COMPANY DASHBOARD – FIRM L – PERIOD 3

1
FINANCIAL REPORT – FIRM L – PERIOD 3
The financial statements of firm L published for Period 3 have been prepared on December 31st, Period 3 in accordance with International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), as adopted in the Markstrat world.

Company Profit & Loss Statement

The table below shows the evolution of firm L financial results in thousands of dollars, as well as the cumulative results since Period 0.
Period 3 Period 2 Period 1 Period 0 Cumulative
Revenues 65,658 46,984 46,204 38,533 197,379
Cost of goods sold -31,803 -22,605 -23,392 -20,406 -98,206
Inventory costs -128 -280 -373 -521 -1,302
Contribution before marketing 33,728 24,099 22,438 17,607 97,872
Advertising expenditures -4,200 -4,430 -3,826 -3,000 -15,456
Commercial costs -4,399 -3,535 -3,190 -2,478 -13,603
Contribution after marketing 25,128 16,134 15,422 12,129 68,813
Market research studies -412 -58 -83 -245 -798
Research and development -500 -5,250 0 0 -5,750
Loan reimbursed -606 0 0 0 -606
Loan received 3,000 6,000 0 0 9,000
Loan interest paid -540 -360 0 0 -900
Exceptional cost or profit 0 0 0 0 0
Earnings before taxes 26,071 16,465 15,339 11,884 69,759

Brand contribution
The table below shows a comparison of the net contribution generated by the brands marketed by firm L in Period 3.
LIKE LIME LUCK
Clinites Clinites Nutrites
Revenues 25,574 13,700 26,384
Cost of goods sold -12,546 -7,456 -11,800
Inventory holding cost -107 -20 0
Inventory disposal loss 0 0 0
Contribution before marketing 12,920 6,224 14,584
Advertising media -1,500 -1,200 -1,500
Advertising research 0 0 0
Commercial costs -1,763 -1,224 -1,412
Contribution after marketing 9,657 3,799 11,672

2
Marketing results
The section below provides key marketing results for each of your marketed brands

Market Shares
LIKE LIME LUCK
Clinites Clinites Nutrites
Volume Market Share 8.2 % 2.5 % 100.0 %
Value Market Share 7.3 % 4.2 % 100.0 %

Market Shares
LIKE LIME LUCK
Clinites Clinites Nutrites
Volume Market Share 8.2 % 2.5 % 100.0 %
Value Market Share 7.3 % 4.2 % 100.0 %

Distribution Coverage
The distribution coverage figures in the chart and table below represent the proportion of distributors who carry a given product. The report
gives the information for each brand currently on the market. The number of distributors in each distribution channel is provided as well.
LIKE LIME LUCK
Clinites Clinites Nutrites
Mass Merch. 46 % 8% 41 %
Specialized mass 42 % 28 % 41 %
Dept. Stores 17 % 42 % 41 %
Beauty Portals 40 % 30 % 40 %

Mass Merch. Specialized mass Dept. Stores Beauty Portals

Number of distributors 12,333 2,088 10,555 10

Brand prices
The table below shows the prices in $ of your marketed brands. The Recommended Retail Price is the price that you specified in your
marketing mix decisions. The Average Retail Price is the average end-user price, taking into account the discount offered by distributors.
Finally, the Average Selling Price is equal to the Average Retail Price minus the distribution margins.
LIKE LIME LUCK
Clinites Clinites Nutrites
Recommended Retail Price $11 $20 $18
Average Retail Price $10 $20 $17
Average Selling Price $7 $12 $11

3
Loans and Budget Changes
The left table below summarizes the loans and/or budget changes that were granted to your company by the instructor. The other table
provides the past and future payments made by your company to reimburse the loans. The first column shows the reimbursement of the
capital borrowed; the second columns shows the interests paid in the period; the third column indicates how much capital remains to be
reimbursed at the end of the period.
Budget increase (K$) Budget decrease (K$) Loan capital borrowed (K$) Loan Duration Interest rate (%)
Period 0
Period 1
Period 2 6,000 8 6
Period 3 3,000 5 6
Period 4
Period 5
Period 6
Period 7
Period 8
Period 9
Period 10

Capital reimbursed (K$) Interest paid (K$) Capital remaining (K$)

Period 0
Period 1
Period 2 0 360 6,000
Period 3 606 540 8,394
Period 4 1,175 504 7,219
Period 5 1,245 433 5,974
Period 6 1,320 358 4,654
Period 7 1,399 279 3,255
Period 8 1,483 195 1,771
Period 9 860 106 912
Period 10 912 55 0

4
PRODUCTION REPORT – FIRM L – PERIOD 3
The report below provides with information on production levels and production costs for each of the brands marketed in Period 3.

Sales, Production and Inventory

The chart below shows the units sold , the production level and inventory level for each of your brands at the end of Period 3. All numbers are
given in thousands of units.

Despite all the efforts made by the Production department, they were not able to fullfill all the orders for LUCK this period. As a consequence, some potential
sales of LUCK have been lost.

