Ohio Lottery

Post one thread of at least 800 – 1000 words

Then post two (2) replies of at least 450–600 words

For each thread, there are multiple questions based off the case study; each question response must be supported with at least 1 peer-reviewed source.Each thread must also include 1 biblical application/integration.

Each response must be supported with at least 2 peer-reviewed sources and include 1 biblical application/integration.

Note that the biblical application/integration cannot be more than 10% of the thread or replies.

From the Ohio Lottery case, answer the following questions:

  1. Detail the overall research design in the Ohio Lottery case (See Exhibit OL1). What are the advantages and disadvantages of this design?
  2. Evaluate the MET process (Exhibit OL-2). What are some of the strengths and weaknesses of the MET technique?
  3. What measurement scales are used in the sample questions provided (Exhibit OL-3)? Why might the lottery attitude and lottery importance questions have presented the most challenge to the professional researchers?
  4. Using text Exhibit 12-2, map out the likely quantitative instrument content.
  5. The survey contained several questions that would alert the researchers that the participant was not taking the research process seriously (see case exhibit OL-3). Is this a good or a poor idea? Why?
  6. Evaluate the MET discussion guide for the Ohio Lottery Research.

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

    1

    >cases

    >Abstract

    Used with permission

    of Pamela S. Schindler.

    © 2006.

    Ohio Lottery: Innovative Research Design Drives Winning

    The Ohio Lottery was originally developed as an additional source of public

    school funding. Today proceeds from lottery games annually provide approxi-

    mately 7% of the public educational budget. This research was originally under-

    taken because the lottery director wanted a deeper understanding of lottery

    players and insight into nonplayers. The research design described in this case is

    multistage and incorporates the use of both qualitative and quantitative research.

    This case reveals the research that guides the current Ohio Lottery promotional

    program that encourages play of its various games.

    >The Research When the Ohio Lottery was first conceived, it was presented to the voters of

    Ohio as a way to provide supplemental funding for Ohio schools.1 The Ohio

    Lottery sold its first ticket in 1974. Currently, all profits go to the Ohio Lottery

    Education fund, which supplies about 7 % of the current education budget.

    Although Ohioans annually spend about $200 per capita on lottery tickets, in

    recent years the Ohio Lottery has suffered stagnant sales. The Ohio Lottery is

    interested in stimulating more play of lottery games.2

    The process started in early January 2005 when the Ohio Lottery approached

    Marcus Thomas, LLC3 an agency that had worked with them before on media

    and research projects.

    “Rod Ingram (lottery director) basically wanted a deeper understanding of lottery

    players and insight into nonplayers,” explained Jennifer Hirt-Marchand, vice

    president of research for Marcus Thomas.4 “Rod had extensive demographic data

    on players, but it was obvious that what he needed was behavioral and psycho-

    graphic information on both players and nonplayers.”

    “I had read extensively about the metaphor elicitation technique (MET) developed

    by Gerald Zaltman (professor, Harvard University),” said Hirt-Marchand. Be-

    cause most human communication is nonverbal and metaphors are a key bridge

    between direct verbal communication and more impressionistic thoughts and

    feelings, the metaphor elicitation technique showed promise to unlock true motiva-

    tions.5 “We didn’t have experience at that time with MET, but MRSI6 did. I asked

    them to provide a video of a MET interview and, after seeing it, I was convinced

    of its potential.” Thus, Marcus Thomas partnered with MRSI to determine “why

    players purchase tickets and other emotional factors that motivate consumers to

    purchase games.”7

     

     

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

    2

    Phase I—Qualitative—MET Early in the research process, two additional agencies the Ohio Lottery had been

    using for creative development were called in. Because their work was also meant

    to stimulate demand for lottery tickets, input from these agencies was deemed

    critical to the overall success of the research project.

    “We wanted to get buy-in from them from the beginning,” explained Hirt-

    Marchand. It also helped that Ingram considered engagement with the research

    vitally important for each of its agencies. And each agency had numerous ques-

    tions, among them: What is the understanding of the pay-out or odds and how

    relevant is this understanding to making a purchase? Are purchases of lottery

    tickets routine or impulsive? Are purchases perceived as recreation or gambling?

    What motivates play? How is winning defined? What is the influence of in-store

    promotion and signage? Is playing perceived as chance or skill? What is the

    significance of the dollar value of the ticket?

    “MET interviews are long, often 90 minutes or more,” said Hirt-Marchand.”

    “Lottery staffers and agency personnel were behind the one-way mirror at every

    session.” During April through June, a total of 25 interviews were conducted in

    three Ohio cities (Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati) to understand motivations

    for playing lottery games, to determine obstacles to playing or playing more often,

    and to provide guidance for the quantitative segmentation study to follow.8 MRSI

    provided the interviewer for most of the sessions, but Hirt-Marchand wanted

    Marcus Thomas to develop the expertise. She was trained by the moderator, and,

    after observing the process unfold for 20 interviews, Hirt-Marchand conducted

    the final five interviews personally. “The interviewing technique is similar to a depth

    interview. But the moderator spends most of his or her time listening, encouraging

    a deeper dialog, with head nods, answer rephrasing, and constant requests for the

    participant to elaborate.”

    Participants represented all four groups of interest: heavy player (at least twice a

    week), occasional player (at least once in three months), rare player (less than

    twice a year); and nonplayers. When using MET, participants are assigned a task

    to complete before the interview: They bring photos or other images (e.g., images

    cut from magazines or packages) that represent their feelings and emotions about

    the topic. In this case, participants were asked to choose images that reflected

    how they feel about playing the lottery, or in the case of nonplayers, images that

    help express how they feel about the lottery. The interview focuses on the images

    and what each image represents to the participant. At the end of the interview,

    participants are asked to create a collage of their images, writing phases or notes

    near each image to capture what each image meant to them as it related to the

    lottery.

    “In some ways,” said Hirt-Marchand, “the collage is for the participant—a means

    of debriefing them. Those of us that are observing the interview are taking detailed

    Ohio Lottery: Innovative Research Design Drives Winning

     

     

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

    3

    notes, so we have already summarized the learning from the exercise by this time.”

    (See Exhibit OL 1-1 on the MET discussion process used for these interviews.)

    “Because three to five Lottery staffers were present at each session, as well as

    representatives from each agency, we had very constructive discussions following

    the interviews, often well into the evening,” described Hirt-Marchand. These

    debriefing sessions were part knowledge capture and part brainstorm. “It was

    inevitable that we would discuss strategy—how we could use this piece or that

    piece of information.”

    Findings. From the direction provided by the MET interviews, Marcus Thomas

    formed a preliminary recommendation that the Ohio Lottery focus on getting more

    play from all player categories as well as encouraging nonplayers to play. A

    preliminary strategy was formulated based on the fact that in buying a ticket,

    players buy the opportunity to dream. While “winning money was a reason to

    believe [in the dream] and a critical rationalization for playing, it was not the

    primary motivation for playing.”9 In dreaming, lottery players could see themselves

    as successful and thereby feel special and in control of their lives.

    The interviews also revealed that to encourage more frequent play, or any play by

    a nonplayer, the concept of winning needed to be redefined. A win was currently

    defined as “hitting the jackpot,” when in reality players perceived this as unrealis-

    tic. In fact, a win meant winning anything, from $1 on up. Also, significant

    negative misconceptions surfaced among rare players or nonplayers about heavy

    players. They were described as addicted, out-ofcontrol, irresponsible, and

    unintelligent. These misperceptions needed to be addressed by advertising.

    Marcus Thomas developed a preliminary strategy for rare and nonplayers that

    positioned lottery play as a small indulgence, via games with simple rules, and that

    offered social reasons for buying lottery game tickets.

    Phase II—Quantitative Survey “The qualitative study provided us with significant insights, and was always

    intended to be the foundation for a quantitative segmentation study,” said Hirt-

    Marchand. Marcus Thomas wanted to validate purchase motivations and ob-

    stacles revealed by the MET interviews and determine if player segmentation

    could be refined beyond the use of frequency of play. An online study was

    chosen to validate possible messages, explore media usage, and understand

    actual purchase behavior.

    Sampling MRSI e-mailed invitations to a subset of Ohioans from their exten-

    sive online panel. Invitees who responded were further screened for qualification.

    The sample chosen was demographically proportional to the state’s population

    based on residence, age, gender, and race. Participants needed to be Ohio

    residents between 18 and 65 years of age with an annual household income of at

    least $20,000, with no moral or religious objection to playing the lottery. All

    Ohio Lottery: Innovative Research Design Drives Winning

     

     

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

    4

    1,505 (1,305 players and 200 nonplayers) participants completed the survey by

    accessing a secure website between July 22 and July 31, 2005.

    Survey and Instrument The 39-minute study covered game and advertising

    awareness, game involvement, frequency of play, lottery importance, lottery

    perceptions and attitudes, as well as numerous other demographic or behavioral

    variables that might be used in segmentation.

    The survey went through four extensive revisions, two within Marcus Thomas and

    one each with the involvement of the client and MRSI. “The most challenging

    questions to develop were those on Lottery Importance Ratings (question 25),

    and Lottery Attitudinal Ratings (question 29),” shared Hirt-Marchand. “The MET

    findings were critical to developing these questions.” And because the study was

    so long, Marcus Thomas wanted to be sure that participants were focused,

    paying attention, and not just going through the motions. To address this, it

    included alternatives to three or four questions that the serious, attentive, lottery-

    playing participant would know were wrong or inappropriate to choose (question

    6A is an example; the highlighted alternative is not available in a scratch-off

    ticket). In all, the data from six participants were suspect, and Marcus Thomas

    removed them before analysis.

    Data Analysis To verify the validity of the survey, data from a 2004 phone

    study were used for comparison. This previous study measured demographics of

    who was playing the lottery, how frequently they played, and how much they

    were spending, but did not address motivations for playing or obstacles that kept

    subjects from playing. A post hoc cluster analysis was used to place participants

    in four natural divisions or segments, where individuals within a segment held

    similar attitudes about playing and similar playing behavior, but when compared

    across segments, their motivations for playing and their actual behavior differed.

    Reporting Marcus Thomas, along with MRSI, presented results in detail to the

    lottery staff (November 2005) and later to the Ohio Lottery commissioners. The

    detailed PowerPoint slide deck used graphic data depictions to cover the exten-

    sive data. (see Sample Slides from Ohio Lottery Presentation Deck). Creative

    agencies were directed initially to emphasize the social reasons for playing (gift

    giving for birthdays, graduation, etc.) that were appropriate across all segments.

    Ads were developed using lottery study insights in early 2006 and started appear-

    ing 1st and 2nd quarters of 2007.

    What were some of the most enlightening findings? The quantitative study verified

    the lessons from the MET analysis—that messaging should emphasize fun, the

    rush experienced while learning whether the dream of the win will come true, and

    the low-risk nature of the entertainment. One participant clarified the risk by

    comparing a $1 purchase of bottled water to a $1 lottery ticket—“Only the

    lottery ticket has the power to change your life; not bad for a dollar.” Additionally,

    Ohio Lottery: Innovative Research Design Drives Winning

     

     

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

    5

    the study findings emphasized how important it was to be up-front about the odds

    of winning and the pay-out percentages. Lottery players are savvy and honesty

    also has the opportunity to chip away at the resistance among nonplayers.10

    Effectiveness Tracking During three weeks in February and March 2007,

    Marcus Thomas and MRSI again sampled the MRSI online panel to determine

    the effectiveness of the advertising. Although increasing sales is one possible

    measure, deeper understanding of lottery play motivations makes it impossible to

    link sales increases solely to advertising. Recent advances in brain studies have

    revealed that subjects are not always able to remember that they have seen ads or

    that they have been influenced by ads—either those they remember seeing or

    those they don’t recall at all.11 So Marcus Thomas wanted to be sure that

    uppressed ad recognition was a metric that was evaluated during the tracking

    study. Among other metrics this second online study will include ad recognition of

    selected outdoor, radio, and TV ads (see ads available from the text Online

    Learning Center) developed and used since the first quantitative study was

    completed.

