Christmas Standard Delivery Deadline 12/18
: :
Get up to 50% Off! Code: MXSHIP Ends: 12/12 Details
Apply
  1. Help

Teclusive Winter 2012 Collection Look Book

Hello, you either have JavaScript turned off or an old version of Adobe's Flash Player. Get the latest Flash player.

Teclusive Winter 2012 Collection Look Book - Page Text Content

S: Teclusive Winter 2012 Collection Look Book

BC: Teclusive Winter 2012 Collection

FC: Winter 2012 Collection Look Book | Teclusive | Teclusive Winter 2012 Collection Look Book

1: Teclusive | 12.6.12 | Teclusive Requests the honor of your presence at our Winter 2012 Collection Exclusive Patron Premiere Thursday, the sixth of December Two thousand and twelve At twelve noon

2: Teclusive Brooke Dorger Data Acquisition Erin Kenney Quantitative Leader Sara Fagin Literature Review Carli Williams Communication, Focus Group Leader Cara Contini Survey Design In cooperation with Dr. Tim Greenlee's Market Research Section B | 2

3: Teclusive seeks to create the finest selection of innovative technologies in sleek designs to better the premium lifestyles our customers. | Our Winter 2012 Collection continues the Teclusive tradition with the addition of Luxury Link. Luxury Link a tracking device, serves as premium security system and insurance for your most treasured items. With the invisible installation of Luxury Link into your most valued items you can use our interactive website to track and locate valuables . | 3

4: Our History | Since our beginnings, Teclusive seeks to meet the needs of our valued patrons and their customers. You are family. We get to know who you and your customers are by learning where you are from, what you needs are, what you want to see from Teclusive, and with whom you'd like to see us partner. | 4

5: Our Patrons | Tiffany & Co. Kay Jewelers Canon Nikon Sony Apple Dell Visa Mastercard Select Universities BMW Lexus Volvo | U.S. Government Foreign Embassies Coach Gucci Vera Bradley Tony Burch Michael Kors Eddie Bauer Lands End LL Bean Garmin Ray Ban Rolex | Mercedes Cadillac Frye Blackberry Lilly Pullitzer Andriod BMV locations Chase Key Bank Samsung Jared's Ralph Lauren Juicy Couture | 5

6: What's Inside | 6 | Exclusive Invitation Page 1 Company Information Page 2-5 Table of Contents Page 6-7 Executive Summary/Introduction Page 8-9 | Qualitative Process Page 10-15 | Literature Review: Page 10-11 Focus Group: Page 12 In-depth Interview: Page 13 Hybrid Focus Group: Page 14 Qualitative Conclusions: Page 15

7: 7 | Quantitative Process Page 16-26 Summary of Recommendations Page 27 Limitations Page 28 Future Research Page 29 Appendix Page 30-36 Closing Page 27 | Survey Design: Page 16 Sampling Plan: Page 17 Eye Tracking: Page 18-19 Data Collection & Coding: Page 19 Is there a need for this product?: Page 20-21 Who is our customer?: 22-24 Who are our patrons?: Page 25 Where should we advertise?: Page 26

8: When creating an innovative product, Teclusive believes that it is essential to first examine areas for research. The following questions have lead our research through the evolution Luxury Link: After forming essential research questions, Teclusive began brainstorming a new product based on unsatisfied needs and wants of our already loyal customers. First, our Innovation and Design Division met to discuss their personal needs and wants that were relative to those of our customers. This led us to discover that many of our customers have lost valuable or expensive items and have experienced discomfort in finding or replacing their items. Teclusive reviewed the market for such items, and through our research, realized that there was no one product to meet this common need. | Luxury Link | -Is there a need for such a product? This is based upon how often our customers lose items. -If so, who is our customer? What is his/her age, gender, personality, purchasing power? -Which potential patrons would best suit the needs of our customer? This is based upon what our customers lose and the lifestyles they lead. -Where should we advertise our new product? This is based upon who our customers are, what products they lose, and the personality of both Teclusive and Luxury Link. | 8

9: Thus, we began an extensive product development period that led us to create the focal point of our Winter 2012 Collection, Luxury Link. Luxury Link began as a single sticker that consumers could buy at retail store, such as Best Buy, to personally affix to their valuable items, but has since evolved with research. Through qualitative research, concerns arose in both focus groups and in-depth interviews pertaining to aesthetics, pricing, and ethical issues In reaction, we edited our product to better meet the needs and satisfy the concerns of our consumers. This new and revised concept would solve the ethical issue of potential sticker misuse, as well as the concern of stickers falling off items, fitting all different shapes and sizes of items, and stickers being visible. As Luxury Link progressed through research, it continually developed until reaching its maturity: an embedded GPS tracking device that would be installed into valuable items, such as jewelry and credit cards, prior to purchase. To do so, Teclusive would partner with relevant consumer product companies, Tiffany’s and Visa, who sell items our potential consumers tend to lose. Due to this change, we adapted our research model. In the later research phases, such as the survey, we posed new research questions to fill voids not previously covered in prior research. Therefore, we now considered which companies with which to partner based on items our customers lose most often and where such items were purchased. Our further research reevaluated and confirmed the need for our redesigned product. After our research results confirmed a pertinent need such a product, Teclusive is happy to announce our newest addition to our Winter 2012 Collection, Luxury Link. | 9

