Landgate 2015 Brand Health Tracking - Full Report: 3 December 2015

Landgate
2015 Brand Health Tracking – Full Report
3rd December 2015
Client Contact:
Lauren Knapp – Market Developer Digital and Demand
Prepared by:
Michelle Clark-Crumpton, B.Com Hons. – Group Account
Director
Matthew Scott B.Com (Mgt & Mkt) – Account Manager
Justin Scerri, B.Com Hons. QPMR. – Principal
Report Contents
Page #
Background and Objectives 3
Research Process 8
Sample Profile 12
Dashboards: Brand Health Scorecard and Summary of Key

14
Target Group Performance
Market Factors 25
Target Market 33
Brand Awareness 41
Brand Comprehension 50
Brand Perceptions 56
Advertising Measures 62
The Land and Property Information Market 88
Interaction with Landgate 100
Key Findings 111
2
Background and Objectives
3
Background
• The Landgate brand came into existence on 1st January 2007

following a transition from the Department of Land Information
(DLI).
• Since 2007, Landgate has tracked its brand and advertising

effectiveness, and increasing its brand awareness has been a
priority.
• In 2009, Painted Dog Research was appointed to continue the

tracking research, which resulted in an overhaul of the
questionnaire.
• In 2015, Painted Dog conducted the tracking again and this report
details the 2015 results.
4
Key Research Outputs
• The key outputs required from this research were...
To understand Landgate’s overall brand health and relative

brand equity within the WA market.
To measure any changes in the previously established set of

key performance indicators.
5
Specific Research Objectives
• The specific objectives were as follows:
Awareness (unprompted and prompted) of both the Landgate brand and competitor brands
Brand Objectives
Knowledge of Landgate – including the services it provides
Attitudes towards and perceptions of Landgate
Behavioural intentions towards Landgate

Advertising Objectives
Awareness of the three campaigns that ran in 2014 (unprompted and prompted)
Additional measures for two campaigns – brand linkage, message takeout, likability etc.
6
2015 Campaign Information
• Three campaigns were evaluated in this year’s research, as shown below (each was de-branded):
Smart home buyers check Smart home owners
Radio Ad (Ad 3)
before they buy (Ad 1) do their checks (Ad 2)
• Awareness was measured for each campaign, while more in-depth analysis was conducted on the digital ads and radio ads separately.
• A summary of campaign spend is outlined below, and shown in comparison to previous years.
2015 2014 2012 2010
Property
Property Interest Mapping / History /
Interest/Locate/Title Certificate of Title
Report Earth is Art
Watch
Online $27,501 $85,000 $35,468 -
Print - $28,500 - $41,150
Radio $10,003 $30,000 - $20,682
Total Campaign Spend $37,504 $143,500 $35,468 $61,832
Spend is based on media spend only 7

Research Process
8
Methodology & Sample
Methodology & Sampling

• The survey was conducted online from 3rd November – 17th November 2015.
• All respondents were sourced from an online panel provided by GMI (formerly Lightspeed Research), which is the same panel
provider used in 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014 to assure consistency.
• No respondent who may have completed the survey in the previous year was eligible for this year’s survey, as per previous waves.
• The average survey length was 15 minutes.
• A total sample size of n=464 was achieved amongst WA residents aged 18+.
• The sample included n=350 Perth Metro residents and n=114 Regional WA residents.
Margin of Error
• The margins of error at the 95% confidence interval for each sample location are as follows:
– WA population: +/- 4.55%
– Perth Metro: +/- 5.24%
– Regional WA: +/- 9.18%
9
Analysis
Analysis
• After the data was collected, the sample was weighted by age, gender and location based on 2011 ABS Census statistics to be reflective of
the WA population.
• Base sizes indicated throughout the report are the unweighted bases.
• Small base sizes are indicated throughout the report with a * symbol. Results based on small base sizes should be interpreted cautiously.
• Significant differences are reported at the 95% confidence interval and calculated on the unweighted base.
– Year on year differences are indicated by triangles:
– Differences between sub-groups (within a segment) are indicated by stars:
• Data shown in charts is percentages unless otherwise noted.

