company uasrwoara - urm wi - rerioa ±

SPI Revenues (M$) Earnings Before Taxes (M$)

Total Market Share (%U) Total Market Share (%$)

Brand Revenues (M$) Brand Contribution (M$)

11

SOLO SOFT SOLO SOFT

h(U/l SziL/i
The financial statements of firm SALT published for Period 1 have been prepared on December 31st, Period 1 in accordance with International Financial Reportin
Standards (IFRS), as adopted in the Markstrat world.

Company Profit & Loss Statement

The table below shows the evolution of firm SALT financial results in thousands of dollars, as well as the cumulative results since Period 0.

Period 1 Period 0 Cumulative

Revenues 45,353 37,217 82,571
Cost of goods sold -21,516 -19,050 -40,566
Inventory costs 0 -85 -85
Contribution before marketing 23,838 18,082 41,920
Advertising expenditures -4,000 -4,000 -8,000
Commercial costs -1,282 -1,224 -2,506
Contribution after marketing 18,556 12,858 31,414
Market research studies -21 -245 -266
Research and development 0 0 0
Loan reimbursed 0 0 0
Loan received 0 0 0
Loan interests paid 0 0 0
Exceptional cost or profit 0 0 0
Earnings before taxes 18,535 12,613 31,149

Brand contribution
The table below shows a comparison of the net contribution generated by the brands marketed by firm SALT in Period 1.

SOFT SOLO
Sonites Sonites
Revenues 16,381 28,973
Cost of goods sold -6,484 -15,032
Inventory holding cost 0 0
Inventory disposal loss 0 0
Contribution before marketing 9,897 13,941
Advertising media -1,000 -1,800
Advertising research -500 -700
Commercial costs -641 -641
Contribution after marketing 7,756 10,800

Revenues Contribution after Marketing

■■ SOLO Mi SOLO
■■ SOFT M SOFT

Note: brands with low revenues or contribution (< 5% total) are not shown on this chart

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

Market Shares

SOFT SOLO
Sonites Sonites
Volume Market Share 11.1 % 10.8 %
Value Market Share 7.6 % 13.8%

Volume sold
The table below provides the volume sold for each of your marketed brands in each of the three distribution channels. Sales are given in thousands of units.

SOFT SOLO
Sonites Sonites
Specialty stores 42 64
Mass Merch. 54 22
Online Stores 11 18

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

SOFT SOLO
Sonites Sonites
Specialty stores 39 % 41%
Mass Merch. 39% 39%
Online Stores 36% 38%

Specialty stores Mass Merch. Online Stores

Number of distributors 10,000 6,000 1,000

Brand prices
The table below shows the prices in $ of your marketed brands. The Recommended Retail Price is the price that you specified in your marketing mix decisions. Th
Average Retail Price is the average end-user price, taking into account the discount offered by distributors. Finally, the Average Selling Price is equal to th
Average Retail Price minus the distribution margins.

SOFT SOLO
Sonites Sonites
Recommended Retail Price $ 245 $450
Average Retail Price $ 231 $437
Average Selling Price $152 $ 278
The report below provides with information on production levels and production costs for each of the brands marketed in Period 1.

Sales, Production and Inventory

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

108 108 104 ■■ Units sold

■ Production
100 Invertor/ at end of period

o
SOFT SOLO

The table below provides you with additional details such as planned production versus the actual one, and the inventory levels at the beginning and at the end c
Period l.AII numbers are given in thousands of units.

SOFT SOLO
Sonites Sonites
Units sold 108 104
Production Plan (your decision) 100 95
Production 108 98
Inventory at beginning of period 0 6
Inventory at end of period 0 0

Unit Cost, COGS and Inventory Holding Cost

The table below shows the unit transfer cost for each of yourmarketed brands. The "current" unit cost is the cost of the most recently produced units, while th
"average" unit cost takes into account the units that were in your inventory at the beginning of the period. Unit transfer costs are given in $; units sold i
thousands of units.
COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) are equal to "Units sold" x "Average unit transfer cost". COGS are given in thousands of $. Finally, this table shows the costs incurre
for holding your inventoryfstorage cost, cost of capital, ...). Inventory holding cost is equal to: "Units in inventory" x "Average unit transfer cost" x 8%. It is given i
thousands of $.

