The document outlines research conducted on brand licensing opportunities for leather bags targeted towards young professionals. A survey was administered to 71 respondents to understand bag usage, attitudes towards style and career, and perceptions of existing bag brands. Key findings include identifying 3 consumer segments - Stylish, Structured, and Career-oriented. Mapping of bag types used showed Purses are strongly associated with Women while Briefcases are with Men. The research aims to determine the best brand to license that fits the target market and can compete against existing brands.

1. PRESENTED
BY
CHUCK
AFRICA
LEATHER
WORK
FORCE*
BRANDING
RESEARCH
09
DECEMBER
2013
Consumer
Research
and
Survey
on
Brand
Licensing
for
Leather
Bags

2. Business
Background
LWF
Company
and
ObjecRves
Target
Market
The
Business
of
Licensing
Research
Design
and
Methodology
Key
Findings
Conclusions
/
RecommendaRon
Next
Steps
Appendices
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
OUTLINE

3. THE
COMPANY
• Upstate
NY
luggage
and
leather
bag
company
• Modest
success
with
their
own
LWF
brand
• 2014:
Launching
a
new
collecRon
of
professional
leather
bags
• Wants
to
license
in
a
new
brand
for
young
male
and
female
professionals
LWF’s
TARGET
MARKET
• Males
and
Females,
22-­‐30
• JumpstarRng
their
professional
careers
• College
graduates
or
graduate
students
• Career-­‐oriented,
price
sensiRve
• Sub-­‐segment:
InternaRonal
students
Working
Women
InternaRonal
BACKGROUND:
COMPANY
Working
Men

4. T
HE
BUSINESS
OF
LICENSING
BACKGROUND:
LICENSING
Brand
or
Trademark
Licensing
Ge$ng
a
permit
for
a
company
(licensee)
to
use
the
brand
or
trademark
of
another
company
(licensor),
in
exchange
for
a
fee
(royalty
fee)
Examples
of
Licensing:
RL
Big
Pony
Perfume
(by
L’Oreal)
Polo
Men’s
Underwear
(by
HanesBrands)
Polo
/
Ralph
Lauren
Owned
by
Ralph
Lauren
Corp.
Ralph
Lauren
Sunglasses
(by
Luxo_ca
Group)
Tory
Burch
Tiffany
&
Co.
Brooks
Brothers
Tiffany
&
Co.
Sunglasses
Brooks
Brothers
Eyewear
Tory
Burch
Sunglasses
Luxo_ca
Group
(Eyewear
Manufacturer)

5. OBJECTIVES
• To
idenRfy
strengths,
associa4ons
and
fit
of
various
brands
to
be
licensed
for
luggage/bags
• To
explore
various
segments
and
percep4ons/
posi4ons
of
brands
within
the
exisRng
office
bag
market
BACKGROUND:
BRANDS
FOR
LWF
LWF
is
the
licensor,
looking
for
a
brand
for
their
new
collecRon
of
professional
leather
bags
• Chosen
based
on:
availability/openness
to
license,
availability
in
mass
retailers
(these
brands
have
no
bags
currently
in
mass
retailers),
and
royalty
payments
required
MA
LES
FEM
ALES
UNIS
EX
RESEARCH
OUTCOME
Determine
the
right
brand
that’s
fit
for
LWF
leather
bags
and
can
compete
against
exisRng
brands.

6. RESEARCH
DESIGN
&
METHODOLOGY
A.
SA
MPLE
B.
QUESTI
ON
AREAS
C.
ANALYT
ICAL
PLAN
• Online
survey,
Minimum
of
50
respondents
• Male/Female,
23
to
30,
in
major
ciRes
across
the
U.S.
• Currently
in
an
undergrad
or
graduate
program,
or
who
have
enrolled
or
completed
in
the
last
three
years.
• Had/currently
has
an
internship
or
any
work
experience
• Composed
of
both
U.S.
and
internaRonal
students
• A?tudes
on
Work/Career
and
Style/Fashion
• Purchase
&
Usage
behavior
of
Brands
and
Bags
• Brand
Evalua4on
on
AFributes
• Brand-­‐Fit
for
Brands
on
Professional
Bags
and
Purchase
Intent
• Gender
differences
in
a_tudes
and
bag
usage
• SegmentaRon
based
on
the
a_tudes
on
career
and
style
• IdenRfy
relevance
of
current
brands
• Correspondence
Analysis
and
Perceptual
maps
for
exisRng
brands
and
consideraRon
set
(licensed
brands)
• Test
fit
of
licensed
brand
to
the
professional
bag
category
based
on
purchase
intent.
*List
of
quesCons
in
the
Appendix