The table below provides you with additional details such as planned production versus the actual one, and the inventory levels at the
beginning and at the end of Period 3. All numbers are given in thousands of units.
LIKE LIME LUCK
Clinites Clinites Nutrites
Units sold 3,758 1,134 2,400
Production Plan (your decision) 5,200 800 2,000
Production 4,160 640 2,400
Inventory at beginning of period 0 534 0
Inventory at end of period 402 40 0

Unit Cost, COGS and Inventory Holding Cost

The table below shows the unit transfer cost for each of your marketed brands. The “current“ unit cost is the cost of the most recently
produced units, while the “average” unit cost takes into account the units that were in your inventory at the beginning of the period. Unit
transfer costs are given in $; units sold in thousands of units. COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) are equal to “Units sold” x “Average unit transfer
cost”. COGS are given in thousands of $. Finally, this table shows the costs incurred for holding your inventory (storage cost, cost of capital, …).
Inventory holding cost is equal to: “Units in inventory” x “Average unit transfer cost” x 8%. It is given in thousands of $.
LIKE LIME LUCK
Clinites Clinites Nutrites
Current unit transfer cost 3.3 6.5 4.9
Average unit transfer cost 3.3 6.6 4.9
Units sold 3,758 1,134 2,400
COGS 12,546 7,456 11,800
Inventory at end of period 402 40 0
Inventory holding cost 107 20 0

5
R&D REPORT – FIRM L – CLINITES MARKET – PERIOD 3
This report provides information on the activities conducted for your division by the R&D department during Period 3.

Projects completed in Period 3

No projects have been completed in Period 3.

Projects completed in past periods

The projects listed below have been completed in past periods. The ones at the top are currently used as the production platform of one or
several of your marketed brands. The ones in italic, if any, are either no longer used or have never been used to produce a brand.
Available Efficacy Safety Packaging Pleasure Usability Current Minimum Cumulative Platform of
Since (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Brand
PI- Period 0 42 33 51 60 69 5.12 4.07 1,500 LIKE
LIKE
PI- Period 0 69 78 42 49 46 7.69 4.99 2,000 LIME
LIME
(1) Efficacy (Index): From 10 To 100. (2) Safety (Index): From 10 To 100. (3) Packaging (Index): From 10 To 100. (4) Pleasure (Index): From 10 To 100. (5)
Usability (Index): From 10 To 100.

Projects partially developed in Period 3

The projects listed below could not be completed in Period 3. They require additional time and budget to become available. The cumulative
budget is the total budget allocated to the project since its creation. The required budget is the additional budget requested by R&D to
complete the project.
Efficacy (1) Safety (2) Packaging (3) Pleasure (4) Usability (5) Current Minimum Cumulative Required
PIMEUP 69 78 65 60 65 6 5.78 500.00 190
(1) Efficacy (Index): From 10 To 100. (2) Safety (Index): From 10 To 100. (3) Packaging (Index): From 10 To 100. (4) Pleasure (Index): From 10 To 100. (5)
Usability (Index): From 10 To 100.

Shelved projects
You have no shelved projects.

6
R&D REPORT – FIRM L – NUTRITES MARKET – PERIOD 3
This report provides information on the activities conducted for your division by the R&D department during Period 3.

Projects completed in Period 3

No projects have been completed in Period 3.

Projects completed in past periods

The projects listed below have been completed in past periods. The ones at the top are currently used as the production platform of one or
several of your marketed brands. The ones in italic, if any, are either no longer used or have never been used to produce a brand.
Available Clinical Nutrition Packaging Flavor Variety Current Minimum Cumulative Platform of
Since Benefits (2) (3) (4) (5) Brand
(1)
PULINK Period 2 15 55 15 35 20 5.07 5.07 5,250 LUCK
(1) Clinical (Index): From 10 To 100. (2) Nutrition (Index): From 10 To 100. (3) [Packaging] (Index): From 10 To 100. (4) Flavor (Index): From 10 To 100. (5)
Variety (Index): From 10 To 100.

Projects partially developed in Period 3

You have no partially completed projects.

Shelved projects
You have no shelved projects.

7
DECISION REVIEW – FIRM L – CLINITES MARKET – PERIOD
3
This report provides a review of the decisions made by firm L at the beginning of Period 3.

Resource Allocation Overview

The three charts below show how resources have been allocated across markets, functions and brands. All numbers are given in thousands of
dollars.

R&D projects
The table below lists the projects which the R&D Department will develop in Period 3
Project Objective Efficacy Safety Packaging Pleasure Usability Requested Base Allocated Budget
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Cost ($) (K$)
PIMEUP Upgrade 69.00 78.00 65.00 60.00 65.00 0 500.00
Lime

8
(1) Efficacy (Index): From 10 To 100. (2) Safety (Index): From 10 To 100. (3) Packaging (Index): From 10 To 100. (4) Pleasure (Index): From 10 To 100. (5)
Usability (Index): From 10 To 100.

Online Query
The table below lists the online queries made to the R&D Department while making Period 3 decisions
Query Efficacy Safety Packaging Pleasure Usability Requested Base Requested Minimum
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Cost ($) Budget Cost
PIlimeup 10.00 10.00 35.00 25.00 35.00 0 1,260.00 2.00
PImeup 69.00 78.00 65.00 60.00 65.00 0 590.00 6.00
PImeup 69.00 78.00 70.00 60.00 72.00 0 630.00 6.00
PImeup 69.00 78.00 65.00 55.00 55.00 0 910.00 5.00
PImeup 70.00 75.00 65.00 55.00 55.00 0 980.00 5.00
(1) Efficacy (Index): From 10 To 100. (2) Safety (Index): From 10 To 100. (3) Packaging (Index): From 10 To 100. (4) Pleasure (Index): From 10 To 100. (5)
Usability (Index): From 10 To 100.

