A pharmaceutical company had developed four alternative positionings for a new product, and wanted to assess the impact of these positionings. Also at issue was the pricing of the product: the client wanted to assess the impact of three alternative price levels. Two kinds of decision-makers were included in the study: physicians and hospital pharmacists.

The study was conducted using STEP®, our strategy evaluation program. STEP® simulates the choice process in a product category. Each respondent is exposed to a realistic array of competitive products and makes choices similar to those he/she makes while choosing in the marketplace. Randomly equivalent groups of respondents are exposed to different marketing strategies for the client’s product(s). We measure changes in the potential sales level of the client’s product as well as competitors, as a function of each strategy explored.

The diagram below illustrates the experimental design of the study.

Positioning A is the winner among both physicians and hospital pharmacists, generating at least twice the share potential of Positioning D. Positioning A is significantly more likely than B, C, and D to build prescriptions for the client’s product among physicians. The results show that the new product's potential is significantly enhanced by launching it with Positioning A.

The next two charts show the impact of the three price levels on the client’s product Strategy Share.

The data indicate that there is no significant price sensitivity between the Medium and Low price, but there is a significant negative impact on the client’s share at the High price. Prior to the study, the client planned to introduce the product at the Low price, but as a result of the study, they launched successfully at the Medium price.

Telecommunications Case Histories
Technology Case Histories
Packaged Goods Case History