7. KEY
FINDINGS:
TOPLINE
Survey
respondents
(n=71)
come
from
the
same
target
market
as
LWF.
1%
SEX
AN
D
AGE
RACIAL
BAC
KGROUND
EDUCATION
AND
W
ORK
EXPERIENCE
Survey
Average
97%
have
completed
an
undergraduate
degree
66%
are
graduate
students
58%
are
currently
employed
or
studying
&
working
at
the
same
Rme
90%
Have
more
than
1
year
of
work
experience.
65%
have
3
to
10
years.
No.
of
Years
Work
Experience
Survey
Average
52%
are
current
internaRonal
students,
with
68%
of
them
living
in
the
US
for
1-­‐2
years.
46%
54%
1%
36%
24%
27%
11%
10%
16%
39%
26%
10%

8. KEY
FINDINGS:
VALS
Respondents
scored
highly
on
the
following
aoributes:
• Career-­‐orientaRon
(4.14)
• PracRcality
(3.94)
• OrganizaRon(3.89)

9. KEY
FINDINGS:
VALS
Aoributes
which
are
similar/correlated
can
be
classified
using
Factor
Analysis
using
k-­‐means
3-­‐cluster.
The
analysis,
aqer
varimax
rotaRon,
showed
three
main
aFributes
groups.
Factor
paoern
aqer
Varimax
rotaRon
CharacterisRcs
D1
D2
D3
I
like
to
Stand
Out
0.702
-­‐0.136
0.274
I
see
myself
Stylish/Fashionable
0.694
0.050
0.247
Dress
to
Impress
0.673
0.100
0.406
Style
more
important
than
comfort
0.671
0.017
-­‐0.019
Know
the
latest
Trends
or
Fads
0.621
-­‐0.181
0.155
Bags
are
criRcal
to
overall
style
0.580
0.171
-­‐0.030
Well
Organized
and
Follow
a
RouRne
-­‐0.020
0.807
-­‐0.046
Consider
Myself
a
Formal
Person
0.062
0.655
0.269
Not
Carefree
-­‐0.172
0.260
-­‐0.046
Consider
Myself
a
PracRcal
Person
-­‐0.178
0.238
0.446
Career-­‐Oriented
0.219
0.066
0.821
Do
everything
for
Career
Goals
0.222
0.007
0.670
Financial
Success
0.309
-­‐0.135
0.452
Values
in
bold
correspond
for
each
variable
to
the
factor
for
which
the
squared
cosine
is
the
largest
A.
ST
YLISH
No.
of
Respondents:
33
(47%)
B:
STRU
CTURED
No.
of
Respondents:
17
(24%)
C:
CA
REER
No.
of
Respondents:
19
(27%)

