Gabriel Fishbein
April 12, 2015
BMGT 352 – Consumer-Centric Innovation
Yogesh Joshi
CleanSmart Design Report
CleanSmart has one main core benefit proposition: it is an effective, lightweight, concentrated
alternative to traditional window cleaners.
I took surveys to determine peoples’ perceptions of current players in the window cleaning market
space. The results of this survey are in Appendix A. Based on these results, I was able to learn about how
people viewed window-cleaning solutions compared to each other. Based on effectiveness, the market
leader, Windex, was rated highest in cleaning effectiveness. Second was the store brand, third was
concentrate (like CleanSmart), and in last was homemade cleaner. This taught me that a large obstacle I
had to overcome was changing peoples’ opinions about the effectiveness of cleaner concentrate. The
second aspect survey participants rated these cleaners on was the smell. While Windex, the store brand,
and homemade cleaner scored nearly identically in this category, the concentrate scored well below
them. This shows that I need to educate consumers that the concentrate will not smell bad, change their
preconceptions of the product. Third, participants rated purchase ease for both Windex and store brand
a perfect 5/5, while concentrate scored a neutral 3/5. This shows the potential market for this product,
as people believe that this option is currently not available to them. By educating them and opening up
this market, I can get CleanSmart into many households. One of the main reasons people may not
currently buy concentrate is that they do not believe that it is available to them. In my fourth area of
focus, ease of carrying, all cleaners scored approximately the same. This shows that I need to educate
consumers on the method of delivery (tiny bottles), showing them that it is much easier to carry from
the store than a typical large spray bottle. Finally, participants were surveyed on price. They perceived
homemade window cleaners to be the most expensive, followed by the concentrate, and then both
store brand and Windex as the least expensive. This presents an opportunity for CleanSmart, as it can be
marketed as the inexpensive solution. Overall, this survey showed that there is a large gap between
consumers’ perceptions of concentrated window cleaner and the current market alternatives. This gap
allows for a large amount of consumer education on this new type of window-cleaning product.
With these ratings in mind, I created a perceptual map (see Appendix B) that shows where current
market players are, and CleanSmart’s desired position. I would like to market CleanSmart as an
extremely effective and good smelling, since these areas are where there are large discrepancies
between consumers’ perceptions of concentrate verses other alternatives. Price and ease of purchase
did not appear to be important areas to primarily distinguish CleanSmart.
I applied a conjoint analysis to determine the relative value of different features of CleanSmart (see
Appendix C). The respondent rated nine products with different combinations and variations of
attributes. The first attribute was cleaning effectiveness. The cleaner could either be not, somewhat, or
very effective. The second was smell, which could be bad, neutral, or good. Third was product
availability, which could be exclusive, moderately distributed, or ubiquitous. Fourth was price, where the
three options were $1.99, $2.99, and $3.99. After the calculations, I received output that showed the
relative importance of different attributes.
The largest differences in utility points occurred in cleaning effectiveness. This shows that regardless of
other factors, if a window cleaner does not do its job, then people will not buy it. The second largest
difference in utility points was in smell. The fact that people care about the smell of the product
demonstrates that they may believe the scent will be unsafe. In addition, it confirms the findings from
the surveys of peoples’ perceptions. Distribution strategy showed little pattern, signifying that people
are not greatly concerned with where their window cleaner is distributed. There was a weak pattern for
peoples’ preference to price, although the product is generally cheap enough and used infrequently
enough that price was not a huge factor for product selection, even though it still held a weak effect.
Overall in the importance computation, cleaning effectiveness held 67% importance, followed by smell
at 19%. The remaining 14% was split between availability and price, at 7% apiece. These numbers
confirm the relative importance of each attribute, with particular emphasis on cleaning effectiveness
and smell.
All of this output greatly impacts my product design. First, I need to educate consumers on the product
benefits very clearly on the packaging. The biggest obstacle will be demonstrating that CleanSmart
cleans just as effectively as other methods, specifically the non-concentrates. This would be depicted on
the packaging; perhaps a side-by-side of windows cleaned with different products. Another method
could be television advertisements to show effectiveness. Second, I will have to show customers that
the product does not smell bad, and does not release noxious fumes. This might have to be spelled out
on the packaging. Third, I will have to employ an aggressive distribution strategy that puts the product
on as many store shelves as the other brands. The presence of CleanSmart on the shelves will add the
product to consumers’ evoked set of products for window cleaning. I plan on repositioning CleanSmart
on consumers’ perceptual maps as described above, and depicted in Appendix B.
