Customer Diagnostics
Commodity
Last updated: March 29, 2026
PROJECT OVERVIEW:
Known for clean, accessible scents sold widely through Sephora (representing 60% of sales) and direct to consumers channels (40%) the brand has established significant market presence, but its current positioning reflects accessibility over aspiration. This research initiative is designed to chart a rigorous, evidence based path towards repositioning Commodity at the lower tier of the luxury fragrance market, aligning it with brands like Loewe while surpassing peers such as DedCool.
The brand’s leadership has articulated a clear strategic mandate: avoid the trap of virality driven brand building, which undermines long term equity, and instead construct a durable, decades long brand identity rooted in quality, mystique, and deliberate cultural positioning.
Commodity’s 2025 DTC performance data indicates this repositioning is not a distress move. Average order value has risen from $76 to $95 year over year (+25%), conversion rate has climbed, and the returning customer rate has grown to 31%. The brand has commercial momentum, the imperative is to direct that momentum toward aspiration before the growing 18-24 buyer cohort permanently anchors public perception in the accessible tier.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
This research is designed to generate actionable intelligence across the following brand dimensions: packaging, digital advertising, and brand communication. The following learning objectives frame our inquiry:
Understand how consumers currently perceive Commodity’s brand positioning relative to DS & Durga, Byredo, and Tom Ford across visual touchpoints including digital advertising and brand communication.
Identify which specific brand signals (packaging materiality, imagery tone, and ads) most strongly drive “luxury” versus “accessible” perception in the fragrance category.
Map the sentiment gap between Commodity’s intended brand identity and consumer perceived brand identity. Benchmark Commodity’s three featured products (Milk, Iced, and Discovery Kits) against competitive equivalents.
## [1] 50## [1] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels premium]"
## [2] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels sophisticated]"
## [3] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels luxurious]"
## [4] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels trustworthy]"
## [5] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels approachable]"
## [6] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels premium] 2"
## [7] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels sophisticated] 2"
## [8] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels luxurious] 2"
## [9] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels trustworthy] 2"
## [10] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels approachable] 2"
## [11] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels premium] 3"
## [12] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels sophisticated] 3"
## [13] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels luxurious] 3"
## [14] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels trustworthy] 3"
## [15] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels approachable] 3"
## [16] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels premium] 4"
## [17] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels sophisticated] 4"
## [18] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels luxurious] 4"
## [19] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels trustworthy] 4"
## [20] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels approachable] 4"
## [21] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels premium] 5"
## [22] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels sophisticated] 5"
## [23] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels luxurious] 5"
## [24] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels trustworthy] 5"
## [25] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels approachable] 5"
## [26] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels premium] 6"
## [27] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels sophisticated] 6"
## [28] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels luxurious] 6"
## [29] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels trustworthy] 6"
## [30] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels approachable] 6"
## [31] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels premium] 7"
## [32] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels sophisticated] 7"
## [33] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels luxurious] 7"
## [34] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels trustworthy] 7"
## [35] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels