Spotlight on Image

Last updated January 2022

Contents
Click on link to go straight to relevant section

Why we use factor analysis

Questionnaire design
Beast setup spec
Calculation & checks
Technical detail
Troubleshooting
How to customise your factor solution
Analysis
Category drivers for sub-samples (beta version)
Relative importance of individual attributes
Appendix

2
Image Factor Analysis
What is Image Factor Analysis?

Image attributes are grouped together based on respondent endorsement; attributes that are endorsed in a similar way will group into the same factor

Individual image attributes
Broader network coverage than other brands
More reliable network coverage than other brands
Faster access to emails and the internet
Would you be proud to use
Are a more acceptable price than other brands
Help you monitor your usage and bills
Provide better help and support than other brands
Have values that you can identify or connect with
Understand what is important to you
Are always trying to improve their products
Factor 1: Network
Broader network coverage than other brands
More reliable network coverage than other brands
Faster access to emails and the internet
Factor 2: Emotional
Would you be proud to use
Provide better help and support than other brands
Have values that you can identify or connect with
Understand what is important to you
Factor 3: Cost
Are a more acceptable price than other brands
Help you monitor your usage and bills
Factor 4: Improve
Are always trying to improve their products

4
Why do we use factor analysis in image diagnosis?

Image attributes are typically very highly correlated, especially generic image attributes which contain the most brand size and the greatest mix of all
different dimensions

Factor analysis enables us to assess the performance of brands on separate and underlying image dimensions (or territories), and the
independent contribution of each of these separate and underlying image dimensions to building equity

If we simply assessed importance without a factor analysis:

- We would tend to find that the most generic image attributes would seem to be the most important
- We would see unstable models where a small change in data could dramatically change the importance weights (because when image attributes are
highly correlated, and therefore interchangeable, small differences over time may cause importance levels for each attribute to reverse)

Other benefits include:

- Ease of analysis and interpretation
- A tool to validate the construction of the image grid, and understand which attributes are potentially not working as intended

Once the factors have been defined, factor scores can be created at a respondent level for use in further analysis

5
Why do we refer to factors as territories in our analysis?

We use the word territories as it best conveys to our clients the concept of what we’re measuring, rather than focusing on the technique itself (factor analysis)
- The reality is that people do not store up memories of brands based on individual attributes, rather brands occupy a broader space or territory in people’s
minds.
- As such brands do not / ought not be looking to build their identity around individual attributes, rather seeking to establish themselves in the desired
broader space, or territory.
- A key benefit of utilising factors in our analysis is that it gives us insight we need to understand which separate image dimensions exist in the minds of
consumers and how the image attributes group together to form these dimensions
- For example, a mobile network brand would identify the ‘network performance’ territory as the ideal space in which to position its offer. Analysing specific
associations such as ‘faster access to internet/email’ do not tell the full picture. As such, we would want to see how well the brand is doing in the territory
(factor) associated with network-themed associations which would also include aspects such as reliability and broad coverage. And there might be some
other unexpected individual associations that tie into network performance (e.g. innovative packages).

6
Questionnaire design
Avoid outcome measures

One of the core requirements of marketing and communications activities is to build associations for a brand. These associations should be related to the brand and
should help drive the perceptions of being meaningful and different.

Some of these associations being built are ‘outcome measures’, meaning metrics that essentially measure consideration or purchase intent (for example, ‘brand for me’).
These outcome measures are difficult to diagnose and often overlap with the standard brand equity image (Meets Needs, Affinity, Unique and Dynamic). This makes the
outcome measures less useful to include in an Imagery question.

For diagnosis of brand equity, it’s more useful and more actionable to think of the types of image drivers that are NOT outcome measures.

Include in Image
Type Question Location in survey
Factor Analysis
After Consideration, and before
Category needs and occasions Yes Category Entry Points
Meets Needs, Affinity, Unique & Dynamic
Tangibles (factual, product features and benefits) Yes
After Price, Worth & Brand Imprint,
Intangibles (what the product symbolises) Yes Imagery
and before TBCA
Emotional benefits Yes
Desired brand personality No Separate question After Imagery
Advertising claims No Separate question After TBCA

8
Image attributes should be heavily tailored to your category

Category needs and occasions

- The immediate needs, motivations, and occasions that a brand might fulfil
- These are the when and where and who of the brand rather than the ‘why’ or the emotional needs to be fulfilled; these statements tend to be more generic
- category level
- For example: For a night out with friends; For when you want a refreshing drink; To savour when relaxing
Tangibles (factual, product features and benefits)
- Primarily factual or functional
- Things that can be directly experienced or proven (seen, touched, smelled, tasted and/or where from)
- For example: Have a strong flavour; Have a distinctive look; Are environmentally friendly; Taste creamy; Are safe to drive; Are value for money; Provide wide
- coverage; Are long lasting
Intangibles (what the product symbolises)
- What the brand symbolizes
- The impressions that the brand is trying to create; often more personal than tangibles; could include the personality/character it is trying to get across.
- For example: Are stylish; Are glamourous; Are traditional
Emotional benefits
- How the brand makes consumers feel
- The things that the tangibles and intangibles build up to deliver an end emotional ‘pay off’ resulting from buying the brand
- For example, Make you feel confident; Make you feel inspired; Make you feel happy

9
Use a Free Association grid, with All Aware, ABS or Focused brand selection

Imagery is asked using a Free Association image grid:

- This is because it allows a consideration of the brands in a market context and it is much more time economic to assess all the brands together (rather than brand by
brand, statement by statement).
- If your tracking study covers a market where respondents are likely to be aware of few brands, and are not making decisions in a competitive context (e.g. Financial
Advisors), and do not have much knowledge about brands then the Free Association technique is not appropriate. In this case, you should consider asking Imagery
one brand at a time and custom imagery analysis. You will not be able to use the Beast to run imagery analysis.

All Aware brand selection for imagery is recommended for most studies:
- It is important that everyone is shown the brands in the same context (meaning the same competitive set). We systematically exclude the brands that individual
respondents are not aware of, as this only removes the brands that they are likely to ignore anyway.
- Focused brand selection is supported for Streamlined Power studies and Adaptive Brand Sets is supported for Power+MDS studies.
- However, All Aware brand selection is recommended even when using Focused brand selection for Meets Needs and Affinity (Streamlined Power studies) or Adaptive
Brand Sets for Meets Needs, Affinity, Unique and Dynamic (Power+MDS studies), unless you brand list is so long that asking All Aware would compromise data
quality.
- We do not recommend that the set of brands shown is varied in any other way, or that the brands are shown in smaller subsets (for example, split into 2 groups of 6),
as any variations to the context will affect the data and compromise the analysis which is completed at a respondent level. If you do use any of these approaches,
you will not be able to use the Beast to run imagery analysis.