10: Qualitative Process | Literature Review We began our literature review based upon the previously stated leading research questions. Our goal was to find our niche in the industry and educate ourselves on similar products and technologies, potential competitors, potential retailers/patrons, and our possible target market. Teclusive Market Research utilized a variety of databases found through Miami University’s library. Ibis World gave us specific industry information and allowed us to find ourselves within the industry of Communication Equipment Manufacturing. Further, our team found it a optimal time to launch a new product in this industry based upon continually upward trend and rapid growth (Waterman). At this point in our research process, our product was a tracking sticker to be placed on valuable items. We needed to identify a possible retailer for distribution. Utilizing Hoovers, blogs, news articles, and relevant industry publications, Best Buy was found to be the most eligible retailer for our product based upon market share, popularity, locations, and reputation in the industry. Further, Teclusive used Marketline to gather Best Buy’s strengths, weaknesses, products, opportunities, and threats, allowing us to understand how our product would fit into the company’s merchandise offering (Marketline). Through Mediamark and the Census Bureau, we learned the demographics of those who own commonly lost items. Our team found that our most potential customers were likely to be young women between the ages of 18-34, with a college degree and a household income of $150,000 ("MRI Reporter", United States). | 10

11: After gathering information about our potential customers, we began a search for detailed information on the potential technologies that could be used for our product. Business Source Complete provided information on the possible types of technology for the sticker component of our product such as RFID and GPS. Because RFID tags could only be located within a minimal range, the GPS chip seemed to be the optimal technology for our product (Kozloff, Strenk). | "MRI Reporter." MRI Reporter. GfK Mediamark Research & Intelligence, LLC, 2011. Web. 12 Sept. 2012. . United States. Census Bureau. People and Households. United States Census Bureau, 2011. Web. 12 Sept. 2012. . Kozloff, Emme P., and Ian J. Gordon. "Consumer: Raising The Bar On Bar Codes: Radio Frequency Identification Tags And Implications For The Retail Industry." Black Book - The Long View: 2003 Edition - U.S. Perspectives (2003): 159-168. Business Source Complete. Web. 30 Sept. 2012. Strenk, T. H. "How It Works." Restaurant Business 108.7 (2009): 74. Business Source Complete. Web. 1 Oct. 2012. | References | 11

12: After completing our literature review and overview of the industry, we continued to further our research by gathering information from a sample of our target market to clarify the need for our product and hone in on select details of our product. On September 18, 2012, our group conducted a focus group that consisted of two 21 year-old males and 6 females between the ages of 18 and 22. We began the focus group with a warm up exercise to gain insight into the value placed on commonly lost items. The remaining time was spent evaluating losing behavior and an interest in our product. Our questions were designed to guide discussion and allow participants to provide insight into the design and function of our product. After analyzing all the information collected, we concluded there was an existing need for our product based on the participants’ personal accounts of losing items and general positive response to the concept of our product. However, there was still more that we needed to focus on to learn more about our product. Participants stated that they would be willing to pay an extra fee to utilize our product, but we were unable to identify a common price point. Concerns also rose around the aesthetics component of the product and ethical issues of placement and use of product, which we planned to address in further research steps. | Focus Group | 12

13: In-depth Interviews | After concluding results from the focus group, our team realized that we needed to clarify information in certain areas and collect more personal anecdotes to conclude the need for our product. In more informal setting, we were able to create a more personable and conversational environment for in-depth interview and hybrid focus groups. We focused on specific items lost and the emotions centered surrounding the situation. Due to the concerns presented in the earlier focus group, we also concentrated some questions potential solutions. We interviewed participants who frequently lose items in their daily life. For our in-depth interviews, we selected Blakely, a 21-year-old, female, who has a tendency to lose both valuable and invaluable items on a weekly basis and Jordan Perschel, a 22 year old male, who has spent his life in a vicious cycle of losing and looking for items. Blakely explained, “As a college student, I have a lot going on in my life. I think that my head is constantly going in multiple directions that I often times forget where I placed something because my mind is somewhere else.” In our next interview, Jordon discussed how defeated he feels when he loses something important and would love to use our product to decrease the time and frustration he spends trying to locate lost items. | 13