    >Discussion Questions

    1. Detail the overall research design in the Ohio Lottery case (See Exhibit

    OL-1). What are the advantages and disadvantages of this design?

    2. Evaluate the MET process (Exhibit OL-2). What are some of the strengths and weaknesses of the MET technique?

    3. What measurement scales are used in the sample questions provided (Exhibit OL-3)? Why might the lottery attitude and lottery importance questions have presented the most challenge to the professional researchers?

    4. Using text Exhibit 12-2, map out the likely quantitative instrument content.

    5. The survey contained several questions that would alert the researchers that the participant was not taking the research process seriously (see case exhibit OL-3). Is this a good or a poor idea? Why?

    6. Evaluate the MET discussion guide for the Ohio Lottery Research.

    www.marcusthomasllc.com www.mrsi.com; www.ohiolottery.com

    >>>>>URLs

    MET Interview…four segments

    Segment 1: Establishing Rapport with Participant

    Segment 2: Explaining the MET Task

    Segment 3: Extracting Meaning from an Image

    Segment 4: Building a Collage

    Ohio Lottery Ads developed from the research in this case.

    >Video Resources (Resources Library)

    Ohio Lottery: Innovative Research Design Drives Winning

     

     

    Business Research Methods, 14e, Schindler

    6

    Ohio Lottery: Innovative Research Design Drives Winning

    1 Currently 41 states offer online or scratch-off games and lotteries. Roughly 94%

    of the population resides in such a state. “Comprehensive Annual Financial

    Report for the Fiscal years ended June 30, 2006, and June 30, 2005,” The

    Ohio Lottery Commission: An Enterprise Fund of the State of Ohio. Accessed

    February 19, 2007 (http://www.ohiolottery.com/pdf/2006_CAFR.pdf).

    2 “Ohio Lottery, Lottery Insider. Accessed February 17, 2007 (http://

    thelotteryinsider.com.au/lottery/ohio.htm).

    3 Marcus Thomas LLC is an integrated marketing communications agency that

    offers full service advertising, public relations, interactive and research for

    business-to-business, business-to-consumer and nonprofit organizations (http://

    www.marcusthomasllc.com/).

    4 Jennifer Hirt-Marchand, vice president and director of research, Marcus

    Thomas LLC; interviewed February 23, 2007.

    5 MET was developed by Harvard professor Gerald Zaltman. “What we are

    doing is using metaphors, idiomatic expressions of consumers, as vehicles for

    them to transport what may exist below their level of awareness into a domain

    of awareness.” Doug Gavel, “Mighty Metaphors—Zaltman’s method opens

    the ‘Windows of Consciousness,’” Harvard University Gazette, May 4,

    2000. Accessed February 9, 2007 (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/

    2000/05.04/zalt.html).

    6 Cincinnati-based Marketing Research Services Inc. (MRSI), established in

    1973, is a full service research firm offering quantitative and qualitative

    business-to-business and business-to-consumer research that supports

    strategic planning, product development, advertising and promotion, and

    more. “History,” MRSI, accessed February 19, 2007 (http://www.mrsi.com/

    history.html).

    7 “Ohio Lottery Segmentation Study, Final Report,” Marcus Thomas LLC and

    MRSI, October 2005.

    8 “Strategic Motivational Qualitative Research Highlights: Preliminary Conclu-

    sions and Recommendations,” Marcus Thomas LLC, October 2005.

    9 “Strategic Motivational Qualitative Research Highlights: Preliminary Conclu-

    sions and Recommendations,” Marcus Thomas LLC, October 2005.

    10 “The Ohio Lottery: Quantitative Segmentation Key Learnings and Implica-

    tions,” Marcus Thomas LLC, October 2005.

    11 Rex Briggs and Greg Stuart, What Sticks: Why Most Advertising Fails and

    How to Guarantee Yours Succeeds, Kaplan Business, 2006, p. 125.

    >>>>>Footnotes

     

     

    Exhibit OL-1 Ohio Lottery Research by Marcus Thomas, LLC.

    2005 2006 2007

    Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Jan. Feb. Mar.

    2005 Review of prior OLC research.

    Present proposal for research.

    Review information needs with

    agencies.

    Choose qualitative supplier.

    Create MET screener & discussion

    guide.

    Conduct MET IDIs.

    Present preliminary qualitative

    findings.

    Design quantitative study

    Field online study.

    Data quality & validity checks.

    Segmentation analysis completed.

    Full analysis and report writing.

    Present & review all findings with

    client.

    Present key findings to OLC

    agencies.

    2006 Present findings to lottery

    commissioners.

    Discuss how findings can be applied

    to creative. Develop new ads.

    2007 Discuss tracking study with client

    Tracking study approved.

    Questionnaire designed.

    Conduct tracking study.

    Business Research Methods, 13e/Schindler

    7

     

     

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

    Exhibit OL-2 The MET Process, An Overview

    In the MET exercise, the participant is pretasked to find pictures that represent their

    feelings and emotions about “playing the lottery.” The participant comes to the interview

    with a stack of pictures, magazines, etc. The interview is divided into phases.

    Phase I: The interviewer talks with the participant in detail about each picture brought,

    using the following questions. The interviewer uses several probes following each

    question to extract as much understanding about each picture as is possible. In the DVD

    example, the participant is asked to select the six most important pictures brought.

    § Please describe the picture you brought.

    § How does the picture express your thoughts and feelings about playing the lottery?

    § Think about what this picture means in terms of your thoughts and feelings about

    playing the lottery. What is the title or theme of this picture (in a word or two)?

    Phase II: The interviewer determines if any images were desired but not found.

    Phase III: Using three pictures at a time, the interviewer attempts to identify the different

    constructs or themes across pictures. This process is continued until all pictures have

    been discussed in multiple triads.

    § How are two pictures similar and yet different from the third as they relate to how

    you think and feel about playing the lottery?

    Phase IV: The interviewer asks the participant to identify the most important or

    representative picture, then uses it to discuss how the participant relates to the picture,

    using a series of questions and multiple probes.

    § If you could widen the frame of the picture, what might enter the picture that might

    help me understand your thoughts and feelings about playing the lottery?

    § Thinking still of playing the lottery, if you were to put yourself in the picture, where

    would you be, what would you be doing, thinking or saying?

    § If you could invite someone or something to join you in this picture that would help

    me understand your thoughts and feelings about” playing the lottery,” who or what

    would it be?

    Phase V: The interviewer, using the emotions and feelings revealed in the interview thus

    far, asks the participant to rank order these feelings in order of importance.

    § What would you say are the five most important things to you about playing the

    lottery?

    Phase VI: The interviewer leaves the participant to create a collage of the images on

    paper, labeling these as desired, arranging them as desired. The participant is provided

    with paper, glue, scissors, and multiple markers. Once the participant is finished, the

    interviewer returns and asks the participant to relate the story of the collage.

    Ohio Lottery: Innovative Research Drives Winning

    8

     

     

    Exhibit OL-3 Ohio Lottery Study Sample Questions.

    The Ohio Lottery quantitative study was conducted online and took approximately 39 minutes to complete. Below are three questions from this extensive study. The header indicates the section of the study from which the question was extracted. The question layout has been modified to fit on paper.

    PAST 12 MONTH GAMING USAGE

    6A. You mentioned playing Instant Games (Scratch Offs) in the past 12 months. Which of the following dollar amounts of Ohio Lottery Instant Games (Scratch Offs) have you played in the past 12 months? (Please select all that apply.)

    $1 – 1 $2 – 2 $3 – 3 $5 – 4 $10 – 5

    $15 – 6

    $20 – 7 Other (Please specify) – 8

    LOTTERY IMPORTANCE RATINGS

    25. Now please rate the following attributes according to how important they are in deciding if you participate in lottery games.

    Using a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means the attribute is “Not At All Important” and 7 means the attribute is “Extremely Important” in deciding if you participate in lottery games, how important are the following attributes to you? (Please select only one response per row.)

    (RANDOMIZE) Extremely Important

    Not At All Important

    ‘Win’ Importance There is a chance to win big money 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The jackpot is big 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 There is a good chance to win 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Playing allows me to dream of changing my life/my

    family’s life 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Winning big would change my life 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    General Game Importance 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Provides the rush of the chance to win The number of different ways to win per ticket is

    high I have the ability to participate without having

    complicated rules to follow There are convenient places to play The odds of winning are good Price of the ticket Is a new game/ticket Physical size of the ticket General appearance of the ticket

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

    9

     

     

    Exhibit OL 1-3 Sample Questions (cont.)

    (Question 25—continued)

    (RANDOMIZE) Extremely Important

    Not At All Important

    Recreational Importance Is a worthwhile way to spend my money 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The money I spend helps a good cause 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Playing the lottery is fun 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    LOTTERY ATTITUDINAL RATINGS

    TEXT SCREEN: Now please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding your

    thoughts and feelings about the Ohio Lottery.

    29. Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means “Disagree Strongly” and 7 means “Agree Strongly”. And remember, there are no right or wrong answers. We are only interested in your opinions. (Please select only one response per row.)

    (RANDOMIZE) Agree Strongly

    Disagree Strongly

    REASONS NOT TO PLAY Confusion/Intimidation

    I would play more lottery games if they weren’t so confusing 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I’m intimidated by the games I don’t know how to play 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I don’t feel knowledgeable on how to play lottery games 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    False Hope I do not expect to win the lottery 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The lottery gives false hope 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Winning the lottery is only an illusion 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Low Interest I am just not interested in the lottery 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I don’t think about playing the lottery 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Control (Skill vs. Luck) Lottery games are boring 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I prefer spending money at games that involve more strategy 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I like to play games where my performance determines whether I win or lose 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Odds I don’t play the lottery more because of poor odds 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Chances of winning the lottery are lower when the payout increases and more people play 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Myth The first few or last few tickets on a roll of Scratch Offs are more likely to contain winners than the middle tickets 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    The odds of all Scratch Off tickets are the same regardless of price 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Image/Stigma 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Playing the lottery is the same as gambling Playing the lottery makes me feel guilty Playing the lottery is selfish People who play the lottery are greedy People who play the lottery have a problem Playing the lottery is addictive People who play the lottery are lazy

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

    10

     

     

    Exhibit OL 1-3 Sample Questions (cont.)

    (Question 29—continued)

    (RANDOMIZE) Agree Strongly

    Disagree Strongly

    Bad Financially Playing the lottery is a waste of money 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 There is little chance of return on your investment with the lottery 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Playing the lottery is spending money that needs to be spent on more important things 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    REASONS TO PLAY Fun And Excitement

    Playing the lottery gives me a positive feeling even if I don’t win 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    I enjoy a sense of anticipation when I play the lottery 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I play the lottery mostly for the entertainment 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Playing the lottery is fun 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 When I’m playing the lottery, I get the feeling that this one is a winner 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Hopes And Dreams I play the lottery for the chance to change my life/my family’s life 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    I believe I can win big in the lottery 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I play the lottery solely to win 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Playing the lottery gives me a sense of euphoria 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 If I won the lottery, I would never work again 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 With the lottery, the risk is low given the chance to win big 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 All it takes is $1 and a dream to change my life 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Impulse vs. Planned I’m more motivated to play the lottery when I see others win 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I play the lottery mostly when I receive tickets as gifts 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I only play when the jackpot is high 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Signs and advertising remind me to play the lottery 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Control (Skill vs. Luck) I play the lottery whenever I feel lucky 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I play numbers that are meaningful to me such as birthdays, anniversaries, etc. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Myth I spend more money on the lottery the higher the jackpot gets 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I play the lottery so my regular numbers aren’t missed 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The chances of winning the lottery are better when the jackpot is low 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Social I buy lottery tickets at a certain place because I know them and they know me 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    If I won the lottery, I would use the money to help others as well as myself 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    The lottery is a form of social activity for me 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Playing the lottery helps me connect with other people 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 My friends and/or family play the lottery 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I play the lottery in a work-pool 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

    11

     

     

    Exhibit OL 1-3 Sample Questions (cont.)

