s important to capture new relevant measures of the brand experience and relationship economy in these benchmarking exercises as well.

In 2014 we started a big initiative to build a knowledge base integrating traditional measures of brand and customer research with new and more relevant measures of the brand experience and relationship economy, like XP ConX, to assess touchpoint performance and CBR measuring brand value.

The CBR approach reflects the strengths of relationships HCPs or consumers have with brands (the emotional link). Furthermore it integrates intentions like preference via the latent and active equity measures (the behavioral link). When these two perspectives are combined, it becomes highly diagnostic.

Today the knowledge base includes the data of more than half a million respondents across all regions – Europe, North America, Latin America and Asia Pacific – as well as across many industries, such as automotive, consumer goods, technology and of course health. This includes both consumer healthcare and RX brands. And besides the benchmarking opportunities, the database allows for cross-market analysis; i.e., an assessment of what channels or combination of channels works best in a specific market.

Analysis on the knowledge base data has shown that positive memorable brand experiences strongly drive the building of brand relationships. And with the integration of traditional KPIs (such as awareness, usage, consideration and preference) with brand experience and brand relationship measures, like ConX and CBR, we are able to explain 74% of the variance in market share data of brands.

In the RX part of the health market, brand relationships are slightly different when compared to other industries. This is due to the higher rational product involvement of all stakeholders involved in a decision (either a physician writing a prescription or a patient taking medication), while the brand relationship profiles in consumer healthcare look much more similar to the profiles for consumer goods brands. Therefore, we are currently in the process of “translating” the current set of relationship types into those that resonate even to a greater degree with the healthcare market.

Although the database is expanding rapidly, within the consumer healthcare space already over 10 different need states are covered, while in Rx over 10 different indication areas are captured. This allows for more indication- or discipline-specific benchmarking as well.

When combining data on brand preferences and brand relationships based on CBR, the brand equity can be further unraveled into latent and active brand equity. Also for the health market, this metric is captured in the knowledge base for benchmarking purposes. It will signal the direction that your health brand is going. Further driver analyses might then help you identify opportunities for driving latent into active brand equity.

This article was co-authored by Kathrin Kissel, Susanna Meyer and Oliver Hupp in Health.

For further information, please contact Jan Guse.

Back to overview

Write a comment

*required field

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your comment*