1. See here for more about Focused brand selection for imagery and here for more information about Adaptive Brand Sets 10
5 to 15 attributes recommended

As outlined earlier in this deck, the imagery grid should be made up of tangible and intangible/symbolic brand benefits and emotional benefits. Category needs and
occasions, personality, and advertising claims are all covered by separate questions.

You should tailor your imagery to your specific category and brand using the guidance available:
- Brand Image Grid MOT
- Fundamentals of Continuous Research – Image

To run Image Factor Analysis in the Beast, you must have at least 5 attributes, and it is recommended you have no more than 15
- The recommended maximum of 15 is based on research that indicates that after 12 statements, respondent interest decreases and fewer attributes are endorsed for
fewer brands
- Additionally, in most of our Brand Equity pilot work, a factor analysis of attributes typically identified 8 or less factors suggesting that consumers think about the
categories and brands broadly
- Finally, we need to be sure that our studies are mobile first, and follow the rules that allow us to include all types of respondents for a robust understanding of the
brand and category

Statements should usually be worded in the plural (for example, 'are tasty', not 'is tasty')
- This structure encourages the respondents to give us multiple brand responses and ensures overall endorsement levels are as high as possible

11
Other things to think about up front

You will need to identify whether each image statement is positive, negative, or ‘different’; this will help set up the factor analysis.

It’s also a good idea to create a hypothesis upfront of how you think the underlying associations work in your category:
- Thinking about this early, can help you decide which factor analysis to choose later on
- You can then decide whether the factor analysis is confirmed or disproved based on what actually exists in the heads of your category consumers

12
Category Entry Points can help better diagnose Salience

Using the Category Entry Points question gives us a stronger diagnosis of Salience than we’ve had previously. Salience is a way of measuring and understanding mental
availability – is a brand thought of for the specific needs and occasions that drive sales in the category.

Category Entry points provide information about whether a brand is brought to mind as a response to specific activities or places relevant to the category. This concept is
also talked about as ‘Situational Salience’ – whether a brand is thought of in response to stimuli like ‘shopping for everyday items’ or ‘when you’re out with friends’. These
types of needs are primarily the ‘who, what, when, where’ of the category. The ‘why’ – the specific tangible and intangible brand benefits are covered in the Associations
or Image Diagnosis questions. Category Entry Points is also an important component of a brand study for clients who are interested in the Ehrenberg–Bass model of
brand growth as the Ehrenberg-Bass model focuses heavily on Salience as the key driver of growth. For more information on Ehrenberg-Bass, see How Brands Grow.

While Needs Based Salience is the headline spontaneous measure of mental availability, the prompted free association grid of Category Entry Points is the best way to
get an indicator of progress against specific needs and occasions that bring a consumer to a category. Category Entry Points are likely to move more quickly over time
than Needs Based Salience; Needs Based Salience is a slower moving overall measure of whether the brand has achieved the share of mental availability that will
actually fuel purchase. The Category Entry Points question is also more sensitive – responsive to both communications and the external environment – and easier for
non-users who have just heard about a brand’s strength in delivering against a certain Category Entry Points to endorse.

13
Category Entry Points can also be included in Image Factor Analysis

We piloted the best wording for the Category Entry Points free association grid question and found that the standard wording recommended by Ehrenberg-Bass limits
endorsement a little too much to current users. Our recommended wording (‘associate with’) gives us a better distribution of responses and does a better job of
encouraging endorsement. This wording increases the sensitivity of the measure, showing a change in mental availability – making it more likely to move as a result of
communications activity, or on association with a certain Category Entry Point, that will ultimately build mental availability.

As with our standard brand imagery question, we recommend using between 5 and 15 Category Entry Points in your question. This should be sufficient to capture most
relevant needs and occasions and allow for the inclusion of some few special situations that may be more relevant to certain brands (e.g. “when you’re on vacation at the
beach”). Similarly, while you can include any needs and occasion statements within the Category Entry Points question, you will need to identify whether the Category
Entry Points statement is positive, negative, or ‘different.’ Finally, be careful in describing the situation so that it doesn't sound like a specific brand positioning statement.
Those belong either in the imagery or ad messaging sections

There is the option to include Category Entry Points in Image Factor Analysis.

14
Tips to ensure you get clear and useful image factors

Limit the number of attributes to a maximum of 20

Focus on specific, actionable associations or brand benefits

- This document and the questionnaire template includes fairly generic examples as a guide to the type of statements that are likely to be useful, but these should be
tailored to the category rather than using the exact wording
- For example, ‘work better than other brands’ should be tailored for different categories; ‘protect your hair better than other brands’ might be used for a hair care study,
whilst ‘more reliable network coverage than other brands’ might be used for a telecommunications study

Avoid high level equity attributes

- For example, love, appeal and recommend
- These attributes are unlikely to be actionable and we already measure Meaningful, Affinity and Meets Needs separately

Avoid repetition
- For example, ‘designed for the best protection’ and ‘has protection that I can trust’
- These attributes are likely to be highly correlated and can also be confusing or irritating for respondents who wonder why they are being asked the same question
twice

Monitor data quality

- It is when respondents and/or interviewers get into a response pattern that factors are hard to find

