370 OLD NAVY [Pick the date] - …d284f45nftegze.cloudfront.net/walombardi/Old Navy... · [Pick the...
Transcript of 370 OLD NAVY [Pick the date] - …d284f45nftegze.cloudfront.net/walombardi/Old Navy... · [Pick the...
1
[Pick the date]
MK 370 OLD NAVY
By:
Fouskas, Brittany Goldman, Andrew
Keil, Kendall Kenney, Jessica
Lombardi, William
2
Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Company and Industry Analysis ................................................................................................................... 4
Situation Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Perceptual Map ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................................... 7
Exploratory Studies ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Depth Interview Data ................................................................................................................................... 8
Cognitive Map .............................................................................................................................................. 9
Data Analysis: Exploratory Research ............................................................................................................ 9
Experimental Design & Sampling Methods ................................................................................................ 10
Data Coding and Data Entry ....................................................................................................................... 11
Data Cleaning ............................................................................................................................................. 11
Open‐Ended Question Responses .............................................................................................................. 12
Data Analysis: Frequencies ......................................................................................................................... 12
Data Analysis: T‐Tests ................................................................................................................................. 14
Data Analysis: Correlation Tests ................................................................................................................. 15
Data Analysis: ANOVA ................................................................................................................................ 15
Implications ................................................................................................................................................ 17
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18
Appendix A…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19
Appendix B…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….28
3
Executive Summary
Throughout the semester we have analyzed the Old Navy brand, its current situation, and their
possible exclusion of potential consumers. In the following the report we discuss our process of
formulating a hypothesis through market research. Our research consisted of exploratory studies – a
traditional focus group and in‐depth interviews. After the completion of these initial studies, we revised
our hypothesis and conducted an experiment to test the validity of our hypothesis. Finally, we analyzed
the data we collected, using Qualtrics and SPSS, to form our implications and recommendations for the
Old Navy brand and our future research endeavors.
4
Our group decided to work on Old Navy, a company who has seen some decline in sales over the
past couple of years and whose stores do not see a lot of customers on a daily basis. When we were
told our objective – to find a brand in some trouble and research why they have been experiencing
difficulty, we bounced around ideas but a common consensus was that Old Navy was in trouble. We
remembered their advertisements and were personally bothered by them and reflected on them with a
groan. Therefore, we wanted to identify an appropriate target market for the brand, see what the
commonly held opinions of the brand were, and base a hypothesis around our findings.
Company and Industry Analysis
In 1994 the president of The Gap felt his brand was being threatened by cheaper clothing stores,
and opened Old Navy. During its first few years Old Navy’s growth was exponential, and had record
sales. However, growth slowed in 2000. Two years after recording a $1.1 billion revenue they lost $7.7
million. 2001 saw the opening of Old Navy’s first international store in Canada. In 2005 Old Navy took
the brand in a new direction to compete with boutique brands, which did not fare well with customers
and saw another hit to Old Navy’s revenue. In 2008 Old Navy switched back to their family‐oriented
image, though they still have a long way to come in fixing their image.
Old Navy Brand is held under the Gap Inc. Company. Gap Inc. is part of the apparel and
accessories retail industry. The Industry is comprised of about 100,000 stores and has combined
revenues of $150 Billion a year. Industry Leaders include TJX Companies, Ross, Abercrombie & Fitch,
Limited Brands, and Gap. The market is very saturated with the 50 largest brands making up 65% of the
total industry revenue.
5
Situation Analysis
Strengths:
Where Old Navy has strength in its brand is areas like price, reliability, publicity, advertising, and
target market. For price, Old Navy keeps it price to consumers relatively low vs. the competition. This is
a strength for the brand since there are a lot of consumers who are price sensitive especially given the
recent downturn in the economy. When customers go into Old Navy stores they know what to expect
and they get a sense of reliability as well as consistency when it comes to the type of clothing they
expect. Old Navy has little to no negative publicity, which is definitely a positive thing for the brand’s
success. Last, Old Navy has a very large variety or demographics that its clothes appeal to. This makes
for an enormous target market.