10. KEY
FINDINGS:
SegmentaRon
Aqer
assigning
each
respondent
in
their
D1-­‐D3
groups,
and
examining
each
of
the
average
scores
for
the
clustered
aoributes,
a
consumer
segmenta4on
emerged
from
the
combinaRon
of
high-­‐low
indices
among
the
aoributes.
Segments
from
Factor
Analysis
STYLE
STRUCTURE
CAREER
ResulRng
segment
profiles
(%
to
Sample
Pop)
Ave.
Score
of
Aoributes
Index
vs
Total
Ave.
Score
of
Aoributes
Index
vs
Total
Ave.
Score
of
Aoributes
Index
vs
Total
D1
High
4.16
125
3.40
103
3.99
120
“Stylish
Go-­‐Geoers”
(27.1%,
Mostly
Female)
D1
Low
2.39
72
3.43
103
3.77
114
“No-­‐style
Work
Geek”
(20.0%,
Mostly
Male)
D2
High
3.20
96
4.24
128
3.84
116
“Formal
professionals”
(17.1%,
Mostly
Female)
D2
Low
3.44
104
2.33
70
3.88
117
“Unorganized
Careerist”
(7.1%,
50:50
M-­‐F)
D3
High
3.48
105
3.52
106
4.69
142
“Pure
Workaholics”
(12.9%,
50:50
M-­‐F)
D3
Low
2.95
89
3.15
95
3.09
93
“Carefree
Living”
(15.7%,
Mostly
Female)
Total
Ave
3.32
3.42
3.86

11. KEY
FINDINGS:
WORK
BAGS
• Men:
75%
of
men
bring
one
bag
to
work
• Women:
50%
bring
one
bag,
50%
bring
two
• Purchase:
Men
tend
to
purchase
in
department
stores
than
in
any
other,
while
women
tend
to
purchase
in
bouRque
stores
and
online.
82%
of
the
surveyed
men
and
women
bring
the
following
bags
to
work:
TOP
BAGS
USED
B
Y
MEN
TO
WORK
3.
Briefcase
18%
4.
Tote
Bag
16%
TOP
BAGS
USED
BY
WOMEN
TO
WORK
5.
Laptop
Bag
15%
1.
Backpack
42%
2.
Messenger
30%
1.
Purse
79%
2.
Tote
Bag
64%
3.
Lunch
Bag
15%
4.
Backpack
12%

12. Bags%are%criHcal%to%style%
Symmetric&plot&
(axes&F1&and&F2:&51.76&%)&
Stylish%/%Fashionable%Person%
Tote&bag&&+&Women&
Do%Everything%to%%
Reach%Career%Goals%
Purse&&+&Men&
Career%Oriented%
Work%to%Live,%%
Not%Live%to%Work%
Well%Organized%
People%to%think%I%am%%
financial%success%
Carefree%Person%
Formal%Person%
Standout% PracHcal% Last%to%know%latest%%
fads%and%trends%
Style%over%Comfort%
Casual&Backpack&+&Women&
Comfort%over%Style%
Dress%to%Impress%
Bags%are%NOT%criHcal%to%style%
Purse&&+&Women&
Regular&laptop&bag&
&&+&Women&
Hybrid&laptop&bag/backpack&&
&+&Women&
Messenger&bag&&+&Women&
Lunch&Bag&+&Women&
Casual&Backpack&+&Men&
Duffel&bag&&+&Men&
Tote&bag&&+&Men&
Regular&laptop&bag&&+&Men&
Hybrid&laptop&bag/backpack&&+&
Men&
Messenger&bag&&+&Men&
Stroller&&+&Men&
Briefcase&&+&Men&
0.4%
0.2%
0%
!0.2%
!0.4%
!0.6%
!0.8%
!0.4% !0.3% !0.2% !0.1% 0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6%
F2&(21.42&%)&
F1&(30.33&%)&
KEY
FINDINGS:
WORK
BAGS
MAPPING
Mapping
the
types
of
work
bags
used
and
the
different
customer
segments
can
show
the
type
of
bags
used
by
each
segment.