15
 Solution 3 Component Type over text below to name your factors:
Example of poor result Labels RC1 RC4 RC5 RC2 RC6 RC3
Work better than other brands 0.63 0.49 0.12 -0.06 0.23 0.02
when using high level Has products that fit your body comfortably 0.66 0.32 0.27 -0.06 0.00 0.03
equity attributes & Keep you feeling drier
Keeps your skin healthy
0.77
0.66
0.22
0.39
0.14
0.21
-0.05
-0.05
0.14
-0.01
0.00
-0.02
repetitive statements Effectively works with periods of any intensity
Effectively protects against leakage
0.76
0.78
0.16
0.09
0.14
0.14
-0.05
-0.05
0.27
0.29
0.01
0.00
Fits to my body shape 0.62 0.35 0.25 -0.05 0.13 0.02
Absorbs well 0.71 0.20 0.20 -0.06 0.28 -0.02
Does not cause sweat and skin irritation 0.57 0.37 0.38 -0.05 -0.14 0.03
Gives you feeling of comfort 0.69 0.24 0.23 -0.05 0.03 0.01
High level equity attributes are not Designed for the best protection 0.68 -0.01 0.31 -0.06 0.24 0.03
actionable and make it difficult to Appeal to you more than other brands 0.60 0.50 0.16 -0.05 0.24 0.04
identify more specific themes Have a higher opinion of than others 0.62 0.45 0.14 -0.05 0.32 0.05
Examples shown in orange Has protection that I can trust 0.79 0.17 0.10 -0.06 0.13 -0.03
Helps me feel confident 0.74 0.38 0.10 -0.05 0.18 -0.03
Makes me feel feminine 0.54 0.26 0.47 -0.05 -0.06 -0.01
High correlation between repetitive Gives me confidence to be at my best 0.78 0.14 0.16 -0.05 0.11 -0.04
Helps me to feel comfortable with my body 0.74 0.07 0.25 -0.05 0.09 -0.03
statements Would you recommend to a friend or family member 0.62 0.48 0.14 -0.03 0.27 0.00
Examples shown in purple Are made with high quality materials 0.64 0.31 0.25 -0.06 0.11 0.06
- ‘Has products that fit your body Are brands that understand women 0.65 0.24 0.29 -0.06 0.08 0.02
Understands me as a woman 0.68 0.23 0.31 -0.05 0.03 -0.01
comfortably’ & ‘Fits to my body Knows what is important to me 0.74 0.20 0.22 -0.05 0.05 -0.02
shape’ Speaks to me in straightforward manner 0.61 0.25 0.31 -0.03 0.07 -0.04
- ‘Designed for the best protection’ & Acceptable Price 0.41 0.62 0.03 -0.08 0.01 -0.18
Are growing more popular 0.21 0.56 0.39 -0.04 0.35 0.03
‘Has protection that I can trust’
Created by women 0.39 0.10 0.63 -0.04 0.28 -0.05
- ‘Give me confidence to be at my Always doing new things 0.45 0.05 0.57 -0.06 0.21 0.04
best’ & ‘Helps me feel confident’ Don’t work well enough -0.08 0.00 -0.02 0.83 -0.04 0.04
- ‘Are brands that understand women’ Don’t appeal to you -0.07 -0.03 -0.05 0.82 -0.06 0.07
Too cheap -0.03 -0.07 -0.03 0.72 0.04 -0.13
& ‘Understand me as a woman’ Is the most popular brand 0.35 0.21 0.19 -0.03 0.72 0.03
Cost More -0.01 -0.06 0.00 -0.03 0.03 0.98
Offers products that allows me to express myself 0.50 0.34 0.49 -0.04 0.01 0.00

16
Beast setup spec
Beast Setup spec

On the ‘Definitions’ worksheet of the Beast Setup Spec, Client Service must provide the information shown in the table below

The minimum number of attributes to run Image Factor Analysis is 5 (from either the imagery question or the category entry points question)

If you do not have at least 5 attributes to include, or you do not wish to run image factor analysis, you must select Image factor analysis ‘No’

Settings Description Options

Image factor analysis
Image
Category Entry Points
Whether you would like to run image factor analysis, and - Yes: 6 themes expected
how many factors you are expecting - Yes: 7 themes expected
- Yes: 8 themes expected
- Yes: 9 themes expected
- Yes: 10 themes expected
- Yes: Not sure how many themes are expected
- No
Whether the imagery question is available, and if it should - Yes, include in image factor analysis
be used in the image factor analysis - Yes, do not include in image factor analysis
- No
Whether the category entry points question is available, - Yes, include in image factor analysis
and if it should be used in the image factor analysis - Yes, do not include in image factor analysis
- No

18
How to define the number of factors you are expecting

If you have imagery and/or category entry points questions on your survey, and you wish to run image factor analysis, it is recommended for Client Service to define the
number of expected image factors. The Beast will return 5 factor solutions: expected number of themes, +1, +2, -1 and -2.

It is good practice to create a hypothesis of what you think strengthens brand equity, which the factor analysis will either confirm or disprove based on what actually exists
in the heads of consumers for your category, and think about which attributes are likely to be endorsed in a similar way.

However, there are some default options based on the number of attributes if you are unsure.

Image factor analysis setting Outputs Rules for use

Yes: 6 themes expected Factor solutions with 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 factors will be output At least 8 attributes must be supplied
Yes: 7 themes expected Factor solutions with 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 factors will be output At least 9 attributes must be supplied
Yes: 8 themes expected Factor solutions with 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 factors will be output At least 10 attributes must be supplied
Yes: 9 themes expected Factor solutions with 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 factors will be output At least 11 attributes must be supplied
Yes: 10 themes expected Factor solutions with 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 factors will be output At least 12 attributes must be supplied
Yes: Not sure how many themes are If 5 to 7 attributes, factor solutions with n-4, n-3, n-2, n-1 and n factors will be output (n= no. attributes)
expected If 8 to 12 attributes, factor solutions with 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 factors will be output
If 13 to 16 attributes, factor solutions with 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 factors will be output
If 17 or more attributes, factor solutions with 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 factors will be output

19
List attributes, and define whether positive, negative or different

On the ‘Definitions Image’ worksheet, Client Service must enter the statement text for each attribute to be included

We treat some attributes differently in the analysis, and it’s important to identify these in advance
- For most attributes we use share of endorsements within the analysis, with the exception of the negative attributes and the different attributes
- By keeping different attributes as absolutes we are saying we don’t care whether you are the only ‘different’ brand or one of many (being different is an absolute
concept, either you are or you are not different, it doesn't matter if other brands are also different because almost by definition, they have to be different in a different
way to you)

20
Calculations & checks
Factor analysis step by step

1. The relationships between individual image attributes are summarised in a cross correlation matrix
- Positive statements use respondent level share of endorsements
- Negative and difference statements use absolutes

2. A range of 5 different factor solutions are extracted from these correlations using Principal Components Analysis (PCA)

3. These 5 different factor solutions are output to Excel for Client Service to review

4. The final factor solution is chosen by Client Service, and the factor groups are named

5. The final factor scores are calculated, removing brand size effects and multiplying them by 100

6. Further analysis is run using the factor scores

- Category drivers
- Final factor analysis scores
- Simulator (Power+MDS studies only)