approachable] 7"
## [36] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels premium] 8"
## [37] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels sophisticated] 8"
## [38] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels luxurious] 8"
## [39] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels trustworthy] 8"
## [40] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels approachable] 8"
## [41] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels premium] 9"
## [42] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels sophisticated] 9"
## [43] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels luxurious] 9"
## [44] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels trustworthy] 9"
## [45] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels approachable] 9"
## [46] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels premium] 10"
## [47] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels sophisticated] 10"
## [48] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels luxurious] 10"
## [49] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels trustworthy] 10"
## [50] "Looking at this product image, please rate how this imagery affects your perception of the product for the following attributes. Use the 1–5 scale for each. [Feels approachable] 10"## [1] 55## Rows: 10
## Columns: 55
## $ commodity_iced_premium <dbl> 2, 3, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 3
## $ commodity_iced_sophisticated <dbl> 2, 3, 1, 3, 2, 3, 1, 3, 2, 3
## $ commodity_iced_luxurious <dbl> 2, 3, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 3
## $ commodity_iced_trustworthy <dbl> 2, 4, 3, 4, 2, 3, 1, 4, 2, 4
## $ commodity_iced_approachable <dbl> 2, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 1, 4, 3, 5
## $ commodity_iced_review_informative <dbl> 2, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 1, 4, 3, 5
## $ commodity_gold_premium <dbl> 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 3
## $ commodity_gold_sophisticated <dbl> 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 3
## $ commodity_gold_luxurious <dbl> 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 3, 1, 4, 4, 3
## $ commodity_gold_trustworthy <dbl> 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 1, 4, 3, 3
## $ commodity_gold_approachable <dbl> 2, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 1, 3, 3, 3
## $ byredo_mojave_premium <dbl> 3, 5, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 2, 4, 5
## $ byredo_mojave_sophisticated <dbl> 3, 5, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 2, 3, 5
## $ byredo_mojave_luxurious <dbl> 3, 5, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 2, 3, 4
## $ byredo_mojave_trustworthy <dbl> 3, 5, 1, 4, 3, 4, 1, 3, 4, 5
## $ byredo_mojave_approachable <dbl> 3, 5, 3, 3, 3, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5
## $ byredo_mojave_review_informative <dbl> 4, 5, 1, 4, 3, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5
## $ byredo_bal_premium <dbl> 3, 4, 2, 3, 5, 4, 1, 4, 3, 3
## $ byredo_bal_sophisticated <dbl> 3, 4, 1, 4, 5, 3, 1, 4, 3, 4
## $ byredo_bal_luxurious <dbl> 3, 4, 1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 3, 3, 3
## $ byredo_bal_trustworthy <dbl> 3, 3, 2, 4, 5, 3, 1, 3, 3, 3
## $ byredo_bal_approachable <dbl> 4, 3, 2, 4, 2, 4, 1, 3, 3, 3
## $ dedcool_mochi_premium <dbl> 2, 4, 3, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4
## $ dedcool_mochi_sophisticated <dbl> 2, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 3, 4
## $ dedcool_mochi_luxurious <dbl> 2, 4, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4
## $ dedcool_mochi_trustworthy <dbl> 2, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 2, 3, 3
## $ dedcool_mochi_approachable <dbl> 2, 5, 3, 5, 3, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5
## $ dedcool_mochi_review_informative <dbl> 2, 4, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 3
## $ dedcool_multi_premium <dbl> 2, 4, 4, 3, 5, 3, 1, 4, 4, 4
## $ dedcool_multi_sophisticated <dbl> 2, 4, 3, 2, 5, 4, 1, 4, 4, 4
## $ dedcool_multi_luxurious <dbl> 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 1, 3, 3, 4
## $ dedcool_multi_trustworthy <dbl> 2, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 1, 3, 4, 4
## $ dedcool_multi_approachable <dbl> 2, 4, 3, 3, 5, 4, 1, 4, 3, 4
## $ dsdurga_cowboy_premium <dbl> 2, 3, 1, 4, 1, 3, 1, 3, 3, 1
## $ dsdurga_cowboy_sophisticated <dbl> 2, 4, 1, 4, 1, 4, 1, 3, 3, 1
## $ dsdurga_cowboy_luxurious <dbl> 2, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 3, 1
## $ dsdurga_cowboy_trustworthy <dbl> 2, 4, 1, 4, 1, 4, 1, 3, 3, 2
## $ dsdurga_cowboy_approachable <dbl> 2, 5, 3, 3, 3, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5
## $ dsdurga_cowboy_review_informative <dbl> 3, 5, 1, 4, 3, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5