Brand Portfolio
LIKE LIME
Portfolio operation Maintained Maintained
Base project past period PI-LIKE PI-LIME
Base project this period PI-LIKE PI-LIME

Marketing Mix
LIKE LIME
Production planning (in units) 5,200,000 800,000
Recommended retail price (in $) 10.99 19.99
Advertising media (in K$) 1,500 1,200
Advertising research (in K$) 0 0

Segmentation Strategy
LIKE LIME
High Earners 100 %
Affluent Families
Med. Income
Low Income
Singles 100 %

Perceptual Objectives
LIKE LIME
Dimension 1
Position 1
Dimension 2
Position 2

Commercial Team Size

The table below shows the number of commercial people allocated to each brand in each channel during Period 3.
LIKE LIME
Mass Merch. 15 2
Specialized mass 20 12
Dept. Stores 5 15
Beauty Portals 3 2

9
The two charts below show how your commercial team is allocated across channels and brands. All numbers are given in number of
salespeople.

Merchandising
The table below lists the merchandising budget allocated to each brand in each channel during period 3
LIKE LIME
Mass Merch. 300 50
Specialized mass 400 200
Dept. Stores 70 250
Beauty Portals 30 30

Market Research Studies – Clinites Market

The table below lists the market research studies purchased by firm L in Period 3, as well as the cost in dollars.
Purchased Studies Cost in $
Consumer Survey 65,000
Distribution Panel 65,000
Semantic Scales 10,750
Multidimensional Scaling 38,000
Market Forecast 21,750
Competitive Commercial 16,250

10
DECISION REVIEW – FIRM L – NUTRITES MARKET –
PERIOD 3
This report provides a review of the decisions made by firm L at the beginning of Period 3.

Resource Allocation Overview

The three charts below show how resources have been allocated across markets, functions and brands. All numbers are given in thousands of
dollars.

Brand Portfolio
LUCK
Portfolio operation New
Base project past period
Base project this period PULINK

Marketing Mix
LUCK
Production planning (in units) 2,000,000
Recommended retail price (in $) 18.00
Advertising media (in K$) 1,500
Advertising research (in K$) 0

11
Segmentation Strategy
LUCK
Health Conscious
Families 100 %
Elderly

Perceptual Objectives
LUCK
Dimension 1 Nutrition
Position 1 4.60
Dimension 2 Variety
Position 2 1.60

Commercial Team Size

The table below shows the number of commercial people allocated to each brand in each channel during Period 3.
LUCK
Mass Merch. 2
Specialized mass 15
Dept. Stores 15
Beauty Portals 2
The two charts below show how your commercial team is allocated across channels and brands. All numbers are given in number of
salespeople.

Merchandising
The table below lists the merchandising budget allocated to each brand in each channel during period 3
LUCK
Mass Merch. 30
Specialized mass 300
Dept. Stores 300
Beauty Portals 20

Market Research Studies – Nutrites Market

The table below lists the market research studies purchased by firm L in Period 3, as well as the cost in dollars.

12
Purchased Studies Cost in $
Consumer Survey 43,250
Distribution Panel 54,000
Semantic Scales 10,750
Multidimensional Scaling 38,000
Market Forecast 21,750
Advertising Experiment 27,000

13
INDUSTRY DASHBOARD – FIRM L – PERIOD 3
Stock Market Period 3
SPI REV NC Cum. NC
Titans 2,290 112 51 101
Landmark 1,386 66 26 70
Maverick 1,237 54 19 66
SPA 1,230 62 16 62
Radiant 970 44 13 59
SPI: Share Price Index. Rev.: Revenues (million $). NC: Net Contribution (million $). Cum. NC: Cumulative NC (million $).

14
15
INDUSTRY INFORMATION – PERIOD 3
This report provides economic and costing data for the current period as well as estimates for the next period.

Economic Variables
Current Period Value Next Period Estimation
GNP Growth Rate % 3% 4%
Inflation Rate % 2% 4%
Inventory holding cost per annum % Transfer Cost 8% 8%
Loss incurred for inventory disposal % Transfer Cost 20 % 20 %
Commercial people operating cost $ 21,649 22,956
Commercial people hiring and training cost $ 3,247 3,443
Commercial people firing cost $ 5,412 5,739

Market Research Costs

All Markets Clinites Nutrites
Industry benchmarking 34,500
Competitive Advertising 34,500 34,500
Competitive Commercial 17,250 17,250
Conjoint Analysis 40,250 40,250
Consumer Panel 114,750 80,250
Consumer Survey 68,750 46,000
Distribution Panel 68,750 57,500
Advertising Experiment 28,750 28,750
Commercial Experiment 40,250 40,250
Market Forecast 23,000 23,000
Multidimensional Scaling 40,250 40,250
Semantic Scales 11,500 11,500
TOTAL 34,500 488,000 419,500
(all numbers in $)

16
MARKET REPORT – CLINITES MARKET – PERIOD 3
This report provides general information on the 15 Clinites brands marketed in Period 3.
Brands introduced this period: MISI, SIAF, XIFI

Brand Retail Sales & Volume

The two tables below show the marketed brand retail sales (in thousands of $) and the volume (in thousands of units), sorted in decreasing
order. Shares of market in value and in unit are also provided
Brand Value Share Retail Sales Variation
TINY 18.6 % 98,432 42,443 Modified
TIME 14.2 % 75,598 33,181 Modified
SILK 9.4 % 49,171 6,884
MINT 8.8 % 46,246 2,233
RICH 7.6 % 39,861 -6,836
LIKE 7.3 % 38,301 -4,739
SING 6.5 % 34,346 -10,868
MISS 5.3 % 28,300 -5,619
RISE 5.2 % 28,012 -6,597
LIME 4.2 % 22,116 -7,417
XIBU 4.1 % 21,163 -7,083
XILO 3.4 % 17,635 -1,483 Modified
SIAF 2.2 % 11,437 New
XIFI 1.7 % 8,921 New
MISI 1.6 % 8,673 New
TOTAL 100.0 % 528,211 34,098