Weaknesses:
The different weaknesses that Old Navy has include, they do not have a full understanding of
who exactly their target market is. Since the company is widely popular across a very broad range of
demographics, the company gets confused as to who exactly they should be directing their products and
advertising towards. The Gap Inc. Company and Old Navy included have recently lost market share and
market awareness no longer making them a very strong powerhouse in the apparel industry. The quality
of the clothing that Old Navy carries is not as high as some of Old Navy’s competitors. The market of
young adults (18‐25yr.) tends to avoid or have a negative attitude towards Old Navy.
Opportunities:
Old Navy also has a number of different opportunities that it can use to its advantage. Each year,
Old Navy releases a new product. This allows the company to be always interesting and exude a “new”
image each year. Old Navy is the cheaper and the more fashionable option to the competition for the
6
fashion conscious consumer. The Brand can expand into different countries to increase their market
reach. Last, their new advertising targets a different consumer allowing for more reach.
Threats:
The competition is one of Old Navy’s biggest threats; competitors like Kohl’s, Department
stores, and Target are often used by the same consumers who shop at Old Navy. Another threat against
Old Navy is the trend clothes they make such as the Old Navy fleece. Products like these produce niche
markets that are mainly taken over by other, higher quality clothing brands such as The North Face.
Other threats that Old Navy faces are buying power, something that Old Navy isn’t keeping up with, the
entry of new competitors to the industry, and the fact that people are simply hesitant to freely express
they shop at Old Navy.
Perceptual Map
In order to determine how Old Navy compares to its competitors, we created a perceptual map
using our knowledge, research, and information gathered during our focus group. The two attributes
used to distinguish between brands are quality and price. It is evident that Old Navy is moderately
priced in the mid‐ to low‐price range.
Additionally, it has a slightly above
average quality; however, still on the
low side compared to some of its
competitors. We were able to
establish that Old Navy fell between
TJ‐Maxx and Kohl’s as shown in the
diagram. It was determined that Old
Navy’s primary competitors are TJ‐
7
Maxx, American Eagle, GAP, and Banana Republic on the higher price and quality scale; and Kohl’s
Target, and Wal‐Mart on the lower price and quality scale.
Hypotheses
Before beginning our primary research, we established a hypothesis (H1) based on our
secondary research and our own personal observations and assumptions, which included experiences at
an Old Navy outlet or our familiarity with current and past advertising campaigns. Various trade articles
and sales reports indicated a decline in sales, which was a symptom of the problem. To determine the
cause of this symptom, we hypothesized that “Sales are declining because our target market is not
clearly defined.”
After conducting our focus group, however, we came to believe that the opposite problem
existed. Our respondents led us to believe that the target market was actually too specific, rather than
too broad. This forced us to revise our H1 to state that “Sales are declining because the current target
market is too specific to female consumers 25‐34 and children, thereby alienating other potential
markets such as consumers 18‐24.”
Exploratory Studies
We held two different research exploratory studies in order to interview the target market for
Old Navy. The first exploratory study we used was a traditional focus group. In our focus group were
four females and three males in the 18‐23 age bracket who all attend Quinnipiac University and who
have all had shopping experience at Old Navy. The second exploratory study we used was moderating
in‐depth interviews. For those, we interviewed 5 males and 5 females who were also in the 18‐23 age
bracket who all attend Quinnipiac University and who have all had shopping experience at Old Navy.
8
For our focus group, the seven participants all sat across from the moderator, Jessica Kenney
while Brittany Fouskas, Andrew Goldman, Kendall Keil and William Lombardi sat on the side, two to each
table, taking notes. We recorded each answer and studied the words that were spoken the most during
the study. Following the study, we created a word cloud which highlighted the words that were said the
most. Some words that were large in size, representing the words that were said in high frequency were
“change,” “commercial,” “younger,” “ads” and “obnoxious.”
Depth Interview Data
After the focus group, we had a large amount of data describing both the positives and
negatives of the Old Navy brand. Some of the positives included quality clothing, good summer clothing,
and they enjoyed that Old Navy wasn’t a big name store who might ignore some of the smaller
customers. One of the more significant points that related to our hypothesis was that Old Navy knew
their target market.
They also brought up several negatives for the brand. Several referenced that Old Navy clothes
were boring, not good for social wear, and more about comfort than style. Many also felt the brand was
stagnant, relating it to the mannequin ads that had been shown for so long.
The participants felt the Old Navy brand is mainly focused on comfort and price, and not style.
They felt their target market is mostly moms and kids, and those who are price conscious.
