BrandIndex's quick service restaurant data the centerpiece of Nation's Restaurant News cover story







Chains mull benefits of value menus, combo deals


By MARK BRANDAU

Dairy Queen’s Sweet Deals value menu may be rolling out nationally just in time to fight the recession, but it’s hardly a knee-jerk reaction to economic pressure, according to officials. The chain began testing the offer in 2007, before the downturn hit, said Michael Keller, chief brand officer, who was worried even then about DQ’s value proposition.

“I didn’t get it,” Keller said. “Guests liked our food, but why didn’t they visit us as often as they did some of our competitors? It was about barriers to repeat purchase, and one of those was value.”

As officials at Dairy Queen and other chains have realized, protecting margins and cutting prices aren’t the only considerations when executing value menus or combo deals. In this economy, brand perception also plays a key role in the decision to unveil one or the other—and can prove a hurdle in the race to appeal to consumers’ sense of value.

DQ’s response to the value question is Sweet Deals, which will become a permanent menu beginning March 1 at 2,323 restaurants in the United States and 400 in Canada. The tiered offering lets customers buy two items for $3, three for $4 and four for $5. The nine menu items include a cheeseburger, hot dog, chicken wrap, fries, onion rings, side salad and a medium beverage, as well as a small soft-serve sundae or cone.

“The tiered pricing structure put us in a situation where margins per transaction were favorable to that of a dollar menu,” Keller said.

So far value deals have produced mixed results for companies in terms of enhancing their value perceptions, according to recent research from New York-based BrandIndex, a firm that tracks consumer perceptions. BrandIndex scores are calculated by subtracting the percentage of consumers rating a brand negatively from the percentage of consumers rating a brand positively. Dairy Queen and Sonic, which rolled out its Everyday Value Menu late last year, have fared best in terms of value scores among chains touting a new money-saving focus.

DQ has a 34.4 BrandIndex rating for value for 2009 year-to-date, up 1.7 percentage points from the fourth quarter of 2008. Keller said Sweet Deals already accounts for an average of 7 percent of sales in test markets, and the menu could add between 2 percent and 3 percent to same-store sales this year. Companywide sales were up 3 percent in 2008, he said, and are up another 3 percent year-to-date in 2009.

Sonic has a 22.7 BrandIndex rating, up 3.6 percentage points from last year’s fourth quarter.

Starbucks said its $3.95 breakfast pairings are more brand-appropriate than a value menu.

By contrast, KFC’s 2009 year-to-date rating is 10.6, down 3.1 points from 2008’s fourth quarter, though the data do not reflect the chain’s most recent value initiatives: the just-begun “Unbeatable Feast” combo deal and Ultimate Value Menu. The same is probably true for Starbucks, which will begin its $3.95 “breakfast pairings” March 3 and has the highest hurdle to clear in terms of brand perception. Starbucks’ year-to-date BrandIndex rating fell to -30.8, from -25.3 in 2008’s fourth quarter.

For its part, KFC launched the $14.99 “Unbeatable Feast” combo and a tiered value menu—10 items priced at 99 cents, $1.49 or $1.99—to cater to price-conscious individuals and families.

“There are a couple kinds of value,” said Rick Maynard, KFC’s public relations manager. “There’s a value menu for lunch customers and snackers, and then there’s family value, which is a big part of our business.”

The value menu was tested for about a year in the Los Angeles market, Maynard said.

Qdoba Mexican Grill, which BrandIndex does not track, opted to test a combo deal, which bundles any of Qdoba’s 18 chicken entrĂ©es with chips and salsa and a drink for $6.99, a savings of about 20 percent. The combo, currently in test in 22 states, was meant to maintain operational flexibility and the brand’s image, said David Craven, director of marketing.

“Once you introduce a value menu, it’s difficult to repeal that,” Craven said. “We are doing this for a limited time. We felt that the program we put in place lends itself easily to withdrawing, [more] than the introduction of a full value menu.

“We in no way wanted…to give the perception that customers weren’t getting the quality and portion sizes that they’re used to getting from Qdoba.”

Alisa Martinez, spokeswoman for Starbucks, also said a bundled deal was more brand-appropriate than a value menu. The chain’s breakfast pairings will sell a tall latte with either oatmeal or cinnamon-swirl coffee cake, and a tall brewed coffee with one of three breakfast sandwiches.

The breakfast pairings bolster Starbucks’ reputation as an “affordable luxury” because it shows the brand listens to its customers, offering popular items for a savings of as much as $1.70 per pairing, Martinez said.

“It wasn’t a matter of trying to upsize somebody or sell them something they don’t necessarily want,” she said. “The pairings are our top sellers, so we’re extending to our regular customers the price break.”

Dairy Queen’s Keller said value menus work better for his brand and quick-service competitors because they typically are not associated with higher price points found at fast-casual chains or coffeehouses. Sweet Deals’ hybrid approach, offering several items from a value menu but in thousands of possible combinations, reflects consumers’ need for control over how much they spend and subsequently save, he added.

Quick-service brands also are more likely to have a broader food offering, Keller said, making value menus a natural way to put a value proposition in front of a customer looking for price relief and possibly trading down from fast casual or casual dining.

“The tricky thing now is that the lines are blurring,” he said. “Consumers are choosing across categories now.”

BrandIndex's Super Bowl branding study is subject of big Advertising Age story





Who Burnished Their Brand With Super Bowl Ads, and Who Didn't

Pepsi, Budweiser, Cars.com Get Biggest Boost in Consumer Perception


NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- The Pittsburgh Steelers weren't the only big winners on Super Bowl Sunday. Brands such as Pepsi, Budweiser, Cars.com, General Electric and Bridgestone also pulled off some heroics last weekend, albeit not in the form of a dramatic last-minute, game-winning touchdown drive like the Steelers. Instead the aforementioned marketers earned their victories through 30 and 60-second spots which ran during the game and cost roughly $100,000 a second.