– Some charts do not add to 100% due to rounding.
10
Sample Quotas
• The quotas were set as follows:
Required Required sample Quota

Proportion size
Location
Metro 75% 300 Hard
Regional 25% 100 Hard
Gender
Males 50% 180-220 Soft
Females 50% 180-220 Soft
Age
18-29 23% 87-97 Soft
30-39 19% 71-81 Soft
40-49 19% 71-81 Soft
50-59 17% 63-73 Soft
60-69 12% 43-53 Soft
70+ 11% 39-49 Soft
11
Sample Profile
12
General Public Sample
Weighted
• The adherence to quotas ensured the weighted samples were almost identical from 2009 to 2015:
2015 GP 2014 GP 2013 GP 2012 GP 2010 GP 2009 GP

(Weighted) (Weighted) (Weighted) (Weighted) (Weighted) (Weighted)
n=464 n=408 n=413 n=417 n=414 n=439
% % % % % %
Gender (S2)
Male 50 50 50 50 50 50
Female 50 50 50 50 50 50
Age (Q3)
18-29 22 23 23 23 21 21
30-39 17 19 19 19 19 19
40-49 19 19 19 19 20 20
50-59 19 17 17 17 17 17
Over 60 23 23 23 23 23 23
Location (S4)
Perth Metro 78 78 78 78 75 75
Regional 22 22 22 22 25 25
Household Income (Q26)

Less than $50 000 28 30 36 33 34 37
$50,001 to $75,000 15 17 14 16 15 15
$75,001 to $100,000 18 12 13 14 17 15
$100,001 to $125,000 12 10 9 7 9 10
Over $125,000 14 17 15 14 11 12
Refused 12 14 13 16 13 12
13
Dashboards:
Brand Health Scorecard and Summary of Key Target Group Performance
14
How is the Landgate Brand Performing?
• When evaluating the health of Landgate’s brand, we must take a comprehensive view of its performance in the following areas:
Awareness
Unprompted and
Comprehension
Prompted
How much does
Perceptions
the public know
Does the public
Intentions
about what
Landgate does? have positive or
Is the public
Use
negative
perceptions of willing to contact How many have
Landgate? or use Landgate
in the future? used Landgate
products or
services?
Market Factors and Campaign Activity

(e.g. # of people looking to purchase a property, # of people who recently purchased a property, campaign awareness, etc.)
15
Brand Awareness Brand Comprehension
Unprompted Prompted Unprompted Prompted
Brand Health Scorecard
80 81 80 83
73
Sig. higher than
2013
47 47
41 40 39 42
38
32 30 33
23
14 11
6 8 7 5 2009 not
comparable
2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015
Recent Use (in past 12 months) Future Intentions

Obtained ANY land or property info from Landgate % Likely to Purchsase info or other products from Landgate
Obtained free info from Landgate (when next in property market)
Paid for info from Landgate
Obtained ANY land or Property Info
Sig. lower than 25

2012 21 22 21 21
25 25
23 16
20 21
2009 only asked 18
‘purchased’
5 6 6
3 3 4 3 4 4
2
3 4 4 4
2 2
2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015
Results shown are % of whole sample. Base sizes: 2009 (n=485), 2010 (n=414), 2012 (n=417), 2013 (n=413), 2014 (n=408), 2015 (n=464). Q4, Q5, Q14, Q15, Q18a/c, and Q16 data shown. 16
Brand Perceptions (top 10)
% Agree / Strongly Agree
Brand Health Scorecard
47
42 40
47 39 39
41 42 40
37 36 37 38 36
35 33 35 35
30 30 30 28
27 25 27
Knowledgeable Accesible Practical Trustworthy Reliable
39 39
32 31 31
32 34 34 33 33 32
30 28 29 30 28
27 25 26 26
24 24
20 21
16
Approachable Dependable Unbiased A leader in its field Accurate
2010 2012 2013 2014 2015

