Full screen and Product testing
The Full Screen
step often seen as a necessary evil, yet very powerful and with long-lasting effects. pre-technical evaluation, and summarizes what must be done. range from simple checklists to complex mathematical models. professional firms undertake, last low-risk evaluation
◦ Recycle and rework concepts ◦ Rank order good concepts ◦ Track appraisals of failed concepts
encourage cross-functional communication
◦ Feasibility of technical accomplishment -.can we do it? ◦ Feasibility of commercial accomplishment -.do we want to do it?
help manage the process.Purposes of the Full Screen
decide whether technical resources should be devoted to the project.
Test followed by Sales
(if only issue is whether consumers will like it)
A Simple Scoring Model
Factors: Degree of Fun Number of People Affordability Capability Student's Scores: Fun People Affordability Capability Totals
4 Points Much Over 5 Easily Very Skiing 4 4 2 1 11
3 Points Some 4 to 5 Probably Good Boating 3 4 4 4 15
Values 2 Points Little 2 to 3 Maybe Some Hiking 4 2 4 3 13
1 Point None Under 2 No Little
Answer: Go boating.
Source of Scoring Factor Models
Note: this model only shows a few sample screening factors.
Technical Accomplishment: Technical task difficulty Research skills required Rate of technological change Design superiority assurance Manufacturing equipment.....A Scoring Model for Full Screen
Figure 10. Commercial Accomplishment: Market volatility Probable market share Sales force requirements Competition to be faced Degree of unmet need.
PR. procurement. technical. operations.The Scorers
Major Functions (marketing. HR)
May be always optimistic/pessimistic May be "moody" (alternately optimistic and pessimistic) May always score neutral May be less reliable or accurate May be easily swayed by the group May be erratic
. distribution. finance) New Products Managers Staff Specialists (IT.
Alan Fusfield. “Determining a Project’s Probability of Success. Health and Environmental Risks
Commercial success factors:
to and Effective Use of External Technology Capability
Channels to Market Customer Strength
Raw Materials/Components Supply
Source: John Davis.
Safety.” Research-Technology Management. Eric Scriven.Industrial Research Institute Scoring Model
Technical success factors:
Proprietary Technical Access
Figure 10. May-June 2001. 51-57. pp. and Gary Tritle.
Alternatives to the Full Screen
Sheet Model Systems Hierarchy Process
.A Profile Sheet
Criteria Based on the NewProd Studies
Criteria (rated yes/no):
◦ Strategic alignment ◦ Existence of market need ◦ Likelihood of technical feasibility ◦ Product advantage ◦ Environmental health and safety policies ◦ Return versus risk ◦ Show stoppers (“killer” variables)
uncertainty) ◦ Risk vs. manufacturing expertise) ◦ Technical feasibility (complexity. IRR. provides value for money) ◦ Market attractiveness (size. return (NPV. distribution. ROI. meets customer needs. technical. payback)
. growth rate) ◦ Synergies (marketing.Criteria Based on the NewProd Studies (continued)
Criteria (rated on scales):
◦ Strategic (alignment and importance) ◦ Product advantage (unique benefits.
Goal: Select Best NPD Project
Prod P roduc u ct tLi Line ne Channel Logis tic s Tim ing P ric e S al es Force
Tech. 3. Mf g. Tec h. Fit
Desi gn Mat erials S uppl y Mf g. 2. Tim ing Diff erential A dv antage
P ay of fs Los ses
Unmit igated Mi tigat ed
Products 1.Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
a critical measures of a new product's market potential important in FMCG Cos. testing for four purposes
◦ Against competition: which of the alternatives offered is preferred relative to competition ◦ Product improvement: whether an improved formula could replace the current product ◦ Cost saving: whether a less expensive product could replace the current one ◦ Concept fit: whether the resembles the selling message product variant
. sequence of letters etc.
Product testing procedures
◦ Blind Vs Branded test .
◦ Representative of the product that will be in the market ultimately ◦ Name. colour to be identical ◦ Avoid labels that bias (e.a key issue ◦ Blind test .Difficult to conceal ◦ Measurement of effects of brand etc.Reactions to "pure" product ◦ No brand name as yet ◦ Branded test .g. shape. packaging should be similar ◦ If different formulas are used. size.
having product for comparison products
consumer no other
.rates one product.directly compares two products
.Consumer rates 2 or more
monadic .rates one product and then is given a second product (rated) independently then compared .Procedures for product tests
designs where a evaluates one product. is given a second product and compares both comparison .
consumer is given two or more sets of products to compare against each other at two different points of time robin .asked to determine if one product is different from the other
.is given 2 samples of one product and one sample of another to identify the one that differs . Repeat-paired
comparison .tests where a series of products is tested against each other designs .a standard product is given and asked to determine which of the other (two) products are similar .
Unrealistic members ignored
2. Opinions of other family
.home testing Vs
1.usually a week. purchase cycle wave extended product test consumers encouraged to buy at intervals coinciding with normal product cycle
. depends on the product. In
80% say "excellent") Comparison tests concentrate on product differences certain situations involving sensory evaluations.g. comparison tests are impractical.
. Typically a consumer uses a product at a time and decides Monadic tests are difficult to interpret.Advantages:
Identification of novelty product wear outs Identification of problems Market share prediction Potential segments
Monadic Vs Paired test
Monadic is realistic. (e.
asked . overall rating attribute rating.Preference. Conventions may vary with MR agencies
. usage pattern etc.
◦ non-probability ◦ 100-200 for in-home ◦ CLT around 20 ◦ Cost is a factor
◦ preference that is statistically significant ◦ Where claims of superiority are made should have significant preference. likes-dislikes.
overall rating attribute rating.
◦ non-probability ◦ 100-200 for in-home ◦ CLT around 20 ◦ Cost is a factor
◦ preference that is statistically significant ◦ Where claims of superiority are made should have significant preference. Questions
asked . usage pattern etc. likes-dislikes. uniqueness. Conventions may vary with MR agencies
Product testing in industrial markets
cannot decide on the merits and demerits of a new product quickly a few product testers. distinct from/in contrast to from potential buyers need to adapt products to suit their needs have expertise in the product
both core and optional test accuracy and usefulness of support material assess level of training required evaluate perceived strengths and weaknesses compared to those of competitors promote sales with site chosen use site as a demo for product benefits
.Purposes of beta test
To To To To To To To
check product functioning in situ
confirm selection of features.
A few important aspects
A systems approach needed : Methods and procedures of product testing should constitute a standardized system for like products Normative databases need to be built over time for better interpretation Same research company Real environment tests Relevant variables from consumers' perspective (particularly while using qualitative methods) Conservative action established products while dealing with