## $ dsdurga_madeny_premium <dbl> 4, 5, 3, 3, 4, 4, 1, 4, 3, 4
## $ dsdurga_madeny_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 5, 2, 2, 4, 4, 1, 4, 3, 4
## $ dsdurga_madeny_luxurious <dbl> 3, 5, 2, 3, 4, 4, 1, 4, 3, 4
## $ dsdurga_madeny_trustworthy <dbl> 3, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 3, 4
## $ dsdurga_madeny_approachable <dbl> 3, 4, 3, 5, 3, 4, 1, 4, 3, 5
## $ tomford_soleil_premium <dbl> 4, 5, 1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 4, 3, 5
## $ tomford_soleil_sophisticated <dbl> 4, 5, 1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 4, 3, 5
## $ tomford_soleil_luxurious <dbl> 3, 5, 1, 2, 2, 3, 1, 3, 3, 5
## $ tomford_soleil_trustworthy <dbl> 3, 5, 1, 4, 2, 3, 1, 3, 2, 5
## $ tomford_soleil_approachable <dbl> 3, 5, 3, 4, 3, 4, 1, 4, 3, 5
## $ tomford_soleil_review_informative <dbl> 3, 5, 1, 3, 2, 3, 1, 4, 3, 5
## $ tomford_rose_premium <dbl> 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 3
## $ tomford_rose_sophisticated <dbl> 3, 5, 4, 3, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 4
## $ tomford_rose_luxurious <dbl> 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 3
## $ tomford_rose_trustworthy <dbl> 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 3
## $ tomford_rose_approachable <dbl> 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 1, 4, 3, 4## Rows: 10
## Columns: 4
## $ cust_interest <dbl> 4, 5, 1, 1, 4, 3, 1, 3, 2, 5
## $ cust_brand_desc <chr> "Innovative", "Innovative, Technically advanced, Perso…
## $ cust_luxurious <dbl> 3, 5, 1, 3, 4, 4, 1, 4, 3, 5
## $ cust_premium <dbl> 2, 5, 3, 3, 4, 4, 1, 4, 3, 5## Rows: 10
## Columns: 3
## $ brand_cluster <chr> "Tom Ford, Creed, Loewe", "I'm not sure.", "DedCool, Phl…
## $ brand_words <chr> "Elevated, Investment, Luxurious", "Accessible, Everyday…
## $ brand_tradeup <chr> "Tom Ford", "I don't know.", "Le Labo, Tom Ford, Loewe",…User Study
User location
##
## Attaching package: 'maps'## The following object is masked from 'package:purrr':
##
## map## [1] "zipcode" "zipcode_type"
## [3] "major_city" "post_office_city"
## [5] "common_city_list" "county"
## [7] "state" "lat"
## [9] "lng" "timezone"
## [11] "radius_in_miles" "area_code_list"
## [13] "population" "population_density"
## [15] "land_area_in_sqmi" "water_area_in_sqmi"
## [17] "housing_units" "occupied_housing_units"
## [19] "median_home_value" "median_household_income"
## [21] "bounds_west" "bounds_east"
## [23] "bounds_north" "bounds_south"consumer segmentation
• high income + high spend + few bottles = “investment buyer”
• low income + low spend + many bottles = “collector on a budget”
• high income + low spend + many bottles = “casual buyer”
• high_income <- c(“$124K–$200K”, “$200K+”)
• low_income <- c(“Under $50K”, “$50K–$74K”)
• high_spend <- c(“$150–$249”, “$250–$449”, “Above $450”)
• low_spend <- c(“Under $50”, “$50–$149”)
• few_bottles <- c(“0”, “1–2”, “3–5”)
• many_bottles <- c(“6–10”, “10+”)
## # A tibble: 2 × 2
## segment n
## <chr> <int>
## 1 Unclassified 9
## 2 Investment Buyer 1
## # A tibble: 3 × 2
## use_freq n
## <chr> <int>
## 1 On special occasions 5
## 2 Once a day 3
## 3 Few times a week 2
## # A tibble: 2 × 2
## purchase_freq n
## <chr> <int>
## 1 Once a year 7
## 2 2–3 times a year 3
## # A tibble: 12 × 2
## channels n
## <chr> <int>
## 1 Directly from the brand 9
## 2 etc) 9
## 3 In-store 7
## 4 Beauty retailers 6
## 5 Ulta 6
## 6 In-store (Sephora 4
## 7 Bloomingdale's 3
## 8 Department store 3
## 9 In-store (Nordstrom 3
## 10 Online 3
## 11 Online (Sephora 2
## 12 Independent Boutique 1
## # A tibble: 12 × 2
## brands n
## <chr> <int>
## 1 None 4
## 2 Le Labo 3
## 3 Diptyque 2
## 4 Burberry 1
## 5 Chanel 1
## 6 Commodity 1
## 7 Malin + Goetz 1
## 8 Tom Ford 1
## 9 Valencia 1
## 10 Valentino 1
## 11 Xinu 1
## 12 fueguia 1833 1
## # A tibble: 3 × 2
## awareness n
## <chr> <int>
## 1 Yes, I have heard of it, but never purchased it 6
## 2 No, I am not familiar with it 2
## 3 Yes, I have purchased it 2
## # A tibble: 9 × 2
## factor mean_score
## <chr> <dbl>
## 1 Scent 4.2
## 2 Longevity 3.6
## 3 Price 3.4
## 4 Ingred 3.3
## 5 Packaging 2.9
## 6 Present 2.8
## 7 Brand Rep 2.6
## 8 Sustain 2.5
## 9 Exclusiv 1.6
## # A tibble: 5 × 2
## relationship n
## <chr> <int>
## 1 I wear it occasionally for special events 7
## 2 I wear it daily without much thought 3
## 3 It's functional 3
## 4 It's a form of self-expression and identity 2
## 5 It's part of my personal style ritual 1
## # A tibble: 7 × 2
## discovery n
## <chr> <int>
## 1 In-store sampling or testers 8
## 2 Instagram) 4
## 3 Organic social media (TikTok 4
## 4 Gifting 3
## 5 Brand's marketing communications, 1
## 6 Paid influencer or celebrity promotion 1
## 7 Recommendations 1
Hypothesis 1 - Font
• The font on the product label is a main driver in the accessible and premium positioning.