    (Question 29—continued)

    (RANDOMIZE) Agree Strongly

    Disagree Strongly

    Miscellaneous I play the lottery because I need more money 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Winning anything in the lottery makes me feel like I’m somebody 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    With the lottery, I would win more if I played more 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I play the lottery just for the chance to win extra cash 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The lottery is like a charity raffle 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    GENERAL LOTTERY ATTITUDE Financial

    If I had more money to spend, I would play the lottery more 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I consider the lottery a type of investment 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I play the lottery when I have extra money 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Impulse vs. Planned When I play the lottery, I usually go to where I buy my ticket(s) with buying lottery tickets as the main reason for going 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    When I play the lottery, it’s usually because I happen to be there with an extra buck or two 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Buying lottery tickets is part of a routine for me 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 When I play the lottery, it is a spontaneous decision 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 When I play the lottery, it is a planned purchase 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Control (Skill vs. Luck) I have a strategy when I play the lottery 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I have to consciously stop myself from playing the lottery more 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    The lottery is fair 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Every player has an equal chance to win the lottery 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The chances of winning increase when more tickets are purchased 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    I limit what I spend on lottery games 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Certain numbers are lucky and are more likely to come up as winners 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Image/Stigma Lottery is a “vice” or a bad habit 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The lottery is a recreational activity 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I don’t feel bad spending $10 on lottery tickets 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Personal Preference/Feelings I prefer some lottery games over others 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I prefer to play lottery games with better odds 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The lottery is easy to play 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I only play what I am used to playing – not new games 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Giving $10 in lottery tickets is more valuable than another $10 gift 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Receiving $10 in lottery tickets is more valuable than another $10 gift 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

    12

     

     

    Page 1

    Lottery MET IDI’S DISCUSSION GUIDE

    Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati

    Research Objective for the Qualitative Phase:

    ‱ Identify the emotional reasons/drivers why players buy tickets and what motivates their decision

    ‱ Identify the perceived obstacles or barriers (rational and emotional) that, if removed, would potentially increase playership

    Part I: Introduction (10 minutes)

    Section Objective: Create rapport with the consumer, explain the general structure of the discussion

    ‱ Introduce self

    ‱ We are interested in your thoughts and feelings. All the answers you will be giving me today will always be right!

    ‱ Ask for permission to ask lots of questions—they are intended to clarify. Some of the questions may seem repetitive, some may even seem silly, but please bear with me.

    ‱ Explain audiotaping, confidentiality, and back room.

    ‱ Tell me about you:

    ‱ Where are you from?

    ‱ What do you do?

    ‱ Family composition

    ‱ Verify participant understanding of the assignment.

    ‱ “Before we begin, could you tell me what you understood your assignment to be as you set about gathering pictures?”

    ‱ How many pictures did you bring?

    ‱ OK, let’s look at your pictures one at a time, you can decide the order.

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

    13

     

     

    Page 2

    Probes

    Probe as/when they come up through the whole Interview:

    ‱ What does “winning” mean rationally? Is it about the money or is it about the notion of a “prize”? Is it bigger prizes? Is it more opportunities to win?

    ‱ What does “winning” mean “emotionally”? What is the value proposition in terms of how it makes them feel to “play” vs. how it makes them feel to “win”?

    ‱ What does “luck”/”feel lucky” mean? How does it make them feel? How does this relate to the “odds”? Do they know? Do they care?

    ‱ What does “fun” mean? What do they get out of it (i.e., value proposition)?

    Part II: MET Interview (90 minutes)

    Step 1. Storytelling (for up to 6 pictures!)—30 minutes

    Section Objective: Using the pictures as a “spring board,” understand the “value proposition” playing the lottery offers consumers by identifying the different associations consumers make with the behavior of “playing the lottery” and exploring these further by identifying the “rational” thoughts and the underlying emotions linked to the thoughts.

    How does this picture express your thoughts and feelings about playing the lottery? (Use this opening prompt for EVERY picture)

    (FOR EACH PICTURE)

    #___ Description:

    Story:

    Thinking about what this picture means in terms of your thoughts and feelings about “playing the lottery,” what is the title or theme of this picture (in a word or two)?

    Title/Label?

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

    14

     

     

    Page 3

    Step 2. Missed Images—5 minutes

    Section Objective: Provide the consumer the opportunity to express any additional thought or feeling regarding playing the lottery and for which a picture is not available.

    Prompt: Were there any issues or ideas for which you were unable to find a visual image? Or, were you looking for a picture that you couldn’t find?

    If yes, ask to describe the issue or what the image would have had.

    Step 3. Kelly Grid/Laddering Constructs—10 minutes

    Section Objective: From the consumer’s perspective, identify the different constructs or themes for the associations (how they group their thoughts/feelings about playing the lottery) as well as what are the “end points” or “poles” (e.g., good/not good, winning/losing, lucky/unlucky, etc.)

    Do this process two to three times. Select three pictures randomly.

    Prompt: How are any two similar and yet different from the third as they relate to how you think and feel about “playing the lottery”?

    (1) Triad Picture #’s ___, ___

    Picture #____(This one is different? How/why?)

    (2) Triad Picture #’s ___, ___

    Picture #____(This one is different? How/why?)

    (3) Triad Picture #’s ___, ___

    Picture #____(This one is different? How/why?)

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

    15

     

     

    Page 4

    Step 4. Most important or representative picture/Photo Probe—10 minutes

    Section Objective: Elicit any additional information about the topic and assess how consumers relate to the situation.

    Ask participant to select the most representative image.

    Introduction: ”Let’s think differently about this picture.”

    Image #___ Description________________________

    Prompt A: If you could widen the frame of the picture, what might enter the picture that might help me understand your thoughts and feelings about “playing the lottery”?

    Prompt B: Thinking still of “paying the lottery,” if you were to place yourself in the picture where would you be?

    What would you be doing?

    What would you be doing or thinking or saying?

    Prompt C: If you could invite someone or something to join you in this picture that would help me understand your thoughts and feelings about “playing the lottery” who or what would it be?

    How would it react to you? What would it be doing? What would it notice about you? How would it react to you? What would it say to you? What would you be thinking? What would you be feeling?

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

    12

     

     

    Page 5

    Step 5: Hierarchies—20 minutes

    Section Objective: Understand the different emotions and values associated with playing the lottery and how they ultimately relate to the consumer’s ego/self-esteem

    You have talked about several things regarding your thoughts and feelings about “playing the lottery.” What would you say are the 5 most important things to you? (write them on a piece of paper & show respondent). As participant to rank order them from 1 to end

    What’s important to you about each? ‘What does this do for you?’ / ‘For what purpose’ / ‘So that: until they start repeating then ask: ‘How do you know
 (insert the highest level response)?’

    Step 6. Digital Imaging/Collage – Get Images Out—10 minutes

    Section Objective: Allow the consumer to provide closure to the emotions discussed.

    Prompt: Please reflect upon the important ideas you have expressed today. Thinking about “playing the lottery,” I’d like for you to create a single collage, with these X images, that summarizes your thinking and feeling about “playing the lottery” by arranging them on this paper. Arrange the pictures so they tell your story. Have them ‘title’ their story and write the ‘title’ on the paper.

    Once finished, tell me the story…

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

    17

     

     

    Page 6

    Part III: Understanding the Decision Making Process (20 minutes)

    The trigger
 (quickly, as the driving forces would have been discussed “ad nauseam” through the metaphor elicitation process)

    ‱ Thinking about the lottery
 is this about entertainment/recreation?, gambling? Does it make a difference? Why?

    ‱ How do you decide you are going to play?

    o Is it part of a routine? Do you have a set budget? o What triggers (functional) you going to get a ticket? Probes:

    ‱ How much does the “pay-out”/jackpot influence whether you play or not? How much does it influence how much you are going to play?

    ‱ Extra cash? ‱ Chances/odds? ‱ Word-of-mouth/hears someone won?

    The Place
 ‱ Where do you typically purchase your tickets? Why?

    ‱ How do you decide where to go? (PROBE: are some places “luckier” than others? Do you seek those where people have won?)

    ‱ Do you interact with the clerk? If so
 what do you talk about? Do you ask for advice of what to play?

    The Games
 Speaking of what to play


    ‱ How do you know which games are available? How much does advertising help with that?

    ‱ What are the different games you play? Just one? How many? Why?

    ‱ How do you decide which one to play? Based on what? (PROBE for the amount, the type, do they think a new game has winners”front-loaded”?)

    ‱ Are there games you do not play? Why? (PROBE for game complexity: if a game is believed to be complicated or simply do not know the game well
 do they play or not?)

    ‱ How do you decide how much you are going to spend? Based on what? (PROBE for size of prize/jackpot, part of a routine, etc.)

    Business Research Methods, 13e/Schindler

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

    18

     

     

    Page 7

    (FOR EVERYONE, BUT ESPECIALLY FOR RARE/NON PLAYERS)

    ‱ What would it take for you to play more often? You would play more often if


    ïżœ PROBE for each ‱ Meaning? ‱ What do you think would need to happen to____? ‱ How would you know that you got it? ‱ What if the opposite is true?

    (ONLY WHEN APPLICABLE) “What if” scenarios

    For each scenario: o What do you think of this information? o Does it change anything for you? Why? o What would be the best way for you to get this information?

    Possible Scenarios Rebuttal

    Odds are bad Odds are good Money is supposed for education but it does not

    $648 million was given to schools in Ohio in 2004 Profits support public education

    No one wins 11 million winners in March 2005 $111 million were paid in March 2005 $ 1.2 billion distributed in 2004

    NOTE: OTHER SCENARIOS MAY BE ADDED WITH OHIO LOTTERY’S INPUT.

    Part IV: Wrap-up

    Business Research Methods, 13e/Schindler

    Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Discuss Data Analytics And Complete Google Analytics Tutorial

To keep the momentum going, I’d like you to complete two more group discussions at our meetings scheduled for this week. You can review these discussion topics in the attachment below. It is required that you respond to both of these topics as well.
As you discuss these topics, be sure you understand the following concepts related to data analytics:working with data,tracking and collecting data,key elements of web analytics, segmentation in web analytics
Also for this week, please complete the excellent Google Analytics for beginners tutorial that is available free online. I’m providing step-by-step access instructions for the tutorial in the attachments below (see How to Access Google Analytics for Beginners Tutorial).
To get some hands-on practice from what you learned in the tutorial, activate the Google Analytics demo account when you are done.

Discussion Topics:

Topic 3

There are three key elements to be considered in any web analytics study like the kind MCS is doing for CompanyOne. These elements are (1) behavior, (2) outcomes, and (3) user experience. A powerful technique to gauge user behavior is segmentation. Explain the concept of segmentation in relation to web analytics. Some common ways of segmenting your site visitors are by new users, returning users, paid search traffic, nonpaid search traffic, direct traffic, referral source, landing page, browser, and mobile traffic, among hundreds of possible options. Recommend any five ways of segmentation to CompanyOne, including some that are not listed here, and discuss the relative merits of each.

Topic 4

In Google Analytics (GA), a funnel is a navigation path (series of web pages) that you expect CompanyOne’s online customers to follow in order to achieve the business’s goals for their website. A funnel is made up of a goal page (or pages) and one or more funnel pages (also known as the funnel steps). CompanyOne needs to choose either the Goal Flow Report or the Funnel Visualization Report in Google Analytics. They come to you for advice. What questions will you ask in order to arrive at your recommendation for CompanyOne? Explain your reasoning.

————————————————————————————————–

The past few weeks have flown by. You have just completed the GA tutorial when you receive a memo from Ying (attached) marked CONFIDENTIAL. You scan the memo to find a list of client questions that have been assigned to you. You are expected to use Google Analytics to answer the 10 questions in the memo by the end of Week 7. The Google Analytics demo account will give you access to data from the Google Merchandise Store, which in this project represents CompanyOne’s data.
Review these instructions for How to Activate the Google Analytics Demo Account.
Submit your answers to each of the ten questions in the dropbox located in the final step of this project. Use this data analysis template to record your answers and their accompanying screenshots.