13. Bags%are%criHcal%to%style%
Symmetric&plot&
(axes&F1&and&F2:&51.76&%)&
Stylish%/%Fashionable%Person%
Tote&bag&&+&Women&
Do%Everything%to%%
Reach%Career%Goals%
Purse&&+&Men&
Career%Oriented%
Work%to%Live,%%
Not%Live%to%Work%
Well%Organized%
People%to%think%I%am%%
financial%success%
Carefree%Person%
Formal%Person%
Standout% PracHcal% Last%to%know%latest%%
fads%and%trends%
Style%over%Comfort%
Casual&Backpack&+&Women&
Comfort%over%Style%
Dress%to%Impress%
Bags%are%NOT%criHcal%to%style%
Purse&&+&Women&
Regular&laptop&bag&
&&+&Women&
Hybrid&laptop&bag/backpack&&
&+&Women&
Messenger&bag&&+&Women&
Lunch&Bag&+&Women&
Casual&Backpack&+&Men&
Duffel&bag&&+&Men&
Tote&bag&&+&Men&
Regular&laptop&bag&&+&Men&
Hybrid&laptop&bag/backpack&&+&
Men&
Messenger&bag&&+&Men&
Stroller&&+&Men&
Briefcase&&+&Men&
0.4%
0.2%
0%
!0.2%
!0.4%
!0.6%
!0.8%
!0.4% !0.3% !0.2% !0.1% 0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6%
F2&(21.42&%)&
F1&(30.33&%)&
KEY
FINDINGS:
WORK
BAGS
MAPPING
Mapping
the
types
of
work
bags
used
and
the
different
customer
segments
can
show
the
type
of
bags
used
by
each
segment.
Formal
Professionals
Unorganized
Careerists
Carefree
Living
Stylish
Go-­‐GeFer
Pure
Workaholics
No-­‐style
Work
Geek

14. Bags%are%criHcal%to%style%
Symmetric&plot&
(axes&F1&and&F2:&51.76&%)&
Stylish%/%Fashionable%Person%
Tote&bag&&+&Women&
Do%Everything%to%%
Reach%Career%Goals%
Purse&&+&Men&
Career%Oriented%
Work%to%Live,%%
Not%Live%to%Work%
Well%Organized%
People%to%think%I%am%%
financial%success%
Carefree%Person%
Formal%Person%
Standout% PracHcal% Last%to%know%latest%%
fads%and%trends%
Style%over%Comfort%
Casual&Backpack&+&Women&
Comfort%over%Style%
Dress%to%Impress%
Bags%are%NOT%criHcal%to%style%
Purse&&+&Women&
Regular&laptop&bag&
&&+&Women&
Hybrid&laptop&bag/backpack&&
&+&Women&
Messenger&bag&&+&Women&
Lunch&Bag&+&Women&
Casual&Backpack&+&Men&
Duffel&bag&&+&Men&
Tote&bag&&+&Men&
Regular&laptop&bag&&+&Men&
Hybrid&laptop&bag/backpack&&+&
Men&
Messenger&bag&&+&Men&
Stroller&&+&Men&
Briefcase&&+&Men&
0.4%
0.2%
0%
!0.2%
!0.4%
!0.6%
!0.8%
!0.4% !0.3% !0.2% !0.1% 0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6%
F2&(21.42&%)&
F1&(30.33&%)&
KEY
FINDINGS:
WORK
BAGS
MAPPING
Mapping
the
types
of
work
bags
used
and
the
different
customer
segments
can
show
the
type
of
bags
used
by
each
segment.
Formal
Professionals
Unorganized
Careerists
Carefree
Living
Stylish
Go-­‐GeFer
Pure
Workaholics
No-­‐style
Work
Geek
Stroller-­‐Men
Laptop
Bag-­‐Men
Hybrid
Laptop
Backpack-­‐Men
Casual
Backpack
Women
Duffel
Bag-­‐Men
Purse-­‐Women
Laptop
Bag-­‐
Women
Casual
Backpack
Men
Messenger
Bag
-­‐Men
/
Women
Lunch
Bag
-­‐Women
Tote
Bag
-­‐Men/Women