SOFT SOLO
Sonites Sonites
Current unit transfer cost 60 142
Average unit transfer cost 60 144
Units sold 108 104
COGS 6,484 15,032
Inventory at end of period 0 0
Inventory holding cost 0 0
This report provides information on the activities conducted for your division by the R&D department during Period 1.

Projects completed in Period 1

No projects have been completed in Period 1.

Projects completed in past periods

The projects listed below have been completed in past periods. The ones at the top are currently used as the production platform of one or several of you
marketed brands. The ones in italic, if any, are either no longer used or have never been used to produce a brand.

Available Physical Characteristics Base Cost in $ Cumulative Platform of

Since Features(1) Design (2) Battery (3) Display (4) Power (5) Current Minimum Budget(K$) Brand
POSOFT Period 0 18 3 75 25 12 72 63 1,500 SOFT
POSOLO Period 0 13 8 40 40 75 166 148 2,500 SOLO
(1) Features (Number of): From 5 To 20. (2) Design (Index): From 3 To 10. (3) Hattery (Hour): From 24 To 96. (4) Display (Inch): From 4 To 40. (5) Power (Gflops): From 5 To 100.

Projects partially developed in Period 1

You have no partially completed projects.

Shelved projects
You have no shelved projects.

5
This report provides a review of the decisions made by firm SALT at the beginning of Period 1.

Resource Allocation Overview

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

Resource Allocation by Market Resource Allocation by Function - Sonites Brands

R&D
■I Advertising
■■ Commercial Team
■ Studies

Resource Allocation by Brand

■i Commercial Team
■■ Advertising

SOLO son

Brand Portfolio

SOFT SOLO
Portfolio operation Maintained Maintained
Base project past period POSOFT POSOLO
Base project this period POSOFT POSOLO

Marketing Mix

SOFT SOLO
Production planning (in units) 100,000 95,000
Recommended retail price (in $) 245 450
Advertising media (in K$) 1,000 1,800
Advertising research (in K$) 500 700

Segmentation Strategy

SOFT SOLO
Explorers 10% 10%
Shoppers 15% 15%
Professionals 10% 10%
High Earners 30% 30%
Savers 35% 35%
 SOFT
SOLO
Dimension 1
Position 1
Dimension 2
Position 2

Commercial Team Size

The table below shows the number of commercial people allocated to each brand in each channel during Period 1.

SOFT SOLO
Specialty stores 12 12
Mass Merch. 10 10
Online Stores 8 8
TOTAL 30 30

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

■
■■ Mass Merch. I- SOFT M SOLO
■■ Online Stores
■■ Specialty stores

30 30

Market Research Studies - Sonites Market

0 20
■ 40 60 80

The table below lists the market research studies purchased by firm SALT in Period 1, as well as the cost in dollars.

Purchased Studies Cost in $

Market forecast 20,750
TOTAL 20,750
iti w» **» w* w ■ y ** » ■ ■**
Stock Market Period 1 Share Price Index Evolution

2 as co
SPI REV NC Cum. NC
MAGNETO 1,248 47 20 33
SALT 1,178 45 19 31
TRIDENT 1,139 43 18 31
ROMBY 1,136 43 18 31
Lady Ga 886 34 13 26
SPI: Share Price Index. Rev. : Revenues (million $). NC: Net Contribution (million $). Cum.
MG Cumulative NC (million $).

Industry Retail Sales Industry Volume

1,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ M L

Period O Period 1

Value Market Shares Unit Market Shares

M M MS MT I.L MMMSMTRML

16% 22 22% 20% I 20 f 16%

Top Selling Brands - Retail Sales Top Selling Brands - Volume

MOVE SOLO ROLL TOPS LOOP TONE

in million $ in thousands of units

■ ■ ■ w* ta# V ■ Y ■ ■ ■ ■ ’ *-• * • ■ ■ *— • ■ *-*’ '*■" >*•
This report provides economic and costing data for the current period as well as estimates for the next period.