22
5 different factor solutions are output
See ‘For CS Decision’ worksheet (Power+MDS studies) or IFA.xlsx (Streamlined Power studies)

The rotated factor loadings show how individual image attributes load onto each factor, displaying the correlation coefficients between individual image attributes (rows)
and factors (columns)

Every image attribute will contribute to each factor, so conditional formatting is used to aid interpretation:
- For the factor it loads the highest on, the factor loading is shown in black text with green background
- For any other factor it loads above 0.3 on, the factor loading is shown in black text with white background
- Otherwise the factor loading is hidden in white text with white background (select cells to display, or copy into a new worksheet and change formatting)

Solution 2 Component Type over text below to name your factors:

Type over text to name your factors: RC1 RC4 RC5 RC2 RC3
Factor Names RC1 RC4 RC5 RC2 RC3
Is better quality than other brands 0.75 0.20 0.22 0.13 0.21
Always provides the freshest products 0.61 0.57 0.08 0.09 0.02
Tastes better than other brands 0.75 0.26 0.14 0.10 0.25
Is a brand I trust 0.41 0.50 0.35 0.14 0.19
Are brands that meets the needs of families 0.21 0.80 0.21 0.15 0.15
Are the experts in baking 0.56 0.00 0.65 0.22 0.12
Have a broad range of bread and bakery products 0.11 0.45 0.77 0.05 0.12
Are healthier than others 0.16 0.17 0.12 0.95 0.11
Has products that are worth paying more for 0.28 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.92

23
How to choose the final factor solution and name each factor group

The factors should have conceptually distinct content and names

Use your category knowledge to help you select the factor solution which makes most sense
- Do the variables that are loading on the same factor make sense together?
- Likewise, do the variables that are loading on different factors measure something different?
- If you can name the concept each factor represents, that’s indicative that the factor solution is a reasonable one
- Remember, there is no one ‘correct’ solution (for example, a 3 factor solution is just a simplified version of a 10 factor solution)

Image attributes with higher loadings on a factor should play a more important role in naming the factor
- The signs of the factor loadings (positive or negative) should also be taken into account
- For example, a positive factor loading for image attribute ‘Less reliable network coverage than other brands’ might be called ‘Less reliable’ whilst a negative factor
loading for the same image attribute might be called ‘Avoids reliability issues’

24
How to enter your chosen factor solution and factor names
Power+MDS studies

Go to the ‘For CS Decision’ tab IMAGE LEVERS SELECTOR

1. Enter the number of your chosen Review solutions below and select your
1
factor solution at the top of the preferred solution here:
2
worksheet

2. Type in the chosen name of each

Solution 2 Component Type over text below to name your factors:
factor group Type over text to name your factors: Taste Family Range Health Premium
Factor Names RC1 RC4 RC5 RC2 RC3 2
Save file so your choices are retained
Is better quality than other brands 0.75 0.20 0.22 0.13 0.21
Always provides the freshest products 0.61 0.57 0.08 0.09 0.02
Tastes better than other brands 0.75 0.26 0.14 0.10 0.25
Is a brand I trust 0.41 0.50 0.35 0.14 0.19
Are brands that meets the needs of families 0.21 0.80 0.21 0.15 0.15
Are the experts in baking 0.56 0.00 0.65 0.22 0.12
Have a broad range of bread and bakery products 0.11 0.45 0.77 0.05 0.12
Are healthier than others 0.16 0.17 0.12 0.95 0.11
Has products that are worth paying more for 0.28 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.92

25
How to check your chosen factor solution has pulled through to the Total sample worksheet
Power+MDS studies
The names of each factor group
will be displayed in S11 & S12

Further analysis is run using the

factor scores

Section 11 will display the scores

that each brand achieves on each
factor solution.

Section 12 will automatically default

to populating with the data from the
first factor solution (Solution 1).

Therefore, once you have

completed the ‘For CS decision’
worksheet, make the following
Section 12
checks to Section 12 ‘Category
Category Image Drivers
image drivers’ and Section 11 ‘Final Selected Solution 2
factor analysis scores’ Taste Family Range Health Premium
Importance weights to Meaningful 1.14 0.38 0.35 0.17 0.07 0.17
Importance weights to Different 0.77 0.23 0.07 0.14 0.13 0.18
Importance weights to Salient 0.21 0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.06 0.04
Importance weights to Power 1.31 0.42 0.38 0.22 0.10 0.19
Check the number Importance weights to Premium 0.94 0.29 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.19
here matches with
your chosen factor Importance weights to Meaningful % 33.0% 31.2% 14.5% 6.1% 15.2%
Importance weights to Different % 30.7% 9.6% 18.2% 17.6% 23.9%
solution Importance weights to Salient % 15.1% -18.4% -18.4% -27.2% 20.9%
Importance weights to Power % 32.2% 29.3% 16.5% 7.5% 14.5%
Importance weights to Premium % 31.3% 17.3% 16.1% 15.2% 20.2%

26
How to enter your chosen factor solution and factor names
Streamlined Power studies

The IFA workbook consist of a FPage,

one worksheet for each Factor Solution
and a For Charting sheet.

1. In each Factor Solution sheet, you 1

can name the factor groups (row 2).

2. In the For Charting sheet, you can

record your chosen factor solution
(optional).

27
Technical detail
Principal Components Analysis

Principal Components Analysis (PCA) seeks to extract factors that take out as much common variance between attributes as possible in the first factor, then in turn as
much common variance as possible in the second factor, the third factor and so on

This technique can be used to create a number of factor solutions, which can range from a 1 factor solution through to the number of factors that account for all variance
in the data if you produce as many factors as input variables

The Beast uses PCA to extract 5 different factor solutions from the initial cross-correlations, aiming to strike a balance between statistical accuracy (fit and proportion of
variance explained) and practical application

These factors are then rotated using varimax rotation for ease of interpretation
- Variance is shared out more evenly when varimax is applied, so that the variance isn’t contained mostly in the first factor

If you would like a more detailed explanation of PCA or varimax rotation, please speak to your local Data Science team

29
How the number of factor groups within each factor solution are determined

If the expected number of themes have been defined in advance, the number of factors in each solution will be determined based on the expected number of themes

Number of expected themes Outputs

6 themes Factor solutions with 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 factors will be output
7 themes Factor solutions with 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 factors will be output
8 themes Factor solutions with 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 factors will be output
9 themes Factor solutions with 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 factors will be output
10 themes Factor solutions with 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 factors will be output