14: Hybrid Focus Group | For the hybrid focus group, we choose three girls between the ages of 18 and 20 who had a tendency to loose items. Chelsey and Jenna, and Ashley, our participants, provided helpful input on where people tend to lose items and their frustrations centered on the situation. Ashley recounted a story of the time she lost her phone: When she realized that her phone was lost, Ashley described, “I turned my room completely upside down. I looked through my car. I looked everywhere and the only thing I could think of was that it had to have been left in one of my classes because I had looked everywhere else it could have been. I even went back and looked in that classroom where I had been sitting.” She vividly remembered, “I went through two days without having a phone. It’s a lot harder that we would like to think.” Next, Ashley shared that, over the two days that her phone was lost, she was constantly calling security. Finally, Ashley took steps to call her professor and asked him if he had “picked up” a phone, which he had. She remembers her frustrations over those two days, “It was crazy for two days. I was on a wild goose chase looking everywhere I could possibly think of. It was hard because the only numbers I have memorized were my mom’s and my dad’s”. In conclusion, both the hybrid focus group and in-depth interviews provided out tea, with stories about the participants losing keys, IDs, jewelry, and cell phone, confirming our predictions. Further, we noticed that the time between losing the item and finding was between one hour and a few days, which was parallel to information we had received in our focus group. Lastly, concerns about aesthetics and ethical issues persisted throughout hybrid focus groups and in-depth interviews and needed to be addressed. We believe that personal anecdotes collected in the focus group, in-depth interviews, and hybrid focus groups serve as a small sample of commonly lost items. Furthermore, our results confirmed most of the data previously collected. | 14

15: Throughout the qualitative process, we confirmed that there was a need for our product in the market and gained insight into new research questions and details of our product. In our in-depth interviews, we gained perspective from personal anecdotes, showing that the use of our product extends beyond our original thought, mainly keys and credit cards. Participants concluded that the amount of time and frustration saved was worth the cost of purchasing our product, confirming a potential market. However, because concerns surrounding ethical use and aesthetics of a sticker persisted throughout each stage of qualitative research, our team concluded to redesign some aspects of our product. We consulted with experts, reviewed the market, and brainstormed before making a decision. Our team came to the decision to change our product from a sticker to a GPS chip directly embedded into items of choice. To eliminate ethical and aesthetic concerns the chip would be installed directly through the retailers of our product, our patrons. After better defining our target market and redesigning our product, we were able to specifically direct the survey questions to gain statistical information to reaffirm our research. Due to our qualitative process only providing us with a small sample, we designed our survey to provide greater confidence and further information on the development of our product. | Qualitative Conclusion | 15

16: Quantitative Process | Survey Design | As a team, we decided that the goal of our survey was to find more specific data and fill in the research “gaps” that were not covered in our focus groups and in-depth interviews, including detailed demographic information about potential customers and typical losing behavior. In order to learn more about losing behavior, we wanted to further discover commonly lost items. While making our survey, we kept in mind that we wanted many variables to analyze in our results. We wanted to be able to cross reference the losing behavior of our customers with their general behaviors and attitudes to further confirm our potential customer. After our first draft, we realized we needed more demographic questions as well as an additional section about our product. Therefore, we added age, gender, level of education, location of permanent residence, and in-state or out-of-state student status. This would give us more information on who our potential customers are and their type of losing behavior. Secondly, we added a description of our product so that we gain feedback specific to our product, such as price, insurance, reason for purchase, etc. With addition of these questions, we believed our survey would provide valuable information were able to continue the research process as we defined our sampling plan. | 16

17: Sampling Plan | The initial goal of our sampling plan was to distribute and retrieve at least 200 surveys with a gender dichotomy. Therefore, we planned to have 100 males and 100 females participate in our survey, but in reality we experienced limitations. We had a final count of 211 surveys with 140 females and 61 males. We estimated that our gap in male participants resulted from our overestimation of males in our designated sample of the population as well as participants’ apathy in taking our survey online. We believe that many of the males taking our online survey either didn’t take the survey or dropped out before completing the gender question, leaving us with a disparity in our dichotomy through incomplete information. When we originally created our sampling plan, we each chose groups of people we believed would fulfill our dichotomy and age range. Beside two deviations, we were all able to remain true to the people we were going to survey. Sara and Brooke were unable to survey their sorority since their chapter was canceled the week of collecting and Carli could not survey her Zumba class due to technical limitations. Each of these deviations was mainly groups of females, and therefore, did not greatly affect our ability to reach the intended amount or dichotomy. We originally sought to do mostly paper surveys, but we found participants were more willing to take our online version of the survey. This also allowed us to email surveys to participants that we were unable to reach in person, specifically adults and high school students. This way we were able to better reach our intended sample plan. | 17