15. Bags%are%criHcal%to%style%
Symmetric&plot&
(axes&F1&and&F2:&51.76&%)&
Stylish%/%Fashionable%Person%
Tote&bag&&+&Women&
Do%Everything%to%%
Reach%Career%Goals%
Purse&&+&Men&
Career%Oriented%
Work%to%Live,%%
Not%Live%to%Work%
Well%Organized%
People%to%think%I%am%%
financial%success%
Carefree%Person%
Formal%Person%
Standout% PracHcal% Last%to%know%latest%%
fads%and%trends%
Style%over%Comfort%
Casual&Backpack&+&Women&
Comfort%over%Style%
Dress%to%Impress%
Bags%are%NOT%criHcal%to%style%
Purse&&+&Women&
Regular&laptop&bag&
&&+&Women&
Hybrid&laptop&bag/backpack&&
&+&Women&
Messenger&bag&&+&Women&
Lunch&Bag&+&Women&
Casual&Backpack&+&Men&
Duffel&bag&&+&Men&
Tote&bag&&+&Men&
Regular&laptop&bag&&+&Men&
Hybrid&laptop&bag/backpack&&+&
Men&
Messenger&bag&&+&Men&
Stroller&&+&Men&
Briefcase&&+&Men&
0.4%
0.2%
0%
!0.2%
!0.4%
!0.6%
!0.8%
!0.4% !0.3% !0.2% !0.1% 0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6%
F2&(21.42&%)&
F1&(30.33&%)&
KEY
FINDINGS:
WORK
BAGS
MAPPING
For
LWF,
the
target
should
be
the
Stylish
Go-­‐Geoers
and
the
Formal
Professionals
–
largest
in
market
size,
which
fits
the
type
of
new
bags
from
LWF.
Formal
Professionals
Unorganized
Careerists
Carefree
Living
Stylish
Go-­‐GeFer
Pure
Workaholics
No-­‐style
Work
Geek
Stroller-­‐Men
Laptop
Bag-­‐Men
Hybrid
Laptop
Backpack-­‐Men
Casual
Backpack
Women
Duffel
Bag-­‐Men
Briefcase
-­‐Men
Purse-­‐Women
Lunch
Bag
-­‐Women
Tote
Bag
-­‐Men/Women
Laptop
Bag-­‐
Women
Casual
Backpack
Men
Messenger
Bag
-­‐Men
/
Women
VALUED
SEGM
ENTS
OF
LWF

16. When
asked
what
the
respondents
look
for
in
a
bag
they
bring
to
work:
KEY
FINDINGS:
WORK
BAGS
Aoributes
Pareto:
Top
80%
Using
a
Pareto
chart,
we
choose
the
top
aoributes
which
can
fulfill
80%
of
the
requirements
of
bag
users.

17. Looking
into
the
top
aoributes,
we
find
that
respondents
go
for
func4on
(high
quality,
fit
and
protecRon)
and
emo4on
(Style
+
Professionalism)
in
choosing
a
bag
for
work.
KEY
FINDINGS:
WORK
BAGS
Aoributes
Pareto:
Top
80%
FUNCT
IONAL
EMOT
IONAL

18. We
also
find
similari4es
and
differences
among
male
and
female
respondents
on
aoributes
that
are
important
for
a
work
bag.
KEY
FINDINGS:
WORK
BAGS
Aoributes
Pareto:
Top
80%
FUNCT
IONAL
EMOT
IONAL
FEMALES
MOST
IMPORTANT
ATTRIBUTES
MaFers
a
lot
(%)
Index
1.
"Be
large
enough
to
carry
ALL
my
things
in
one
place."
72.97
112
2.
"Protect
documents
from
becoming
wet
or
damaged."
67.57
102
3.
"Be
made
of
high
quality
materials."
65.79
94
4.
"Look
stylish."
60.53
103
5.
"Be
lightweight."
56.76
93
9.
"Match
my
oucit
or
shoes."
33.33
108
LEAST
IMPORTANT
ATTRIBUTES
Does
Not
MaFer
(%)
Index
14.
"Be
different
from
the
bag
I
used
in
college."
75.68
111
15.
"Match
my
purse."
77.78
100
MALES
MOST
IMPORTANT
ATTRIBUTES
MaFers
a
lot
(%)
Index
1.
"Fit
a
laptop."
84.38
129
2.
"Be
made
of
high
quality
materials."
75.00
107
3.
"Be
tough
and
sturdy."
71.88
114
4.
"Be
lightweight."
65.63
108
5.
"Protect
documents
from
becoming
wet
or
damaged."
64.52
97
10.
"Alternate
among
the
other
bags
I
also
bring
to
work."
25.81
114
LEAST
IMPORTANT
ATTRIBUTES
Does
Not
MaFer
(%)
Index
14.
"Be
noRceable"
53.13
95
15.
“Be
different
from
the
bag
I
used
in
college."
59.38
87
Note
that
only
females
have
emoRonal
aoributes
among
their
top
5.