Course Resource

Memo from Ying

Corporate logo for Maryland Creative Solutions. A lightbulb with colors of state flag inside.

Sensitive information. Do not share.

MEMO

Subject: Confidential Memo—CompanyOne From: Ying Bao

Directions: Please review and answer the following questions, which have been assigned to you in the CompanyOne case. You will need to capture screenshots to complete these questions; if necessary, review these instructions on capturing screenshots. Question 1 Find the number of active users (1-day, 7-day, 14-day, and 28-day) for December 2018. Calculate the daily average number of active users for each of the four time periods. For example, the daily average for the 28-day period will be the number of active users reported by Google Analytics divided by 28. Based on your calculations, what conclusions can you derive? (Note: Active users refers to the number of users who visited the CompanyOne website within the last 1, 7, 14 or 28 days looking back from the last day of the period, which is December 31, 2018.) The metrics in the report are relative to the last day in the date range you are using for the report. Thus, your date range is December 1 to December 31:

· 1-day active users—the number of unique users who initiated sessions on your site or app on December 31 (the last day of your date range).

· 7-day active users—the number of unique users who initiated sessions on your site or app from December 25 through December 31 (the last 7 days of your date range).

· 14-day active users—the number of unique users who initiated sessions on your site or app from December 18 through December 31 (the last 14 days of your date range).

· 28-day active users—the number of unique users who initiated sessions on your site or app from December 4 through December 31 (the entire 28 days of your date range).

Question 2 Plot graphs of 1-day active users for the 31 days in December 2017 and in December 2018. Compare the number of active users for both periods from the two plots. What do you conclude about the change in marketing effectiveness, if any, from December 2017 to December 2018? Please provide a screenshot to support your analysis.

Question 3 Plot a graph of the bounce rate for the 31 days in December 2018 and compare it with the same time period in December 2017. What do you conclude? Please provide screenshots to support your analysis.. Question 4 If you focus on the demographics of younger users (18–24 and 25–34), what do you observe? Has the number of younger users as a proportion of total users changed from 2017 to 2018? (Note: January 1 and December 31 are the start and end dates for a whole year comparison.) How about changes in the proportions of older users during the same time period? Please provide screenshots to support your answer.

Question 5 CompanyOne’s objective was to attract a larger proportion of female visitors (displayed as a percentage in the pie chart) to the online store in 2018 as compared to 2017. Was that objective met? Please provide a screenshot to support your answer.

Question 6 CompanyOne needs to analyze gender differences in more depth, especially in the new user segment. Did CompanyOne attract more or fewer new users in 2018 as compared with 2017, irrespective of gender? What about new male users? What about new female users? Please provide screenshots to support your answer.

Question 7 As you have confirmed, CompanyOne was not successful in attracting a larger number of new female visitors to its website in 2018 as compared with the previous year. When parsing the category of new female users, by age group, was CompanyOne more successful in certain age group(s) of female users in 2018 as compared with 2017? Please provide a screenshot to support your answer. Question 8 CompanyOne wishes to target high-value users in future marketing campaigns. These are user groups with the highest e-commerce conversion rate or average order value. Which age group generated the highest revenue for CompanyOne in 2018 in dollars? How much was the revenue from this age group? Which age group generated the least revenue? Which age group had the highest average order value? Which age group had the highest e-commerce conversion rate? Based on these observations, which age group or groups should be the focus of CompanyOne’s marketing efforts during 2019? In other words, which age group is likely to provide the most bang for the buck? Provide a screenshot to support your answer.

Question 9 CompanyOne wishes to understand its site visitors better in order to fine-tune its future marketing efforts. Understanding audience composition in terms of gender, age, and interests will allow CompanyOne to develop the right creative content and decide the media buys to make.

Google Analytics has the following ten default affinity categories:

· shoppers / value shoppers

· lifestyles and hobbies / business professionals

· sports and fitness / health and fitness buffs

· technology / technophiles

· banking and finance / avid investors

· travel / travel buffs

· travel / business travelers

· media and entertainment / movie lovers

· lifestyles and hobbies / art and theater aficionados

· media and entertainment / music lovers

Identify the top three affinity categories for CompanyOne among males and among females for 2018 in terms of the revenue from each affinity category. Please provide a screenshot to support your answer.

Question 10 The two groups every online business like CompanyOne cares about are users who convert (purchase a product) and users who don’t. Understanding the users who convert (converters) will help CompanyOne refine the successful aspects of their marketing and show them where they can improve their efforts to reach users who demonstrate untapped potential (non-converters). Developing insights into why certain users aren’t converting lets them address the weak spots in how they approach these users.

For the purpose of this analysis, CompanyOne wishes to focus on the back-to-school shopping season (July 15, 2018 to September 15, 2018). CompanyOne wishes to obtain statistics of users, sessions, page views, pages per session, average session duration, and bounce rate for these two segments (converters and non-converters). Provide screenshots to support your analysis.

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

SWOT Analysis 1 Page 2 Slides

SWOT Analysis

Strengths Modified atmospheric packaging, longer shelf life Efficient distribution Strong core products Weaknesses Online presence Privately owned Small work force
Opportunities CFI is kosher certified Par-baked products Sponsorships Threats Private label increase Larger competition Government restrictions Long-term healthy trend

 

No fan base or following on Social Media

Facebook had 896 likes in total

Twitter had thirteen tweets and four followers

Government regulation and taxes on ingredients like sugar

Strong core products – convenience stores sell a lot of baked goods like

Small work force – 450 employees which is low compared to other leading competitors

Private label 15.3% – 17.4% (7-eleven and grocery stores)

Tiffany Hannoun () – “…our product portfolio has most of the core items that are ranked in the tope ten in sales for convenience stores.” 108

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

OnePlus Case Analysis 800 Words

After you read the article(I have posted the article),  answer these questions in a Word Document. Please double-space your text and use Times New Roman 12 point font. This should be 3-4 pages. If you cite the book, simply put (Lamb, Hair, & McDaniel, pg. XX) after the quote/paraphrase, and you don’t need a source cited page. Please do include a source cited page for any other sources you use.

  1. What were the main factors accounting for the early success of  OnePlus? Will these factors still be relevant as OnePlus moves into the mainstream/mass market?
  2. Which persona(s) from Exhibit 8 do you think form the most likely segment(s) to target for OnePlus’ expansion?
  3. Given your choice of target persona(s), what positioning would you recommend? What should “Never Settle” stand for in the future for this target persona(s)/segment(s)?
  4. For distribution channels and partners, should OnePlus stay online only or expand through physical retailers?
  5. Assume you have a marketing communications budget of $5 million.  Looking at Exhibit 11, recommend a communications plan. Which media channels should OnePlus emphasize?

    KEL981 December 9, 2016

    ©2016 by the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. This case was prepared by Professor Mohanbir Sawhney and Pallavi Goodman. Cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 800-545-7685 (or 617-783-7600 outside the United States or Canada) or e-mail [email protected]. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the permission of Kellogg Case Publishing.

    M O H A N B I R S A W H N E Y A N D P A L L A V I G O O D M A N

    OnePlus: Crossing the Chasm in the Smartphone Market

    In February 2016, OnePlus co-founders Pete Lau and Carl Pei were considering how the firm could build on its early success to become a mainstream player in the global smartphone market. During the three years it had been operating, OnePlus had grown rapidly in the U.S., European, and Indian markets. Its beautifully designed and aggressively priced phones had been embraced by technology-savvy customers. The company now needed to broaden its appeal to mainstream customers to grow and scale its business.

    Lau and Pei knew that OnePlus faced a difficult task in finding a way to the mainstream customer’s heart—and wallet. Specifically, they needed to address three challenges facing their company: First, how could OnePlus sustain competitive differentiation as its advantage on price and performance narrowed over time? Second, how could OnePlus “cross the chasm”1 that separated its technology-savvy early adopters from more mainstream customers? Third, how could OnePlus transition from its social-media intensive “guerrilla” marketing strategy to a more mainstream marketing strategy, given its limited financial resources? Forming a growth strategy that met these three challenges would be essential for the continued success of OnePlus in the brutally competitive smartphone market.

    1 The metaphor of crossing the chasm comes from Geoffrey Moore’s influential book Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers (New York: HarperBusiness, 1991). Moore argued that there is a chasm between the early adopters of a technology product (the technology enthusiasts and visionaries) and the early majority (the pragmatists) because these two groups have very different expectations. To grow beyond early adopters, technology companies need to adapt their product and marketing strategy.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    2

    O n e P l u s KEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Company Background OnePlus, based in Shenzhen, China, was founded in December 2013 by Pete Lau and Carl Pei.

    Lau had previously worked as vice president at Oppo Mobile, which shared common investors with OnePlus. Even though the smartphone market was crowded, the founders saw an opportunity for a new entrant. They believed most smartphones had flaws, including bloatware, cheap plastic hardware, unattractive designs, and high prices. According to co-founder Carl Pei, “Available devices were just not good enough. People are only focused on adding features, not making good products.”2

    From the outset, the company was clear about its intentions: making high-end, user-friendly devices that delivered a better experience at a lower price than any other device in the market. According to Lau, “We wanted to produce a phone that has good build, nice software, and trustworthy quality—a phone that ‘never settles.’”3 At Oppo, Lau had been working on a Blu-ray DVD for the global market but realized it was a niche product. “Smartphones, on the other hand, were a good entry point, especially with the rapid development of the Internet and e-commerce. It was with such an idea and opportunity that we founded OnePlus.”4

    OnePlus launched its first smartphone, called OnePlus One, in April 2014 and quickly found success in India, Europe, and the United States. (The OnePlus One was released in India in December 2014 exclusively though Amazon.) By October 2014, the OnePlus One was available in 34 countries worldwide, and the company had recorded revenues of $300 million.

    From the beginning, OnePlus’s approach to the market was different from that of other homegrown Chinese smartphone companies. It projected itself as a multicultural company with a goal to build a global brand with a global team. OnePlus did not want to be known as another low- cost Chinese manufacturer selling to emerging markets. Instead, it wanted to become known for its sleek design and high-quality specs, selling directly to customers worldwide. In sharp contrast to other Chinese smartphone manufacturers, 85 percent of OnePlus’s sales came from outside China.

    The Global Smartphone Industry in 2015 In the fourth quarter of 2015, sales of smartphones to end users around the world totaled 403

    million units, a 9.7 percent increase over the same period in 2014, according to Gartner. Inc.5 Unit sales reached 1.4 billion units in 2015, an increase of about 10 percent from 2014 (see Exhibit 1). Sales were expected to remain almost flat in 2016, however, signaling the maturation of the worldwide smartphone market. The most influential players in the market were Apple, Samsung, and Google. Google’s Android operating system dominated the smartphone market with 80 percent market share, while Apple’s iOS captured 17 percent of the market at the end of 2015.6 Windows

    2 Carl Pei, in interview with the authors, February 2016. 3 Pete Lau, in interview with the authors, February 2016. 4 Ibid. 5 “Gartner Says Worldwide Smartphone Sales Grew 9.7% in Fourth Quarter of 2015,” Solid State Technology,

    http://electroiq.com/blog/2016/02/gartner-says-worldwide-smartphone-sales-grew-9-7-in-fourth-quarter-of-2015 (accessed June 9, 2016).

    6 Joe Rossignol, “iOS and Android Capture Combined 98.4% Share of Smartphone Market,” MacRumors, February 18, 2016, http://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/18/ios-android-market-share-q4-15-gartner.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    3

    O n e P l u sKEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Phone saw a decline in share, and BlackBerry continued its global decline. Samsung was the global volume leader in smartphones but Apple continued to dominate the premium smartphone market with its flagship devices, the iPhone 6 and 6S.