Economic Variables

Current Period Value Next Period Estimation

GNP Growth Rate % 3% 3%
Inflation Rate % 2% 2%
Inventory holding cost per annum % Transfer Cost 8% 8%
Loss incurred for inventory disposal % Transfer Cost 20% 20%
Commercial people operating cost $ 20,808 21,224
Commercial people hiring and training cost $ 3,121 3,184
Commercial people firing cost $ 5,202 5,306

Market Research Costs

All Markets Sonites Vodites

Industry benchmarking 31,750
Competitive advertising 31,750 31,75C
Competitive commercial team 16,000 16,00C
Conjoint analysis 37,250 37,25C
Consumer panel 106,000 74,25C
Consumer survey 63,750 42,50C
Distribution panel 63,750 53,00C
Advertising experiment 26,500 26,50C
Commercial team experiment 37,250 37,25C
Market forecast 21,250 21,25C
Multidimensional scaling 37,250 37,25C
Semantic scales 10,500 10,50C
TOTAL 31,750 451,250 387,50C
(all numbers in $)

g
This report provides general information on the 10 Sonites brands marketed in Period 1.

Brand Retail Sales & Volume

The two tables below show the marketed brand retail sales (in thousands of $) and the volume (in thousands of units), sorted in decreasing order. Shares c
market in value and in unit are also provided
Brand Value Share Retail Sales Variation Brand Unit Share Volume Variation
MOVE 14.2 % 46,929 11,141 MOST 12.1% 117 24
SOLO 13.8 % 45,522 9,734 TONE 11.7% 113 20
ROLL 12.7 % 41,755 5,966 SOFT 11.1% 108 15
TOPS 12.0 % 40,013 4,224 ROCK 10.9% 105 12
LOOP 9.2 % 30,057 -5,732 SOLO 10.8 % 104 31
TONE 8.1% 26,510 4,506 MOVE 10.0% 97 23
MOST 8.1% 26,324 4,320 ROLL 9.2 % 89 15
SOFT 7.6% 24,876 2,871 LOCK 8.6% 83 -10
ROCK 7.6 % 24,736 2,732 TOPS 8.5% 82 8
LOCK 6.7 % 22,115 111 LOOP 7.2 % 70 -4
TOTAL 100.0 % 328,836 39,872 TOTAL 100.0 % 966 132

Brand Characteristics
The table below lists the physical attributes of marketed brands, as well as their price and estimated unit cost, both in $.

Brand Launched in Features(1) Design (2) Battery (3) Display (4) Power (5) Price Base Cost ($) Base Cost (%Price)
LOCK Period 0 18 3 75 25 12 280 72 25 %
LOOP Period 0 13 8 40 40 75 450 166 36%
MOST Period 0 18 3 75 25 12 240 72 30%
MOVE Period 0 13 8 40 40 75 500 166 33%
ROCK Period 0 18 3 75 25 12 250 72 28%
ROLL Period 0 13 8 40 40 75 485 166 34 %
SOFT Period 0 18 3 75 25 12 245 72 29%
SOLO Period 0 13 8 40 40 75 450 166 36%
TONE Period 0 18 3 75 25 12 250 72 28%
TOPS Period 0 13 8 40 40 75 500 166 33%
(1) Features (Number of): From 5 To 20. (2) Design (Index): From 3 To 10. (3) Battery (Hour): From 24 To 96. (4) Display (Inch): From 4 To 40. (5) Power (Gflops): From 5 To 100.

io
 J — . ............................-
The benchmarking study compiles general information from annual reports about each of the Markstrat competitors. Data is provided in a common format for a
companies to allow an easy comparison of competitive performance.

Overall Company Performances and Expenditures

The two charts below show the overall performances of the competing firms in terms of revenues and profits, in million $, as well as their expenditures in th
main cost categories in million $.

■■ Revenues ■■ Earnings before taxes

Company Profit & Loss Statements

The table below provides an estimated P&L statement of the competing firms, in the same format as the one in your financial statements. All numbers are give
in million $.