18: However, we found many unexpected insights when implementing the experiment and analyzing the results. First, we found the ad could relate to both men and women, contrary to our original hypothesis. We found that men were attracted to the ad as well, most likely due to the suggestiveness of the model. We found that the lips were an influential factor in the processing of the ad. Both females and males equally looked at the model’s lips. Following the credit card, this was the second most viewed section of the ad. We also found males did not read the entire text below the card and almost all ignored the bottom right text as shown in the heat maps on the following page. We believe this is in part due to the awkward placement of the text--directly above the model’s chest. So, if our group was trying to better highlight the text, we would position it to the text in the upper-left corner next closer to the lips. We wondered if the results would change in an individual situation when the male participants were not watched and somewhat uncomfortable looking at the placement. | Eye Tracking | We wanted to select an ad that best related to our product with few words (due to the fact that any text would probably be irrelevant to our product) and attract our viewers. We decided upon a Visa ad picturing a woman with a Visa card resembling a necklace around her neck. We interpreted the meaning to be the importance of security of credit cards. This ad was a good fit due to the amount of creativity, color contrast, and different possible interpretations. Having found that our potential customer is more likely to be a young female, the female model and type of ad was most relevant to our target demographic. The ad also provided us with greater potential insight into the gender effect in our ad. We selected 4 female and 3 male participants based upon the possible gender effect. We hypothesized that the male participants would not find the ad as relatable as the females would. | Our test ad | 18

19: Another insight we gained is the importance of the suggestiveness of the female model. If performing this experiment again, we would like to know whether males and females would be equally as interested in the ad if the model portrayed was a male rather than a female. Lastly, the high class appeals of our ad lead us to define our target market and personality of our brand. We concluded from all the information gathered through our research process, that our potential customer has a high-end and exquisite taste. Our team decided to develop our brand image around this conclusion leading us to our company name, Teclusive, and product name, Luxury Link. For more information, please see the Appendix. | After retrieving most of our surveys, we began the coding process to allow us to insert data into an excel spreadsheet. Once the coding sheet was made, we were able to match our coding sheet to the excel spreadsheet made by the online survey software. We went through each respondent's answers and coded them to match the numbers on our coding sheet. Once everything was coded we were able to upload our excel file into SAS. Here we ran our data through frequency tables and were able to verify that all of our data was clean. We were then able to run some summary statistics to analyze our survey results. From there, we were able to run tests to analyze our survey to begin to answer our initial research questions through both descriptive and inferential data, draw conclusions, and provide recommendations. | Data Collection & Coding | Heat Maps: red= longest fixation green= shortest fixation | Male Fixation | Female Fixation | *Please note that males tended to fixate below the text and did not fixate on the wording in the lower right band corner as much as females did. | 19

20: Is there a need for our product? | Although personal anecdotes in our qualitative research expressed a need for our product, our survey provided with a quantifiable need. As depicted in Figure A, we found that about 67.3% of survey participants lose an item at least one or more times per month, demonstrating significant need for such a product. Seen in Figure B, we learned that about 78.11% of participants were willing to buy our product as insurance and/or time and convenience, which correlated the given need with a willingness to purchase our product. This helped us to conclude that our product was meeting the needs of our customers, who lose items quite often. | Figure A | Figure B | 20

21: Through inferential analysis, we found that need was evident among our survey participants: An individual's likelihood to install our tracking system into their keys is dependent on how often they lose an item: Individuals who “strongly agree” that they would install this into their keys and/or ID tend lose items most often. (Please see the Appendix for more detailed information.) As a result, our team concluded that both descriptive statistics and inferential statistics provided information that confirmed that many people both lose items often and would be wiling to purchase our product. Our inferential data confirmed a definite positive correlation between those who lose items often (1 or more times per month) and those who are willing to purchase our product, specifically for use on their keys or ID. Therefore, we gained confidence to continue research to learn more about the lifestyles and personalities of our potential customers. | Further, as shown in Figure C, 78.37% of participants were willing to purchase our product for their phone, 58.38% for their credit card, 57.76% for their keys, 50.77% for their credit card, and 32.99% for their jewelry. | Figure C | 21

22: Who is our customer? | To learn more about our customers and target market, we needed more detailed demographic information about our survey participants, including their gender, age, income level, and personality. As pictured in Figure B1 in the appendix, we found that 69.65% of survey participants were female and that 69% of survey participants were between the ages of 18 and 22 as pictured in the Figure A below. Through inferential analysis, we found that younger participants under the age of 29, particularly between the ages of 23 and 29, were most likely to lose items and most likely to purchase our tracking system. For instance, participants between the ages of 23 and 29 were both most likely to lose items and most likely to install this tracking system in their keys. Although only 3% of our participants, were 17 years or younger, this age group showed high interest in our product. Participants age 17 or younger were most willing to install our product into their IDs, credit cards, jewelry, and phone. (Please see the appendix for more detailed data.) The combination of these results lead us to determine that our target market is generally below the age of 29. | Figure A | 22

