Suzanne Grayson, Grayson Associates08.03.10
There is so much fall-off between the new Bioré Steam Activated Cleanser concept and its actual use, that we are showing the two TheBrandAudit scores separately (see chart next page). The Bioré price in a local chain drug is $7.99 for 5oz at $1.60 per ounce, that’s a 40% premium compared to the average price-per-ounce of a Neutrogena cleanser at $1.14. Now for the why of it—starting with theAdAudit’s nearly powerful total score of 88.73%.
The stopper headline (impressive score of 97.15%), both narrowly targets facial cleansing addicts and delivers the steam news in a language mode that fits with the market’s demographic/psychographic profile. “Deep down dirt won’t budge? GET STEAMED.” Remember, consumers will perceive that “if it’s good for the ‘deep down dirt’ (i.e. “high-need”), it will be great for me.” Juan Valdez, the Colombian coffee mascot, is a good example of demanding the ultimate for the “high-need/picky” coffee drinker, while Vaseline Intensive Care’s crackling-leaf demo targeted high-need users and made the brand. (For more on narrow-to-broad targeting, please see the The Grayson Report in Happi, May 2010.)
Visual Impact (81.15%), barely effective, could have been in the powerful range with a photo depicting gobs of reinforcing, hot steam. The squiggly spot art supports the “55% cleaner with steam” claim, but the total ad doesn’t visualize (what should be) the enormous power of steam, the product’s primary differentiating factor. A demo could have provided real impact while communicating the new way of cleansing. The Marie Claire award spot provides good permission-to-believe.
Copy (89.65%) is short and clearly explains the reason why steam is better (pore-opening). However, there is no explanation or reason why for the news performance of the “beads,” nor any “how-they-work/benefit” support. This would/could contribute greatly to dissonance with the consumer’s current product. And, a more powerful score could have been achieved with a new proprietary/ translation/end-benefit of clean; i.e., a skin-softening clean. It’s always key to push for the final end benefit—the newer and more unique, the better (a stronger, more proprietary product name visible on the package would also have done the job, noted on the next page).
Consumer Appeal (87.60%), while very good, could have been more motivating and memorable with more emotion and psychological engagement. All of the improvements noted previously would have pushed the score well into the powerful range.
Back to Reality
Which brings us to reality—the product. Most of the drop between the Concept and the In-Use TheBrandAudit scores resulted from the product itself, and its method of use—in the shower. Consider the two or three times a day when a facial cleansing product might be used. In the morning, showers are likely, but “deep-down” dirt and/or makeup are not the prime cleansing needs. The early evening, prior to going out, is a prime shower use opportunity to remove dirt, oil and makeup. Finally, at bedtime, complete cleansing, and another shower opportunity. If no shower, is another cleanser needed? So when should it be used?
Hopefully, the marketing people had the data to indicate that there is enough shower use to support the differentiating steam positioning to satisfy total cleansing needs. However, the virtually unreadable back package copy is confusing, it reads: “steam…to penetrate deeply into the pores…locking on to dirt, oil and makeup… leaves skin clean and deeply refreshed all day.” The latter seems to position the product for use in the morning. But, again, why the makeup, oil and dirt? Are users so tired after a night out that they neglect to cleanse before bed? Ugh!
Getting Steamed
But hey, what does the shower steam really do? Not much. There is virtually no difference between the action of the beads (basic permission-to-believe) with or without typical steam. With heavy steam buildup (very hot water and a minimum of three minutes), and with the face near the showerhead, easier lathering was experienced, depending upon how many beads were in hand. Often only one or two beads, sometimes none, might be pumped into the hand. The net is that there is no “transformation” trigger or signal that something is happening to reinforce believability in the action of the beads, especially to support the “55% cleaner with steam” claim in the ad (versus “without steam”—in “mice” type in the bottom corner). If you wet the face first, with warm or cool water, there is a difference in lathering, (good vs. little), but that’s true for most gel cleansers.
Not Much Here
For non-shower use, we tried tenting a towel over the sink bowl to see if there was any difference provided by the steam, there was none to speak of, and the experience was very awkward. Other than the beads’ visual appeal to support the deep cleansing story, there is not much there. This positioning cries for the facial saunas of the 1970s-80s. They were small, sink stands with slanted“bowls,”shaped to receive the face and provided the spa-type heat/steam for facials. Perfect!
The result is that all of the individual scores in the Product section (concept-96.60% vs. actual-77.20%) were considerably lower, as seen in the chart above. Californians are highly sensitive to the conservative use of water, real steam requires lots of hot water, which is also not too good for skin. Notably absent is a recommended use for bathing, when more steam might be available.
Positioning remained the same for both the concept-only audit and the actual-use audit, and just made the powerful level at 90.00%. It would have been even higher in both cases, had the name established the new category—a major competitive miss. Bioré went to the trouble of trademarking SteamActiv for the beads, rather than using it to create a news-making and proprietary product name:
All of the three other segment scores were lower in the “use” audit, as compared to the “concept” audit. In the Consumer Appeal segment, one loss was in degree of benefit, with greater expectation than delivered. In Competition, one was less value added vs. competition. And lastly, in Marketing Potential, one was limitation in marketing potential, per se.
All in all, it is quite a miss for the brand known for news and pushing the envelope.