If the expected number of themes have not been defined in advance, you will still receive 5 candidate  image factor solutions, but the number of factors in each solution
are determined based on the number of image statements included in your analysis

Number of image statements Outputs

5 to 7 attributes Factor solutions with n-4, n-3, n-2, n-1 and n factors will be output (n= no. attributes)
8 to 12 statements Factor solutions with 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 factors will be output
13 to 16 statements Factor solutions with 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 factors will be output
17 or more statements Factor solutions with 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 factors will be output

30
How we go from the principle component factor analysis to the score

The factor scores are the factors. We make two changes:

1. We calculate the average factor score across all factors for each brand and subtract that from each factor score for each brand to remove brand size
effects
2. We multiply the factor scores by 100. They are naturally scores that vary mainly between -1 to 1, and so are mainly decimals. People generally prefer integer
numbers to decimals, so we multiply by 100 to make them easier to read and use

A more technical explanation of the factor scores:

- Factor scores are essentially a weighted sum of the image attributes, or standardized weighted averages
- The factor analysis produces a factor loadings matrix which shows the contribution of each image attribute to each factor; each image attribute’s loading represents
how strongly that image statement is associated with the underlying factor
- Those loadings are then used as coefficients by which to multiply each image attribute (in fact a standardised version of the image share of endorsement score)
- The resulting scores are summed up: a weighted sum of standardised image scores x factor loadings to get the factor score
- Each image statement’s weight is its factor loading. So each image statement’s contribution to the factor score depends on how strongly it relates to the factor.
Because those weights are all between -1 and 1, the scale of the factor scores will be very different from a pure sum
- This is a fairly standard approach in most statistical packages. It is not a black box we have invented, but a standard approach to summarising factors. There are
other approaches, but these other approaches tend to throw away some of the information in the factor analysis and can be unstable
- Then we remove brand size effects and multiply by 100, as noted in the simpler explanation above

31
Troubleshooting
What to do if factor groups are not conceptually distinct and cannot be named satisfactorily

If the factors are not conceptually distinct and cannot be named satisfactorily, the factor solution may be a mathematical contrivance that does not have a useful
application and you should use your category knowledge to explore alternatives

- Consider removing image attributes which are very generic or don't seem to belong, and re-running (this can change the structure/number of factors).

- Consider customising your factor solution, either in the Beast or via Data Science. See next section for more details

33
What to do if factor groups look different to previous waves

Different datasets will produce different results, so you should not expect to get exactly the same results each time
- Assuming stable category dynamics and a consistent methodology, we would expect similar patterns and structure, but not identical

Sometimes changes in the colour coding can make the differences between waves look greater than they are (when a statement ‘tips’ over from green
background/white text to white background/black text, or from white background/black text to white background/white text)
- You can view all the results if you select the cells containing the factors or copy them into a separate sheet
- Sometimes this shows that the meaning of the factors is essentially the same based on the values rather than the colour coding

If an attribute was loading fairly equally on 2 factors and switches factors in the next wave, the solution is likely to be quite similar and so can still be used

If you find larger differences, this could be for a number of reasons, including:
- Changing category dynamics (one or more brands increasing in awareness, one or more brands strengthening or weakening on key image attributes)
- Timing of survey (different spend patterns or seasonality)
- Methodology change (sample design or questionnaire design)
- Data quality issue

As a starting point, check for any significant changes in cross-correlations, share of endorsements and image absolutes across waves

34
What to do if your client wants to compare factor scores over time

It is best practice to re-run the factor solution each wave to reflect current category dynamics, and the current relative strengths and weaknesses of each brand
- Similar to image profiles, factor scores are not intended to be trended over time
- Instead it is better to use absolutes or share of endorsements to monitor progress

However, if your client is keen to make a direct comparison across waves, it is possible to force the Beast to re-use the image factor loadings from a previous wave
- Add an extra row into your Beast_Settings.csv file, enter ‘IASolution’ in column A and 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 (dependent on required solution) in column B (case sensitive)

35
How to customise your
factor solution
Option to customise your factor solution in the Beast

It is possible to apply the same image factor solution across different markets and/or apply an existing client image factor solution.

In order to be able to automate image factor analysis, the number of factor solutions standardly produced by the Beast is limited to 5 and the number of factor groups
within a solution is determined by the number of different image territories defined on the Beast spec.

For most studies, this should provide at least one factor solution which is statistically sound, makes sense to Client Service based on their knowledge of the category and
is actionable for the client.

However, there may be occasions when there are other solutions which are just as good from a statistical POV (how much variance is explained by each factor and
overall), but actually make more sense based on knowledge of the category and/or are more actionable for the client.

This functionality is designed to give people easier access to these alternative solutions, to facilitate (not replace) discussions with Data Science and enable further
analysis such as the simulator; for example, a number of our larger clients have worked with Data Science to develop global factor solutions, and wanted to be able to
utilise this same thinking in their Brand Equity deep dive, and simulate through to Power/Streamlined Power.

This approach uses the standardised means and not Principal Components Analysis (PCA); therefore the results will be different vs. if the same factors were
generated naturally or if the image factors from a previous wave have been reused via the Settings CSV file.

37
How to customise your factor solution in the Beast

Please ensure you have run and reviewed the standardly produced factor analyses first
It is also strongly recommended that you discuss with Data Science
The process is as follows:
1. Client Service discuss with Data Science
2. Client Service or PM use the Beast Custom Image Factors spec template to spec the required factors to DP
3. DP add the relevant DP codes to the spec
4. DP upload the Excel file to the Beast engine, along with other relevant files (Beast settings CSV and respondent level SAV file)
5. DP run the Beast engine as standard
6. The Beast will attempt to force the factors
7. The Beast will validate the factor solution
8. DP check ImageAnalysisSolutions.txt
9. If the validation checks are met, the custom factor solution will appear in the ‘For CS decision’ worksheet (Power+MDS studies) or the IFA.xlsx file (Streamlined
Power studies), further analysis using the factor scores will be available

38
Step 2 in more detail: Client Service or PM spec the required factors to DP

- Download the most recent Beast Custom Image Factors spec template from the Source
- Type in factor names in row 1, use a separate column for each factor
- Type in the statements to be included in each factor from row 2 onwards, use a separate cell for each statement
- Each column must contain at least one statement, delete any columns not required
- Save file as .xlsx (for example, custom_factor_spec.xlsx)
- Send to DP, along with confirmation of the Data Science expert consulted

