BRAND PRO

SIMULATION
By:
Group 12
Monika Patel 1911148
Sparsh Heda 1911258
Pedapatnapu Sai Rohan 1911174
Rishabh Gautam 1911204
Anmol 1911035
SWOT ANALYSIS FOR M
• Strengths
• We figured out that Savvy cover a huge segment in the market, and we had a
Product that could cater to it’s exact needs
• Weaknesses
• We figured out that our two products which were designed for two different
segments were very far away from the needs of the customer segment. Even after
product awareness, purchase intentions were very less
• Opportunities
• Growing Savvy segment was an opportunity for Mojo, and Increasing growth rate
was an opportunity for Moon in Pros segment
• Threats
• High competition from Toga and Toiz in the mid level segment and Toki in the low-
end segment
• We were also not sure which segment to target at for MOON, so we were sure to
incur few loses to know the exact segment we need to serve to.
 Options considered

• There were two products for two segments. Ater

YEAR 1 studying the perceptual map, we saw our

product MOJO could have served the SAVVY

DECISION
segment efficiently as our product offering and
segment’s demand was matching.

– Decision taken

TARGETIN • For our Product MOON, in the initial 2 years

we were not sure as to which segment to target

G
specifically, because it seemed to serve both the
customer segment, PROS and TRENDY. But
after 2nd year we started focusing on PROS as
we got finer knowledge of the competition and
customer segment.
 Options considered

• Change product specification for Mojo or

Moon

YEAR 1 Decision taken

DECISION – • As we knew savvy had a lot of potential and

no competitor was matching their demands,

PRODUCT we decided to change the specifications for

Mojo to cater to them.
• According to the segment needs we changed
specifications and communication, like high
convenience
YEAR 1 DECISION – PRICING

•For both the products we went for ongoing

pricing strategy. We followed the competitors
and the gains they are having from what range
of price and then set our prices accordingly.
•We also observed the perceptual maps to decide
to match the economy desired by the customer
segments
YEAR 1 DECISION –
COMMUNICATION
•Studied the direction in which brands were
moving on the perception map
•Forecasted their position at the end of 5th year,
and changed our allocation accordingly
•Changed communication parameters according
to the configuration and price changes, keeping
long term goals in mind
 Our performance
• SPI increased slightly to 109
• R&D changes would only be reflected next year so fair
performance
• For Moon, we did not establish communication and
targeting for either pros or trendy decisively
YEAR 1 • For Mojo, we had a targeted approach
Learning
RESULTS • Approach the segments where they were heading to
• Focus strongly on customer needs
• Observe segment data for cues like growth, awareness of
product and purchasing intention
• Deciding on power as POD for Mojo helped in long term
DECISIONS FOR YEAR 2

No price change for

Changed specs for
Mojo, changed
Moon, for higher Targeted both Pros and
perceptions based on
performance and lower Trendy
where segments are
economy
heading

Market share
Spent high amount
increased SPI 143
for marketing Mojo
significantly to
to savvy
Mojo
DECISIONS FOR YEAR 3

Changed specs for

Reduced the price
Mojo, for high Focused solely on
for both Mojo and
convenience and Pros
Moon
high economy

Changed
perception of Market leaders for SPI 168
Moon to match Mojo
Pros
DECISIONS FOR YEAR 4

Increased performance Increased marketing

Finally matched the
for Moon as per budget focused on pros
changing perceptions of
customers perception for moon
customers
and competitor offering and mojo for savvy

Lost market share for

Rolt entered the market,
targeting trendy
trendy to Rolt, and for SPI 158
pros to Toga
DECISIONS FOR YEAR 5

Observed that we
Mojo customers
spent less than Made no R&D
wanted even higher
competition for modifications
economy
marketing Moon
Increased
marketing
Reduced prices for
spending to Moon Final SPI 243
Mojo
for Pros, reduced
for trendy
 CONCLUSION
Performance
In 5 years, we saw positive
SPI growth every year except
year 4 and ended with an SPI
of 243, so overall fair
performance
Turning Points
Steady rise with just one
turning point in year 4 as Rolt
entered the market and Toga
pushed our market share from
40%-18% for Moon
Benchmarked Toga and
increased marketing
spending, improved
perception to recapture share
What we could have Key Learnings
done different?
We could have predicted Study the market
changes needed for Pros environment, look at the
better and allocated trends and focus your
marketing resources to offerings according to that,
Moon accordingly long term thinking, Study the
competitors