    Emerging economies saw rapid growth in the market for affordable smartphones, with volume growth of 18 percent, compared to 8.2 percent in established markets. In emerging economies, the smartphone industry was moving rapidly to e-commerce through online marketplaces such as Flipkart and Snapdeal in India, in addition to direct sales by smartphone manufacturers in China. With the cooling of the previously explosive Chinese market, Chinese manufacturers such as Xiaomi and Huawei were sharpening their focus on international markets. India had emerged as the market with the most growth potential, as smartphone penetration in India was still low, at about 26 percent, at the end of 2015, compared with 51 percent in China.7

    The smartphone market in 2015 was characterized by the following trends:

    ‱ Bigger screens. Sales of smartphones with big screens (larger than 5 inches) grew by over 180 percent in 2014 and the trend continued into 2015. The share of these larger devices grew from one-third of the global smartphone market to almost half by the first quarter of 2015.8 This trend was particularly pronounced in the Chinese market.

    ‱ The rise of 4G. The rapid decline in the price of 4G smartphones and the widespread launch of 4G networks led to the rapid growth of 4G-enabled devices. This trend was expected to accelerate in 2016, with the impending launch of Reliance Jio Infocomm’s nationwide 4G network in India and similar developments in Indonesia.

    ‱ Cheaper handsets. Chinese smartphone manufacturers were leading the charge for cheaper handsets. As a way to grab early market share, these manufacturers lowered the price of their smartphones without making significant compromises in performance specifications, undercutting established brands Apple and Samsung. By mid-2016, experts predicted, a good-quality 4G smartphone handset would be available for „4,000 (about $60).

    OnePlus Product Portfolio

    OnePlus One OnePlus unveiled its first product, the OnePlus One, in April 2014 and released it internationally

    in June 2014 (Exhibit 2). The OnePlus One came pre-installed with a modified version of the Android operating system called Cyanogen. The phone featured a high-quality build, a fast processor, an excellent display, and a very attractive price. Promoted as a “flagship killer,” it was priced at $299 for the 16GB version and $349 for the 64GB version. Those prices were significantly lower than Google’s Nexus 5 and about half of comparable phones, such as the Samsung Galaxy S6.

    7 “Mobile Phone Penetration in Asia-Pacific from 2010 to 2015,” http://www.statista.com/statistics/201256/forecast-of- mobile-phone-penetration-in-asia-pacific (accessed June 27, 2016).

    8 GfK Trends and Forecasting, “Four Key Trends in the Global Smartphone Market,” September 2015, http://www.gdsinternational.com/events/ngretail/eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/28/2015/09/NGR-EU-12-GFK- Four_key_trends_in_the_global_smartphone_market.pdf.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    4

    O n e P l u s KEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    The OnePlus One was sold exclusively on the OnePlus website, marking a departure from the typical industry practice of selling through wireless carriers. Further, prospective customers had to obtain an invitation to purchase the phone. These invites were distributed through online contests and referrals from existing OnePlus customers. The invite system created tremendous buzz—and some controversy—because customers who wanted to buy the phone could not simply go online and purchase one. They had to get an invite from someone they knew, or even buy an invite in the secondary market, on eBay. OnePlus used the invite system for two reasons. First, the company had a limited supply of phones, so the invite system allowed it to control supply and demand for the phones. Second, the system created the perception of exclusivity and fueled publicity for the fledgling startup with a fantastic phone that was hard to get your hands on. Some potential customers and reviewers bitterly complained about the “by-invitation-only” tactic. Critics called the system everything from “maddening” and “the best smartphone you can’t buy”9 to “odd.”10 Wired magazine said it “redefined frustration with an arcane, invite-based ordering system.”11

    OnePlus 2 and OnePlus X Emboldened by the success of the OnePlus One, the company introduced its second-

    generation smartphone, the OnePlus 2, in July 2015 (Exhibit 3). The company set expectations high by continuing its provocative “flagship killer” label. The phone was priced at $389 (for the 64GB version), almost half the price of rival phones like Apple’s iPhone 6 and Samsung’s Galaxy S6. The OnePlus 2 continued its predecessor’s industry-leading specifications in several aspects, including design, hardware, battery life, and user interface. However, it fell short on a few aspects, including the display resolution and the lack of both NFC (near-field communication) and quick- charge capability.

    Although the OnePlus 2 was seen as a very capable smartphone, most analysts felt that it fell short of being a true “flagship killer.” A side-by-side comparison of the Galaxy S6 with the OnePlus 2 revealed that although the OnePlus 2 had excellent performance and was aggressively priced, the Galaxy S6 had a slimmer form, a better camera, and more storage, which made its higher price more palatable. See Exhibit 4 for a comparison of the OnePlus phones against key competitors.

    Responding to the criticisms leveled against OnePlus’s products and distribution strategy, Pei said, “We misjudged what our main market was and went mainstream too prematurely. We should have stayed loyal to our core users.”12 Still, he believed the criticism was unduly harsh. “If you want to make a great meal, you don’t throw every ingredient into it. You balance it and curate it,” he said in response to criticism that the OnePlus 2 lacked an NFC chip. “We grew the business quite well despite initial problems, but we need to find the correct positioning for our phones.”13

    9 Brandon Russell, “OnePlus One Review: The Best Smartphone You Can’t Buy,” TechnoBuffalo, July 18, 2014, http://www.technobuffalo.com/reviews/oneplus-one-review.

    10 Aloysius Low, “OnePlus One Review: A High-End Smartphone for Android Experts,” CNET, May 27, 2014, http://www.cnet.com/products/oneplus-one.

    11 Brian Barrett, “The OnePlus X Is a Steal—And That’s Why It’s So Hard to Buy,” Wired, October 30, 2015, http://www.wired.com/2015/10/oneplus-x.

    12 Carl Pei, in interview with the authors, February 2016. 13 Ibid.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    5

    O n e P l u sKEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    In October 2015, OnePlus launched its third phone, the OnePlus X (Exhibit 5). The OnePlus X featured an elegant design and high-quality hardware, but it sacrificed performance to achieve the very affordable price of $249. The OnePlus X came with a smooth glass back that gave it a sophisticated look reminiscent of the iPhone. The performance trade-offs came in the form of a smaller battery, lack of fingerprint sensor (which had been standard with the OnePlus 2), and swappable back covers (which allowed users to change the look of their phones but could damage the non-removable battery it was supposed to protect). The OnePlus X also lacked the newer USB Type-C connector and instead came with the older micro USB port. The OnePlus X, like the OnePlus 2, did not feature NFC, a gripe that critics were quick to remark upon.

    OnePlus released a stylish variety of back covers for the OnePlus X, including rosewood, bamboo, and Kevlar. The phone also came in a limited edition ceramic-back version priced at €369 (US$413) and sold only in Europe and India. According to OnePlus, producing the ceramic back involved a laborious 25-day manufacturing process, the first of its kind for a smartphone. The OnePlus X came preloaded with OnePlus’s Oxygen OS built on the Android Lollipop OS, 16GB storage, and was powered by Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 801 quad-core processor.

    As with other phones OnePlus had released, buyers needed an invite to purchase the phone. Despite criticism of this system, OnePlus insisted that it was necessary for it to control costs, manage inventory, and avoid issues related to oversupply and surplus phones.

    Competitors After releasing the OnePlus One, the company conducted a comprehensive customer survey

    in January 2015 to understand its competition. This survey revealed that most OnePlus customers (84 percent) considered another Android device before purchasing a OnePlus phone. Their brand choices were mostly Google Nexus, Samsung, HTC, and LG, although 16 percent of customers also expressed interest in the Apple iPhone. Only a small number of customers were interested in a device from other Chinese manufacturers, such as Xiaomi (3 percent) and Huawei (1 percent), which was unsurprising to OnePlus; the Chinese manufacturers were focused largely on the domestic market, whereas OnePlus customers were mostly non-Chinese.

    Google Google was a multinational technology company, headquartered in Mountain View, California.

    Google dominated service in search, cloud computing, and software but also had diversified into consumer electronic products such as personal computers (Chromebooks), tablet computers, and smartphones (Nexus). In the OnePlus survey, 29 percent of OnePlus’s customers reported that they considered the Google Nexus 5 phone. However, the Nexus 5 was both more expensive and less capable than the aggressively priced OnePlus One. The Nexus 5 ran on the Snapdragon 800 processor, which was less powerful than the Snapdragon 801 that ran the OnePlus One. In addition, the Nexus 5’s 8MP camera was decidedly inferior to the OnePlus One’s 13MP camera. All in all, the OnePlus One was a superior phone to the Nexus 5 on almost every specification, except perhaps for the more advanced version of the Android operating system in the Nexus 5.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    6

    O n e P l u s KEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Apple Apple continued to stand apart from the competition with its sleekly designed, premium-

    priced, and proprietary iPhone products. Its latest flagship products, the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6S, were priced well above competing phones and inspired fierce loyalty among customers for their ease of use and excellent user experience. Apple’s obsessive focus on design, attention to detail, and outstanding customer service made it the standard bearer in design and user experience. In the eyes of OnePlus’s founders, Apple was the smartphone company to emulate, as they felt Apple was the only smartphone maker that was truly passionate about design.14

    Samsung Samsung was a multinational conglomerate with a long history of manufacturing in

    semiconductors, chips, hard drives, and lithium-ion batteries. In recent years, Samsung had ventured into the device business and had found great success with its Galaxy line of smartphones and tablet computers. Fueled largely by the popularity of these devices, Samsung had become the largest manufacturer of mobile phones by volume. Recently, however, Samsung had stumbled with its Galaxy S5, which featured a plastic body and poor build quality. Samsung had regained some of its lost market share with the Galaxy S6 and the Galaxy S6 Edge, its latest generation of flagship phones that won praise for much improved build quality, camera performance, and an all-metal body.

    Xiaomi Xiaomi was a Beijing-based Chinese consumer electronics company that was founded in

    2010. It designed and sold smartphones, mobile apps, and other consumer electronics products. It disclosed revenues of $12 billion in 2014. Its flagship phone was the Mi5, released in February 2016. Like the OnePlus, the Mi5 offered flagship features at a very low price. It boasted the Snapdragon 820 processor from Qualcomm, a 16MP camera, a 4MP selfie cam, and a 3,000 mAh battery. Like the OnePlus 2, the Mi5 came with a glass back; the 128GB Mi5 Pro came with a ceramic back. All versions of the Mi5 featured NFC support and a fingerprint sensor that doubled as the home button. These features came at low prices of $305 (32GB), $352 (64GB), and $413 (128GB). Xiaomi was not a core competitor for OnePlus in the United States and Europe, but it did compete with OnePlus in India.

    Oppo Electronics Oppo Electronics Corp. was a Chinese manufacturer founded in 2004 whose major products

    included Blu-ray players, smartphones, and other electronic devices, such as headphones and amplifiers. The company became well-known as the builder of the world’s thinnest smartphones, including the Finder and the R5, which was launched in November 2014. It went on to launch the R7 and the R7 Plus in 2015 and outsold Apple in China during the third and fourth quarters of that year. In February 2016, at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, the company showed off its

    14 Ibid.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    7

    O n e P l u sKEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    impressive Super VOOC Flash Charge, quick-charging battery technology that could fully charge an empty 2,500 mAh battery in 15 minutes. It was a proprietary technology that Oppo intended to put in commercial products in the near future. Like Xiaomi, Oppo mostly competed with OnePlus in Asia, not in the United States or Europe.

    Huawei Huawei, a Chinese telecommunications company, was founded in 1987 by a former engineer as

    a manufacturer of phone switches. Like OnePlus, it was based in Shenzhen. Over the course of two decades, Huawei had become a multinational conglomerate employing more than 170,000 people in several countries. It manufactured smartphones, tablet PCs, and smartwatches, in addition to a number of other products such as wireless modems and routers, wireless gateways, set-top boxes, and video products. In April 2015, Huawei launched two Android smartphones, the P8 and P8 Max. Huawei also co-developed, with Google, the Nexus 6P, which was manufactured by Huawei and marketed by Google. Huawei was at the forefront in the rise of Chinese smartphone brands in 2015, shipping a total of 100 million units.

