Value Proposition Testing Using Indirect Customer Observation Method for Personafic



Abstract Views
666

Downloads
614

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Jun 16, 2021
Published Jul 8, 2021
10.24018/ejbmr.2021.6.4.931

Abstract viewed = 666 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Many new businesses fail in the early years of their establishment because they do not have a value proposition that address customer problems and needs or wants. When it happens, the value offered to the customer becomes irrelevant, and does not create value for the customer at all. As a new business, Personafic, a men's skincare brand from Indonesia, became the object of the research on value proposition testing in this research. In this research, the hypothesis of the value proposition was validated using the indirect customer observation method using ads and landing pages, and assessed based on customer actions, not words. Tests carried out are interest validation, preference validation and willingness to pay validation of the customer. The results of the test show that the value proposition related to skincare product ingredients is the most attractive and most relevant value to customers.

Keywords: Indirect Customer Observation, Men’s Skincare Brand, New Business, Value Proposition

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. G. McIntyre, “What Percentage of Small Businesses Fail?,” 2020. https://www.fundera.com/blog/what-percentage-of-small-businesses-fail? (accessed May 24, 2021).
     Google Scholar
  2. D. Skok, “5 Reasons Startups Fail - For Entrepreneurs.” https://www.forentrepreneurs.com/why-startups-fail/ (accessed May 24, 2021).
     Google Scholar
  3. A. M. Kazerouni, S. Achiche, O. Hisarciklilar, and V. Thomson, “Influence of the time perspective on new product development success indicators,” ICED 11 - 18th International Conference on Engineering Design - Impacting Society Through Engineering Design, vol. 3, pp. 40–51, 2011.
     Google Scholar
  4. L. Y. Chen, “The Quality of Mobile Shopping System And Its Impact On Purchase Intention And Performance,” International Journal of Managing Information Technology, vol. 5, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  5. G. Teja, K. Putra, and R. Harijanto, “The Impact of Customer Value Proposition Towards Purchase Intention of Chesa Cup,” iBuss Management., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 241–251, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  6. A. Osterwalder, Y. Pigneur, G. Bernarda, and A. Smith, Value Proposition Design. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
     Google Scholar
  7. C. Ehlers, U. I. Ivens, M. L. Møller, T. Senderovitz, and J. Serup, “Females have lower skin surface pH than men: A study on the influence of gender, forearm site variation, right/left difference and time of the day on the skin surface pH,” Skin Research and Technology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 90–94, 2001, doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0846.2001.70206.x.
     Google Scholar
  8. A. Hassan, “The Value Proposition Concept in Marketing : How Customers Perceive the Value Delivered by Firms – A Study of Customer Perspectives on Supermarkets in Southampton in the United Kingdom,” International Journal of Marketing Studies, vol. 4, no. June 2012, 2012, doi: 10.5539/ijms.v4n3p68.
     Google Scholar
  9. P. Frow, J. R. McColl-Kennedy, T. Hilton, A. Davidson, A. Payne, and D. Brozovic, “Value propositions: A Service Ecosystems Perspective,” Marketing Theory, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 327–351, 2014, doi: 10.1177/1470593114534346.
     Google Scholar
  10. M. T. Anguera, M. Portell, S. Chacón-Moscoso, and S. Sanduvete-Chaves, “Indirect observation in everyday contexts: Concepts and methodological guidelines within a mixed methods framework,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9, no. JAN, p. 13, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00013.
     Google Scholar
  11. A. Parasuraman, Marketing Research, 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley, 1991.
     Google Scholar