23: Further, we found that female participants were more likely to lose their IDs, jewelry, and credit cards, while males were more likely to lose their phones. (Please see the appendix for more detailed data in Data B3 and Figure B2 b.) Overall, we found that female participants were also more likely to install our product into most items, including keys, jewelry, credit cards, IDs, and phone. (Please see Figure C.) This helped us to understand that females are both more likely to lose items and more likely to purchase our product. (Please see the appendix for more detailed data in Data B4.) Therefore, we were able to determine that our target market in generally female. | Further, we were able to have a better understanding of our customer's purchasing power through questions in two areas: yearly travel and location status of university. We inferred that a person might have greater purchasing power if he/she travels often and/or is an out-of-state student. In response, we found that 51.5% of participants traveled between 2 and 4 times per year as shown in Figure B3 in the appendix, and that 33% of participants were out-of-state students as shown in Figure B4 in the appendix. Through inferential analysis, we found that out-of-state students were almost two times as likely to purchase our product as were fellow in-state students, as pictured in the Figure C. Also, we found that participants who travel 5-7 times per year were most likely to purchase our product. (Please see the appendix for more detailed data in Data B5, Data B6, and Figure B5.) From this information, we found those most likely to purchase our product are middle-upper class and travel fairly frequently. | Figure B | Figure C | 23

24: Who is our customer? | To learn more about our customers and target market, we needed more detailed demographic information about our survey participants, including their gender, age, income level, and personality. As pictured in Figure B1 in the appendix, we found that 69.65% of survey participants were female and that 69% of survey participants were between the ages of 18 and 22 as pictured in the Figure A below. Through inferential analysis, we found that younger participants under the age of 29, particularly between the ages of 23 and 29, were most likely to lose items and most likely to purchase our tracking system. For instance, participants between the ages of 23 and 29 were both most likely to lose items and most likely to install this tracking system in their keys. Although only 3% of our participants, were 17 years or younger, this age group showed high interest in our product. Participants age 17 or younger were most willing to install our product into their IDs, credit cards, jewelry, and phone. (Please see the appendix for more detailed data.) The combination of these results lead us to determine that our target market is generally below the age of 29. | Figure A | 22

25: Further, we found that female participants were more likely to lose their IDs, jewelry, and credit cards, while males were more likely to lose their phones. (Please see the appendix for more detailed data in Data B3 and Figure B2 b.) Overall, we found that female participants were also more likely to install our product into most items, including keys, jewelry, credit cards, IDs, and phone. (Please see Figure C.) This helped us to understand that females are both more likely to lose items and more likely to purchase our product. (Please see the appendix for more detailed data in Data B4.) Therefore, we were able to determine that our target market in generally female. | Further, we were able to have a better understanding of our customer's purchasing power through questions in two areas: yearly travel and location status of university. We inferred that a person might have greater purchasing power if he/she travels often and/or is an out-of-state student. In response, we found that 51.5% of participants traveled between 2 and 4 times per year as shown in Figure B3 in the appendix, and that 33% of participants were out-of-state students as shown in Figure B4 in the appendix. Through inferential analysis, we found that out-of-state students were almost two times as likely to purchase our product as were fellow in-state students, as pictured in the Figure C. Also, we found that participants who travel 5-7 times per year were most likely to purchase our product. (Please see the appendix for more detailed data in Data B5, Data B6, and Figure B5.) From this information, we found those most likely to purchase our product are middle-upper class and travel fairly frequently. | Figure B | Figure C | 23

26: Lastly, we knew that the price for our product was dependent on the existing need, socioeconomic status of our customer, and the willingness of our customer to buy our product. Based on our survey results depicted in Figure A below, we found that 24.75% of participants were willing to pay between $16-20 for our product and were able to gather valuable data to help us determine a valid price range. As we had found that our target market is generally younger, middle-upper class females below the age of 30, we also found that females are more likely to both purchase and pay more for our product as shown in Figure B. (Please see the appendix for more detailed data in Data B6). From the information in Figure A below, we were able to confirm that a reasonable price would be between $11 and $20 for our product. | Figure A | Figure B | 24

