1 / 17

Brand Image: Does it meet clients’ needs?

Brand Image: Does it meet clients’ needs?. Susan McNew. The Situation. In 1998, Ceridian had a moderate advertising budget and complete collateral system. In 1999 & 2000, Ceridian went dark with all advertising and began a shift to a new internally developed collateral system.

posy
Télécharger la présentation

Brand Image: Does it meet clients’ needs?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Brand Image: Does it meet clients’ needs? Susan McNew

  2. The Situation • In 1998, Ceridian had a moderate advertising budget and complete collateral system. • In 1999 & 2000, Ceridian went dark with all advertising and began a shift to a new internally developed collateral system. • In 2002, Ceridian hired a new Sr. VP of Marketing.

  3. The Ceridian Brand Image • New logo. • New collateral system. • Small advertising budget. • New brand designed to increase curb appeal and generate greater awareness.

  4. The Opportunity • Connect customers with Ceridian’s unique value. • Promise better future for our customers. • Establish context for Ceridian business activities. • Create motivated, focused employee culture. • Separate Ceridian from the competition.

  5. The Research Question • Does Ceridian’s brand image appeal to human resource professionals’ needs?

  6. Methodology • Began with focus group of clients. • Helped test the current brand image and define questions for survey instrument. • Phone survey to 774 clients and prospects • Immediate need for results • Ability to gather verbatim comments

  7. Phone Survey • 15 – 20 minutes to complete • $1,000 cash drawing • Dun & Bradstreet database • Ceridian’s sponsorship was not disclosed • 3 weeks to complete

  8. Survey Says • All questions focused on one of the following areas: • How they currently perceive the various human resource vendors. • What vendor attributes are critical to meet the requirements and needs of their company’s benefits, payroll and human resources departments. • How/where they receive their information about new products and solutions. • Demographics about their company.

  9. Key Findings – Provider Positions % Aware of Provider on Aided Basis • Reported awareness by percentage. • ADP achieved the highest level of awareness. • Ceridian follows ADP at the next level of awareness. • Two other providers achieved awareness nearly as high as Ceridian; PeopleSoft and PayChex. • Fewer than one-fifth of the respondent companies are aware of ProBusiness, life care or ComPsych.

  10. Provider – most likely considered • ADP achieved the highest level of consideration. • Ceridian follows ADP at the next level of consideration. • Lower awareness is behind Ceridian’s lower consideration level in this study. • PeopleSoft and PayChex achieved consideration just below Ceridian but ahead of the other providers. • No other provider gained consideration among more than 1% of the respondent firms. Other Providers Less than 1% Base: 774 TotalRespondents

  11. Key Findings – Provider Positions • Ceridian is more successful among the larger segments on the key market penetration measures. • Ceridian’s awareness and consideration are particularly low among Small company prospects. • ADP’s penetration levels are strong across all of these company size segments, especially Large Midsize firms (351-1000 employees).

  12. Key Findings – Ceridian • As expected, the overall rating for Ceridian among customers is much more positive than among Ceridian’s non-customers. • Just slightly more than one-third (36%) of the non-customers gave Ceridian a highly positive rating compared to nearly six-tenths (58%) of current customers. • “Good” (the middle rating point) is the most frequent overall rating of Ceridian among non-customers compared to “Very Good” among customers. 6% 12% 4% 4% 14% 10% 30% 29% 46% 47% Ceridian Non-Customers (n=198) Ceridian Customers (n=84)

  13. Key Findings – Perceptions Top 2 Ratings of Ceridian – Customers vs. Non-Customers • As expected, Ceridian’s customers were more likely to give Ceridian positive ratings on every attribute. • Very large customer-to-noncustomer differences were found for … • Overall Rating • Data Secure/Private • Notable differences were also detected for … • Web Self-service model • Customer Support

  14. Key Findings – Perceptions Top 2 Ratings of Ceridian – Customers vs. Non-Customers • Other attributes with very large Ceridian customer-to-noncustomer differences: • Integrated Solutions • Very Flexible • Customers were also more positive than non-customers for … • Quality and Reliable • Frees HR • Easy to Use • ROI • Relatively Inexpensive • Fulfill Quickly was the only attribute where customers are not more positive than non-customers.

  15. Next steps • Ceridian now understands its position in the market. • Increasing Ceridian’s brand awareness has received management level attention. • The survey will be repeated in 2003.

  16. Questions?

More Related