Categories
Research Methodologies
August 18, 2017
Tim Bock’s guide to creating brand map visualization using moonplots.
Correspondence analysis is the standard tool for creating brand maps. It shows which brands compete with which other brands and the basis for that competition. Unfortunately, correspondence analysis outputs are difficult to read correctly. In this post, I show an alternative output to brand maps, the moonplot, which resolves the key interpretation issues of correspondence analysis.
The correspondence analysis plot below is pretty standard. It shows data using row principal normalization, which is the best normalization for brand mapping data. To an expert in correspondence analysis, this map is easy to read. To a novice, it is also easy to read. Unfortunately, the novice generally misreads such a map, as the map encourages the less-expert viewer to draw incorrect conclusions.
A novice will look at this map and draw conclusions based on the distance between points. This is how a scatterplot is almost always read, as such an interpretation is an obvious one (the plot below is a scatterplot). This interpretation will lead to conclusions such as Diet Coke is associated with Beautiful, and Pepsi with Urban. Unfortunately, these conclusions are wrong.
The correct interpretation of the map above is that Diet Coke is strongly associated with Innocent, Sleepy, Feminine, Weight-conscious, and Health-conscious. In fact, the strength of association between an attribute and a brand is not determined by their distance on a map. It is instead computed using the following steps (please read How to Interpret Correspondence Analysis Plots (It Probably Isn’t the Way You Think) for a more detailed explanation):
This is, by any yardstick, a complicated set of instructions for reading a visualization. It is hard to believe that even people that understand the correct interpretation will take the time to diligently apply it.
The difficulties of interpretation have a few possible solutions. One is training. Sure this is a good idea, but the point of this visualization is that taps into our intuitive visual interpretation skills. So if training is required the purpose of visualization is undermined. Another solution is to draw lines from the origin of the map to the brands (or the attributes). Yet this still requires training (how else will people know the meaning of the lines?), so it is not a sufficient solution.
Illustrated below is an example of a moonplot. The key difference between the moonplot and brand maps relates to the display of attributes. The scatterplot above plots the attributes in the same space as the brands. While the moonplot plots all attributes equidistance from the center of the visualization. The font sizes, on the map below, contain the same information conveyed in the earlier brand map by the distance of the attributes to the origins.
This moonplot visualization has some big advantages over the traditional brand map display:
Comments
Comments are moderated to ensure respect towards the author and to prevent spam or self-promotion. Your comment may be edited, rejected, or approved based on these criteria. By commenting, you accept these terms and take responsibility for your contributions.
Disclaimer
The views, opinions, data, and methodologies expressed above are those of the contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect or represent the official policies, positions, or beliefs of Greenbook.
More from Tim Bock
Tim Bock on utilizing correspondence analysis.
Visualizations can summarize patterns that are commonly hidden in a simulator
Bad visuals stress the need for charts to be interpretable in seconds
Visualizing data can be made easier by utilizing small charts for comparison and analysis
Sign Up for
Updates
Get content that matters, written by top insights industry experts, delivered right to your inbox.
67k+ subscribers