n=414 n=417 n=413 n=408 n=464 Results shown are % of whole sample. Q17 data shown.
17
Effective Reach Message
Prompted Awareness Brand Linkage (Awareness x Brand Comprehension
2015 Campaign Performance
Linkage) (correct)
Net
Campaign
Awareness 15%
(prompted)
2014 = 10%
Awareness of Either
Property Interest Ads
(Ad 1 & Ad 2)
8% 26% 2% 25%
2014 = 5% 2014 = 12% 2014 = 0.6% 2014 = 18%
Awareness
of Radio Ad
(Ad 3)
11% 5% 0.6% 33%
Awareness and Effective Reach results based on % of whole sample 2015 (n=464). Brand Linkage and Message Comprehension results based on those who saw each ad (n=44, n=35,
respectively). Comparisons to the 2014 Property Interest campaign are shown as well. No radio ad was evaluated in 2014 so no comparisons have been made. 18
Summary of Brand Health and Campaign Performance:
General Public
Brand Awareness and Comprehension Top 5 Brand Perceptions

Net Campaign Awareness (prompted) (Q4, Q5, Q14 and Q15) Q17 (% agree)
2014 2014
Unprompted awareness 11 5% Knowledgeable 47 41%
15%
Prompted Awareness 39 40% Accessible 42 37%
Awareness of Ad 1 Correct Comprehension
45 38% Practical 40 36%
(unprompted)
Correct Comprehension
83 80% Trustworthy 39 38%
(prompted)
Reliable 39 36%
7%
Obtained Land or Intentions to Interact with Landgate
Awareness of Ad 2 Property Info Q16 (when next in the property market, % likely)
2014 2014
Obtained FREE info 15 17% Visit Landgate’s website 44 43%
Obtained FREE info from

4 4% Call Landgate 34 28%
7% Landgate
PAID for info 9 10% Email Landgate 31 27%
Awareness of Ad 3 Purchase products or info

PAID for info from Landgate 4 4% 25 21%
from Landgate
Tell a friend or family
Obtained ANY info 18 21% 23 20%
11% Obtained ANY info from
member about Landgate
Landgate 6 6%
Base size 2015 (n=464), 2014 (n=408) 19

Looking to Buy a Property in Next 12 Months

2014 2014
Unprompted awareness 12 7% Practical 61 50%
36%
Prompted Awareness 45 37% Knowledgeable 60 45%
50 30% Sustainable 53 52%
(unprompted)
90 88% Accessible 52 47%
(prompted)
Trustworthy 52 55%
22%
2014 2014

27% Landgate

from Landgate
54% Tell a friend or family

Obtained ANY info 37 39 49%
15 24%
Landgate
Base size 2015 (n=64), 2014 (n=57) 20

Potential Investors

2014 2014
Unprompted awareness 13 10% Knowledgeable 53 52%
25%
Prompted Awareness 47 47% Reliable 52 51%
56 50% Practical 50 50%
(unprompted)
(prompted)
Approachable 47 40%
17%
2014 2014

17% Landgate

from Landgate
Landgate 8 11%
Base: Looking to buy an investment property in next 3 years 2015 (n=60), 2014 (n=61) 21
Recent Property Purchasers (within past 12 months)

2014 2014
Unprompted awareness 19 2% Practical 63 48%
39%
(unprompted)
Correct Comprehension 43%
89 87% Trustworthy 57
(prompted)
Approachable 56 44%
15%
2014 2014

14% Landgate

from Landgate
Landgate 25 12%
Base: Have purchased a property in the past 12 months 2015 (n=36), 2014 (n=44) 22
Potential First Home Buyers

2014 2014
Unprompted awareness 2 - Practical 40 46%
17%

(unprompted)
Correct Comprehension 37%
91 85% Approachable 38
(prompted)
Trustworthy 46%
36
9%
2014 2014