19. KEY
FINDINGS:
BRANDS
Brands
surveyed
have
high
overall
awareness
among
both
males
and
females.
0%# 80%#
0%$ 80%$
North$Face$
Banana$Republic$
Zara$
Louis$VuiBon$
Oakley$
Kenneth$Cole$
Jansport$
Victorinox$/$Swiss$Gear$
J.$Crew$
TUMI$
RaySBan$
Florsheim$
Bentley$
Moleskine$
Parker$Pen$
Porsche$Design$
Tissot$
Warby$Parker$
OBerBox$Case$
100%$
97%$
97%$
97%$
94%$
91%$
88%$
85%$
85%$
61%$
100%$
82%$
79%$
70%$
67%$
64%$
61%$
36%$
33%$
North#Face#
Banana#Republic#
Zara#
Louis#Vui:on#
Oakley#
Kenneth#Cole#
Jansport#
Victorinox#/#Swiss#Gear#
J.#Crew#
TUMI#
RayKBan#
Florsheim#
Bentley#
Moleskine#
Parker#Pen#
Porsche#Design#
Tissot#
Warby#Parker#
O:erBox#Case#
92%$
92%$
87%$
76%$
71%$
68%$
66%$
92%$
66%$
61%$
58%$
58%$
39%$
37%$
32%$
32%$
Zara#
Michael#Kors#
Tory#Burch#
Longchamp#
Victorinox#/#Swiss#Gear#
TUMI#
Jansport#
RayIBan#
Gilt#Groupe#
Moleskine#
Tissot#
Ivanka#Trump#
dVb#by#Victoria#Beckham#
Warby#Parker#
O4erBox#Case#
Parker#Pen#
100%$
100%$
97%$
92%$
0%# 70%#
Banana#Republic#
Louis#Vui4on#
J.#Crew#
Kenneth#Cole#
Male
Average
=
78%
Female
Average
=
71%
%
Aware
among
Men
%
Aware
among
Women
Brands
Considered
by
LWF
Brands
Considered
by
LWF
Licensed
Licensed
brands:
65%
brands:
55%
However,
the
brands
considered
by
LWF
have
drasRcally
lower
awareness.
Only
3
of
the
considered
brands
for
males
and
1
for
females
have
higher
awareness
than
the
average.

20. These
brands
are
then
scored
on
15
aoributes,
as
perceived
by
the
respondent.
The
results
will
be
plooed
on
a
HIGH
END
(axes$F1$and$F2:$63.63$%)$
Made&from&& Tough&
High&Quality&&
Materials&
Symmetric$plot$
Professional& Able&to&protect&
Outgoing&
Cheap&
Sexy&
Stylish&
Casual&
Old&Fashioned&
Feminine&
Expensive&
On&the&Move&
Basic&
&my&things&
Cool&
Up&to&Date& Banana$$
Republic$
Tumi$
Kenneth$
Cole$
Victorinox$/$
$Swiss$Gear$
Warby$$
Zara$ Parker$
Jansport$
Bentley$
OCerBox$
Florsheim$
RayEBan$
North$Face$
Oakley$
J$Crew$
Parker$Pen$
Porsche$Design$
Tissot$
Louis$VuiCon$ Moleskine$
0.5$
0.4$
0.3$
0.2$
0.1$
0$
!0.1$
!0.2$
!0.3$
!0.4$
!0.5$
!0.6$
!0.7$
!0.8$
!0.9$
!1$
!1.1$
!1.2$ !1.1$ !1$ !0.9$ !0.8$ !0.7$ !0.6$ !0.5$ !0.4$ !0.3$ !0.2$ !0.1$ 0$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.3$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 0.6$ 0.7$ 0.8$ 0.9$ 1$ 1.1$ 1.2$
F2$(22.21$%)$
F1$(41.42$%)$
correspondence
map.
This
will
show
how
the
brands
in
consideraRon
by
LWF
will
perform
or
KEY
posi4oned
against
the
exis4ng
brands
in
the
market,
based
on
the
percep4on
of
the
consumer.
FINDINGS:
BRAND
MAPPING
STYL
E
FUNC
TION
INEXPE
NSIVE
MEN