9
Cognitive Map
Through our focus group we were able to create a cognitive map regarding how the focus group
attendees felt about the Old Navy brand. As illustrated in the cognitive map below, when respondents
talked about Old Navy’s sales,
they focused on the
company’s specific sales on
Performance Fleeces, winter
clothing, and sweaters.
Attendees also related Old
Navy to summer, focusing on
their shorts, swim trucks,
skirts, and flip‐flops. These products also made the focus group think about the 4th of July. In addition,
one interesting aspect that came out was that much of the focus group felt Old Navy had very “plain
clothing” which lead them to think of one of Old Navy’s competitors, Target.
Data Analysis: Exploratory Research
After conducting our exploratory research, we have concluded that there are three aspects of
the Old Navy brand that are affecting the decline in sales over the past few years. We first looked at
target market and whom Old Navy was really directing their products towards. After reviewing our
results of both the in‐depth interviews and the traditional focus group, we have concluded that
consumers 18‐24yr old feel alienated by old navy’s advertising. We also found that this range of people
feel that Old Navy clothing is specifically associated with moms and kids. The next aspect of the brand
that we considered was the style of the clothing at Old Navy. We found from our results that style is
very important to consumers and if the style doesn’t fit their personality they won’t shop there. We
10
found that most of the respondents concluded that Old Navy’s clothing was too generic, basic, and
bland to be representative of their personal style. Lastly we noticed Old Navy’s advertising was not
favored by many of our participants. After looking at the results from the participants, we found that the
current advertising, the “mannequin” ads, elicit negative emotions in consumers’ minds as opposed to
good feelings towards the brand.
Based on our results and findings from both the in‐depth interviews and the traditional focus
group, we have concluded that consumers 18‐24 year old are not willing to shop at Old Navy
recreationally. This means that Old Navy will need to change their marketing campaign so that this
consumer can feel as though this clothing can be part of their identity.
Experimental Design & Sampling Methods
In order to determine the truth behind our revised H1, we designed our survey to consist of one
control group and two experimental groups. All three groups were given the same questionnaire, which
asked of their general shopping habits as well as their attitudes towards Old Navy and its
advertisements. However, each group was given the questionnaire under different conditions. The
control group (C1) was given no treatment and simply asked to fill out the questionnaire. Experimental
group one (E1) was shown an advertisement from the familiar “Mannequin” ad campaign before being
asked any questions directly relative to Old Navy. Experimental group two (E2) was shown Old Navy’s
newest advertisement, “Super C‐U‐T‐E,” before answering any questions directly relative to Old Navy.
The purpose of this design was to determine if the advertisements had an effect on the consumer’s
attitude towards the brand.
Our questionnaire design most resembled that of a diamond, with mostly closed‐ended
questions at the beginning and end, and a few open‐ended questions present in the middle of the
11
survey. These open‐ended questions, for the most part, were conditional questions, meaning that
respondents were only prompted with certain open‐ended questions depending on their answer to
some of our closed‐ended questions. This allowed us to supplement our quantitative data with specific,
targeted qualitative data that gave us a deeper insight into why some of those answers were chosen.
Our sampling method was a non‐probability sample using a convenience and quota technique;
essentially, this was due to limited resources, time constraints, and the overall difficulty of finding
respondents who were willing to complete our survey among busy college students. Because of our
limited sampling abilities, all of our respondents fell between the ages of 18‐22 and are currently
enrolled in college. We were able to gather ten responses in group C1, twelve responses in group E1, and
eleven responses in group E2.
Data Coding and Data Entry
Completing our surveys in Qualtrics, we were easily able to export our results into SPSS. SPSS
automatically coded our data. Our data coding was split into scaled and non‐scaled. One example of the
scaled coding would be the question, “How likely would you be to shop at Old Navy in the future?” Our
respondents answered based on a 1‐7 point scale, with 1 being highly unlikely and 7 being highly likely.
One non‐scaled question was gender, since it is either male or female with no opinion given.
Data Cleaning
In order to make the data we collected from the surveys usable for our hypotheses, it had to be
cleaned. Data cleaning involves three steps. The first step is to look for entry errors, of which we found
none: n=33. The second step is to look for outliers in the data. We found four outliers in the data (see
Appendix A Section I), and removed them from the list: n=29. Finally we replaced all the missing values:
n=29. We also looked at the normal curves of the questions to ensure that the data was properly
12
cleaned. After the data had been cleaned, we were left with 10 participants in the control group, 10
participants in the first experimental group, and 9 in the second experimental group.