    OnePlus’s Early Strategy The OnePlus phones appealed to technology-savvy customers who loved the company’s

    elegant, high-quality products and the edginess of its promotional tactics. Customers were willing to overlook the limited availability and eccentric marketing for the beauty of the hardware and the inspiring slogan of “Never Settle.” OnePlus believed it could build a global brand by relying on customers to serve as brand advocates. What set the company apart was its determination to place customers at the center of its decisions and activities, from product design to product marketing. As Lau said, “What’s most important to us is our customers—it is customers’ comments, and listening to them, making the phone easier to use and improving ourselves through customer interaction.”15

    OnePlus aimed to stand out in a crowd of smartphones by branding itself as a user-focused company. Lau and Pei told staff that they wanted users to grow with them, to share experiences and to be a part of the company. The company adopted the slogan “We create together,” and with it found a way into the global customer’s heart. Even though it was based in Shenzhen, OnePlus clearly wanted to build an international brand. With employees from 19 different countries, the company prided itself on its “open culture” and the desire not to be labeled by any specific country.

    The company relied heavily on social media to generate awareness and to drive demand. The company’s social media strategy focused on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit, all of which redirected traffic to OnePlus’s website. Traffic directed from OnePlus’s social media handily surpassed that of its nearest competitors. The social media activity resulted in the OnePlus website receiving 25.6 million16 visits in December 2014 from a worldwide audience, just a year after the website was launched. OnePlus followed up the social media marketing with an advertising campaign

    15 David Rowan, “OnePlus CEO: How To Take an Invite-Only Chinese Brand Global,” Wired, August 2015, http://www.wired.co.uk/article/one-plus-ceo-interview-pete-lau.

    16 Ariel Rosenstein, “How the OnePlus’ Marketing Strategy Made It the Most Desirable Phone in the World,” The Next Web, March 17, 2015, http://thenextweb.com/market-intelligence/2015/03/17/how-oneplus-ones-marketing-made-it- the-most-desirable-phone-in-the-world.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    8

    O n e P l u s KEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    that poked fun at its competitors (Exhibit 6). Tech-oriented sites also helped sustain the buzz by directing their audience to the company’s website. By 2016, OnePlus’s online community had more than 828,000 members who had posted more than 14 million messages since the community was formed.

    OnePlus employed some unconventional tactics to garner awareness. For example, it followed up its bold statements about the OnePlus One being a flagship killer with a provocative first campaign called “Smash the Past” in which fans were asked to destroy their smartphones from competitors for a chance to win the OnePlus One phone. OnePlus was looking to give away 100 phones for $1 each but reportedly received 140,000 entries within a week.17 The campaign was controversial but OnePlus came away having generated the desired publicity with the campaign drawing attention from fans and critics alike.

    Another controversial campaign, dubbed “Ladies First,” also drew negative reaction. Women were asked to draw the OnePlus logo on their bodies and submit pictures online. Pei told Advertising Age magazine in an interview that the campaign was originally envisioned as a way to get more women involved in tech but backfired. Many fans called it “degrading” and OnePlus pulled it within four hours of its launch.18

    OnePlus ran contests and giveaways for which the prize was an invitation to purchase the OnePlus One phone. In the spring of 2014, the company ran three consecutive giveaways within 12 days. The giveaways attracted more than one million entries, more than 40,000 new Facebook fans and Twitter followers, more than 400,000 unique website visits, and 31,000 forum comments.

    For the OnePlus 2, the company hosted pop-up stands in nine cities globally to display the phones; the New York pop-up drew a queue of several hundred people, a phenomenon usually reserved for Apple product launches. By the time the company neared the launch of the OnePlus 2, customer anticipation had reached a fever pitch. Some 1.6 million people had requested invites to buy the phone. By October 2015, that number had grown to 5 million sign-ups.19 At an event in New York’s Times Square prior to the phone’s launch, 600 people queued up just to catch a glimpse of the phone. Normally, such fervor was reserved for an Apple launch, not for a small startup from China that had only launched one other device in its history.

    Growth and Scaling—Strategic Challenges OnePlus knew that the “flagship killer” positioning was not sustainable because it would be

    difficult to keep creating breakthrough product features. So the company had to think hard about possible ways in which it could create sustainable differentiation. Further, the company needed to broaden its appeal and reach more customers. Pei noted, “We are trying to reach a broader audience, maybe not the mass market, but maybe people who care more about the design of a product.”20

    17 Angela Doland, “OnePlus: The Startup That Actually Convinced People To Smash Their iPhones,” Advertising Age, August 10, 2015, http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/oneplus-convinced-people-smash-iphones/299875.

    18 Ibid. 19 Rob Triggs, “OnePlus 2 Reservation List To Close As Invites Ramp Up,” Android Authority, October 16, 2015,

    http://www.androidauthority.com/oneplus-2-reservation-list-to-shut-down-649567. 20 Barrett, “The OnePlus X Is a Steal.”

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    9

    O n e P l u sKEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    The strategic approach to broaden the market opportunity for OnePlus would require addressing three questions:

    1. What customer segments should OnePlus address beyond its current customer base?

    2. How should OnePlus adapt its value proposition and positioning strategy to appeal to the broader market?

    3. How should the company go to market in terms of distribution and marketing communication?

    Target Audience and Persona In its early days, OnePlus’s core target was technology enthusiasts from two age groups:

    customers ages 14 to 25 years (teenage to early adults) and those ages 26 to 35 years (adults). The first group used the phone to socialize with friends, listen to music, and engage in social media activities (Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram). The second group comprised the larger portion of OnePlus’s target market and had a greater ability to buy the phone and maximize its potential. This group of customers used the phone for everyday activities such as phone calls, Internet access, GPS, and photography and video. In a survey conducted by OnePlus in 2015, half of the respondents said they purchased the OnePlus One because of its impressive features (see Exhibit 7). Other factors influencing their decision were an attractive price (33 percent) and design (6 percent). Accessories were not drawing customers in, though; more than half (58 percent) did not purchase any from the OnePlus website. OnePlus users felt that the brand stood for quality and excitement and an innovative and impactful spirit but that it fell somewhat short of being trustworthy, transparent, and customer-centric.

    OnePlus’s customer research revealed that the majority of its customers were male (90 percent) and highly educated, with 76 percent holding a college degree or higher. They had grown up around computers, smartphones, and the Internet and were mostly interested in technology, movies and TV, music, and gaming. They were regular online shoppers, with 87 percent making an online purchase at least monthly. Most of them were students or worked in white-collar positions in business, engineering, or technology/science/math-related fields and enjoyed talking about and playing with new hardware. Significantly, they read about phones all the time, not just when it was time to get a new one, and were picky about what they wanted. They had a good understanding of smartphone features, gathered from sites such as Android Authority, Gizmodo, The Verge, and Reddit. They wanted the latest technology and good service, but were price sensitive and compared vendors before making their purchase decisions. They were willing to sacrifice elegant design in favor of better specifications (e.g., thicker/bigger phone for bigger battery and protruding camera for better photos). However, even though they read many technology blogs and online magazines, they didn’t always understand true engineering. Their perceptions were deeply influenced by expert opinions and reviews.

    OnePlus now faced the task of identifying adjacent customer segments that would find its smartphones attractive and would allow it to broaden its appeal. The company believed that traditional methods of segmenting customers by demographics (age, gender, region, etc.) were outdated. Rather, it felt that customers should be segmented by behaviors and motivations. OnePlus believed that its ideal customer persona was someone who preferred substance over glitzy features and who aspired for a better life. This persona also wanted to break free from the

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    1 0

    O n e P l u s KEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    shackles of tradition and to pursue a more authentic lifestyle that had less to do with outward looks and more to do with inner substance and beauty.

    To understand the target personas better, OnePlus surveyed 2,000 smartphone customers from the United States. This survey yielded five customer personas that could be potential targets for OnePlus. To validate each persona, OnePlus followed up the quantitative survey with in-depth interviews. The resulting persona profiles are as follows:

    Joe, the Tech Enthusiast

    Joe is a young professional in his late twenties who graduated five years ago. He is genuinely inspired by technology and typically embraced it earlier than his peers. Always the first one in his social group with the latest smartphone, he sees his smartphone as an expression of his personality as well as a reflection of his hyper-connected, always-on lifestyle. Joe is socially forward, active on social media, and reads technology newsletters and blogs such as Gizmodo, Reddit, and The Verge. He is a fan of FriendFeed but considers Facebook and Twitter relics of the past. He is always searching for the latest and greatest Android device and would consider purchasing one. He is proud of not being an Apple “fan boy” because he feels the Android ecosystem provides more innovation and better value. He cares less about a sleek design and more about getting the right specs, such as more battery power and high-quality photographs. Early tech adopters like Joe comprised about 15 percent of the market, and they were willing to pay up to $700 for a new phone.

    Amy, the Design Enthusiast

    Amy is a young woman in her late twenties with a passion for creativity. She works in publishing and is willing to pay for premium products. Amy is not geeky, but she appreciates beautiful design and ease of use when it comes to technology. She is a lover of all things Apple and considers her iPhone and iPad her most treasured technology possessions. She not only prefers visually appealing design but also a highly intuitive phone. To her, it’s important that it works, that using it is an easy experience, and that it is visually stunning. She does not really care about the processor, nor does she want to invest much time learning how to use the phone and maximizing its functionality. For her, a phone is a status symbol, reflective of her simple but classy taste and passion for aesthetics. Amy enjoys an active lifestyle and exercises regularly. She is active on social media and enjoys staying in touch with friends on Facebook. She awaits the release of Apple products with bated breath. Design enthusiasts like Amy constituted 15 percent of the market, and their average willingness to pay for a new smartphone was $600.21

    Andy, the Business Professional

    Andy is a 40-year-old business executive who works for a Fortune 500 insurance company. For him, a smartphone is a business productivity tool. He uses the phone primarily for getting work done: managing e-mail, staying in contact with business associates and clients, and being productive on the move. He likes devices that are well constructed and secure. He is not excited by apps and games because he considers it a waste of time to watch videos and play games on his phone. He is present on social networks but is not obsessed with always being connected

    21 When carrier subsidies were taken into account, the cost of an iPhone dropped to $200.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    1 1

    O n e P l u sKEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    to his Facebook or Instagram feed. He is partial to professional networks such as LinkedIn and likes reading articles posted by the people he follows on LinkedIn Pulse. Andy prefers Microsoft products and owns a Microsoft Surface tablet that he uses for work and travel. He can afford the top-of-the-line smartphone but isn’t the first one to stand in line for the latest phones. He doesn’t often use media applications such as YouTube, but he occasionally uses Skype and WebEx mobile apps. Andy does not read tech blogs but instead prefers business publications such as the Wall Street Journal and other industry-specific journals and magazines. He occasionally goes to the movies and exercises when he has the time. Business professionals like Andy constituted 30 percent of the market, and they were willing to pay $550 for a new phone.

    Anya, the Social Teenager

    Anya is a precocious 16-year-old. She is a “digital native,” meaning she has grown up around technology. She doesn’t pay for any of her devices (phones or computers) because her parents purchase them. As befitting a teenager of the digital age, mobile phones, Internet, television, movies, music, and videos play a dominant role in her life. Social networks are important; Snapchat, Instagram, YouTube, and Vine are her media of choice. She likes to read but often is distracted by other media choices such as Instagram and Facebook. She spends up to six hours a day consuming media. She frequently uses social media or watches TV or listens to music while doing her homework. Anya isn’t yet aware of e-mail applications or of what productivity is. She quickly becomes bored with her mobile phone and wants her parents to purchase the latest smartphone that she can show off to her friends. Teenagers like Anya represented 20 percent of the market, and their willingness to pay for a new phone was $400, which was what their parents were willing to spend.

