Conclusion
It has often been thought that if two brands are the same size in a category, they are likely to have similar – predictable - penetration and frequency levels. This investigation suggests that it isn’t that simple. Although the general Double Jeopardy pattern is the underlying process, a deeper investigation to find the same predictable pattern proved much harder.
Hence, it does reinforce the necessity of predisposing more people to grow as a cornerstone of brand growth strategy. This principle holds true even in the face of significant market upheavals such as the pandemic and high inflation levels.
However, it highlights the need to start any investigation into quantifying and finding more people with an in-depth review of the category your brand competes in. Are there groups of products which share more buyers than expected? Or are there unique ways of consuming certain products? In these cases, this analysis can define the best category definition for benchmarking. This better understanding could also lead you to finding new spaces where your brand doesn’t compete today and should.
Without this understanding, even when you apply sensible category and brand definitions, the evidence presented suggest there is more variation in how brand’s grow than the NBD-Dirichlet model would suggest. The general rules are true – but there are many categories which are more complex, and many brands which standout by being somewhat different.