On top of these aspects of consumer education, CleanSmart will have to deliver on other aspects that fit
in with the conjoint analysis. The largest would be cleaning effectiveness, like I mentioned before. In
addition, I plan to distinguish the product by price, and price it lower than competitors. People might
abandon the importance of other aspects (besides effectiveness, it showed too important) for price. This
breaks peoples’ number one barrier to purchase, and could convert them to become regular consumers
of CleanSmart.
This approach seems like a departure from my original area of distinction, which was the lightness of the
product compared to the heavy, mostly-water alternatives. This type of distinguishing feature is difficult
to compare and quantify, so I excluded it from my experiment so I could get useful data regarding other
product attributes. I have not abandoned this core benefit proposition, but I have modified it to address
the concerns of consumers regarding product effectiveness, price, smell, and safety.
With these modifications in mind, the product design will change only slightly. There will be a starter
pack that comes with an empty spray bottle, and one or two small bottles of concentrated cleaner. Then
there will be refill packs that are just the small bottles. On the packaging of the starter pack, there will
be a depiction of how much of a typical cleaner is water. It will also mention the weight of the water,
and the cost of the water verses how much the other companies are charging for it (typically pennies vs.
dollars). It will have instructions on the back that are very short and easy to understand. Step 1: Pour!
Pour the concentrate into the empty bottle. Step 2: Fill! Fill the remainder of the bottle space with water.
Step 3: Shake! Shake until mixed. You are ready to go! Finally, there will be side-by-side pictures
showing that it cleans with no streaks, just like Windex promises. I am choosing not to represent the
smell of the product on the package because it may backfire, causing consumers to question the smell,
instead of not evoking this doubt and worry.
Overall, this marketing plan covers every facet to ensure that CleanSmart will be a successful product.
Appendix A
Survey Results
Windex Effectiveness
Store Brand Effectiveness
5
3
5
5
4
5
4
5
4
4.444444444
Average
Windex Smell
Average
Store Brand Smell
4
4
4
3
2
3
4
4
4
3.555555556
Windex Purchase Ease
Store Brand Purchase Ease
Windex Carrying Ease
3
4
5
4
5
5
3
5
5
4.333333333
Windex Inexpensiveness
Average
4
3
4
2
2
5
3
1
4
3.111111111
Concentrate Effectiveness
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
Homemade Smell
4
4
2
3
2
3
4
4
3
3.222222222
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Average
Average
Homemade Effectiveness
3
3
2
5
3
4
3
2
3
3.111111111
4
2
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
3.555555556
Concentrate Smell
5
2
4
2
3
4
5
2
1
3.111111111
2
4
2
1
2
4
3
1
2
2.333333333
Concentrate Purchase Ease
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Store Brand Carrying Ease
3
4
5
4
5
4
3
5
5
4.222222222
2
4
5
2
4
4
2
2
2
3
Concentrate Carrying Ease
4
5
5
2
5
5
4
5
3
4.222222222
Store Brand Inexpensiveness Homemade Inexpensiveness Concentrate Expensiveness
3
2
3
4
5
2
5
5
5
3
5
2
3
3
3
3
2
4
4
5
5
2
5
3
2
1
4
3.222222222
3.666666667
3.444444444
Appendix B
Appendix C
Orthogonal Conjoint Design for CleanSmart
Card #1
Card #2
Card #3
Card #4
Card #5
Card #6
Card #7
Card #8
Card #9
Cleaning Effectiveness
Not
Somewhat
Very
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bad
Smell
Neutral
Good
X
Preferences
4
6
7
1
2
3
9
5
8
$1.99
X
Price
$2.99
$3.99
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Not
Somewhat
19.0 Very
21.0
22.0 Bad
16.0 Neutral
17.0 Good
18.0
24.0 Exclusive
19.7 Moderate
23.0 Ubiquitous
99.9% 1.99
2.99
3.99
Availability
Moderate Ubiquitous
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Simple Part Worth Utility Estimation
Card #1
Card #2
Card #3
Card #4
Card #5
Card #6
Card #7
Card #8
Card #9
Exclusive
X
X
Importance Computation
Utility
8.0
5.0
2.0
5.7
5.3
4.0
5.3
4.7
5.0
4.7
5.0
5.3
max
Cleaning Effectiveness
8.0
Smell
5.7
Availability
5.3
Price
5.3
min
2.0
4.0
4.7
4.7
column sum:
max-min
6.0
1.7
0.7
0.7
Importance
67%
19%
7%
7%
9.0
100%