Open‐Ended Question Responses
Prior to reviewing our data, we had expected answers to our open‐ended questions to vary
across the three groups. However, while reviewing these questions, we found that the answers in all
three groups were more similar than we had anticipated. Though the first and second experimental
group were shown different Old Navy ads from different campaigns, we found hat ad did not influence
their answers. For example, we expected the new Super C‐U‐T‐E ad to garner more receptive responses;
however, our respondents did not seem to be receptive of the new ad. Some referenced the old
mannequin ads, despite not having seen them during the survey. These people associated mannequins
with the brand, and had a negative view of the company because of it. Overall the open‐ended
responses harbored mostly negative attitudes despite any presence of an ad.
Data Analysis: Frequencies
Using SPSS, one of the ways we analyzed our data was by using frequencies to see how much an
option was chosen in our online Qualtrics survey. Four questions that we chose to analyze by frequency
were “Who do you think shops at Old Navy?” “To what extent do you feel Old Navy’s advertisements
relate to you?” “How often do you shop at Old Navy?” “Do you enjoy Old Navy’s advertisements?”
For the question, “Who do you think shops at Old Navy,” the demographics that were chosen in
order of frequency were “Teenage Girls” at 62.1%, “Mothers” at 48.3%, “Young Women” at 44.8% and
“Children” at 41.4%. Those who took the online survey were able to give multiple answers to this
question. This shows that mothers and children are thought to shop at Old Navy more frequently,
13
probably leaving people to think that mothers would bring their children or teenage girls to shop for
clothes at the store.
For the question, “To what extent do you feel Old Navy’s advertisements relate to you?” the
choices were “Not at all like me,” with a frequency of 9, “Not much like me,” which a frequency of 13,
“Somewhat like me,” with a frequency of 6, and “Quite a lot like me,” with a frequency of 1. Therefore,
we were able to draw from this analysis that those who took the surveys did not feel that the
advertisements related to them.
For the question, “How often do you shop at Old Navy?” the choices were “Rarely,” with a
frequency of 13, “Sometimes,” with a frequency of 15 and “Often,” with a frequency of 1, symbolizing
the person who expressed that the advertisements related “quite a lot” like them in the earlier
question. Therefore, we were able to draw that those who took the survey rarely to sometimes shop at
Old Navy and did not feel that the advertisements related to them.
The last question we analyzed was “Do you enjoy Old Navy’s advertisements?” The choices for
this question was “Yes,” with a frequency of 2, “Somewhat,” with a frequency of 10, “No,” with a
frequency of 12, and “Indifferent,” with a frequency of 4. Again, only 2 participants expressed that they
enjoyed the advertisements and out of that, 1 expressed that the advertisements related to them while
most do not enjoy the advertisements, do not believe the advertisements relate to them and do not
regularly shop at Old Navy. This is concerning for Old Navy, because the market that they are trying to
reach is not receiving their advertising messages positively and the store is suffering by not having those
customers. (See Appendix A Section II)
14
Data Analysis: T‐Tests
We ran independent sample T‐tests on a number of different questions to find out further
information on our results. We compared results across the three groups that we had, Control Group,
Experimental Group 1, and Experimental Group 2. We first looked at Control Group Vs. Experimental
Group 1 and found that there was a significant difference between the groups for the following
questions. For “How does informativeness appeal to you in a commercial?” we had a result of t: 2.466
and Sig: 0.024. Since T > 1.96, and Sig < .05, there was a significant difference. We also had a significant
difference in the question “Emotional appeal is present in Old Navy’s advertising.” with a t: 2.158 and a
Sig: 0.045.
When comparing our Control Group to our Experimental Group 2, we found a significant
difference between the two groups in the following questions. “Humor is present in Old Navy’s
advertising.” t: 2.005 and Sig: 0.061, “Sex appeal is present in Old Navy’s advertising.” t: ‐2.659 and Sig:
0.017, “Emotional appeal is present in Old Navy’s advertising.” t: 2.481 and Sig: 0.024, “Catchy music is
present in Old Navy’s advertising.” t: ‐2.685 and Sig: 0.016, “Informativeness is present in Old Navy’s
advertising.” t: 2.848 and Sig: 0.011.