Lady Ga MAGNETO ROMBY SALT TRIDENT

Revenues 34 47.2 43 45.4 42.7
Cost of goods sold -15.7 -21 -19.2 -21.5 -18.9
Inventory costs 0 0 -0.2 0 -0.1
Contribution before marketing 18.3 26.2 23.6 23.8 23.8
Advertising expenditures -4 -4 -4 -4 -4
Commercial team costs -1.3 -1.7 -1.2 -1.3 -1.3
Contribution after marketing 13 20.5 18.4 18.6 18.5
Market research studies 0 0 0 0 0
Research and development 0 0 0 0 0
Interests paid 0 0 0 0 0
Exceptional cost or profit 0 0 0 0 0
Earnings before taxes 13 20.5 18.4 18.5 18.5
Next Period Budget 7.3 8.2 7.3 7.4 7.4

Il
w«* ■ ■ M • ■ • ■ **’**»■ w V- J ■ v a w« ■ • * *• * ■ *- ■ ■ ** *
This survey questionnaire has been administered to 3,000 individuals during Period 1. It gives brand awareness, purchase intentions and shopping habit data f<
each consumer segment in the Sonites market

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

Average Brand Awareness (in %)

Brand Awareness by Consumer Segment

Brand Firm Explorers Shoppers Professionals High Earners Savers

LOCK Lady Ga 54 % 61% 48% 55% 58%
LOOP Lady Ga 59% 56% 68% 72% 51%
MOST MAGNETO 57% 64% 47% 59% 62 %
MOVE MAGNETO 70% 58% 76% 81% 53 %
ROCK ROMBY 59% 66% 49% 55% 63%
ROLL ROMBY 69% 56% 75% 80% 52 %
SOFT SALT 56% 64% 48% 60% 63 %
SOLO SALT 65% 56% 71 % 79% 56%
TONE TRIDENT 59% 66% 49% 56% 64%
TOPS TRIDENT 69% 56% 75% 80% 51 %
The purchase intentions figures in the chart and table below represent the proportion of individuals who would select a brand as their first choice, if they wer
buying within a year. The report gives the information for each brand currently on the market, in total and by consumer segment. Please note that these figure
correspond to the situation of the period when the study is done and does not necessarily represent purchase intentions for the following year.

Average Purchase Intentions

Purchase Intentions by Consumer Segment

Brand Firm Explorers Shoppers Professionals High Earners Savers

LOCK Lady Ga 7.0% 15.8 % 0.7 % 1.0 % 15.2 %
LOOP Lady Ga 12.1 % 3.5 % 20.3 % 17.9 % 0.2 %
MOST MAGNETO 6.9 % 16.5 % 0.6% 1.0% 21.6%
MOVE MAGNETO 12.8% 3.4 % 17.0 % 19.0 % 0.2 %
ROCK ROMBY 7.3 % 17.0% 0.7% 1.0 % 20.3 %
ROLL ROMBY 13.1 % 3.4 % 18.9% 19.4 % 0.2 %
SOFT SALT 6.9 % 16.4 % 0.6 % 1.1 % 21.2 %
SOLO SALT 13.9 % 3.7 % 23.6 % 19.6% 0.3 %
TONE TRIDENT 7.3 % 17.1% 0.7% 1.0 % 20.5 %
TOPS TRIDENT 12.6% 3.3 % 16.9 % 18.9 % 0.2 %
TOTAL - 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Shopping Habits
The shopping habit data in the chart below represent, for each channel, the proportion of individuals who would choose that channel when shopping for
So nites.

■■ Specialty stores
■■ Mass Kerch.
■ Online Stores

/3
The consumer panel study shown below is based on a sample group of over 500 consumers whose buying behavior is believed to be representative of the entir
Sonites market. It provides market shares by consumer segment as well as industry sales in this product category

Market Shares (Based on units sold)

The market shares figures in the chart and table below represent the proportion of individuals who have purchased a given brand during Period 1. The repor
gives the information for each brand currently on the market, in total and by consumer segment

Total Market Shares (%Unit)

Market Shares by Consumer Segment (%Unit)