Brand Unit Share Volume Variation

TINY 21.0 % 9,600 4,117 Modified
SILK 13.5 % 6,173 2,013
MINT 10.0 % 4,568 238
RICH 8.8 % 4,003 -197
TIME 8.7 % 3,960 1,767 Modified
LIKE 8.2 % 3,758 -189
XIBU 6.0 % 2,750 -661
XILO 4.9 % 2,252 4 Modified
SING 4.8 % 2,173 -270
MISS 3.2 % 1,447 1
RISE 3.1 % 1,418 -27
LIME 2.5 % 1,134 -125
XIFI 2.3 % 1,038 New
MISI 1.6 % 729 New
SIAF 1.4 % 616 New
TOTAL 100.0 % 45,619 6,670

17
Brand Characteristics
The table below lists the physical attributes of marketed brands, as well as their price and estimated unit cost, both in $.
Brand Launched Efficacy Safety Packaging Pleasure Usability Price Base Cost Base Cost
in (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ($) (%Price)
LIKE Period 0 42 33 51 60 69 10.99 5 46 %
LIME Period 0 69 78 42 49 46 19.99 8 38 %
MINT Period 0 42 33 51 60 69 10.99 5 46 %
MISI Period 3 52 52 52 52 52 12.75 4 33 %
MISS Period 0 69 78 42 49 46 19.99 8 38 %
RICH Period 0 42 33 51 60 69 10.80 5 46 %
RISE Period 0 69 78 42 49 46 19.99 8 38 %
SIAF Period 3 95 93 100 85 90 19.00 8 40 %
SILK Period 0 42 33 51 60 69 8.70 5 58 %
SING Period 0 69 78 42 49 46 16.50 8 46 %
TIME Period 0 72 80 70 70 70 19.50 6 30 %
TINY Period 0 52 40 57 62 51 11.00 4 39 %
XIBU Period 0 24 24 24 24 24 8.55 2 26 %
XIFI Period 3 32 24 32 35 24 9.55 3 26 %
XILO Period 0 28 32 19 24 24 8.70 2 24 %
(1) Efficacy (Index): From 10 To 100. (2) Safety (Index): From 10 To 100. (3) Packaging (Index): From 10 To 100. (4) Pleasure (Index): From 10 To 100. (5)
Usability (Index): From 10 To 100.

18
MARKET REPORT – NUTRITES MARKET – PERIOD 3
This report provides general information on the 1 Nutrites brands marketed in Period 3.
Brands introduced this period: LUCK

Brand Retail Sales & Volume

The two tables below show the marketed brand retail sales (in thousands of $) and the volume (in thousands of units), sorted in decreasing
order. Shares of market in value and in unit are also provided
Brand Value Share Retail Sales Variation
LUCK 100.0 % 41,147 New
TOTAL 100.0 % 41,147

Brand Unit Share Volume Variation

LUCK 100.0 % 2,400 New
TOTAL 100.0 % 2,400

Brand Characteristics
The table below lists the physical attributes of marketed brands, as well as their price and estimated unit cost, both in $.
Brand Launched Clinical Benefits Nutrition Packaging Flavor Variety Price Base Cost Base Cost
in (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ($) (%Price)
LUCK Period 3 15 55 15 35 20 18.00 5 27 %
(1) Clinical (Index): From 10 To 100. (2) Nutrition (Index): From 10 To 100. (3) [Packaging] (Index): From 10 To 100. (4) Flavor (Index): From 10 To 100. (5)
Variety (Index): From 10 To 100.

19
CONSUMER SURVEY – CLINITES MARKET – PERIOD 3
This survey questionnaire has been administered to 3,000 individuals during Period 3. It gives brand awareness, purchase intentions and
shopping habits data for each consumer segment in the Clinites market

Brand Awareness
The brand awareness figures in the chart and table below represent the proportion of individuals who have unaided recall of a brand name.
The report gives the information for each brand currently on the market, in total and by consumer segment.

Brand Awareness by Consumer Segment

Brand Firm High Earners Affluent Families Med. Income Low Income Singles
LIKE Landmark 43 % 49 % 60 % 54 % 63 %
LIME Landmark 67 % 68 % 48 % 27 % 44 %
MINT Maverick 45 % 51 % 61 % 61 % 65 %
MISI Maverick 11 % 11 % 13 % 12 % 19 %
MISS Maverick 75 % 72 % 52 % 30 % 47 %
RICH Radiant 45 % 50 % 63 % 57 % 65 %
RISE Radiant 76 % 69 % 52 % 29 % 46 %
SIAF SPA 14 % 32 % 10 % 8% 11 %
SILK SPA 46 % 51 % 59 % 62 % 68 %
SING SPA 66 % 73 % 60 % 31 % 49 %
TIME Titans 83 % 66 % 52 % 30 % 49 %
TINY Titans 49 % 54 % 53 % 56 % 78 %

20
Purchase Intentions
The purchase intentions figures in the chart and table below represent the proportion of individuals who would select a brand as their first
choice, if they were buying within a year. The report gives the information for each brand currently on the market, in total and by consumer
segment. Please note that these figures correspond to the situation of the period when the study is done and does not necessarily represent
purchase intentions for the following year.