27: Our potential partners, called patrons, are based both on our target market and commonly lost items. When asked to distribute 100 point between commonly lost items, the average survey participant gave his/her phone 30.99% of points, his/her key 27.79% of points, ID 16.64% of points, his/her jewelry 15.64% of points, and his/her credit card 7.67% of points. (Please see Figure C.) From these results, we concluded that phone and keys are the most commonly lost items, but ID and jewelry fall close behind and thus we should partner with related companies that meet the needs of our middle-upper class younger female customer such as Verizon, Apple, Tiffany’s, BMW, as well as others listed on Page 5. We also found that 69% of participants were more likely to buy an Apple computer over a PC, confirming our possible partnership with Apple. Therefore, your company has been selected as a good fit for partnership with Teclusive and our new product, Luxury Link based on the data we have gathered and analyzed. | Who are our potential patrons? | Figure C | 25

28: Our future advertising is very much related to our target market, young middle-upper class females, the type of television shows she watches, and how she spends her free time. We found that females are more likely to watch either reality shows or drama shows. (Please see the appendix for more detailed data in Data B7 and Figure B6.) We also gathered information about how she spends her time on the weekend. As 69.65% of survey participants were female and 69% of survey participants were under age 30, we analyzed descriptive data to gain general knowledge about her weekend activities. 26% of participants were most likely to stay in and watch a movie, 25% were most likely to go to a bar/party, and 21% were most likely to do homework/career work as shown in Figure A. Therefore, based on the information that we collected, we would advertise through reality and drama shows and might include pictures and/or scenes in our advertisements relative to her weekend activities such as watching a movie, going to a bar/party, or doing homework/career work. For instance, we could advertise our product as helping a young lady find her phone that she lost at a bar. This advertisement might appear during "The Bachelor", a show she is likely to watch.This would allow us to relate to our target market and would help us to effectively reach our target market through advertising. | Where should we advertise? | Possible TV shows with whom to advertise:

29: Summary of Recommendations | Is there a need for our product?: Yes, research has show a consistent need and willingness of potential customers to purchase the product, therefore, continue research and development. Who is our customer?: Based on descriptive and inferential data, we found that our target market is young, middle-upper class females, under the age of thirty and therefore will cater Luxury Link and its advertisements and patrons to meet her needs and wants. Who are our patrons?: Based on our target market and items lost most frequently, we have found that we should partner with companies that carry or manufacture cell phones, keys, IDs, jewelry, and credit cards in that priority. Such patrons may include Verizon, BMV, Tiffany's, and Visa. Where should we advertise?: Based on our target market, the TV shows she watches, and how she spends her free time, we believe that it would be best to advertise during drama and reality television shows and in advertisements that show pictures and/or scenes that relate to the way she lives her life and spends her free time. | 27

30: Throughout the research process our team experienced a variety of limitations. Within the qualitative stage, our focus group was the source of our greatest limitations. We had trouble with attendance and participants feeling comfortable enough to respond in depth to our questions. We received many simple “yes” and “no” responses and had trouble pushing them to provide further detail. Many were distracted by their cell phones, chatting amongst themselves, and getting off topic. Because of these limitations, we moved forward to create a more open line of communication within our hybrid focus group and in-depth interviews in hopes of correcting the limitation from our focus group. The one set with our second round of questioning was full record of information due to the inability to record conversations. Within the quantitative portion of our research, we found some limitations with our survey, sample plan, and eye-tracking. As previously stated, our survey had a few limitations within the sampling plan. We were unable to fully fulfill our dichotomy and found some errors due to lack of full completion of some surveys including one survey in which the participant dropped out after the first question, this survey was dropped from analysis. For our sample plan we had hoped to survey a wider age range, but in actuality the dominant portion of respondents were Miami students. During our eye-tracking experiment, we came across issues with our participants. This issued included the limited small sample due to the time allotted for the process as well as participants, primarily male, feeling uncomfortable to fully speak their minds due to the suggestiveness of the ad. The accuracy of the technology may have also lead to unidentifiable limitations and errors in results. From these limitation stated, they allowed our team to build new questions and revise processes for future research. | Limitations | 28

31: Future Research | To further continue the development of our product many new strategies arose. From the limitations expressed in our research process thus far we developed additional questions to investigate. We would like to gather more information on potential customers in a wider range of age, income, education level, and interests. This would allow us to better define and target potential consumers as well as patrons through our advertising. Before launching our product into the market, we would utilize product trials, further surveys, and product focus groups to test the success of our physical product on a small scale with limited opportunity for failure. For example, we would hold a focus group in which participants would be able to touch and try our product to eliminate any technology, user, and aesthetic errors. This would allow us to see their interactions and reactions to our product and its features. We would invite potential patrons to view the focus group and gage interest in partnership as well as any concerns about our product. Once final complications were eliminated from the product and partnerships were formed, we would conduct a test market with a limited number of our patrons in cities best suited to our target market and patron locations. This would allow our company and patrons to gain confidence in our product’s success before launching it on a large scale. As advertising is an important component to any product launch, we would want to test possible advertisements in a range of media outlets. We would need to gather information on the best media to promote our product as well as brand perception. Our team would want to run another eye-tracking experiment to test still and moving ads under our company’s name and our patron’s name to find the most successful way to promote our product. | 29