According to research group YouGov Polimetrix, Pepsi, which bought four minutes of airtime for products including flagship brand Pepsi, Pepsi Max, SoBe and Gatorade, saw the biggest overall increase in positive buzz among men and women, with a 23.2 point increase in positive perception about the brand.

During the week leading up to the Super Bowl, YouGov tracked advertisers in the big game using its BrandIndex service, which interviews a sample of 5,000 adult (aged 18 and over) consumers a day, to measure the consumer perception of all Super Bowl advertisers. It then measured consumer perception again the day after the game.

The before and after scores are net scores representing the percentage of respondents who have heard recent positive buzz minus the percentage of respondents who have heard recent negative buzz about a marketer.

Pepsi, CareerBuilder on top
Leading up to the Super Bowl, Pepsi had a score of 24.2. But the day after, its score jumped to 47.3. Among men, that leap was 17.7 points (23.2 prior to 40.9 after) and was even higher with women, at 20.5 points (29.8 prior to 50.3 after). Pepsi was the biggest gainer among women, while CareerBuilder's jump of 21.8 points was the biggest among men (3.8 prior to 25.6 after).

Pepsi's primary opponent on Super Bowl Sunday, Coca-Cola, went into the game with the highest scores across the board -- overall (34.6); men (33.6); and women (34.6) -- but, unlike Pepsi, it failed to make a big impact with its ads and only saw a single-digit increase in positive perception -- 8.0 overall; 8.1 with men; and 5.3 with women.

Surprisingly, Audi, one of the few automakers that has managed to perform quite well over the past few months, seems to have missed the mark with its Super Bowl spot, most dramatically with men. The week before the game the automaker's scores were at 8.7 overall, 11.9 with men and 5.7 with women. The day after the game its overall number dropped 5.9 points to 2.8 and 11.9 points to 0.5 among men. Its score remained practically unchanged with women, increasing 0.1 point to 5.8.

Surprising Audi results
Ted Marzilli, senior VP-general manager of the brand group at YouGov Polimetrix, said the Audi results were the most surprising outcome, particularly its poor performance among men.

"It was a longer commercial and ran at the beginning of the game, which may have had an impact," he said, offering up a possible explanation for the findings.

"It included some chase scenes and crashes, which would generally appeal to men, but maybe it was just a little too subtle in terms of its message. And it wasn't until the very end of that commercial that you saw it was an ad for Audi, so [Audi] had to keep everyone's attention for quite awhile," he said, adding, "I don't know if that was a mistake but that could have contributed to Audi not having a successful ad amongst men."

Audi's drop of 11.4 points was the largest among men. Heineken saw the biggest drop in the overall category of 7.0 points (20.8 prior to 13.8 after) and GoDaddy's play on the 2005 Major League Baseball hearings featuring surgically enhanced women did not go over well with female audiences. It went into the Super Bowl with a score of -0.1 and came out with a score of -6.1.

Was it worth it?
Mr. Marzilli said it was too hard to say unequivocally whether spending $3 million for 30 seconds was actually worth it.

"On the one hand you're capturing a huge audience who has the potential to view your commercial," he said. "It's not that you're really paying a premium for the Super Bowl given the size of the audience, so from that perspective it can make mathematical sense. When you look at it from the reaction that consumers have had to most of these brands, you can say there was some impact on consumers. And the real test will be over the next couple of days to see if consumers retain this message and do the scores stay elevated, and ultimately will these brands see a lift in sales or new customers?"

BIGGEST WINNERS
Buzz (Adults, 18+)
Brand
Week Prior Day After Change
Pepsi 24.2 47.3 23.2
Budweiser 23.4 41.8 18.4
Cars.com 0.3 14.0 13.7
General Electric 8.7 21.3 12.6
Bridgestone 2.9 14.2 11.3
Buzz (Men)
CareerBuilder 3.8 25.6 21.8
Cars.com 1.6 22.5 20.9
Budweiser 18.1 38.7 20.6
Pepsi 23.2 40.9 17.7
E-Trade 4.5 17.9 13.5
Buzz (Women)
Pepsi 29.8 50.3 20.5
Taco Bell 8.3 24.0 15.7
Budweiser 30.9 44.4 13.5
Bridgestone 3.6 14.5 10.9
General Electric 17.9 27.7 9.9

BIGGEST LOSERS
Buzz (Adults, 18+)
Brand
Week Prior Day After Change
Gatorade 22.5 23.0 0.5
Hyundai 8.2 8.3 0.1
Sprint 6.1 3.5 -2.6
Audi 8.7 2.8 -5.9
Heineken 20.8 13.8 -7.0
Buzz (Men)
Hyundai 8.5 5.8 -2.7
Taco Bell 14.3 11.2 -3.1
Heineken 18.9 10.7 -8.2
Sprint 3.9 -4.4 -8.3
Audi 11.9 0.5 -11.4
Buzz (Women)
Heineken 18.0 16.0 -2.0
Frito-Lay 21.2 18.6 -2.7
CareerBuilder 10.0 7.3 -2.7
Toyota 32.7 28.2 -4.5
GoDaddy -0.1 -6.1 -6.0

Scores are net scores. Percentage of respondents who have heard recent positive Buzz less the percentage of respondents who have heard recent negative Buzz.

Change column measure the change in Buzz score from the day after the Super Bowl vs. the average Buzz score from the week prior to the Super Bowl.