step 1- Do the four fonts actually score differently from each other? step 2- Which font feels most luxury vs. most everyday? step 3- Correlation matrix for each font. step 4- Does one font stand out across all attributes? Its premium also sophisticated, trustworthy, and luxurious?
## # A tibble: 4 × 5
## font_label approachable premium gap direction
## <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <chr>
## 1 F3: Serif Medium 3.2 3 -0.2 Skews Everyday
## 2 F2: Sans-Serif Light 2.9 2.4 -0.5 Skews Everyday
## 3 F4: Italic Script 2.6 2 -0.6 Skews Everyday
## 4 F1: Serif Bold 3.7 2.6 -1.1 Skews Everyday
## # A tibble: 16 × 3
## font_label attribute mean_score
## <chr> <chr> <dbl>
## 1 F1: Serif Bold luxurious 2.2
## 2 F1: Serif Bold premium 2.6
## 3 F1: Serif Bold sophisticated 2.8
## 4 F1: Serif Bold trustworthy 3.2
## 5 F2: Sans-Serif Light luxurious 2
## 6 F2: Sans-Serif Light premium 2.4
## 7 F2: Sans-Serif Light sophisticated 2.6
## 8 F2: Sans-Serif Light trustworthy 2.2
## 9 F3: Serif Medium luxurious 2.6
## 10 F3: Serif Medium premium 3
## 11 F3: Serif Medium sophisticated 3.1
## 12 F3: Serif Medium trustworthy 2.8
## 13 F4: Italic Script luxurious 2
## 14 F4: Italic Script premium 2
## 15 F4: Italic Script sophisticated 2
## 16 F4: Italic Script trustworthy 2.2
## # A tibble: 4 × 2
## font_label overall_mean
## <chr> <dbl>
## 1 F3: Serif Medium 2.88
## 2 F1: Serif Bold 2.7
## 3 F2: Sans-Serif Light 2.3
## 4 F4: Italic Script 2.05
Hypothesis 2 - Image
• Consumers perceive ingredient-focused imagery as significantly less premium than dramatic and narrative-driven imagery.
When asked to rate fragrance product imagery from 1–5 on (Everyday – Special, Uninteresting – Interesting, Generic – Luxurious, Affordable – Premium), the ingredient focused imagery will score lower than the dramatic and narrative imagery. step 1 — Group images into two categories (ingredient, no-ingredient) step 2 — Overall group comparison: which group scores higher on premium? step 3 — Side by side comparison across all 5 attributes step 4 — Commodity specific: with ingredients vs without ingredients
## # A tibble: 10 × 2
## brand_label group
## <chr> <chr>
## 1 Byredo Ingredient
## 2 Commodity Ingredient
## 3 DS&Durga Ingredient
## 4 DedCool Ingredient
## 5 Tom Ford Ingredient
## 6 Byredo No-Ingredient
## 7 Commodity No-Ingredient
## 8 DS&Durga No-Ingredient
## 9 DedCool No-Ingredient
## 10 Tom Ford No-Ingredient
| group | brand_label | approachable | luxurious | premium | sophisticated | trustworthy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ingredient | Byredo | 3.4 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 3.2 |
| No-Ingredient | Byredo | 2.9 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Ingredient | Commodity | 3.3 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 2.5 |
| No-Ingredient | Commodity | 3.6 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.5 | 3.1 |
| Ingredient | DS&Durga | 3.4 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 2.9 |
| No-Ingredient | DS&Durga | 2.9 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 2.3 |
| Ingredient | DedCool | 3.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 3.3 |
| No-Ingredient | DedCool | 3.4 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.6 |
| Ingredient | Tom Ford | 3.4 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 3.9 |
| No-Ingredient | Tom Ford | 2.9 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 3.7 |
## # A tibble: 10 × 3
## group attribute mean_score
## <chr> <chr> <dbl>
## 1 Ingredient approachable 3.4
## 2 Ingredient luxurious 2.7
## 3 Ingredient premium 2.84
## 4 Ingredient sophisticated 2.66
## 5 Ingredient trustworthy 3.16
## 6 No-Ingredient approachable 3.14
## 7 No-Ingredient luxurious 3.08
## 8 No-Ingredient premium 3.12
## 9 No-Ingredient sophisticated 3.12
## 10 No-Ingredient trustworthy 2.98
## # A tibble: 10 × 3
## group attribute mean_score
## <chr> <chr> <dbl>
## 1 Ingredient approachable 3.3
## 2 Ingredient luxurious 1.7
## 3 Ingredient premium 2
## 4 Ingredient sophisticated 1.9
## 5 Ingredient trustworthy 2.5
## 6 No-Ingredient approachable 3.6
## 7 No-Ingredient luxurious 3
## 8 No-Ingredient premium 3.1
## 9 No-Ingredient sophisticated 3.5
## 10 No-Ingredient trustworthy 3.1
Hypothesis 3 - Ad
• Consumers perceive review-based ads as significantly less premium than solely product-driven ads.