39
Step 3 in more detail: DP add the relevant DP codes to the spec

- Open the spec provided by Client Service or PM

- Check a factor name has been entered in row 1
- From row 2 onwards, replace the statement text with the relevant DP code, each column must contain at least one statement
- Save a copy of the file (for example, custom_factor_spec_DP.xlsx), do not overwrite the original spec so that you still have a record of it

40
Steps 6 in more detail: The Beast will attempt to force the factors

First the Beast will check the inputs are valid and report the outcome in
DataValidationIA.csv
- Minimum number of statements present
- No duplicate data
- Valid image statements for factor solution
- Second row has a valid image statement for each factor
- There are no empty columns
If the inputs are valid, the statements in each column will be averaged and a PCA
model will be estimated using these averages to create as many factors as
averages
If the inputs are not valid, the Beast will not proceed to the next step
If ‘Valid image statements for factor solution’ is FALSE, check the that all image
statements have been entered into the spec file correctly
- Remember the Beast is case sensitive, and will not accept extra spaces either
after the variable name or in other cells
- It can be useful to use TextPad, Notepad or another text editor to identify
rogue spaces
- In the example shown right, spaces need to be deleted from a number of cells

41
Step 7 in more detail: The Beast will validate the factor solution
We use the term ‘forced’ factors, but ‘requested’ factors is a more accurate description

Checks are made on the PCA model to ensure a valid solution

- Each input must dominate one factor only and be the highest loading input on that factor
- Each input dominating a factor must do so with a loading of 0.5 or more
- Each input dominating a factor must have a higher loading to that factor than any other
- The distance to the second loading must be at least 0.25

If 1 factor fails the above checks, a nested approach will be attempted and the validation checks repeated

If 2 or more factors fail the above checks, or the nested approach fails, the user will get a message back to say that a forced factor solution is not achievable

42
Step 8 in more detail: DP check ImageAnalysisSolutions.txt
This file records whether the custom factor solution was achievable or not, and whether a nested solution had to be used. See here for example file format.
Outcome Achievable
More details If the custom factor solution is
achievable, it will appear in the ‘For CS
decision’ worksheet (Power+MDS
studies) or the IFA.xlsx file (Streamlined
Power studies), further analysis using the
factor scores will be available
Action Send output to CS
Nested
If the custom factor solution is
achievable but only via a
nested approach,
ImageAnalysisSolutions.txt will
contain the text ‘Nested
Solution Used’
Inform Client Service and Data
Science
Failed
If the custom factor solution is not achievable (meaning the PCA
model fails the validation checks described in step 4), the
ImageAnalysisSolutions.txt will contain the text ‘Forced factor
solution not achievable’
Inform Client Service and Data Science who should work together
to review the loadings matrix to understand why, explore the 5
standardly produced factor solutions once more and try different
combinations of statements if needed
43
Case study: Customised factors (page 1 of 2)
Internal use only
Based on their category knowledge, the account team
felt that solution 2 from the standardly produced factors
worked well, but ‘Superior’ was a large factor, explaining
nearly 50% of Power on its own

44
Case study: Customised factors (page 2 of 2)
Internal use only
To make the analysis more actionable, the account
team forced Superior apart, into Emotional and
Functional, whilst keeping the other factors consistent

45
For Data Science use
A worked example to explain how the simulator is enabled

Let’s take a simple image grid with 6 variables: IMG1, IMG2, IMG3, IMG4, IMG5 and IMG6
We want the Beast to produce three factors for Functional (IMG1 and IMG2), Emotional (IMG3 and IMG4), and Value related dimensions (IMG5 and IMG6)
The Beast will produce averages for IMG1 and IMG2, IMG3 and IMG4, and IMG5 and IMG6
Then the Beast produces a PCA solution of 3 factors
- Assuming the averages produced above each dominate one of the 3 factors and the validation checks are met, this will yield a loadings and weights matrix that maps
the averages to the new 3-factor solution and allows us to produce factor scores for each of the new factors
To enable the simulator, we also need to produce a loadings and weights matrix that maps the original 6 statements to the factor solution
- The Beast produces a regression to each factor variable
- Functional scores = x1*IMG1 + x2*IMG2 + x3*IMG3 + x4*IMG4 + x5*IMG5 + x6*IMG6
- Emotional scores = y1*IMG1 + y2*IMG2 + y3*IMG3 + y4*IMG4 + y5*IMG5 + y6*IMG6
- Price scores = z1*IMG1 + z2*IMG2 + z3*IMG3 + z4*IMG4 + z5*IMG5 + z6*IMG6
- The coefficients obtained from each regression can be interpreted as a new PCA weights matrix
- Once this new weights matrix is derived, the Beast then steps back and produce a new loadings matrix by calculating the correlation matrix of the original 6
statements to the PCA scores
- Once both a new loadings and weights matrix are available, all usual functionality in the Beast (including the simulator) will work as usual

46
Alternative solutions available via Data Science

There are also a number of alternatives that can be run with help from your local Data Science team
- Please note that there may be an additional cost for their time
- Again, please ensure you have run and reviewed the standardly produced factor analyses first as this should only rarely be required

Options include:
1. Custom analysis to see if any further splits can be identified
- Individual attributes from a single big factor are fed through a factor analysis in isolation of the other statements, to see if any further splits can be identified
- The resulting new factor variables are fed back through alongside the other factor variables, and another factor analysis is run
2. Path model using the image attributes, and Meaningful, Different, Salient and Power
- Path analysis allows us to be more flexible with the factors by nature, and analyses all indirect driving effects (factors driving other factors) and their resulting
effects on a dependent (for example, Meaningful or Power)

47
Analysis
Category Drivers, Final Factor Scores &
Diagnosis
Identifying the drivers of brand equity enables us to understand how brand associations build
brand predisposition

49
We build models for each study which help identify how image attributes group together and
influence both predisposition and the components of predisposition

The right taste

Refreshing
Variety of flavours 15% INTRINSICS
25%
Best ingredients
25%
Right fizziness
Wholesome
QUALITY Meaningful Power1
The best ingredients
Best quality 20%
Trusted Different
BADGING
Proud to share
Is popular with all 15%
20% Salient
Makes me feel good
HEALTH
Low in sugar 15%
Free of additives
SUSTAINABILITY
Good for environment 15%
Right flavour 10% FLAVOUR

1. The relationship between the territories and Premium & Potential can also be analysed 50
Category drivers

For Power+MDS studies, Section 12 of the ‘Total sample’ worksheet shows how your chosen factor solution relates to Meaningful, Different, Salient and ultimately Power
and Premium.