32: Appendix | Eye Tracking | A1: Gaze Plot- All Shows the order in which each participant, marked by a color, viewed the ad. The larger the circle, the longer a participant fixated on that part of the ad. | A2: Female Opacity | A3: Male Opacity | Opacity Plots: The more visible an area of the ad is, the longer and more often the average male or female participant fixated on it. Please note that on the male opacity chart, very little of the text in the bottom right corner is visible, most likely due to the fact that male participants were uncomfortable fixating in this area due to its suggestive placement. | 30

33: Qualitative Data: | Is there a need for our product? | Correlation between: how often you lose an item and for which item(s) you would be willing to purchase this product? | Lose items frequently vs. Willing to purchase for keys An individual’s likelihood to install our tracking system into their keys is dependent on how often they lose something (x2=27.39, p=.001) Individuals who “strongly agree” that they would install this into their keys lose items most often (approximate ranking 73.55) Individuals who “agree” that they would install this into their keys lose items often (approximate ranking 106.75) Individuals who are “neutral” about whether they would install this into their keys lose items less often (approximate ranking 110.89) Individuals who “disagree” that they would install this into their keys lose items even less often (approximate ranking 119.50) Individuals who “strongly disagree” that they would install this into their keys lose items the least often (approximate ranking 128.96) Lose items frequently vs. Willing to purchase for ID An individual’s likelihood to install our tracking system into their ID is dependent on how often they lose something (x2=12.34, p=.0150) Individuals who “strongly agree” that they would install this into their ID lose items most often (approximate ranking 83.30) Individuals who “agree” that they would install this into their ID lose items often (approximate ranking 98.52) Individuals who are “neutral” about whether they would install this into their ID lose items less often (approximate ranking 103.22) Individuals who “disagree” that they would install this into their ID lose items even less often (approximate ranking 114.15) Individuals who “strongly disagree” that they would install this into their ID lose items the least often (approximate ranking 120.95) | ***The higher the rating, the less likely a participant is to purchase the item. | 31

34: Who is our customer? | Figure B1 | Data B1 An individual’s likelihood to lose something more or less frequently is dependent on his/her age. (Age vs. Likelihood to Lose Items(x2 approximation=12.21, p=.0319).) Age group 23-29 (approximate ranking 77.31) is most likely to frequently lose an item Age group 18-22 (approximate ranking 96.29) is second most likely to frequently lose an item Age group 17 and younger (approximate ranking 100.06) is third most likely to frequently lose an item Age group 30-39 (approximate ranking 119.12) is fourth most likely to frequently lose an item Age group 50+ (approximate ranking 130.06) is fifth most likely to frequently lose an item Age group 40-49 (approximate ranking 131.11) is least likely to frequently lose an item | Data B2: An individuals likelihood to install our tracking system into their phone is dependent on their age (x2 approximation=14.39, p=.0133) Age range 17 and younger (approximate ranking 91.59) are most likely to install this into their phone Age range 18-22 (approximate ranking 92.18) are second most likely to install this into their phone Age range 50+ (approximate ranking 97.32) are third most likely to install this into their phone Age range 23-29 (approximate ranking 103.36) are fourth most likely to install this into their phone Age range 40-49 (approximate ranking 111.50) are fifth most likely to install this into their phone Age range 30-39 (approximate ranking 133.93) are least likely to install this into their phone | 32