Brand Firm Explorers Shoppers Professionals High Earners Savers

LOCK Lady Ga 7.4 % 14.9 % 0.7 % 1.0% 13.1 %
LOOP Lady Ga 8.7% 3.0 % 16.3 % 15.2 % 0.2%
MOST MAGNETO 6.7 % 17.5 % 0.6 % 1.1 % 23.5%
MOVE MAGNETO 15.1 % 3.7% 19.6 % 21.5% 0.2 %
ROCK ROMBY 7.0 % 16.7 % 0.7% 1.0% 19.8 %
ROLL ROMBY 13.2% 3.3% 19.1% 19.6% 0.2%
SOFT SALT 6.9% 16.4% 0.6% 1.1 % 21.0%
SOLO SALT 14.7% 3.7% 24.9% 20.5% 0.3%
TONE TRIDENT 7.1% 17.8% 0.7% 1.0 % 21.6%
TOPS TRIDENT 13.2 % 3.0% 16.8 % 18.0% 0.2%
TOTAL - 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Industry Volume (based on units sold)

The charts below give the unit product category sales by consumer segment and in total. The relative sizes of the 5 consumer segments are provided as well.

Unit Sales by Consumer Segment in thousands of units Relative Consumer Segment Sizes

■■ Savers
■ Shoppers
■■ Professionals
■■ Explorers
■■ High Earners

291 195 178 174 128

The distribution panel provides continuous tracking of product sales to consumers, based on information gathered at the retail point-of-sale. Information i
primarily gathered from scanning cash-registers with supplementary store audits. Our read represents sales in about 35,000 retail outlets in the Markstrat work
This report gives market shares and coverage data, by distribution channel.

Sales and Market Shares by Channel

The table and charts below provide the market shares, based on units sold, by channel for each brand currently on the market. They also give the unit produc
category sales by channel and in total. The relative sizes of the channel are provided as well.

Market Shares by Channel (%Unit)

Brand Firm Specialty stores Mass Merch. Online Stores

LOCK Lady Ga 9% 9% 7%
LOOP Lady Ga 6% 6% 14%
MOST MAGNETO 9% 18% 9%
MOVE MAGNETO 13% 5% 11 %
ROCK ROMBY 9% 15% 9%
ROLL ROMBY 11% 5% 12%
SOFT SALT 9% 15% 8%
SOLO SALT 14% 6% 13%
TONE TRIDENT 9% 17% 9%
TOPS TRIDENT 12 % 4% 9%
TOTAL - 100 % 100 % 100 %

Unit Sales by Channel in thousands of units Relative Channel Sizes (%Units Sold)

■■ Specialty stores ■■ Mass Merch. ■■ Orline Steres ■■ Specialty stores

■■ Mass Merch.
■■ Online Stores

469 358 139

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

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

Distribution Coverage by Channel (%Stores)

Specialty stores Mass Merch. Online Stores

Brand Firm
45% 27% 36%
LOCK Lady Ga
LOOP Lady Ga 17% 43% 49%

MOST MAGNETO 36% 48% 40%

MOVE MAGNETO 49% 40% 40%

ROCK ROMBY 36% 38% 40%

ROLL ROMBY 37% 38% 42%

SOFT SALT 39% 39% 36%

SOLO SALT 41% 39% 38%

TONE TRIDENT 36% 45% 40%

TOPS TRIDENT 45% 27% 30%

Number of outlets in each Channel Relative Channel Sizes (%Outlet)

■B Specialty stores Mi Mass Merdi. Mi Online Stores ■■ Specialty stores

■■ Mass Merch.
Mi Online Stores

10,000 6,000 1.00Í

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

The semantic scales study provides data based on a semantic differential questionnaire administered to 600 individuals. Several semantic scales corresponding t
the Sonites physical attributes were presented to the respondents. The figure below shows a sample scale for Power.

High
Power
Several crucial information are derived from these questionnaires: brand perceptions, ideal value along each scale, ideal value evolution, brand maps.

Brand perceptions
Respondents are asked to rate each brand according to the way they perceive the brand on each characteristic. The reported results are summarized in the tabi
below, using the mean value for each brand.