    Bill, the Baby Boomer

    Bill is a 60-year-old late-career executive who is getting close to retirement. Bill is bewildered by all the newfangled smartphones and doesn’t see why the younger generation is so obsessed with them. He uses his phone for basic functions such as making phone calls—the way phones were intended to be used! Like other older parents and grandparents, he is not interested in using his phone to watch movies or videos or to play games. Technology doesn’t excite him; in fact, phrases like “technology” and “innovation” intimidate him. He wants to use the phone for simple tasks such as calling his family and friends and occasionally sending a text message. He typically uses the same phone for at least three years and considers it a hassle to purchase a new one. Bill does not care for apps and yearns for the old days of simple keyboards and feature phones. He tends to think of modern phones and their functionality as distractions from his basic needs. Bill spends a lot of time watching TV and reading magazines about golf and hunting—his two passions in life. He likes to read more about news and entertainment than about technology. The only social network he uses is Facebook. Baby Boomers like Bill represented 20 percent of the market, and their willingness to pay for a new smartphone was $400.

    See Exhibit 8 for more details and data on the target personas and Exhibit 9 for an example of a persona profile.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    1 2

    O n e P l u s KEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Value Proposition and Positioning Once OnePlus selected its target customer segments, it would also need to define a value

    proposition that would appeal to these customers without alienating its current customer base. After much discussion and analysis, the company identified three possible directions in which to elaborate on its slogan of “Never Settle,” either focusing on performance, design, or total customer experience.

    Performance

    The most important smartphone features valued by OnePlus customers were battery life, durability, value for money, storage space, and design (see Exhibit 10). One possibility was to continue the “flagship killer” positioning by innovating on cutting-edge features and offering a compelling price point. In this approach, the company could sustain differentiation by creating a few “golden features” in each version of the OnePlus phone to keep people excited. Apple had successfully leveraged this strategy and engineered “just enough” innovation on its phones to build a much-loved brand that kept people excited and coming back. OnePlus potentially could replicate this strategy for its own devices. In this strategy, “Never Settle” equaled feature/performance innovation and represented the status quo. The OnePlus 2 was a step in this direction, as it continued to offer industry-leading performance at a compelling price point. This approach would be consistent with the heritage of OnePlus and its challenge of “Never Settling” for incremental innovation.

    The challenge with the performance-based positioning was that it was an arms race that would be difficult to sustain, particularly given the fact that OnePlus would not be commanding premium prices for its phones. Even Apple and Samsung were finding it difficult to keep coming up with breakthrough features, as all leading smartphones already were extremely technologically advanced. OnePlus had already seen its feature advantage relative to competition shrink with the OnePlus 2, leading to a less-than-enthusiastic reception for the second version of its flagship phone.

    Design

    An alternative approach would be to make OnePlus the “Apple of the Android universe” by focusing on design and craftsmanship. This was a direction that OnePlus had followed with the OnePlus X, for which it had shifted its emphasis from performance to design as a vector of differentiation. Apple didn’t always lead with the latest and greatest features but continued to innovate on design to capture the consumer’s attention. OnePlus borrowed heavily from Apple’s design playbook and mentioned on its website that it went through hundreds of iterations before “finalizing the design that perfected a balance of look and feel . . . creating a seamless, fluid experience.”22 Lau said:

    For example, the screen of OnePlus One was lifted just above the chamfered edge, creating an illusion that the screen was floating on the top. It was beautiful, but I knew that it was just a tiny bit too high and I didn’t like how it looked. We decided to lower the screen by just 0.1 mm. [It was a] small yet difficult change and the customers can barely feel the

    22 OnePlus 2, https://oneplus.net/global/2/design (accessed June 10, 2016).

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    1 3

    O n e P l u sKEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    difference. But I still didn’t like it. I wasn’t happy about it until it was lowered to 0.05 mm. Sometimes it’s just the difference of less than a millimeter that creates the perfect curvature. We always pay attention to the details that no one else cares about and put great effort into it. But it is exactly these details which are easily neglected that leaves a good impression and reminds [consumers] of you.23

    The design-driven positioning would allow OnePlus to move the conversation away from pure features and functionality to a subtler emphasis on design and aesthetics. This would be easier to sustain because design innovation could take many more directions than pure performance, and it could also be extended beyond phones to accessories and lifestyle products. This approach would also be consistent with the culture of OnePlus and with Pete Lau’s passion for superb products. But the challenge with this approach was that OnePlus lacked the brand image that Apple and even Samsung had been able to create. Building a brand that stood for design excellence would take time and would be expensive. Pei and Lau realized that design-focused companies such as Bose, Apple, BMW, and Bang & Olufsen had taken many years to build their reputations. Did OnePlus have the time and the resources to compete on design?

    Total Customer Experience

    A third approach for OnePlus could be to broaden the meaning of “Never Settle” beyond the device to the entire customer experience. Lau was emphatic that the essence of OnePlus was always going to be about providing good products. He noted, “We will maintain our ‘Never Settle’ fundamentals, as we believe that the product speaks louder than words. You think about what consumers need first, then you think about how much the product is worth.”24 But OnePlus could expand the “Never Settle” slogan to stand for innovation on various dimensions of the customer experience: design, features, accessories, price, customer service and support, marketing approach, or community. In this approach, the meaning of “Never Settle” would become more of an overarching idea of innovation, not unlike the brand image of Sony in the 1980s. If OnePlus was able to say credibly that it offered the best total experience to its customers, it could become a powerful and sustainable differentiator.

    But OnePlus needed to tread carefully if it chose this positioning approach. Given the exclusive reliance on online sales, OnePlus’s experience in customer service and product demonstration lagged well behind that of leading competitors. OnePlus forums were rife with complaints about the tardiness of OnePlus’s responses and solutions to customer problems. Customer service, which was based in China, used a ticket system to address customer complaints. Unfortunately, the system was not seamless nor very responsive. Customers complained that their grievances had not been addressed for weeks and that even when they were, the problems were not resolved to the customers’ satisfaction. Many customers were bitter about the experience and vowed they would not buy another OnePlus phone until OnePlus had radically ramped up the quality of its customer support. Tech enthusiasts were willing to overlook the customer-support issues as inevitable “teething problems” associated with a startup. But mainstream customers would be less willing to accommodate the lack of quality customer service. OnePlus could not expect to be the product of choice for the average consumer without beefing up its customer support.

    23 Pete Lau, in interview with the authors, February 2016. 24 Ibid.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    1 4

    O n e P l u s KEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Marketing Strategy for Mainstream Customers OnePlus also needed to retool its marketing communication and channel strategy as it shifted

    its focus beyond early adopters. In the beginning, the company had relied almost exclusively on news features, online publications, and social media to promote its products, and it had only sold its phones directly to customers on the Internet. This marketing communication and distribution approach had served it well with early adopters, but it would not be enough to reach mainstream customers.

    Pei wondered about the marketing communication mix that would allow OnePlus to reach mainstream customers. Could the company afford to communicate only via social media? Or would it need to make a concession to the “old” way of communicating and advertise on TV and in print? If it did, how should it allocate resources across the different media channels? How could it take a “guerrilla” approach to mainstream media? Pei declared that “the U.S. will be a very important market for us this year” and that OnePlus was considering raising awareness by using more traditional marketing strategies to promote its smartphones. “So far,” he admitted, “we’ve only been good at digital and social media.”25 Pei said he realized the United States was a different market, one in which most consumers did not know they could purchase a phone online and unlocked. He said customers typically looked for cultural cues and wondered if a splashy Super Bowl ad would be a good tactic. But would his core early-majority customers accuse him of selling out and bowing to the pressure of adopting a traditional marketing approach?

    OnePlus also needed to think about new distribution channels. Although e-commerce would remain the core of its channel strategy, it would need to broaden its distribution channels. The United States was a service provider–driven market, with a large proportion of smartphone purchases being made through service providers such as AT&T and Verizon. Did that mean OnePlus would need to partner with these providers to broaden its access to customers? Would it be better off trying to get into offline retail stores such as Best Buy or online retailers such as Amazon? Electronics and specialty retailers formed the core distribution channel and accounted for 65 percent of mobile sales in 2015.26 Could OnePlus create its own pop-up stores in malls and other high-traffic spots? Customer accessibility was a problem even in the e-commerce space; the majority of online sales went through established retailers such as Amazon, which accounted for nearly half of all online mobile sales. OnePlus’s reach through its own site was only about 10 to 15 percent, leaving as much as 80 percent of the market unaddressed.

    Distribution Channels

    To reach this large unaddressed market, OnePlus was considering several alternatives for distribution channels.

    Online Retailers

    In India, OnePlus had expanded its reach through a strategic partnership with Amazon India. It could employ the same strategy in the United States. Instead of going to market through

    25 Carl Pei, in interview with the authors, February 2016. 26 Karissa Chua, “OnePlus Transitions Away from Hunger Marketing,” Euromonitor International, December 13, 2015,

    http://blog.euromonitor.com/2015/12/oneplus-transitions-away-from-hunger-marketing.html.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    1 5

    O n e P l u sKEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    retailers, OnePlus potentially could strike an exclusive deal with Amazon to sell and distribute its phones and thereby increase the addressable market. Under this option, its online strategy would be purely through Amazon and OnePlus’s own website. This strategy would be consistent with OnePlus’s heritage, and there would be no headaches and costs related to physical distribution because Amazon would carry the load. The disadvantage was that OnePlus’s bargaining power would be limited by Amazon’s superior power in the marketplace. That would translate to lower margins for OnePlus.

    Brick-and-Mortar Electronics Retailers

    One strategic choice was for OnePlus to create a 250 to 500 square foot store-within-a-store that would have point-of-purchase display products and accessories and merchandising material. OnePlus could create similar mini stores at service provider stores such as AT&T and Verizon. The advantage of having a mini store in Best Buy would be that the store-within-a-store model was already established; Best Buy already had moved strategically in this direction with Samsung and Microsoft. Best Buy also offered the advantage of massive distribution, with 1,400 stores in the United States. The downside was that OnePlus likely would get lost in the clutter of competing stores and brands. Moreover, Best Buy would not be as interested in OnePlus as a strategic partner as it was with Samsung or Microsoft since OnePlus was a small, relatively unknown startup.

    Service Providers

    Alternatively, OnePlus could opt to open mini stores within larger AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint stores. The four largest service providers together had more than 10,000 retail stores, which was almost six times the reach of Best Buy. Another advantage was that service providers were focused only on mobile phones, whereas people visited Best Buy for many reasons, not just to purchase a phone. Also, service providers were gaining share on Best Buy. With the United States being a provider-centric market, it made sense for OnePlus to pursue distribution through service provider stores, as well as through its website. The key competitors in the smartphone market, including Samsung, HTC, and LG, were all present in service provider stores, so OnePlus would be the odd man out if it did not seek a place in this channel. The company was aware that Nokia had failed in the U.S. market because it did not pursue distribution through service providers.

    The disadvantage of the service provider channel was that real estate in carrier stores was limited, and OnePlus might get only a wall display. Also, it was not clear if OnePlus could have a differentiated presence with several brands jostling for space and attention. Here, too, OnePlus’s bargaining power was limited, as it would be one of many players. In addition, it would need to incentivize sales personnel in stores to push OnePlus devices, which would result in lower margins.

    Marketing Communication

    OnePlus had a limited marketing budget, which meant it would need to make marketing communication investments very judiciously.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    1 6

    O n e P l u s KEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Traditional Media

    The first decision the company had to make was whether or not to invest in traditional media. One possible strategy in traditional media was out-of-home billboards. OnePlus could use some of its marketing budget on billboards in strategic locations in major cities. The cost of renting a standard billboard varied by city, ranging from $1,000 to $3,000 per month for a smaller city to $5,000 to $10,000 for a larger city, and even higher ($11,000 to $15,000) in cities such as Boston and San Diego. The cost of a billboard in New York could be anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000 for four weeks. A less-expensive option was a digital billboard that could be shared by different businesses and thus would cost less. In some cities, however, digital billboards actually cost more than print billboards. The billboard’s advantage was that it was a good way to introduce a brand without getting into too much detail. It also meant less clutter and a more differentiated value proposition. The slogan would also play well on a billboard (#NeverSettle). The call to action would be “Learn more at OnePlus.com.”