Purchase Intentions by Consumer Segment

Brand Firm High Earners Affluent Families Med. Income Low Income Singles
LIKE Landmark 2% 2% 13 % 8% 10 %
LIME Landmark 9% 9% 3% 0% 0%
MINT Maverick 1% 2% 11 % 15 % 10 %
MISI Maverick 0% 0% 2% 1% 3%
MISS Maverick 12 % 12 % 4% 0% 0%
RICH Radiant 2% 2% 17 % 5% 12 %
RISE Radiant 13 % 11 % 4% 0% 0%
SIAF SPA 3% 11 % 1% 0% 0%
SILK SPA 1% 2% 10 % 33 % 7%
SING SPA 8% 23 % 13 % 0% 0%
TIME Titans 47 % 25 % 7% 0% 0%
TINY Titans 2% 2% 13 % 7% 57 %
XIBU PLB 0% 0% 2% 15 % 0%
XIFI PLB 0% 0% 0% 5% 0%
XILO PLB 0% 0% 2% 12 % 0%

Shopping Habits
The shopping habits data in the chart below represents, for each channel, the proportion of individuals who would choose that channel when
shopping for Clinites.

21
CONSUMER SURVEY – NUTRITES MARKET – PERIOD 3
This survey questionnaire has been administered to 3,000 individuals during Period 3. It gives brand awareness, purchase intentions and
shopping habits data for each consumer segment in the Nutrites market

Brand Awareness
The brand awareness figures in the chart and table below represent the proportion of individuals who have unaided recall of a brand name.
The report gives the information for each brand currently on the market, in total and by consumer segment.

Brand Awareness by Consumer Segment

Brand Firm Health Conscious Families Elderly
LUCK Landmark 10 % 18 % 14 %

Purchase Intentions
The purchase intentions figures in the chart and table below represent the proportion of individuals who would select a brand as their first
choice, if they were buying within a year. The report gives the information for each brand currently on the market, in total and by consumer
segment. Please note that these figures correspond to the situation of the period when the study is done and does not necessarily represent
purchase intentions for the following year.

Purchase Intentions by Consumer Segment

Brand Firm Health Conscious Families Elderly
LUCK Landmark 100 % 100 % 100 %

22
Shopping Habits
The shopping habits data in the chart below represents, for each channel, the proportion of individuals who would choose that channel when
shopping for Nutrites.

23
DISTRIBUTION PANEL – CLINITES MARKET – PERIOD 3
Sales and Market Shares by Channel
The table and charts below provide the market shares, based on units sold, by channel for each brand currently on the market. They also give
the unit product category sales by channel and in total. The relative sizes of the channel are provided as well.

Market Shares by Channel (%Unit)

Brand Firm Mass Merch. Specialized mass Dept. Stores Beauty Portals
LIKE Landmark 8% 11 % 4% 9%
LIME Landmark 0% 2% 9% 3%
MINT Maverick 13 % 11 % 2% 7%
MISI Maverick 1% 2% 1% 1%
MISS Maverick 0% 2% 12 % 3%
RICH Radiant 9% 13 % 0% 12 %
RISE Radiant 0% 2% 13 % 0%
SIAF SPA 0% 1% 5% 1%
SILK SPA 20 % 11 % 2% 12 %
SING SPA 3% 4% 12 % 5%
TIME Titans 1% 5% 34 % 11 %
TINY Titans 14 % 36 % 7% 36 %

Distribution Coverage
The distribution coverage figures in the charts and table below represent the proportion of stores who carry a given brand. The report gives
the information for each brand currently on the market. The number of outlets in each distribution channel is provided as well.

Distribution Coverage by Channel (%Stores)

24
 Brand Firm Mass Merch. Specialized mass Dept. Stores Beauty Portals
LIKE Landmark 46 % 42 % 17 % 40 %
LIME Landmark 8% 28 % 42 % 30 %
MINT Maverick 48 % 28 % 8% 10 %
MISI Maverick 39 % 34 % 20 % 10 %
MISS Maverick 5% 26 % 48 % 20 %
RICH Radiant 46 % 41 % 1% 50 %
RISE Radiant 0% 28 % 52 % 0%
SIAF SPA 11 % 32 % 40 % 20 %
SILK SPA 49 % 26 % 9% 30 %
SING SPA 34 % 23 % 28 % 30 %
TIME Titans 13 % 28 % 55 % 50 %
TINY Titans 40 % 45 % 18 % 50 %

Share of Shelf Space

The table below gives the share of shelf space allocated to each brand in a given channel. Shelf space is usually measured in meters or in
number of facings. If a product is given a large shelf space, it is likely to be highly visible and thus to be purchased more frequently. This is
especially true for impulse product categories such as cosmetics. In addition, because shelves are used as stocking space, a product is less likely
to be out of stock if it has been allocated a large share of the total shelf space.
Brand Firm Mass Merch. Specialized mass Dept. Stores Beauty Portals
LIKE Landmark 9% 8% 5% 7%
LIME Landmark 1% 2% 6% 3%
MINT Maverick 13 % 10 % 4% 7%
MISI Maverick 2% 3% 2% 2%
MISS Maverick 1% 3% 8% 4%
RICH Radiant 9% 9% 0% 8%
RISE Radiant 0% 3% 8% 0%
SIAF SPA 1% 4% 9% 4%
SILK SPA 24 % 14 % 5% 14 %
SING SPA 6% 6% 12 % 7%
TIME Titans 4% 10 % 31 % 15 %
TINY Titans 19 % 28 % 12 % 30 %

25
DISTRIBUTION PANEL – NUTRITES MARKET – PERIOD 3
Sales and Market Shares by Channel
The table and charts below provide the market shares, based on units sold, by channel for each brand currently on the market. They also give
the unit product category sales by channel and in total. The relative sizes of the channel are provided as well.