Brand Firm Features Design Battery Display Power Price

LOCK Lady Ga 6.3 1.5 5.4 4.6 1.5 2.7
LOOP Lady Ga 4.3 5.7 2.2 6.5 5.5 6.0
MOST MAGNETO 6.3 1.5 5.4 4.6 1.5 2.5
MOVE MAGNETO 4.3 5.7 2.2 6.5 5.5 6.2
ROCK ROMBY 6.3 1.5 5.4 4.6 1.5 2.6
ROLL ROMBY 4.3 5.7 2.2 6.5 5.5 6.1
SOFT SALT 6.3 1.5 5.4 4.6 1.5 2.5
SOLO SALT 4.3 5.7 2.2 6.5 5.5 6.0
TONE TRIDENT 6.3 1.5 5.4 4.6 1.5 2.6
TOPS TRIDENT 4.3 5.7 2.2 6.5 5.5 6.2

Ideal Values
Respondents are also asked to indicate their preferred (also called ''Ideal”) value on each scale. The reported results are summarized in the table below, using th
mean value for each segment.

Segment Features Design Battery Display Power Price

Explorers 4.6 1.8 6.0 6.0 6.2 3.4
Shoppers 1.8 5.2 3.0 4.2 3.9 2.9
Professionals 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.4 5.3
High Earners 3.2 5.8 3.4 4.6 4.8 5.9
Savers 2.5 3.8 1.7 2.6 2.4 2.2

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

I Price ■■ Power I Display Design Battery Features

0 5 10 15 20 25

<7
Maps representing consumers' perceptions based on the semantic scales can be obtained for each pair of attributes. Five maps are provided below. We invite yo
to export data into Excel and draw additional maps if needed
No. of Features

Price
Design Index
Price
 7

SOLO
^-T^PS
OVE

oi
ã U OOP
£
U
&
1/|

TO\E

MOST
i

Price

Ideal Value Evolution

This study monitors the evolution of consumer needs over time. The preferred values on each scale over the past (3 years maximum) are recorded in the tabi
below, for each consumer segment.

Segment Period Features Design Battery Display Power Price

Explorers Period 0 4.7 1.7 6.2 6.1 6.3 3.3
Explorers Period 1 4.6 1.8 6.0 6.0 6.2 3.4
High Earners Period 0 3.2 6.0 3.5 4.8 4.8 5.9
High Earners Period 1 3.2 5.8 3.4 4.6 4.8 5.9
Professionals Period 0 5.8 5.7 5.0 5.4 5.1 5.1
Professionals Period J 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.4 5.3
Savers Period 0 2.5 3.8 1.7 2.5 2.3 2.2
Savers Period 1 2.5 3.8 1.7 2.6 2.4 2.2
Shoppers Period 0 1.8 5.2 3.0 4.0 3.7 3.1
Shoppers Period 1 1.8 5.2 3.0 4.2 3.9 2.9

Online Tool - Additional Charts

The most important charts and graph of the Semantic Scales study are given in the above report.But an online tool provides additional charts that will allow yo
to:
- Monitor the evolution of ideal values in a visual way
- Design Powerful R&D projects as described in section VI of the Markstrat Handbook
The semantic scales study provides data based on a semantic differential questionnaire administered to 600 individuals. Several semantic scales corresponding t
the Vodites physical attributes were presented to the respondents. The figure below shows a sample scale for Power.

¿OW I I I I I I I High
Power 1 1 1 ; , Power
12 3 4 5 6/
Several crucial information are derived from these questionnaires: brand perceptions, ideal value along each scale, ideal value evolution, brand maps.

Brand perceptions
No brands were marketed in this market this period.

Ideal Values
Respondents are also asked to indicate their preferred (also called "Ideal") value on each scale. The reported results are summarized in the table below, using th
mean value for each segment.

Segment Resolution Energy Carbon Connectivity Apps Price

Innovators 5.1 3.3 4.3 4.8 3.7 6.3
Adopters 4.4 4.0 4.9 3.8 4.3 5.5
Followers 3.3 4.4 3.4 3.1 3.3 4.8

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

■B Connectivity BB Price Resolution Energy Apps Carbon

10.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Brand Maps
Brands map are not available as no brands were marketed in this market this period.

7/
 -................. — . ----------------------------------------- ......-----------------, . ________________ ________
This study provides a joint space configuration obtained with non-metric multidimensional scaling. It relies on similarity and preference data on the complete se
of brands available in the market. These data were obtained through interviews with 200 individuals.

