Planet-9 Porsche Forum banner

1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,161 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Last week we recognized winners of Polk's annual Automotive Loyalty Awards. One category that gets a lot of attention by our customers is the overall "Make Loyalty" category which basically recognizes superior customer loyalty to an OEM's brand. Since many of the automakers have multiple divisions (i.e., makes or brands), they like to see how consumers react to these separate entities due to the unique position they try to create in the marketplace. This year, Honda won for the U.S. market. But by how much? And how many more repeat sales would have been needed by other brands to beat this year's winner? The point of these questions is an estimation process can be used by automotive marketing managers to figure out what the sales mix needs to be in order to help them predict how they'll help their companies reach their overall sales targets.

How Close Was Each Brand to Beating Honda's Make Loyalty Rate in 2009?



For the 2009 model year, the average make loyalty rate was 44.53%. Honda's make loyalty rate was 54.86%. Toyota missed beating this rate by 0.15 percentage points and Ford missed it by 0.74 percentage points. If I look at the brands, including Honda, that had an above average industry make loyalty rate, there are a total of 10 of them.

But here's what's intriguing to me: is there an "efficiency thing" going on for some brands? Meaning, what dynamic allows a relatively few more sales from past customers to make some brands "win" while other brands need far more sales from past customers to get the same outcome?

Take Subaru, for instance. They missed beating Honda by 6.03 percentage points. But they only needed another 3,914 sales from past customers to exceed Honda's make loyalty of 54.86%. Now if you're Subaru and you only sell just north of 200,000 units in the U.S., yielding another 3,900 units isn't an easy task. But it's worth noting what sales volume deficits exist in order to possibly reach a loyalty target. Now a brand like Chevrolet needed 27,781 additional past customer sales to make them win, yet Chevrolet's overall gap (5.10 percentage points) from beating Honda was smaller than Subaru's (6.03 percentage points). Cross-town rival, Toyota, missed getting the top spot by 849 sales from past customers. In these examples, we have two large volume OEMs and one relatively small volume OEM. So it's not always a size issue that creates the disparities I'm highlighting.

The point is that when companies set targets for sales, much of this will come from past customers. And if there are specific loyalty targets established, managers can conduct a sensitivity analysis to estimate "what's needed" to hit the number. Awards are something to be proud of, but more importantly, hitting sales targets that are built on a bit of science with the use of consumer research and knowing industry trends can make hitting targets a more plausible effort. Here's to 2010... may the best, and most efficient, brand win.

Posted by Lonnie Miller, Director, Industry Analysis, Polk (01.18.2010)



More...
 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Top