35: An individual’s likelihood to install our tracking system into their keys is dependent on their age range (x2 approximation=17.97, p=.0030) Age group 23-29 (approximate ranking 74.05) is most likely to install this into their keys Age group 17 or younger (approximate ranking 94.50) is second most likely to install this into their keys Age group 18-22 (approximate ranking 95.93) is third most likely to install this into their keys Age group 50+ (approximate ranking 106.90) is fourth most likely to install this into their keys Age group 30-39 (approximate ranking 130.68) is fifth most likely to install this into their keys Age group 40-49 (approximate ranking 161.45) is least likely to install this into their keys An individual’s likelihood to install our tracking system into their ID is dependent on their age (x2 approximation=21.28, p=.0007) Age group 17 and younger (approximate ranking 88.68) is most likely to install this into their ID Age group 18-22 (approximate ranking 89.73) is second most likely to install this into their ID Age group 23-29 (approximate ranking 95.22) is third most likely to install this into their ID Age group 50+ (approximate ranking 131.71) is fourth most likely to install this into their ID Age group 30-39 (approximate ranking 142.18) is fifth most likely to install this into their ID Age group 40-49 (approximate ranking 147.16) is least likely to install this into their ID | An individuals likelihood to install our tracking system into their credit card is dependent on their age (x2 approximation=16.12, p=.0065). Age range 17 and younger (approximate ranking 80.18) is mot likely to install this into their credit card Age range 18-22 (approximate ranking 93.15) is second most likely to install this into their credit card Age range 23-29 (approximate ranking 94.89) is third most likely to install this into their credit card Age range 50+ (approximate ranking 106.64) is fourth most likely to install this into their credit card Age range 40-49 (approximate ranking 129.94) is fifth most likely to install this into their credit card Age range 30-39 (approximate ranking 160.25) is least likely to install this into their credit card An individuals likelihood to install our tracking system into their jewelry is dependent on their age (x2 approximation=7.82, p=.1163) Age range 17 and younger (approximate ranking 74.91) is most likely to install this into their jewelry Age range 23-29 (approximate ranking 81.03) is second most likely to install this into their jewelry Age range 50+ (approximate ranking 90.50) is third most likely to install this into their jewelry Age range 18-22 (approximate ranking 97.62) is fourth most likely to install this into their jewelry Age range 40-49 (approximate ranking 111.50) is fifth most likely to install this into their jewelry Age range 30-39 (approximate ranking 133.93) is least likely to install this into their jewelry | Data B2 continued | 33

36: Data B3: Gender vs. More Likely to Lose: Keys: Males (Mean=38.92) lose their keys more often than Females (mean=21.89) (t=-4.47) p(<.001) ID: Females (mean= 17.5) lose their ID more often than males (mean=15.44) (t=.67) (p .5042) Credit Card: Females (mean=7.79) lose their credit card more often than males (mean=6.44) (t=.82) (p .4152) Jewelry: Females (mean=21.29) lose their jewelry more often than males (mean=3.61) (t=5.67) (p<.001) Phone: Males (mean=32.15) lose their phone more often than females (mean=30.80) (t=-.36) (p .7216) | Date B4: Gender vs. More Likely to Install: Keys: Males (mean=2.90) are less likely to install the tracking system into their keys than females (mean=2.5) (t=-1.91) (p .0579) ID: Males (mean=3.07) are less likely to install the tracking system into their ID than females (mean=2.70) (t=-1,7) (p .0927) Credit Card: Males (mean=2.97) are less likely to install the tracking system into their credit card than females (mean=2.46) (t=-2.34) (p .0204) Jewelry: Males (mean=3.55) are less likely to install the tracking system into their jewelry than females (mean=3.06) (t=.0236) (p .00236) Phone: Males (mean=2.54) are less likely to install the tracking system into their phones than females (mean=1.96) (t=-2.88) (p .0044) | Figure B2: Please note that the larger the rating, the less frequently items are lost | 34

37: Figure B3 | Figure B4 | Data B5: Out-of-State students (approx. 102.34) are more likely to pay more for our tracking system than In-State (approx. 86.17). (z=1.98) (p=.0488) | Figure B5 | Data B6: People that traveled 5-7 times per year (approx. 108.57) are more likely to pay more for our tracking system than those that travel (x2 approx= 3.25) (p=.5177): 0-1 times (approx. 91.29) 2-4 times (approx. 99.34) 8-10 times (approx 100.38) Over 10 times (81.44) | 35

38: Data B7: Television Shows vs. Gender Crime TV: Females (approx. 101.81) are less likely than males (approx. 95.8) to watch crime TV. (z=-.68) (p .4943) Reality TV: Males (approx. 138.13) are less likely than females (approx. 83.43) to watch reality TV. (z= 6.28) (p<.001) Sports: Females (approx. 117.22) are less likely than males (approx. 62.41) to watch sports. (z=-6.27) (p<.001) News: Females (approx 102.25) are less likely than males (approx. 96.52) to watch the news. (z=.66) (p .5127) Drama TV: Males (approx 131.57) are less likely than females (86.37) to watch drama TV. (z=5.19) (p<.001) Comedy TV: Females (approx 110.02) are less likely than males (approx 78.80) to watch comedy TV. (z=-3.6) (p.004) | Figure B6: | 36

39: Thank you | Teclusive appreciates your attendance at today's exclusive Winter 2012 Collection Exclusive Patron Premier. | For more information about joining our exclusive patron partnership, please contact Sandra Carnegie at 345.243.1102. We look forward to having you as a part of our premiere team! | 37

Sizes: mini|medium|large|colossal
Default User
  • By: carli w.
  • Joined: over 4 years ago
  • Published Mixbooks: 1
No contributors

About This Mixbook

  • Title: Teclusive Winter 2012 Collection Look Book
  • Tags: None
  • Published: about 4 years ago

Get up to 50% off
Your first order

Get up to 50% off
Your first order