The gain-loss analysis is a special analysis from the area of the consumer panel (panel evaluations). This analytical approach examines the volume or value movements between brands within two periods of time and provides information about where the profits or losses of a brand come from.
Objective: Wer ist der Gewinner bzw. der Verlierer im Markt? Die Analyse gibt Aufschluss über drei mögliche Ursachen, warum eine Marke an Menge oder Wert gewinnen oder verlieren kann, durch Veränderung des Käuferkreises der untersuchten Warengruppe. Im zweiten Zeitraum können Käufer hinzukommen bzw. abwandern. Dies beeinflusst die Markenmenge bzw. den Brand equity, ohne dass andere Marken betroffen sind.
Change in quantitative consumer behavior in the product group. Over time, the consumer changes the quantity of goods purchased. In the first period, for example, you only drank one cup of cappuccino per week, in the second period you might drink three. The need has intensified. The counterpart to this is extensification. The brand volume or brand value is also influenced by these movements, without simultaneous changes in other brands.
Movements between brands. Direct profits or losses between the brands at a comparable overall level are calculated, with the sum of the profits being equal to the sum of the losses for each buyer. An example from the heavy-duty detergent market should explain this in more detail.
Starting position: Both the market leader, manufacturer A, and its fiercest competitor, manufacturer B, could no longer achieve their market share level of 2006 in 2007. Both lost market share. The clear market share winners were the private labels. The private labels were able to expand their market share from 5.1% (2006) to 8.3% (2007). The central question now is: From which brands (of the corporations) do the private labels win? This is where the gain-loss analysis comes in.
Interpretation: This relative increase in the market share of private labels of 3.2% points corresponds to an absolute growth of EUR 46.6 million. How is this profit made up?
Of the total profit of the private labels of EUR 46.6 million, EUR 17 million or a good third comes from intensified buyer behavior (volume intensification: EUR 14.8 million) and new buyers (EUR 2.2 million). The remaining almost two thirds of the increase in value was achieved through direct profits from other brands.
If the sum of the profit balances is set equal to 100, then the discounter Z 18.6%, brand 1 of the manufacturer C 18.4% etc. The comparison of these profit shares with the market share of the brands in question in the first Gain & Loss period (year 2006) Without the retail brands examined, indexing (profit share / market share x 100) shows over- or under-proportionalities in profit behavior.
The above example shows high index values for all cheap segments of the market: Discounter Z, brand 1 manufacturer C, brand 2 manufacturer B, brand 2 manufacturer C and to other brands. In contrast, the market leaders Brand 1 Herst. A and Brand 1 Herst. B only achieved disproportionate profits. The “Affinity value” column provides information on the exchange relationships between the brands examined: The value units actually migrated between the brands from the first to the second analysis period are compared with expected values that are calculated on the basis of market share relationships. An affinity value well over 100 describes a disproportionate exchange ratio between two brands. In the example above, the private labels show particularly high exchange relationships with the discounter Z.