2 - Call Landgate 35 34%
9% Landgate

from Landgate
Landgate 2 -
Base: Looking to buy their first property in the next 12 months 2015 (n=30), 2014 (n=29*) *Caution small sample size 23
Key Insights
111
Landgate’s Brand Health has seen improvements
this year, with unprompted awareness increasing
to 11%, boosted by high awareness of recent
property purchasers. Prompted awareness that
Landgate provides land and property information
remains stable at 39%. There is room to improve
awareness among 18-29 year olds, which represent
a high proportion of those in the market for property.
Unprompted brand comprehension has seen an

improvement up to 45%. When prompted, four in
five can identify at least one of Landgate’s
responsibility. However there remains confusion
around what Landgate does, with two in three
identifying at least one incorrect responsibility.
The top brand perceptions include knowledgeable,

accessible and practical, and there’s been an
increase in those who agree that Landgate is
accurate.
112
In terms of awareness, the campaign performed
stronger than the past three campaigns tested, with
15% of the general public aware. Awareness was
particularly strong amongst key target segments,
including recent purchasers, those looking to buy
and 18 – 29 year olds. The media strategy has been
effective in reaching a large audience quickly and at
a low cost.
Brand linkage continues to be an area for

improvement, but there has been a marginal
improvement from 2014 for the digital ads.
The digital ads were perceived quite positively, and

were particularly strong in being ‘informative’, ‘easy
to understand’, and ‘believable’.
113
There were no improvements seen in message
comprehension. In fact, the radio campaign saw a
decrease in comprehension in comparison to radio
ads run in 2009 and 2010. On the positive side, the
perceptions of the radio ad are performing well,
indicating the executions could be effective, given
further exposure and therefore improved brand
linkage and message comprehension.
There is also some evidence that the campaign has

made a positive impact on intentions to interact with
Landgate, and actual website visits.
114
The market for land and property information is
stable again this year, with one in five (18%)
obtaining information in the past 12 months and half
of these people having paid for it.
Landgate still dominates the market for those

purchasing information, with around half of those
purchasing information purchasing it with Landgate.
In terms of products, it’s land title and ownership
information that Landgate holds the greatest share
in.
The general public are obtaining more products for

free from Google, Realestate.com.au and Real
Estate Agents, and these three have the greatest
market share of the majority of other land and
property information products. Does Landgate wish
to position itself as the destination for all land and
property information? Is there an opportunity to offer
more free information that the market requires in an
attempt to reach more of the general public?
115
Contact with Landgate has remained steady, with
one in four having ever contacted Landgate one in
ten having contacted in the past 12 months.
Those who have contacted Landgate continue to

have more positive brand perceptions – a reflection
of the positive experience they have when they do
interact with Landgate.
The number who intend to purchase information

or other products from Landgate has increased
from two years ago - now one in four (25%)
indicate they are likely to do so when they are next in
the property market.
116
Hunt Smarter.
Landgate Customer Experience Monitor
Performance Scorecards
Oct-Dec 2015
Client Contacts
Lauren Knapp – Market Developer Digital and Demand Communications & Marketing
Prepared By
Kristy Willoughby (B.Bus. Mktg & Mgmt) – Account Director
Issa Karmout (B.E. MCom) – Account Executive
Justin Scerri (B.Com Hons.) – Principal
How are we tracking year to date?
2
Tracking:
Key Performance Indicators
• All KPIs dropped this quarter, a similar trend as this time last year. In particular, Net Promoter Score has dropped significantly.
100
Overall Satisfaction
90 (8,9&10)
81
80 77
74 79
72 72 71 79
71 75
70 73 Customer Effort Score
73 71
70 69 70 (8,9&10)
60
51
48 48 49
50 45 Net Promoter Score
40 40 (NPS)
39
40
30
20
10
0
Feb-Apr 2014 May-Jul 2014 Aug-Oct 2014 Nov-Dec 2014 Jan-Mar 2015 Apr-Jun 2015 Jul-Sept 2015 Oct-Dec 2015
Q10. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied have you been with Landgate in the past 3-4 months?
Q36. How easy or hard is it to do business with Landgate?
Q11. How likely would you be to recommend Landgate to a colleague, friend or family member?
Base: Variable (All rating 8/10 for each attribute)
Tracking:
Performance Attributes
• The ‘Value for Money’ attribute has dropped significantly this quarter, whilst most other attributes remained stable.
100
Value For Money
90 8,9&10
80
78
Suit Your Needs
70 71 71 69 74 8,9&10
70 68
65 64 65
62 62 65 65
61 60 64 Feeling Important
60 61 63
54 55 56 59 8,9&10
58 58 57
55 55
50 55
52 52 51 52 53 51
51 50 Market Leaders
40 8,9&10
30 Navigation 8,9&10
20
10
0
Feb-Apr 2014 May-Jul 2014 Aug-Oct 2014 Nov-Dec 2014 Jan-Mar 2015 Apr-Jun 2015 Jul-Sept 2015 Oct-Dec 2015
Q40. Taking everything into account, how would you rate Landgate’s overall performance on…Offering products and services that represent value for money
Q40. Taking everything into account, how would you rate Landgate’s overall performance on…Tailoring products and services to your needs
Q40. Taking everything into account, how would you rate Landgate’s overall performance on…Making you feel like an important customer
Q40. Taking everything into account, how would you rate Landgate’s overall performance on…Leading the market in land and property information
How did we perform in
October – December 2015?
5
October – December 2015:
KPI KPI KPI