For Streamlined Power studies, the IFA.xlsx shows how each factor solution related to Streamlined Power.

Use the importance weight percentages to create the ‘donut’ charts shown on the next page. Remember, negative weights continue to be important and should be shown
as contributing, but we suggest that these are shown in a different colour for ease of interpretation, also shown on the next page.

Section 12
Category Image Drivers
Selected Solution 2
Taste Family Range Health Worth
Importance weights to Meaningful 1.14 0.38 0.35 0.17 0.07 0.17
Standardised Importance weights to Different 0.77 0.23 0.07 0.14 0.13 0.18
contributions Importance weights to Salient 0.21 0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.06 0.04
Importance weights to Power 1.31 0.42 0.38 0.22 0.10 0.19
Importance weights to Premium 0.94 0.29 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.19

Importance weights to Meaningful % 33.0% 31.2% 14.5% 6.1% 15.2%

Report importance Importance weights to Different % 30.7% 9.6% 18.2% 17.6% 23.9%
weight percentages Importance weights to Salient % 15.1% -18.4% -18.4% -27.2% 20.9%
Importance weights to Power % 32.2% 29.3% 16.5% 7.5% 14.5%
Importance weights to Premium % 31.3% 17.3% 16.1% 15.2% 20.2%

51
Category drivers: US Hair care example
Building Power in Hair care is about balancing emotional and functional characteristics, with value. In contrast, to
justify a Premium the most important thing is to avoid perceptions of poor quality
Purpose Other
Fame
Buzz
Emotional Community
Exclusivity barrier 5%
4% 4% 3%
5% Quality barrier
-6% Purpose
5% -28%
Fame 34%
6% Exclusivity
6%

Quality barrier -6% POWER PREMIUM

Buzz 7%

7%
Community
11% 17%
7% Functional
15% Emotional
Unique
10% 14%
Value/price
Functional
Unique

Power: Emotional benefits at a good price, built on strong functional foundations

Premium: First avoid quality problems, then build unique emotional benefits, with strong functional foundations 52
Final factor analysis scores

The ‘Total sample’ worksheet shows the scores that each brand achieves on the chosen factor solution (see Section 11 for Power+MDS studies)

The scores are similar to Brand Image Profiles in that they show the relative performance of each brand on specific image dimensions, and strip out brand and statement
size

In addition, and unlike a Brand Image Profile, this technique also strips out the interrelation with other  image attributes, so we are left with scores that represent only that
underlying dimension

Positive scores indicate a relative strength for the brand, and negative scores indicate a relative weakness for the brand

The final factor scores sum to zero by both brand and factor, so it is impossible for a brand to be strong on everything and even minor areas of weakness are likely to be
shown as negatives (because relatively they are)

53
Final factor analysis scores: US Hair care example
John Frieda and L’Oreal have similar strengths and weaknesses

Importance
Both brands buck the to Power John Frieda L’Oreal Herbal Essences
trend for mass market
shampoo brands, being Emotional associations 11 3 3
more expensive and
exclusive than brands Value -40 -10 18
like Herbal Essences
Functional associations 14 6 -9

Unique 6 -19 0

Community -2 7 15

Quality barrier -31 -19 -5

Fame -25 -4 -6

Exclusivity barrier 105 32 -38

Buzz -1 6 20

Purpose/ideal -24 -3 -23

Environment -14 1 24

54
The range of factor analysis scores is much wider relative to brand image profiles

For example, US Jeep factor analysis scores range from +31 to -23, while US Jeep brand image profile scores only range from +12 to -7.
This is because brand image profiles are based on percentage data, whilst the factor analysis scores are based on the factor score multiplied by 100.

Factors scores are

often -5 or less/+5 Suggested guide
or greater Factor scores for identifying which
% of scores factor analysis scores
Brand image 60% to focus on
profiles
% of scores

16% 17%

2%

-5 or less/+5 or -15 or less/+15 or -5 or less/+5 or -15 or less/+15 or

greater greater greater greater

Source: BrandZ 2014, % of all scores falling within each range 55

We can deep dive into each factor to understand how brands perform on individual aspects
and give more detailed diagnosis

John Frieda is a glamorous but almost too exclusive brand; L'Oréal achieves a better balance of glamour, cost and distribution in comparison

John Frieda L’Oréal

(Too) Exclusive Factor +105 +32

Brand Image Profiles

Cost more than you’re prepared to pay 45
16

Are glamorous brands 43 25

Are difficult to find 16 5

Only appeal to specific type of people 14 2

56
Factor scores will usually show a similar pattern to the Brand Image Profiles on the attributes
that sit in that factor

The scores will not be identical because brand image profiles are endorsement of individual attributes with brand size removed, whilst factor scores reflect performance
on an image territory (defined by several attributes), with brand size and effect of other related image territories removed
- Consumer responses to survey questions are rarely a pure ‘unadulterated’ read on that attribute alone; their answers to one set of attributes are unconsciously (and
sometimes consciously) impacted by other associations
- Functional attributes can be highly connected to emotional attributes (the functional attribute provides the foundation for the emotional reward); for example in the
Spanish hair care category, the functional attribute ‘Make hair look really good’ is very strongly correlated with ‘Make you feel confident about yourself’
- The factor scores strip out the contribution (or ‘contamination’) of other groups of associations, to give a pure read on the each of the underlying themes

Also keep in mind:

- The range of factor analysis scores is much wider relative to brand image profiles
- The final factor scores sum to zero by both brand and factor, so it is impossible for a brand to be strong on everything and even minor areas of weakness are likely to
be shown as negatives (because relatively they are)
- Although each factor is represented by a set of key image attributes, all image attributes are used in the calculation of each factor

57
We can also use share of endorsements and absolutes

Suggestions of when to use each analysis:

Brand Image Profiles

- Use to show a brand’s relative strengths and weaknesses on individual statements
- More information can be found on the Data Science Brand Image Profiles page

Share of endorsement (calculated at respondent level)

- Use to show intensity of associations in the competitive context

Absolutes
- Use to evaluate whether marketing activity has strengthened brand associations, but be aware that this may not translate into Meaningful, Difference or Salience,
Power or Premium, if competitors also strengthen their performance
- Use for negative statements because brands should aim to avoid being endorsed at all, regardless of whether or not other brands are also endorsed
- Use for difference statements (‘Stand for something unique’ and ‘Have an unmistakeable look’) because if a respondent feels that multiple brands are different, this is
likely to be in different ways

58
How is Respondent level share of endorsement calculated?

The Share of Endorsement scores are calculated at a respondent level and based on the brands that each individual respondent is aware of
- For each respondent, share of endorsements across all brands for each image statement will sum to 100%
- The final aggregated share of endorsements across all brands for each image statement will vary (i.e. will not sum to 100%) because each respondent is aware of
different brands

59
Beta versions of additional analysis:
Category drivers
for sub-samples
Category drivers for sub-samples – beta version

In the majority of cases, running the image factor regression analysis at a sub-sample level does not add value and can be confusing. Therefore, this analysis is not
included in the main Beast outputs.