    Another tactic for traditional media was to make targeted media buys with online streaming providers such as Hulu, YouTube, Crackle, and Comcast Stream. OnePlus could partner with these providers for ad placements by producing 15- or 30-second ads. This tactic could be effective for younger customers who spent a lot of time consuming video content from streaming providers. However, the team would need to choose ad buys carefully—perhaps 20 to 40 of them, depending on cost. Would this be enough to drive broad awareness? OnePlus also could buy print advertising in business publications such as the Wall Street Journal to reach professional customers. Print media had a wide reach and could reach older customers quite effectively.

    Online Media

    OnePlus could build on its social media strategy by continuing its guerrilla tactics but also by augmenting earned media (exposure gained through word of mouth) and owned media (such as OnePlus’s website, company blog, and social media accounts) with spending on paid media. This last would include online display and search marketing to drive traffic to OnePlus’s website. Sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and YouTube offered advertising options that could help boost the company’s exposure. It would also mean continuing with creative promotional tactics— such as OnePlus-created documentary The Second Album, which depicted the intense atmosphere at the company offices in the weeks leading up to the One Plus 2’s launch—but using paid media to drive traffic to these promotional films.27

    The question before OnePlus was how much to allocate across each of these categories. Should it, like the average firm, devote about 30 percent of its budget to online media, or did its target segments mean that a higher percentage should be dedicated to it? Allocating spend to traditional media would mean reaching older, more traditional customer segments whereas spending on online media likely would reach younger consumers, who spend a greater amount of time on digital channels. The budget allocation would need to consider the effectiveness of the various media channels, as well as their costs. See Exhibit 11 for indicative costs of online and offline media buys.

    27 Julian Chokkattu, “OnePlus’ Feel-Good Documentary Goes Behind the Scenes of the OnePlus 2 Launch,” Digital Trends, June 3, 2016.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    1 7

    O n e P l u sKEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Conclusion OnePlus wanted to avoid being a shooting star, burning brightly one moment and crashing

    spectacularly the next. The company had to figure out how to become a sustainable multibillion- dollar company while staying true to its early-adopter customers. Lau believed he knew the recipe for sustained success: spending more time and energy on creating a better product should always be OnePlus’s priority. He also believed firmly that the company should stay true to its mission of “Never Settle” and not be afraid to take risks in its effort to remain a challenger.

    Pei believed that although OnePlus was now in a position to invest in advertising, it would stay focused on building its community through word of mouth. He was also very conscious of the need to protect the OnePlus brand difference. “People liked you because you were different and an outsider,” noted Pei. “When you start to employ more of the same strategies as the big guys, why are you different? That’s something we’re trying to deal with. In essence, we are trying to boil down the few core reasons why people are attracted to our brand and then amplify those reasons. . . . I heard that LG is spending [around] $200 million a year just in the U.S. on buying media. We have nowhere near that; if we used the same strategies as the big guys, we would drown.”28

    The challenge for the company was to retain key aspects of the culture and strategy that had powered its early success while adapting other aspects of the strategy to broaden its appeal beyond its early customers. Making this transition successfully would determine whether OnePlus would be able to cross the chasm.

    28 Jonathan Bacon, “How OnePlus Is Taking On the Mobile Giants,” Marketing Week, March 2, 2016.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    1 8

    O n e P l u s KEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Exhibit 1: Worldwide Sales of Smartphones to End Users

    * Projected

    Source: Statista 2016, IDC 2010-2015.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    1 9

    O n e P l u sKEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Exhibit 2: OnePlus One

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    2 0

    O n e P l u s KEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Exhibit 3: OnePlus 2

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    2 1

    O n e P l u sKEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Exhibit 4: Smartphone Comparison

    iPhone 6S Galaxy S6 Xiaomi OnePlus 2 OnePlus One

    Weight 143 g 138 g 129 g 175 g 162 g

    Storage 16GB, 64GB, 128GB 32GB, 64GB, 128GB 32GB, 64GB, 128GB 16GB, 64GB 16GB, 64GB

    RAM Undisclosed 3GB 3GB 4GB 3GB

    Screen size 5.5” 5.1” 5.2” 5.5” 5.5”

    Resolution 1920 × 1080, 401 PPI

    1440 × 2560 1920 × 1080, 428 PPI

    1920 × 1080, 401 PPI

    1920 × 1080, 401 PPI

    Camera 12 MP, LED flash 16 MP, 5 MP front 16 MP, dual LED 13 MP, dual LED flash

    13 MP, 5 MP front

    Wi-fi 802.11ac 802.11ac 802.11ac 802.11ac 802.11ac

    Processor Apple A9, 64- bit, clock speed undisclosed

    2.1 GHz 8-core Exynos 7420

    1.8 GHz quad-core Snapdragon 820

    1.8 GHz 8-core Snapdragon 810

    2.5 GHz quad-core Snapdragon 801

    Battery capacity

    1,715 mAh 2,550 mAh 3,000 mAh 3,300 mAh 3,100 mAh

    Price $849 $650 $355 $389 $249

    Software iOS 9 Android Lollipop Android 6.0 Marshmallow

    OxygenOS (Android 5.1)

    CyanogenMod (Android 4.4)

    Source: Compiled by the authors.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    2 2

    O n e P l u s KEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Exhibit 5: OnePlus X

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    2 3

    O n e P l u sKEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Exhibit 6: OnePlus Advertisement

    Source: Ariel Rosenstein, “How the OnePlus’ Marketing Strategy Made It the Most Desirable Phone in the World,” The Next Web, March 17, 2015, http://thenextweb.com/market-intelligence/2015/03/17/how-oneplus-ones-marketing-made-it-the-most- desirable-phone-in-the-world.

    Source: Deepali Sharma, “OnePlus 2 Gets Price Cut in India,” Intellect Digest, March 15, 2016, http://www.intellectdigest.in/ oneplus-2-now-available-invite-free-in-india-20955.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    2 4

    O n e P l u s KEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Exhibit 7: OnePlus Customer Behavior

    40%

    31%

    9% 7% 5% 3% 2% 1% 1% 0%

    “How did you find out about OnePlus?”

     

    Other: Tweakers.net

    Reddit Xda-developers

    9gag TWIT Podcast

    50%

    33%

    6%

    3%

    3%

    2%

    2%

    2%

    I was impressed by the features

    It has an attractive price

    I liked the design

    A friend shared an invite

    I got an invite from OnePlus

    Other

    It was a gift for a friend

    It was an impulse purchase

    “What was the main reason you purchased a OnePlus One?”

    Source: OnePlus.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    2 5

    O n e P l u sKEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Exhibit 8: Smartphone Customer Personas

    Tech Enthusiast Design Enthusiast Business Professional Social Teenager Baby Boomer

    Market size 15% 15% 30% 20% 20%

    Demographics 25–39, mostly male

    25–39, mostly female

    28–50 13–17 50+, seniors

    Motivations Influence others, evangelize

    Design, status, aesthetics

    Productivity, e-mail, client satisfaction

    Entertainment, social connections

    Basic needs, safety, connect with family

    Lifestyle Moderate income, college education, technical jobs, tech producers

    High income, highly educated, managerial jobs, tech consumers

    High income, college education, managerial and executive jobs

    Students, no income, voracious tech consumers

    Retired or nearly retired, high school or college education, news consumers

    Attitude toward technology

    Deeply technical, 35% follow tech news

    Not geeky but 22% read tech news

    Like to use it for productivity

    Fluent users of technology, digital natives

    Aversion to technology, digital immigrants

    Willingness to pay High Moderate to high Moderate Low (parents would pay)

    Moderate to low

    Media consumption habits

    Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Tumblr

    Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, LinkedIn

    LinkedIn, Google+, Facebook, Twitter

    Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Vine

    Facebook, YouTube, Google+, LinkedIn

    Phone usage 95% own smartphones, favor Android devices

    Apple devices Android devices 70% own smartphones, prefer Apple and Samsung

    64% own smartphones, older boomers prefer feature phones

    App usage (top 5) Meerkat, Periscope, Uber, Evernote, Buzzfeed

    Facebook, Pandora Radio, YouTube, Instagram, Netflix

    Evernote, Any.do, Pulse, Dropbox, TripIt

    Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, Kik, Periscope

    Facebook, Pandora Radio, Yahoo Mail, YouTube, Skype

    Source: Compiled by the authors.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    2 6

    O n e P l u s KEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Exhibit 9: Persona Profile: Amy, the Design Enthusiast

    AGE: 32

    OCCUPATION: Publishing Manager

    STATUS: Single

    LOCATION: Chicago, Illinois

    ARCHETYPE: Runner and yoga lover

    MOTIVATIONS:

    Status

    Style

    Aesthetics

    Visual appeal

    Social

    LIFESTYLE:

    Drives a sporty BMW

    Exercises regularly

    Enjoys nights out with friends

    Likes to try new cuisines

    TECHNOLOGY GOALS:

    Wants an intuitive, easy-to-use phone

    Prefers a sleek device that has lots of visual appeal

    Listens to the latest music hits

    Stays connected with friends and family via text, e-mail, video (FaceTime), and apps (Facebook)

    Although she does not want to bring work home too often, she wants to stay connected with colleagues and be productive on the go

    PERSONALITY: BRANDS:

    EXTROVERT INTROVERT THINKING FEELING VISUAL NON-VISUAL GEEK ENTHUSIAST

    S O C I A L N E T W O R K S

    BIO:

    Amy works in the creative field and appreciates good design.

    As such, she has been an iPhone devotee and considers it her

    most precious possession. She uses her iPhone as her GPS

    device, to listen to music, to take photographs and videos,

    and to keep track of workouts. She also uses it to shop at

    her favorite online stores and to connect with her family on

    FaceTime as well as for apps that keep her up-to-date on her

    social and professional networks.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    2 7

    O n e P l u sKEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Exhibit 10: OnePlus Brand Personality

    4.12

    5.24

    6.04

    5.88

    4.96

    5.42

    5.78

    6.09

    4.19

    6.54

    4.23

    4.89

    5

    5.1

    5.11

    5.96

    6

    6.02

    6.1

    6.11

    1 4 7

    Cheap brand

    Transparent

    Receptive to feedback

    Customer-centric

    Humble

    Exciting

    Making an impact

    Innovation

    Young

    Quality Products

    OnePlus Smartphone brand

    TOP 5 Our customers strongly agree that OnePlus is making Quality Products, and is Young, Innovative, Making an Impact, and Exciting.

    BOTTOM 5 The respondents tend to agree the least that OnePlus is Cheap, Transparent, Receptive to Feedback, Customer-Centric, and Humble.

    Source: OnePlus.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

     

     

    2 8

    O n e P l u s KEL981

    K e l l O g g s c h O O l O f M a n a g e M e n t

    Exhibit 11: Indicative Costs of Online and Offline Media Buys, 2015

    TRADITIONAL (OFFLINE) MEDIA

    30-second TV ad in prime time broadcast TV $112,000

    Average cost of a commercial in AMC’s Walking Dead $400,000

    Average CPM for a 30-second commercial on broadcast prime time $24.76

    One-page full-color front page ad in the New York Times $50,000

    Average CPM of a newspaper $32

    Cost of four weeks on Times Square’s biggest billboard (an 8-story sign on Broadway)

    $2.5 million

    30-second Super Bowl ad (2015) $5 million

    ONLINE MEDIA

    “Brand Story” ad on Snapchat $750,000

    Average CPM of Facebook ad $0.25

    Average CPM of LinkedIn ad $0.75

    Average CPM of Google AdWords $2.75

    YouTube pay-per-view $0.30–$0.10

    CPM for standard in-stream video ad on Hulu $35

    CPM of sponsored video on Instagram $30

    CPM of sponsored photo on Instagram. Minimum ad spend is $200,000 $20

    Advertising on tech blogs such as TechCrunch (minimum spend/month) $5,000

    Source: Compiled by the authors.

    For the exclusive use of z. XU, 2020.

    This document is authorized for use only by zhukun XU in Marketing 3010 taught by Rita Schwisow, University of Utah from Jan 2020 to Jun 2020.

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"