Overall Satisfaction Customer Effort Score Net Promoter Score
8.26 7.91 8.58 8.30 8.15 7.50 8.49 8.45 44.8 27.3 55.3 51.2
55
62 63 66 67
79 76 75 75 79
85 84
18
18 20
24 18
9 9 13 13
4 8 13 27
18 15
11
Total Sample Account Business Gen-Pub Count Account Business General Total (n=455) Account Business Gen-Pub
(n=473) Holders Non-Acc (n=323) (n=471) Holders Non Account Public Holders Non-Acc (n=308)
(n=34) Holders (n=34) Holders (n=321) (n=33) Holders
(n=116) (n=116) (n=114)
(0-2) (3-4) (5) (6-7) (8-10) (0-6) (7-8) (9-10)

Detractors Passives Promoters
Mean
NPS
Base: All respondents, excluding DK
Attribute Attribute Attribute Attribute

Value For Money Suit Your Needs Feeling Important Market Leaders
7.06 6.59 7.61 6.98 7.71 7.67 7.86 7.59 7.34 7.47 7.37 7.16 7.96 7.90 8.10 7.89
41
51 51 55 52 54
62 65 60 64 60 66
70 68 69 69
25
22 24 25 20
21 17
16 18 19 23 20 14
13 15 17 15
12 8 12 10 10
13 11 8 8 8 5 16 9 10 7
8 10 4 6 7 9
5 9 5 33 8 5 9 6 10 4
6 6 4 4 1 7 6 7 2 2 41 5
Total Sample Account Business Gen-Pub Total Sample Account Business Gen-Pub Total Sample Account Business Gen-Pub Total Sample Account Business Gen-Pub
(n=417) Holders Non-Acc (n=280) (n=387) Holders Non-Acc (n=258) (n=388) Holders Non-Acc (n=263) (n=335) Holders Non-Acc (n=225)
(n=32) Holders (n=30) Holders (n=30) Holders (n=29) Holders
(n=105) (n=99) (n=95) (n=81)
(0-2) (3-4) (5) (6-7) (8-10)
Mean
Q40. Taking everything into account, how would you rate Landgate’s overall performance on…Leading the market in land and property information Base: All rating 0/10 *Small sample size
Attribute
Navigation
7.56 6.91 7.84 7.95
48
63 69
72
24
18
9 12 18
7 12 7
7 4
4 5
5 6 4 4
Total Sample Account Business Gen-Pub
(n=459) Holders Non-Acc (n=310)
(n=33) Holders
(n=116)
(0-2) (3-4) (5) (6-7) (8-10)
Mean
Q40. Taking everything into account, how would you rate Landgate’s overall performance on…Making it easy to find information on their website Base: All rating 0/10 *Small sample size
Hunt Smarter.
July – September 2015
Client Contacts
Prepared By
Stephanie Grealish (B.Com. Mktg & Mgmt) – Account Executive
2
Tracking:
• All KPIs have increased this quarter with Overall Satisfaction and Customer Effort Score improving significantly.
100
90 (8,9&10)
81
80 77
74
72 72 71 79
71
73 71
70 69 70 (8,9&10)
60
51
48 48 49
50
Net Promoter Score
40 40 (NPS)
39
40
30
20
10
0
Feb-Apr 2014 May-Jul 2014 Aug-Oct 2014 Nov-Dec 2014 Jan-Mar 2015 Apr-Jun 2015 Jul-Sept 2015
Tracking:
• All attributes have continued their upward trend from the start of 2015.
100
Value For Money
90 8,9&10
80
78
Suit Your Needs
70 71 71 69 74 8,9&10
70 65 65
64 62
62 60 65
61 64 Feeling Important
60 61
54 55 56 59 8,9&10
58 58 57
55 55
50
52 52 51 52 53
51 50 Market Leaders
40 8,9&10
20
10
0
Feb-Apr 2014 May-Jul 2014 Aug-Oct 2014 Nov-Dec 2014 Jan-Mar 2015 Apr-Jun 2015 Jul-Sept 2015
July – September 2015?
5
July – September 2015:
KPI KPI KPI