Market Shares by Channel (%Unit)

Brand Firm Mass Merch. Specialized mass Dept. Stores Beauty Portals
LUCK Landmark 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Distribution Coverage
The distribution coverage figures in the charts and table below represent the proportion of stores who carry a given brand. The report gives
the information for each brand currently on the market. The number of outlets in each distribution channel is provided as well.

Distribution Coverage by Channel (%Stores)

Brand Firm Mass Merch. Specialized mass Dept. Stores Beauty Portals
LUCK Landmark 41 % 41 % 41 % 40 %

26
Share of Shelf Space
The table below gives the share of shelf space allocated to each brand in a given channel. Shelf space is usually measured in meters or in
number of facings. If a product is given a large shelf space, it is likely to be highly visible and thus to be purchased more frequently. This is
especially true for impulse product categories such as cosmetics. In addition, because shelves are used as stocking space, a product is less likely
to be out of stock if it has been allocated a large share of the total shelf space.
Brand Firm Mass Merch. Specialized mass Dept. Stores Beauty Portals
LUCK Landmark 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

27
SEMANTIC SCALES – CLINITES MARKET – PERIOD 3
The semantic scales study provides data based on a semantic differential questionnaire administered to 600 individuals. Several semantic
scales corresponding to the Clinites physical attributes were presented to the respondents. For example 1 in Efficacy means low Efficacy and 7
in Efficacy means high Efficacy.
Several crucial information are derived from these questionnaires: brand perceptions, ideal value along each scale, ideal value evolution, brand
maps.

Brand perceptions
Respondents are asked to rate each brand according to the way they perceive the brand on each characteristic. The reported results are
summarized in the table below, using the mean value for each brand.
Brand Firm Efficacy Safety Packaging Pleasure Usability Price
LIKE Landmark 3.0 2.4 3.5 4.2 5.0 3.1
LIME Landmark 5.4 5.9 3.0 3.5 3.3 6.3
MINT Maverick 3.0 2.4 3.7 4.4 4.8 2.8
MISI Maverick 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.0 3.7 2.9
MISS Maverick 5.0 5.9 3.0 3.8 3.3 6.0
RICH Radiant 3.5 2.6 3.7 4.4 5.1 3.4
RISE Radiant 5.4 5.9 3.0 3.9 3.3 6.1
SIAF SPA 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.1 6.4 5.0
SILK SPA 2.8 2.4 3.7 4.4 5.1 2.5
SING SPA 5.0 5.6 3.0 3.5 3.3 4.6
TIME Titans 4.9 5.6 5.0 5.3 4.9 5.4
TINY Titans 3.6 2.8 4.1 4.5 4.0 2.9

Ideal Values
Respondents are also asked to indicate their preferred (also called “Ideal”) value on each scale. The reported results are summarized in the
table below, using the mean value for each segment.
Segment Efficacy Safety Packaging Pleasure Usability Price
High Earners 5.2 5.9 6.0 6.7 6.0 5.8
Affluent Families 6.1 5.7 4.6 4.0 4.9 5.0
Med. Income 4.7 4.6 5.2 4.7 5.0 3.8
Low Income 2.2 2.9 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.2
Singles 3.6 2.9 4.3 4.6 3.7 2.9

Importance of characteristics
Finally, respondents are asked to rate the importance of each characteristic in their purchasing decision. Although consumer segments differ
on the exact importance ratings attributed to the characteristics, they tend to agree on the ranking of the scales, i.e. their “relative”
importance. This is why only average value are reported on the chart below. Ratings are given on a scale from 1 (not important) to 10 (very
important).

28
Brand Maps
Maps representing consumers’ perceptions based on the semantic scales can be obtained for each pair of attributes. Five maps are provided
below. We invite you to export data into Excel and draw additional maps if needed
Brand Maps – Price X Efficacy

Brand Maps – Price X Safety

29
Brand Maps – Price X Packaging

Brand Maps – Price X Pleasure

30
Brand Maps – Price X Usability

Ideal Value Evolution

This study monitors the evolution of consumer needs over time. The preferred values on each scale over the past (3 years maximum) are
recorded in the table below, for each consumer segment.
Segment Period Efficacy Safety Packaging Pleasure Usability Price
Affluent Families Period 1 6.1 5.6 4.5 3.9 4.7 4.9
Affluent Families Period 2 6.1 5.6 4.5 3.9 4.8 5.0
Affluent Families Period 3 6.1 5.7 4.6 4.0 4.9 5.0
High Earners Period 1 5.1 5.8 6.0 6.6 6.0 5.6
High Earners Period 2 5.2 5.9 6.0 6.6 6.0 5.7
High Earners Period 3 5.2 5.9 6.0 6.7 6.0 5.8
Low Income Period 1 2.1 2.9 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.3
Low Income Period 2 2.2 2.9 2.1 1.8 2.1 2.2
Low Income Period 3 2.2 2.9 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.2
Med. Income Period 1 4.4 4.4 5.5 5.1 5.2 3.8
Med. Income Period 2 4.6 4.5 5.3 4.9 5.1 3.8
Med. Income Period 3 4.7 4.6 5.2 4.7 5.0 3.8
Singles Period 1 3.6 2.9 4.0 4.3 3.5 3.2
Singles Period 2 3.6 2.9 4.2 4.5 3.7 3.1
Singles Period 3 3.6 2.9 4.3 4.6 3.7 2.9