Instead, we recommend showing the total sample category importance (clearly labelled as such) alongside final factor analysis scores for the relevant sub-sample or
sub-samples.

However, where there is a need to do a deep-dive into how and why drivers differ, image factor regression models for each sub-sample with a minimum base of 200 can
be run.

- Select ‘Image factor regressions by sub-sample’ = Yes in the Beast setup spec.

- The results will be available unformatted in the DeployRegression.txt file included in the Beast outputs ZIP. See next page for more details.

61
Category drivers for sub-samples – DeployRegression.txt file

There will be a set of results for each Factor solution…

…and each sub-sample with a base size of 200+

There will be a table for Meaningful (M_F_I), Different (D_F_I), Salient (S_F_I),
Power and Premium (Premium2)

Table shows standardised contributions.

Convert into % of the sum of the standardised contributions
(ignoring the first row which is the intercept)
For example, 0.029 / (0.044 + 0.017 + 0.010 + 0.033 + 0.029) = 18%

62
Relative importance of
individual attributes
Relative importance of individual attributes
Overview

This analysis provides an overview of what image attributes are important for your
category accounting for their role in determining the image factors.

This has two advantages:

1. It helps build a coherent view of category influences; from individual attributes,

how they group into key themes and influence brand predisposition.

2. It helps us account for the multi-collinearity between image statements and to

attribute separate effects through each of the factors to the image statements.

It is recommended you show rank order of importance, with spacing to indicate distance
between scores, rather than reporting the scores themselves.

This analysis is available at a total sample level only, not for sub-samples.

See Measuring Attribute Importance for more information 64

Calculations explained (page 1 of 2) – internal use only
Calculations are based on how we understand the relationship with Power

Factor betas1

Factor 1 0.55
By regressing the factors to Power, Power
we are able to isolate the Factor 2 0.31
relative importance of
each underlying dimension
Factor 3 0.29

Factor 4 0.30

Factor 5 0.21

1. Regression weights to Power 65

Calculations explained (page 2 of 2) – internal use only
We combine the factor loadings with the factor betas to generate the relative importance of each individual
attribute

Image factor loadings Factor betas1 Relative importance2

Factor 1 0.55 (0.623)^2 x (0.55)^2 = 0.117

0.623 Power
Factor 2 0.31 (0.303)^2 x (0.31)^2 = 0.009
0.303

Are safe on 0.362 Factor 3 0.29 (0.362)^2 x (0.29)^2 = 0.011

sensitive
skin 0.299
Factor 4 0.30 (0.299)^2 x (0.30)^2 = 0.008
0.183
Factor 5 0.21 (0.183)^2 x (0.21)^2 = 0.001

0.15

1. Regression coefficients for the factors to Power

2. Relative Importance = (image factor loadings) ^2 x (factor betas) ^2 66
Guide to interpretation

The relative importance scores are similar to correlations, but a correlation where the variance acts through the factor model we have chosen . They can be
thought of and interpreted in the same way as correlations.

The relative importance scores will generally be lower than the simple correlations. This doesn’t make them less valuable. It arises because the Factors better
cope with the multi-collinearity between images. This tends to be larger for the higher scoring attributes because these frequently relate to the main functional needs of
the category, which are usually represented by a number of strongly related attributes. This is also why we recommend looking at ‘drivers’ on the basis of the Factors.

The relative importance scores should be interpreted in conjunction with the factor analysis , to understand which statements cluster together and so should be
chosen between, vs which are in separate factors and so can be considered to represent a different dimension.

Use to rank/group individual image attributes in your analysis, rather than reporting the scores themselves . If difference between relative importance scores are
marginal it may be better to group image attributes, rather than a more detailed ranking of each statement. This will prevent you from exaggerating small differences and
is likely to be more stable over time.

Remember that a high score is not necessarily evidence of a causal relationship. You will need to use your category knowledge to judge whether or not this can be
inferred.

Do not assume that your brand should always focus on what is most important in the category overall. You will also need to take into account your brand’s
strengths and weaknesses vs. key competitors, and its role in the portfolio.

See Measuring Attribute Importance for more information 67

Where to find the data
The relative importance scores for each attribute can be found in the Relative Importance sheet of the Beast
excel output file
There is one table for each factor solution
showing the relative importance scores for
each attribute vs. each key measure:
• for Power+MDS: Meaningful, Different,
Salient, Power and Premium
• for Streamlined Power: SLPower

Take care to use the scores for your chosen

factor solution.

Available for total sample only, not sub-

samples.

See Measuring Attribute Importance for more information 68

Appendix
There are other ways of choosing a factor solution, but these are not available from the Beast

There are also a number of other industry recognised ways of choosing a preferred factor solution.

Eigenvalues
- Eigenvalues are a measure of how much variance is explained by each factor
- Sometimes factor solutions can be chosen by looking at factor solutions that have eigenvalues greater than a fixed number
- Selecting factors based on eigenvalues greater than 1 is the general statistical standard, but is usually too limited for our purposes and it is safe to go beyond this

Scree test
- A scree plot displays the eigenvalues associated with each factor in descending order vs. the number of factors to visually assess which factors explain most of the
variability in the data
- Sometimes factor solutions can be chosen by looking at factor solutions up to where the scree plot levels out (this helps remove meaningless factors that result from
over-extraction)

Total variance explained

- Sometimes factor solutions can be chosen by looking at factor solutions that explain for than a certain amount of variance (e.g. 60%)

We may include Eigenvalues and total variance explained as a separate CSV output in a future release of the Beast, but still recommend using category knowledge as
the primary means of selecting the factor solution which makes the most sense

70