8.48 8.39 8.53 8.51 8.45 8.27 8.50 8.56 51.2 40.7 59.3 53.5
58
65 70 66
81 82 80 81 79 76 78 83
25
22 21
19
10 11 11 8 14 18 15 9
13 17 11 13
Total Sample Account Business Gen-Pub Count Account Business General Total (n=520) Account Business Gen-Pub
(n=544) Holders Non-Acc (n=365) (n=538) Holders Non Account Public Holders Non-Acc (n=348)
(n=117) (n=116) (n=113)
(0-2) (3-4) (5) (6-7) (8-10) (0-6) (7-8) (9-10)

Mean
NPS

7.43 7.58 7.46 7.24 7.79 7.77 7.70 7.91 7.43 7.41 7.37 7.52 8.29 8.66 7.95 8.20
48
59 61 59 56 60 55 57 60
64 65 68 64
74 74
82
19 29
22 20
21 23 23 19
24 33 20 18 20
11 16 12
8 7 15 14 18 11
7 5 7 6 7 7 16 8 7
6 7 34 40 5 3 4 5 6
5 7 8 4 4 5 4 4 33 6 2 20 4 4
2
(n=106) (n=105) (n=105) (n=84)
(0-2) (3-4) (5) (6-7) (8-10)
Mean
Attribute
Navigation
7.78 7.39 7.79 8.17
56
65 64
75
31 22
22
13
4 33 5 5
4 5 4
5 7 4 4
(n=61) Holders
(n=116)
(0-2) (3-4) (5) (6-7) (8-10)
Mean
Hunt Smarter.
April – June 2015
Client Contacts
Prepared By
Stephanie Grealish (B.Com. Mktg & Mgmt) – Account Executive
2
Tracking:
• Net Promoter Score has slightly increased this quarter while other KPIs hold steady.
100
90 (8,9&10)
80 77
74
72 72 71
71
73 71
70 69 70 (8,9&10)
60
48 48 49
50
Net Promoter Score
40 40 (NPS)
39
40
30
20
10
0
Feb-Apr 2014 May-Jul 2014 Aug-Oct 2014 Nov-Dec 2014 Jan-Mar 2015 Apr-Jun 2015
(n=757) (n=730) (n=310) (n=209) (n=636) (n=436)
Tracking:
• All attributes remain consistent to previous quarter.
100
Value For Money
90 8,9&10
80
78
Suit Your Needs
70 71 71 69 8,9&10
70 65 65
64 62
62 60
61 Feeling Important
60 55 61
54 56 58 8,9&10
57
58 55
50 52
52 51 50 52 53
51 Market Leaders
40 8,9&10
20
10
0
Feb-Apr 2014 May-Jul 2014 Aug-Oct 2014 Nov-Dec 2014 Jan-Mar 2015 Apr-Jun 2015
April – June 2015?
5
April – June 2015:
KPI KPI KPI