31
SEMANTIC SCALES – NUTRITES MARKET – PERIOD 3
The semantic scales study provides data based on a semantic differential questionnaire administered to 600 individuals. Several semantic
scales corresponding to the Nutrites physical attributes were presented to the respondents. For example 1 in Clinical Benefit means low
Clinical Benefit and 7 in Clinical Benefit means high Clinical Benefit.
Several crucial information are derived from these questionnaires: brand perceptions, ideal value along each scale, ideal value evolution, brand
maps.

Brand perceptions
Respondents are asked to rate each brand according to the way they perceive the brand on each characteristic. The reported results are
summarized in the table below, using the mean value for each brand.
Brand Firm Clinical Benefit Nutrition Packaging Flavor Variety Price
LUCK Landmark 1.5 4.3 1.5 2.6 1.9 5.1

Ideal Values
Respondents are also asked to indicate their preferred (also called “Ideal”) value on each scale. The reported results are summarized in the
table below, using the mean value for each segment.
Segment Clinical Benefit Nutrition Packaging Flavor Variety Price
Health Conscious 4.6 3.3 4.3 4.8 3.7 6.1
Families 5.1 4.0 4.9 3.9 4.3 5.4
Elderly 3.3 4.5 3.3 3.0 3.1 4.7

Importance of characteristics
Finally, respondents are asked to rate the importance of each characteristic in their purchasing decision. Although consumer segments differ
on the exact importance ratings attributed to the characteristics, they tend to agree on the ranking of the scales, i.e. their “relative”
importance. This is why only average value are reported on the chart below. Ratings are given on a scale from 1 (not important) to 10 (very
important).

32
Brand Maps
Maps representing consumers’ perceptions based on the semantic scales can be obtained for each pair of attributes. Five maps are provided
below. We invite you to export data into Excel and draw additional maps if needed
Brand Maps – Clinical Benefit X Price

Brand Maps – Clinical Benefit X Nutrition

33
Brand Maps – Clinical Benefit X Packaging

Brand Maps – Clinical Benefit X Flavor

34
Brand Maps – Clinical Benefit X Variety

Ideal Value Evolution

This study monitors the evolution of consumer needs over time. The preferred values on each scale over the past (3 years maximum) are
recorded in the table below, for each consumer segment.
Segment Period Clinical Benefit Nutrition Packaging Flavor Variety Price
Elderly Period 1 3.3 4.4 3.4 3.1 3.3 4.8
Elderly Period 2 3.3 4.4 3.4 3.1 3.3 4.8
Elderly Period 3 3.3 4.5 3.3 3.0 3.1 4.7
Families Period 1 5.1 4.0 4.9 3.8 4.3 5.5
Families Period 2 5.1 4.0 4.9 3.8 4.3 5.5
Families Period 3 5.1 4.0 4.9 3.9 4.3 5.4
Health Conscious Period 1 4.4 3.3 4.3 4.8 3.7 6.3
Health Conscious Period 2 4.4 3.3 4.3 4.8 3.7 6.3
Health Conscious Period 3 4.6 3.3 4.3 4.8 3.7 6.1

35
MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING OF BRAND SIMILARITIES &
PREFERENCES – CLINITES MARKET – PERIOD 3
This study provides a joint space configuration obtained with non-metric multidimensional scaling. It relies on similarity and preference data on
the complete set of brands available in the market. These data were obtained through interviews with 200 individuals.

Perceptual Map
The study provides a graphical representation of the perceptual positioning of Clinites brands and consumer segments’ ideal points. Three
dimensions, interpreted as Economy, Performance, Convenience were sufficient to provide a good fit to the data. The two perceptual maps are
given below.
Perceptual Map – Economy X Performance

36
Perceptual Map – Economy X Convenience

Brand Perceptions
The table below gives the coordinates of the brand positions on the perceptual map, on a scale from -20 to +20.
Brand Firm Economy Performance Convenience
LIKE Landmark 6.1 -8.1 1.1
LIME Landmark -15.1 10.7 -4.5
MINT Maverick 8.2 -8.1 1.8
MISI Maverick 7.1 -1.7 -0.8
MISS Maverick -13.4 9.3 -3.7
RICH Radiant 4.3 -5.9 2.1
RISE Radiant -13.8 10.6 -3.3
SIAF SPA -6.4 16.3 16.1
SILK SPA 10.0 -9.1 2.1
SING SPA -3.8 8.3 -4.5
TIME Titans -9.6 7.9 7.4
TINY Titans 7.2 -4.7 1.9

Ideal Values
The table below gives the coordinates of the brand positions on the perceptual map, on a scale from -20 to +20.
Segment Economy Performance Convenience
High Earners -11.9 10.0 15.6
Affluent Families -6.8 12.9 2.4
Med. Income 1.0 4.6 6.1
Low Income 12.1 -10.0 -13.2
Singles 7.2 -4.3 2.2