21. These
brands
are
then
scored
on
15
aoributes,
as
perceived
by
the
respondent.
The
results
will
be
plooed
on
a
map.
This
will
show
how
the
brands
in
consideraRon
by
LWF
will
perform
or
posi4oned
against
the
exis4ng
brands
in
the
INEXPE
NSIVE
Symmetric$plot$
(axes$F1$and$F2:$68.96$%)$
Zara$ Jansport$
Kenneth$Cole$
On#the#Move#
Basic#
Professional#
Able#to#protect#
#my#things#
RayHBan$
Stylish#
Gilt$Groupe$
Up#to#Date# Cool#
Casual#
Old##
Fashioned#
correspondence
Feminine#
Cheap#
Tough#
Made#of##
High#Quality##
Materials#
Outgoing#
Sexy#
Banana$$
Republic$
TUMI$
Victorinox$/$
$Swiss$Gear$
Warby$$
Parker$
Ivanka$Trump$
OGerBox$Case$
Tory$Burch$
Michael$Kors$
Moleskine$
J.$Crew$
dVb$by$$ Parker$Pen$ Tissot$
Victoria$Beckham$
Louis$VuiGon$
Longchamp$
0.7%
0.5%
0.3%
0.1%
!0.1%
!0.3%
!0.5%
!1.2% !1% !0.8% !0.6% !0.4% !0.2% 0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8%
F2$(21.17$%)$
F1$(47.79$%)$
KEY
FINDINGS:
BRAND
MAPPING
STYL
E
FUNC
TION
HIGH
END
WOMEN
market,
based
on
the
percep4on
of
the
consumer.

22. The
following
shows
the
compeRRve
posiRoning
summary
of
exisRng
bags
and
the
considered
brands,
coming
the
correspondence
KEY
analysis.
FINDINGS:
BRAND
MAPPING
COMPETITIVE
POSITIONING
Exis4ng
Brands
LWF
Considered
Brands
COOL
PROFESSIONALS
Cool,
Professional
Kenneth
Cole
HIGH
END
STYLE
Expensive,
High
quality,
Stylish
Louis
Vuioon
PROFESSIONAL
TOOLS
Made
from
high
quality,
professional
TUMI
HIGH
UTILITY
Able
to
Protect,
Tough
North
Face,
Victorinox
SEXY
FASHION
Feminine,
Sexy
Tory
Burch,
Michael
Kors
STYLISH
BASICS
Up
to
date,
Stylish
Zara,
J
Crew,
Banana
Rep,
Longchamp
BASIC
FUNCTIONALITY
Cheap,
Casual,
Basic
Jansport
none
From
here,
LWF
will
know
which
brands
they
will
compete
against
depending
on
the
brand
they
plan
to
use
and
license
for
their
new
line
of
bags.