7.97 7.74 8.16 8.00 8.08 7.83 8.24 8.17 48.7 50.0 48.5 47.7
61 64 63 63 62 64
70 75 73 71 75 75
23 23 25 25 20
16 10 20 30 12
16 17
14 13 13 17
Total Sample Account Business Gen-Pub Total Sample Account Business General Total Sample Account Business Gen-Pub
(n=436) Holders Non-Acc (n=275) (n=432) Holders Non Account Public (n=413) Holders Non-Acc (n=260)
(n=100) (n=99) (n=97)
(0-2) (3-4) (5) (6-7) (8-10) (0-6) (7-8) (9-10)

Mean
NPS

7.29 7.19 7.50 7.17 7.63 7.45 7.84 7.58 7.03 6.75 7.11 7.23 7.90 8.02 7.99 7.70
53 53 47
57 60 57 56 55 56
62 69 62 69 64
69 75
25
21 24 19 22 16
18 25
21 29 19 18
16 11 13 17 18
10 10 9 10 7 16
12 7 5 9
6 7 8 9 7 5 4 5 5
3 9 4 4 5 2
6 7 9 5 24 4 6 10 11 9 9 5 6
3 4 4
(n=92) (n=89) (n=89) (n=74)
(0-2) (3-4) (5) (6-7) (8-10)
Mean
Attribute
Navigation
7.68 7.41 7.92 7.70
52
61 62
70
31 18
21
14
8 8 5 10
7 7 8 6
3 2 2 4
(n=61) Holders
(n=97)
(0-2) (3-4) (5) (6-7) (8-10)
Mean
Hunt Smarter.
January – March 2015
Client Contacts
Gemma Bidstrup – Digital Marketing Manager
Prepared By
Kristy Willoughby (B.Bus. Mktg & Mgmt) – Senior Account Manager
2
Tracking:
• All KPIs continue to remain steady this quarter.
100
90 (8,9&10)
80 77
74
72 72
71 Customer Effect Score
70 73 73
70 69 71 (8,9&10)
60
48 48
50 Net Promoter Score
40 40 (NPS)
39
40
30
20
10
0
Feb-Apr 2014 May-Jul 2014 Aug-Oct 2014 Nov-Dec 2014 Jan-Mar 2015
Tracking:
• Performance Attributes remain steady. Market Leader looks to have recovered slightly from the drop last quarter.
100
Value For Money
90 8,9&10
80
78
Suit Your Needs
70 71 71 8,9&10
70 65 65
64
62 60
Feeling Important
60 55 61
54 56 58 8,9&10
58 55
50 52
51 52 51 50 52 Market Leaders
40 8,9&10
20
10
0
Feb-Apr 2014 May-Jul 2014 Aug-Oct 2014 Nov-Dec 2014 Jan-Mar 2015
January – March 2015?
5
January - March 2015:
KPI KPI KPI

8.08 8.02 8.01 7.78 8.09 8.29 8.05 7.93 40.1 56.5 31.1 34.5
58 53 56
71 70 67 72 71 69 66
77 75
25 22
24
15 13
14 15 14 17 23
14 14
18 22 21
11
Total Sample Account Business Gen-Pub Total Sample Account Business General Total Sample Account Business Gen-Pub
(n=636) Holders Non-Acc (n=332) (n=631) Holders Non Account Public (n=609) Holders Non-Acc (n=318)
(n=109) (n=107) (n=106)
(0-2) (3-4) (5) (6-7) (8-10) (0-6) (7-8) (9-10)