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

Perceptual Map - Economy X Performance

Economy

Perceptual Map - Economy X Convenience

20

10

7®
«TOOLO
tu
u
c
LOOP
©
c o
OJ
ë
o
u
©
©
-io -------------------------------njcxwv --"SUFI
MO! T

TONE-/

-20
-20 -10 0 io 20

Economy
The table below gives the coordinates of the brand positions on the perceptual map, on a scale from -20 to +20.

Brand Firm Economy Performance Convenience

LOCK Lady Ga 9 -11 -11

LOOP Lady Ga -14 13 6
MOST MAGNETO 10 -11 -11
MOVE MAGNETO -15 13 6
ROCK ROMBY 10 -11 -11
ROLL ROMBY -14 13 6
SOFT SALT 10 -11 -11
SOLO SALT -13 13 6
TONE TRIDENT 10 -11 -11
TOPS TRIDENT -15 13 6

Ideal Values
The table below gives the coordinates of the brand positions on the perceptual map, on a scale from -20 to +20.

Segment Economy Performance Convenience

Explorers 4 14 -7
Shoppers 7 0 3
Professionals -9 10 9
High Earners -13 5 7
Savers 12 -10 -5

Ideal Value Evolution

This study monitors the evolution of consumer needs over time. The preferred values on each perceptual map dimension over the past (3 years maximum) ar
recorded in the table below, for each consumer segment.

Segment Period Economy Performance Convenience

Explorers Period 0 4 15 -7
Explorers Period 1 4 14 -7
High Earners Period 0 -13 6 8
High Earners Period 1 -13 5 7
Professionals Period 0 -7 8 11
Professionals Period 1 -9 10 9
Savers Period 0 12 -11 -5
Savers Period 1 12 -10 -5
Shoppers Period 0 6 -2 3
Shoppers Period 1 7 0 3

Influence of Product Characteristics on Perceptual Dimensions

An indication of the influence of product characteristics on perceptual dimensions is provided in the table below to help you interpret the dimension that wer
derived from the study.

Dimension Features Design Battery Display Power Price

Economy Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight Very Strong
Performance Slight Slight Slight Moderate Very Strong Slight
Convenience Moderate Very Strong Moderate Slight Slight Slight

Online Tool - Additional Charts

The most important charts and graph of the multidimensional scaling study are given in the above report.But an online tool provides additional charts that w
allow you to:
- Monitor the evolution of ideal values in a visual way
- Design Powerful R&D projects as described in section VI of the Markstrat Handbook

Access Additional Charts

Estimates of competitive advertising budgets are given by firm, by brand and by consumer segments. All brands marketed in the current period are included in th
study.

Estimated Total Advertising Expenditures (in million dollars) - By Firm and by Consumer Segment

Earners

Estimated Brand Advertising Expenditures (in thousand dollars) - Total and by Consumer Segment
Brand Explorers Shoppers Professionals High Earners Savers TOTAL

TOPS 520 360 630 630 360 2,500

ROLL 520 360 630 630 360 2,500
MOVE 520 360 630 630 360 2,500
LOOP 280 770 370 280 770 2,470
SOLO 350 420 350 630 700 2,450
LOCK 270 200 410 460 170 1,510
SOFT 220 240 220 380 440 1,500
TONE 310 370 210 210 370 1,470
ROCK 310 370 210 210 370 1,470
MOST 280 280 190 370 280 1,400
TOTAL 3,580 3,730 3,850 4,430 4,180 19,770

Estimated Communication Dimensions and Message Quality

The table below provides an estimate of the dimensions that have been used in brand communication, as well as an estimate of the message quality. Highe
message qualities are obtained with higher advertising research budgets.

Brand Firm Communication Dimensions Message Quality

LOCK Lady Ga Excellent
LOOP Lady Ga Excellent
MOST MAGNETO Excellent
MOVE MAGNETO Poor
ROCK ROMBY Poor
ROLL ROMBY Poor
SOFT SALT Excellent
SOLO SALT Excellent
TONE TRIDENT Poor
TOPS TRIDENT Poor

2^-
Estimates of competitive commercial team size are given by firm, by brand and by distribution channel. The breakdown by brand and channel is also provided, ƒ
brands marketed in the current period are included in the study.