For information on how both audits work, see www.thebrandaudit.com and www.theadaudit.com
TheBrandAudit is a Grayson Associates proprietary new marketing technique to determine the success potential of a new product concept or execution, prior to launch. Or, for an existing sluggish product or line, it will analyze its strengths and weaknesses, against key competition. The audit score is based upon Grayson Associates’ 29 “keys-to-success” criteria for the key marketing categories of Product, Positioning, Consumer Appeal, Competition and Marketing Potential. A score less than 80 (out of 100) means trouble in the marketplace. TheBrandAudit will appear bi-monthly.
Contact: suzanne@graysonassociates.com
|
Positioning and ad for Bioré Steam Activated Cleanser are a lot hotter than the product. |
Visual Impact (81.15%), barely effective, could have been in the powerful range with a photo depicting gobs of reinforcing, hot steam. The squiggly spot art supports the “55% cleaner with steam” claim, but the total ad doesn’t visualize (what should be) the enormous power of steam, the product’s primary differentiating factor. A demo could have provided real impact while communicating the new way of cleansing. The Marie Claire award spot provides good permission-to-believe.
Copy (89.65%) is short and clearly explains the reason why steam is better (pore-opening). However, there is no explanation or reason why for the news performance of the “beads,” nor any “how-they-work/benefit” support. This would/could contribute greatly to dissonance with the consumer’s current product. And, a more powerful score could have been achieved with a new proprietary/ translation/end-benefit of clean; i.e., a skin-softening clean. It’s always key to push for the final end benefit—the newer and more unique, the better (a stronger, more proprietary product name visible on the package would also have done the job, noted on the next page).
Consumer Appeal (87.60%), while very good, could have been more motivating and memorable with more emotion and psychological engagement. All of the improvements noted previously would have pushed the score well into the powerful range.
Back to Reality
Which brings us to reality—the product. Most of the drop between the Concept and the In-Use TheBrandAudit scores resulted from the product itself, and its method of use—in the shower. Consider the two or three times a day when a facial cleansing product might be used. In the morning, showers are likely, but “deep-down” dirt and/or makeup are not the prime cleansing needs. The early evening, prior to going out, is a prime shower use opportunity to remove dirt, oil and makeup. Finally, at bedtime, complete cleansing, and another shower opportunity. If no shower, is another cleanser needed? So when should it be used?
Hopefully, the marketing people had the data to indicate that there is enough shower use to support the differentiating steam positioning to satisfy total cleansing needs. However, the virtually unreadable back package copy is confusing, it reads: “steam…to penetrate deeply into the pores…locking on to dirt, oil and makeup… leaves skin clean and deeply refreshed all day.” The latter seems to position the product for use in the morning. But, again, why the makeup, oil and dirt? Are users so tired after a night out that they neglect to cleanse before bed? Ugh!
Getting Steamed
But hey, what does the shower steam really do? Not much. There is virtually no difference between the action of the beads (basic permission-to-believe) with or without typical steam. With heavy steam buildup (very hot water and a minimum of three minutes), and with the face near the showerhead, easier lathering was experienced, depending upon how many beads were in hand. Often only one or two beads, sometimes none, might be pumped into the hand. The net is that there is no “transformation” trigger or signal that something is happening to reinforce believability in the action of the beads, especially to support the “55% cleaner with steam” claim in the ad (versus “without steam”—in “mice” type in the bottom corner). If you wet the face first, with warm or cool water, there is a difference in lathering, (good vs. little), but that’s true for most gel cleansers.
Not Much Here
For non-shower use, we tried tenting a towel over the sink bowl to see if there was any difference provided by the steam, there was none to speak of, and the experience was very awkward. Other than the beads’ visual appeal to support the deep cleansing story, there is not much there. This positioning cries for the facial saunas of the 1970s-80s. They were small, sink stands with slanted“bowls,”shaped to receive the face and provided the spa-type heat/steam for facials. Perfect!
|
Bioré Actual Package Copy NEW steam activated cleanser with SteamActivTM beads Bioré Proprietary Package Copy Invents SteamActivTM Cleansing with Deep Acting Beads |
The result is that all of the individual scores in the Product section (concept-96.60% vs. actual-77.20%) were considerably lower, as seen in the chart above. Californians are highly sensitive to the conservative use of water, real steam requires lots of hot water, which is also not too good for skin. Notably absent is a recommended use for bathing, when more steam might be available.
Positioning remained the same for both the concept-only audit and the actual-use audit, and just made the powerful level at 90.00%. It would have been even higher in both cases, had the name established the new category—a major competitive miss. Bioré went to the trouble of trademarking SteamActiv for the beads, rather than using it to create a news-making and proprietary product name:
All of the three other segment scores were lower in the “use” audit, as compared to the “concept” audit. In the Consumer Appeal segment, one loss was in degree of benefit, with greater expectation than delivered. In Competition, one was less value added vs. competition. And lastly, in Marketing Potential, one was limitation in marketing potential, per se.
All in all, it is quite a miss for the brand known for news and pushing the envelope.
For information on how both audits work, see www.thebrandaudit.com and www.theadaudit.com
TheBrandAudit is a Grayson Associates proprietary new marketing technique to determine the success potential of a new product concept or execution, prior to launch. Or, for an existing sluggish product or line, it will analyze its strengths and weaknesses, against key competition. The audit score is based upon Grayson Associates’ 29 “keys-to-success” criteria for the key marketing categories of Product, Positioning, Consumer Appeal, Competition and Marketing Potential. A score less than 80 (out of 100) means trouble in the marketplace. TheBrandAudit will appear bi-monthly.
Contact: suzanne@graysonassociates.com