23. The
respondents
were
also
shown
the
licensed
brands
and
asked
how
likely
they
are
to
purchase
the
new
line
of
bags.
The
top
4
brands,
averaging
above
the
Moleskine(
Moleskine"
Ray<Ban(
RayDBan"
Bentley(
Bentley"
Porsche(Design(
Porsche"Design"
Tissot(
Tissot"
Florsheim(
Florsheim"
Warby(Parker(
Warby"Parker"
Oakley(
Oakley"
Parker(
Parker"
O+erBox"
%
Likelihood
of
Purchase:
Ranked
based
on
Mean
Score
115"
104"
104"
96"
96"
95"
92"
88"
98"
111"
O"erBox(
KEY
average,
are
shown.
FINDINGS:
LWF
BRAND-­‐FIT
121#
121#
120#
120#
105#
105#
94#
94#
92#
92#
88#
88#
88#
88#
86#
105#
Moleskine&
Moleskine#
Ray@Ban&
RayHBan#
Gilt&Groupe&
Gilt#Groupe#
dVb&by&Victoria&Beckham&
dVb#by#Victoria#Beckham#
Warby#Parker#
Warby&Parker&
Tissot#
Tissot&
Parker#
Parker&
O5erBox#
O-erBox&
Ivanka#Trump#
86#
105#
Ivanka&Trump&
Average
Price
Expected
to
be
Paid:
$122.50
• Porsche
and
Bentley:
20-­‐25%
higher
($148-­‐$150)
• Ray-­‐Ban:
At
par
($122.50)
• Moleskine:
13%
lower
($106.25)
Average
Price
Expected
to
be
Paid:
$115.14
• dVB
by
Victoria
Beckham:
20%
higher
($137.50)
• Ray-­‐Ban
and
GILT:
At
par
($115)
• Moleskine:
9%
lower
($105)
MEN
Index
WOMEN
Index
Moleskine
and
Ray-­‐Ban
:
Consistent
topped
for
both
genders
Each
gender
then
had
specific
brands
that
followed:
Bentley
and
Porsche
for
men
(from
the
“High
End
Style”
brand
group)
and
Gilt
Groupe
and
dVB
for
women
(from
the
“Sexy
Fashion”
brand
group).

24. For
Stylish
Go-­‐GeFers
and
Formal
Professionals
• Largest
market;
LWF’s
bag
fits
these
segments
• Score
high
on
“Career”
aoributes,
with
one
being
more
“Stylish”
while
the
other
more
“Organized”
Top
Aoributes
of
work
bags
they
are
looking
for:
• FuncRonal:
High
quality,
ProtecRon,
and
Size
• EmoRonal:
STYLE:
Especially
for
women
Brand
recommendaRons:
Ray-­‐Ban
and/or
Moleskine
for
both
genders
• Brand
percepRon
as
“Cool
Professionals”
and
“Professional
Tools”
• Have
the
highest
awareness
among
the
considered
brands,
can
compete
against
exisRng
brands
• Already
have
high
interest
and
openness
to
purchase
among
surveyed
consumers.
• If
discussions
with
those
companies
don’t
work
out,
they
can
be
subsRtuted
by
Bentley
/
Porsche
Design
for
men
and
Gilt
Group
or
DVB
for
women.
CONCL
USIONS
AND
RECOMMENDATION

25. 1. Conduct
larger
scale
quanRtaRve
research
in
key
ciRes
2. Conduct
in-­‐depth
qualitaRve
survey
on
chosen
brands
• Can
get
or
mine
for
deeper
insights
from
consumers
• Check
to
see
acceptance
that
an
exisRng
non-­‐bag
brand
will
have
a
line
of
professional
bags
• Refine
posiRoning
statements
based
on
discussion
points
from
qualitaRve
survey
3. Possible
conduct
a
controlled
test
market
in
a
small
locaRon
• As
the
licensed
brand
doesn’t
have
an
exisRng
bag
collecRon
at
mass
retailers,
this
test
can
check
whether
the
bag
can
stand
on
its
own
at
the
shelves.
• This
can
also
be
a
test
whether
there
is
market
acceptance
by
mass
retailers
(ie.
purchasing
department
at
Walmart
or
Macy’s)
4.
For
LWF,
share
research
with
the
target
licensed
brands.
NEXT
ST
EPS
ON
RESEARCH
AND
FOR
LWF

26. PRESENTED
BY
CHARLES
AFRICA
LEATHER
WORK
THANK
YOU!
FORCE*
BRANDING
RESEARCH
09
DECEMBER
2013
Consumer
Research
and
Survey
on
Brand
Licensing
for
Leather
Bags