Estimated Commercial Team Size (in full-time equivalent) - By Firm and by Distribution Channel

Estimated Brand Commercial Team Sizes (in commercial people equivalent) - Total and by Distribution Channel
Brand Specialty stores Mass Merch. Online Stores TOTAL
MOVE 20 11 9 40
MOST 10 18 10 38
TONE 10 15 10 35
LOCK 18 5 8 31
SOLO 12 10 8 30
SOFT 12 10 8 30
ROLL 10 10 10 30
ROCK 10 10 10 30
LOOP 2 12 15 29
TOPS 15 5 5 25
TOTAL 119 106 93 318

7.5
This experiment is conducted by increasing advertising budgets in a selected regional market. The results of the study are used to project the level of awarenes
and the market share that would have been achieved nationwide by each brand with the same increase in advertising, and if competitive actions have remaine«
unchanged. The impact on brand contribution is provided as well.

The results below would have been achieved by a given brand if its advertising budget had been increased by 20% and if competitive actions had remaine
unchanged.

Expected Change in Contribution (in K$)

200

155
150

100

50

-50
SOFT

Expected Change in Brand Awareness Expected Change in unit Market Share (%U)

Brand Explorers Shoppers Professionals High Earners Savers Brand Explorers Shoppers Professionals High Earners Savers
SOFT 1.0% 0.7 % 1.1 % 1.8% 0.9 % SOFT 0.2% 0.3 % 0.1% 0.0 % 0.6 %
SOLO 1.2 % 1.4 % 0.8% 1.0% 1.7% SOLO 0.6% 0.2 % 1.1 % 0.6 % 0.0 %
This experiment is set up by increasing the number of commercial people per channel in a selected regional market. The results of the study are used to proje
the additional number of distributors and the market share that would have been achieved nationwide by each brand with the same increase in commercial tea
and if competitive actions have remained unchanged. The impact on brand contribution is provided as well.

The results below would have been achieved if the number of salespeople had been increased by 10 in each channel and if competitive actions had remaine
unchanged.

Expected Change in Contribution (in K$)

2,000

1,596
1,500

1,000

500

SOLO SOFT

Expected Change in Number of Distributors Expected Change in unit Market Share (%U)

Brand Specialty stores Mass Merch. Online Stores Brand Specialty stores Mass Merch. Online Stores
SOFT 457 325 66 SOFT 1.0% 1.8 % 1.4 %
SOLO 473 344 69 SOLO 1.4% 0.8 % 1.9 %

71
This study provides estimates of the expected market size in one period and in five periods. Results are given for the whole market and are also broken down t
consumer segment.

Total Market Size

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

Market Growth rates (in %)

Market Size by Consumer Segment

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

Market size broken down by consumer segment (in thousands of units)

■■ Savers Shoppers ■ Professionals Mi Explorers Mi High Earners

Consumer Segment Growth Rates (in % units)

Shoppers Mi High Earners IMI Savers M Professionals Mu Explorers

23.6% 23.6%

Hext period

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

■■ Savers
■ Shoppers
Mi Professionals
Ml Explorers
Mi High Earners

Current Period In Five Periods

This study provides estimates of the potential size of the market if a brand were introduced next period. Results are given for the whole market and are als
broken down by consumer segment. This forecast is based in declared likelihood of purchase obtained from a sample of individuals. It should be noted that th
forecast does not rely on history and tends to be less accurate and generally somewhat optimistic.

Potential Total Market Size

The charts below show the potential market size next period and in five periods, if a brand were introduced next period. Market growth rates are reported <
well. Market sizes are given in thousands of units.

Potential market size (in thousands of units) Expected market growth rates over 5 periods (in %U)

639%

Next Period In five Periods Average 5 Periods Total 5 Periods

Potential Market Size by Consumer Segment

The charts below show the potential market size in one and five periods, if a brand were introduced next period. Results are broken down by segment. Relativ
segment size, in % of the total market size, and segment growth rates are reported as well. Sizes are given in thousands of units.

Potential market size broken down by consumer segment (in thousands of units)
■■I Innovators Adopters ■■ Followers

Potential consumer segment sizes (in % of total market size)

■■ Innovators
Adopters
■■ Followers

In Five Period
Next Period

Expected Consumer Segment Growth Rates (in % units)