When asked to rate fragrance ads from 1–5 on the following scales
(Everyday – Special, Uninteresting – Interesting, Generic – Luxurious,
Affordable – Premium), Commodity and DedCool, the review based ads, will
score lower than the solely product driven ads (DS&Durga, Byredo,
and Tom Ford).
step 1 — Group images into two categories (review, no-review) step 2 —
Overall group comparison: which group scores higher on premium? step 3 —
Side by side comparison across all 5 attributes step 4 — Commodity
specific: with review, vs without review
## # A tibble: 10 × 2
## brand_label group
## <chr> <chr>
## 1 Byredo No Review
## 2 Commodity No Review
## 3 DS&Durga No Review
## 4 DedCool No Review
## 5 Tom Ford No Review
## 6 Byredo With Review
## 7 Commodity With Review
## 8 DS&Durga With Review
## 9 DedCool With Review
## 10 Tom Ford With Review
## # A tibble: 10 × 3
## group attribute mean_score
## <chr> <chr> <dbl>
## 1 No Review approachable 3.2
## 2 No Review luxurious 3.18
## 3 No Review premium 3.4
## 4 No Review sophisticated 3.32
## 5 No Review trustworthy 3.2
## 6 With Review approachable 3.36
## 7 With Review luxurious 2.38
## 8 With Review premium 2.54
## 9 With Review sophisticated 2.56
## 10 With Review trustworthy 2.76
## # A tibble: 10 × 3
## group attribute mean_score
## <chr> <chr> <dbl>
## 1 No Review approachable 3
## 2 No Review luxurious 3.1
## 3 No Review premium 3.3
## 4 No Review sophisticated 3.2
## 5 No Review trustworthy 2.9
## 6 With Review approachable 3.4
## 7 With Review luxurious 2.2
## 8 With Review premium 2.2
## 9 With Review sophisticated 2.3
## 10 With Review trustworthy 2.9
Hypothesis 4 - Scent Space
• The Scent Space carries into the aspirational space.
Aspirational consumers will indicate a desire for fragrances that adapt to different moments/contexts/time of day. Suggesting that Commodity’s scent space is a meaningful differentiator and will carry into the aspirational space. step 1: How interested are people in scent customization? step 2: Does customization feel luxury or everyday?
## # A tibble: 5 × 2
## cust_interest n
## <dbl> <int>
## 1 1 3
## 2 2 1
## 3 3 2
## 4 4 2
## 5 5 2
## # A tibble: 4 × 2
## cust_luxurious n
## <dbl> <int>
## 1 1 2
## 2 3 3
## 3 4 3
## 4 5 2## # A tibble: 5 × 2
## cust_premium n
## <dbl> <int>
## 1 1 1
## 2 2 1
## 3 3 3
## 4 4 3
## 5 5 2
## # A tibble: 12 × 3
## brand_words n type
## <chr> <int> <chr>
## 1 Accessible 6 Everyday/Neutral
## 2 Everyday 6 Everyday/Neutral
## 3 Clean 5 Everyday/Neutral
## 4 Safe 5 Everyday/Neutral
## 5 Predictable 3 Everyday/Neutral
## 6 Elevated 2 Aspirational
## 7 Innovative 2 Everyday/Neutral
## 8 Investment 2 Aspirational
## 9 Sophisticated 2 Aspirational
## 10 Luxurious 1 Aspirational
## 11 Understated 1 Everyday/Neutral
## 12 Unique 1 Everyday/Neutral