When comparing our Experimental Group 1 Vs. Experimental Group 2, we found that there was
a significant difference between the two groups for the following questions. “Humor is present in Old
Navy’s advertising.” t: 2.092 and Sig: 0.052. “Catchy music is present in Old Navy’s advertising.” t: ‐2.207
and Sig: 0.041. “Informativeness is present in Old Navy’s advertising.” t: 1.972 and Sig: 0.065.
Although we found numerous significance between the various groups we researched, we
concluded that the questions, which we found significance between, didn’t support our hypothesis
15
claims but also didn’t disprove them. They were not helpful in telling us the information we wanted to
see, the information that would help us prove our hypothesis.
Data Analysis: Correlation Tests
We next ran correlation test on questions that we thought would be useful in helping us prove
our hypothesis. We first looked at all the questions we came up with and decided that we wanted to
know if how often people shop at Old Navy had an effect on to what extent they felt Old Navy’s
advertisement related to them. We ran the correlation test for that question and found that there was
no correlation between the two. This means that the extent to which people feel Old Navy ads relate to
them is not affected by how often they shop at Old Navy. We next came up with the question, if how
likely would you be to shop at Old Navy in the future had an effect on to what extent they felt that Old
Navy’s advertising relates to them. We ran the correlation test and again found that there was no
correlation between the two. This means that the extent to which people feel that Old Navy’s
advertising relates to them is also not effected by how likely they would be to shop at Old Navy in the
future. Since there was no correlation in either question, we were not prompted to run and regression
tests. (See Appendix A Section III)
Data Analysis: ANOVA
While analyzing our data, we decided to run some ANOVAs to see the relationship between a
non‐scaled independent variable and a scaled dependent variable. We hoped that we would find
significance between the variables supporting our research hypothesis. We first used the independent
variable of “Do you enjoy Old Navy’s advertisements?” with the dependent variable “If I don’t like an ad
campaign, I tend to avoid the brand.” We thought the use of these two variable, if found significant,
would show that there would be a relationship between those who responded that they did not like Old
16
Navy’s advertisements and those that tend to avoid the brand if they don’t like their ad campaign. This
information would have shown us that respondents didn’t like Old Navy’s ad campaign, resulting in
them avoiding the brand. However, when we ran the ANOVA analysis, Sig: .657, therefore, there was no
significance between the two variables.
We than ran a second ANOVA with an independent variable of “Do you enjoy Old Navy’s
advertisements?” and a dependent variable of “To what extent do you feel that Old Navy’s
advertisements relate to you?” Similarly to the previous ANOVA, we were hoping to find a relationship
between respondents not enjoying Old Navy’s advertisements because they did not feel as though the
ads related to them. This would help prove our hypothesis because it would show that consumers in
our age range felt alienated by Old Navy’s advertisements. Through the analysis we found that there
was significance between the two variables. We determined this through the value of the Sig: .019
which is less than 0.05.
In order to then determine the specific relationships between the variables we had to run
compare means because our non‐scaled independent variable had four choice options instead of two.
Through the compare means analysis of those who responded “yes” versus those who responded “no”,
we found that those respondents who enjoyed Old Navy’s advertisements also felt that the ads related
to them. The results showed that t: 3.055, Sig: .010, and “yes” mean: 3.500 while “no mean: 1.750.