37
Ideal Value Evolution
This study monitors the evolution of consumer needs over time. The preferred values on each perceptual map dimension over the past (3
years maximum) are recorded in the table below, for each consumer segment.
Segment Period Economy Performance Convenience
Affluent Families Period 1 -6.2 12.6 1.6
Affluent Families Period 2 -6.6 12.8 1.9
Affluent Families Period 3 -6.8 12.9 2.4
High Earners Period 1 -10.9 9.2 15.2
High Earners Period 2 -11.5 9.7 15.5
High Earners Period 3 -11.9 10.0 15.6
Low Income Period 1 11.4 -10.5 -13.9
Low Income Period 2 11.7 -10.2 -13.6
Low Income Period 3 12.1 -10.0 -13.2
Med. Income Period 1 1.3 2.8 8.1
Med. Income Period 2 1.2 3.6 7.0
Med. Income Period 3 1.0 4.6 6.1
Singles Period 1 5.1 -4.8 0.6
Singles Period 2 6.3 -4.6 1.7
Singles Period 3 7.2 -4.3 2.2

Influence of Product Characteristics on Perceptual Dimensions

An indication of the influence of product characteristics on perceptual dimensions is provided in the table below to help you interpret the
dimension that were derived from the study.
Dimension Efficacy Safety Packaging Pleasure Usability Price
Economy Slight Slight None None None Strong
Performance Very Strong Strong None None None Slight
Convenience None None Strong Very Strong Moderate None

38
MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING OF BRAND SIMILARITIES &
PREFERENCES – NUTRITES MARKET – PERIOD 3
The Multidimensional Scaling study is not available because of the small number of brands marketed in this market.

39
COMPETITIVE COMMERCIAL TEAM SIZE ESTIMATES –
CLINITES MARKET – PERIOD 3
Estimates of competitive commercial team size are given by firm, by brand and by distribution channel. The breakdown by brand and channel
is also provided. All brands marketed in the current period are included in the study.
Estimated Commercial Team Size (in full-time equivalent) – By Firm and by Distribution Channel

Estimated Brand Commercial Team Sizes (in commercial people equivalent) – Total and by
Distribution Channel
Brand Mass Merch. Specialized mass Dept. Stores Beauty Portals TOTAL
LIKE 15 20 5 3 43
LIME 2 12 15 2 31
MINT 20 15 2 1 38
MISI 15 19 7 1 42
MISS 1 13 23 2 39
RICH 14 20 0 4 38
RISE 0 13 21 0 34
SIAF 3 15 15 2 35
SILK 15 8 3 3 29
SING 13 8 7 3 31
TIME 4 12 22 4 42
TINY 12 20 5 4 41

40
Competitive Merchandising Estimates
Estimates of competitive merchandising budgets are given by firm, by brand and by distribution channel. The breakdown by brand and channel
is also provided. All brands marketed in the current period are included in the study.
Estimated Merchandising budgets (in million $) – By Firm and by Distribution Channel

Estimated Brand Merchandising budgets (in thousand dollars) – Total and by Distribution Channel

Brand Mass Merch. Specialized mass Dept. Stores Beauty Portals TOTAL
LIKE 300 400 70 30 800
LIME 50 200 250 30 530
MINT 190 100 20 10 320
MISI 140 184 60 10 394
MISS 10 130 280 10 430
RICH 280 400 0 86 766
RISE 0 275 400 0 675
SIAF 30 230 210 10 480
SILK 230 225 5 10 470
SING 200 130 130 10 470
TIME 60 180 330 60 630
TINY 180 300 75 60 615
TOTAL 1,670 2,754 1,830 326 6,580

41
ADVERTISING EXPERIMENT – NUTRITES MARKET –
PERIOD 3
This experiment is conducted by increasing advertising budgets in a selected regional market. The results of the study are used to project the
level of awareness and the market share that would have been achieved nationwide by each brand with the same increase in advertising, and
if competitive actions have remained unchanged. The impact on brand contribution is provided as well.
The results below would have been achieved by a given brand if its advertising budget had been increased by 20% and if competitive actions
had remained unchanged.
You did not produce enough units of LUCK. The results of the experiment below are irrelevant because production could not ship enough units to the test
regional market and could not avoid the production shortage situation.

Expected Change in Brand Awareness

Brand Health Conscious Families Elderly
LUCK 0.1 % 0.8 % 0.5 %

Expected Change in unit Market Share (%U)

Brand Health Conscious Families Elderly
LUCK 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 %

42
MARKET FORECAST – CLINITES MARKET – PERIOD 3
This study provides estimates of the expected market size in one period and in five periods. Results are given for the whole market and are also
broken down by consumer segment.

Total Market Size

The charts below show the actual market size this period and the expected market size in one and five periods. Market growth rates are
reported as well. Market sizes are given in thousands of units.

Market Size by Consumer Segment

The charts below show the actual market size this period and the expected market size in one and five periods. Results are broken down by
segment. Relative segment size, in % of the total market size, and segment growth rates are reported as well. Sizes are given in thousands of
units.

43
Relative Consumer Segment Sizes (in % of total market size)

44
MARKET FORECAST – NUTRITES MARKET – PERIOD 3
This study provides estimates of the expected market size in one period and in five periods. Results are given for the whole market and are also
broken down by consumer segment.

Total Market Size

The charts below show the actual market size this period and the expected market size in one and five periods. Market growth rates are
reported as well. Market sizes are given in thousands of units.

Market Size by Consumer Segment

The charts below show the actual market size this period and the expected market size in one and five periods. Results are broken down by
segment. Relative segment size, in % of the total market size, and segment growth rates are reported as well. Sizes are given in thousands of
units.

45
Relative Consumer Segment Sizes (in % of total market size)

46