Mean
NPS

7.28 7.45 7.37 6.99 7.50 7.73 7.36 7.38 7.02 7.32 6.86 6.86 8.00 8.26 8.06 7.59
52 52 46 52
54 55 56 60 61 56
62 66 69 66
71 76
23
23 20 19
24 26 21 19
21 23 20
19 15 13 17 18
10 11 14 17
10 9 8 15 16
6 8 8 9 5 5 7 7
6 7 6 4 5 4 4 7
6 6 9 5 4 7 8 10 10 6 6
3 3 4
(n=1814) (A) Holders Non-Acc (n=1104) (D) (n=1718) (A) Holders Non-Acc (n=1045) (D) (n=1733) Holders Non-Acc (n=1077) (n=1440) Holders Non-Acc (n=853)
(n=295) (B) Holders (n=291) (B) Holders (n=294) Holders (n=283) Holders
(n=415) (C) (n=382) (C) (n=362) (n=304)
(0-2) (3-4) (5) (6-7) (8-10)
Mean
Attribute
Navigation
7.28 7.45 7.37 6.99
58 58 57 59
24 24 26 21
5 6 4 5
7 7 8 7
6 5 6 8
(n=192) Holders
(n=106)
(0-2) (3-4) (5) (6-7) (8-10)
Mean
Hunt Smarter.

Landgate 2015 Brand Health Tracking - Full Report: 3 December 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Landgate 2015 Brand Health Tracking - Full Report: 3 December 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Landgate

2015 Brand Health Tracking – Full Report

3rd December 2015

Background and Objectives 3

Dashboards: Brand Health Scorecard and Summary of Key

The Land and Property Information Market 88

Interaction with Landgate 100

Key Findings 111

• The Landgate brand came into existence on 1st January 2007

• Since 2007, Landgate has tracked its brand and advertising

• In 2009, Painted Dog Research was appointed to continue the

• The key outputs required from this research were...

To understand Landgate’s overall brand health and relative

To measure any changes in the previously established set of

• The specific objectives were as follows:

Knowledge of Landgate – including the services it provides

Attitudes towards and perceptions of Landgate

Behavioural intentions towards Landgate

2015 2014 2012 2010

Print - $28,500 - $41,150

Radio $10,003 $30,000 - $20,682

Total Campaign Spend $37,504 $143,500 $35,468 $61,832

Spend is based on media spend only 7

Methodology & Sampling

• The average survey length was 15 minutes.

• Data shown in charts is percentages unless otherwise noted.

• The quotas were set as follows:

Required Required sample Quota

2015 GP 2014 GP 2013 GP 2012 GP 2010 GP 2009 GP

Household Income (Q26)

Market Factors and Campaign Activity

Recent Use (in past 12 months) Future Intentions

Sig. lower than 25

Knowledgeable Accesible Practical Trustworthy Reliable

Approachable Dependable Unbiased A leader in its field Accurate

2010 2012 2013 2014 2015

11% 5% 0.6% 33%

Brand Awareness and Comprehension Top 5 Brand Perceptions

Obtained FREE info from

PAID for info 9 10% Email Landgate 31 27%

Awareness of Ad 3 Purchase products or info

Base size 2015 (n=464), 2014 (n=408) 19

Brand Awareness and Comprehension Top 5 Brand Perceptions

Obtained FREE info from

PAID for info 23 35% Email Landgate 41 45%

Awareness of Ad 3 Purchase products or info

54% Tell a friend or family

Base size 2015 (n=64), 2014 (n=57) 20

Brand Awareness and Comprehension Top 5 Brand Perceptions

Obtained FREE info from

PAID for info 22 16% Email Landgate 43 31%

Awareness of Ad 3 Purchase products or info

Brand Awareness and Comprehension Top 5 Brand Perceptions

Obtained FREE info from

PAID for info 39 26% Email Landgate 35 29%

Awareness of Ad 3 Purchase products or info

Brand Awareness and Comprehension Top 5 Brand Perceptions

Awareness of Ad 1 Correct Comprehension

Obtained FREE info from

PAID for info 4 4% Email Landgate 35 39%

Awareness of Ad 3 Purchase products or info

Unprompted brand comprehension has seen an