Similarly, when comparing those who responded “yes” versus “somewhat”, we found that those who
enjoyed Old Navy’s advertisements also felt as though the ads related to them. The results showed that
t: 3.460, Sig: .034, and “yes” mean: 3.500 while “somewhat” mean: 2.100. We also got the same result
between “yes” and “indifferent” respondents. The results showed that t: 3.771, Sig: .020, “yes” mean:
3.500, “indifferent” mean: 1.500. (See Appendix A Section IV)
17
Implications
According to our research results, we found that respondents felt that 18‐24 year olds are one
of the main consumer groups of Old Navy. This information was coming from respondent’s who are 18‐
24 years old, therefore disproving the hypothesis claim we made. Although we found significance for
various t‐tests between different groups, none of the significant variables were those that supported
our hypothesis claims. There were a few correlations that we felt would prove our hypothesis and after
running those tests, we found that they did not show significance. This meant that there was no effect
between the various variables like we would have hoped. After running the ANOVA, we found that those
respondents that liked Old Navy’s commercials also felt as though the commercials related to them so
there was significance. However, only two respondents said that they actually like Old Navy’s
commercials. This means that even though there showed a significance, the results didn’t have a big
impact on it because of the small sample size that it was taken from. The last implication we had that we
found was in our sample size and sampling method error. As a group we felt that had we used
probability techniques to determine our sample population rather than non‐probability techniques, we
could have had some sort of systemic, non‐judgmental, broader sample population. This would have
given us a more accurate representation of our desired sample population and may have improved our
results in a way that supports the hypothesis claims we made. Although most of our analysis appears to
disprove our hypothesis, the frequencies did show some support. Most respondents felt that mothers
and teenage grille most frequent shoppers of Old Navy, supporting our original thoughts. The majority
of respondents did not feel as though the advertisements related to them. Lastly, the majority of
respondents did not enjoy Old Navy advertisements.
18
Recommendations
We have several recommendations for Old Navy. Our main focus is to remodel their brand
image. As seen in the open‐ended responses, all respondents (regardless of their grouping, mentioned
dislike for the mannequin campaign. After hearing about how much consumers dislike the commercials,
we suggest going for a new style of commercials. This means abandoning the mannequins and going for
a different technique such as slice‐of‐life or animation. We also suggest they bring in an established
designer and create a line of clothes that will be sold exclusively at Old Navy, in the same manner as
Claiborne or Arizona jeans. Old Navy seems to have found similar results as us, since they have released
a new logo.
We also thought of suggestions for our own research. Once the data was cleaned we only had
29 total participants, which is not a large number. Next time we could use a larger sample size to find a
larger population’s views of the brand. We also used probability sampling technique, which might not
have given us the best results. Next time we should switch to non‐probability sampling technique.
19
WORKS CITED
"Old Navy, Inc. | Company Profile from Hoover's." Hoovers | Business Solutions from Hoovers. Web. 04 May 2011. <http://www.hoovers.com/company/Old_Navy_Inc/rrrctxi‐1.html>.
"Old Navy, Inc. ‐‐ Company History." Find Funding with Banks, Investors, and Other Funding Sources | FundingUniverse. Web. 04 May 2011. <http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company‐histories/Old‐Navy‐Inc‐ Company‐History.html>.
"http://www.qualtrics.com/." www.qualtircs.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 May 2011. <http://www.qualtrics.com/>.
20
APPENDIX A
I. Data Cleaning
Mean+‐3 Std. Dev
Mean Std. Min Max3.42 0.751 1.167 5.6732.12 0.927 ‐0.661 4.9011.18 0.392 0.004 2.3561.61 0.704 ‐0.502 3.7221.64 0.699 ‐0.457 3.7371.36 0.549 ‐0.287 3.0072.97 1.015 ‐0.075 6.0155.24 1.023 2.171 8.3091.62 0.728 ‐0.564 3.8041.5 0.577 ‐0.231 3.2314.06 1.216 0.412 7.7082.66 1.035 ‐0.445 5.7652.56 1.045 ‐0.575 5.695
3 1.164 ‐0.492 6.4923.75 1.078 0.516 6.9842.25 1.107 ‐1.071 5.5712.91 1.376 ‐1.218 7.0382.44 1.294 ‐1.442 6.3222.06 0.914 ‐0.682 4.8023.22 1.385 ‐0.935 7.3753.47 1.191 ‐0.103 7.0431.91 0.893 ‐0.769 4.5891.91 0.856 ‐0.658 4.478
21
II. FREQUENCIES
Who do you think shops at Old Navy?
To what extent do you feel Old Navy’s advertisements relate to you?
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%
Percentage
24
III. CORRELATION
How often do you shop at Old Navy? To what extent do you feel that Old Navy’s advertisements relate to you?
How likely would you be to shop at Old Navy in the future? To what extent do you feel that Old Navy’s advertisements relate to you?
25
IV. ANOVA
IV: Do you enjoy Old Navy’s advertisements? DV: If I don’t like an ad campaign, I tend to avoid the brand.
IV: Do you enjoy Old Navy’s advertisements? DV: To what extent do you feel that Old Navy’s advertisements relate to you?