HawaiianPunchLavaBurst_JessicaYeh by jessicayeh2

LAVA BURST

SURVEY OVERVIEW

200 PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONTROLLED GROUP

200 PARTICIPANTS IN THE EXPOSED GROUP +

400 TOTAL PARTICIPANTS

4 KPIs EVALUATED 2 DEMOGRAPHIC SEGMENTATION

The campaign demonstrated a strong lift in both ad awareness (+0.72) and brand awareness (+0.66), indicating that exposure successfully increased visibility and recognition of the new Hawaiian Punch Lava Burst drink. Brand favorability remained unchanged (0.00 difference), this suggests that while the campaign captured peoples attention, it did not create any meaningful shifts in how consumers felt about the overall brand.

Despite the positivite numbers in ad awareness and brand awareness, the campaign ultimately underperformed in driving purchase intent (-0.71). This decline suggests the campaign was not effective in translating interest into motivation to buy the drink.

SURVEY DEMOGRAPHIC

CAMPAIGN PERFORMANCE BY GENDER

The campaign generated a notiable growth in ad awareness, with increases among females (+0.74), males (+0.71), and non-binary (+0.67) respondents. The campaign also showed moderate gains in brand awareness, particularly for nonbinary (+0.67), and male audiences (+0.68), and females (+0.65).

Brand favorability remained the same, as results were flat across all gender groups, showing no meaningful change between exposed and control audiences.

Unfortunately, there was a decline from controlled and exposed audiences in purchase intent across all gender groups. Purhase intent dropped by -0.73 among females, -0.69 among male s, and -0.5 among non-binary respondents. The campaign was successful at capturing attention and improving re cognition, but it did not translate into consideration or intent to purchase.

AD AWARENESS

BRAND AWARENESS BRAND FAVORABILITY PURCHASE INTENT

CAMPAIGN PERFORMANCE BY AGE GROUP

The campaign drove meaningful uplifts in awareness and brand awareness, though the impact varied by demographic. The strongest increase in ad awareness occurred among adults from 35-54 (+0.8), followed by 13-24 group (+0.7). Brand awareness rose modestly across all age segments, with the 25-34 (+0.64) and 55+ (+0.76).

Despite these gains, the campaign did not shift brand favorabil ity, as it remained consistent between the exposed and controlled groups in every age catagory. This indicates that while adverti sing improved recognition, it did not influence a deeper sentiment toward Hawaiian Punch Lava Burst.

The purchase intent declined across all every age groups. The y ounger consumers (13-24) showed the steepest drop (-0.69), while older audiences (55+) showed a smaller decline at (-0.68) . This suggests that although the campaign successfully capture d attention and increased awareness, it did not translate into a stronger intent to purchase. Perhaps there is a mismatch betwee n creative messaging and consumer motivation across age demograph ics.

AD AWARENESS

BRAND AWARENESS

BRAND FAVORABILITY

PURCHASE INTENT

COMPARING BRAND LEVEL NORMS

AD AWARENESS

BRAND AWARENESS

BRAND FAVORABILITY

PURCHASE INTENT

AD AWARENESS

BRAND AWARENESS BRAND FAVORABILITY PURCHASE INTENT

CONTROLLED GROUP

EXPOSED GROUP

When comparing campaign performance between Hawaiian Punch Lava Burst and the rest of Keurig Dr Pepper’s portfolio norms, Hawaiian Punch Lava Burst consistently outperformed in ad and brand awareness.

Ad awareness shows a notable difference between the two brands. Hawaiian Punch Lava Burst records higher awareness in both control and exposed groups, demonstrating strong breakthrough and visibility. Hawaiian Punch Lava Burst also had a stronger lift in brand awareness indicating the Lava Burst campaign was built more effectively on familiarity and brand recall. Hawaiian Punch Lava Burst reported a high brand favorability with 4.59 in both exposed and controlled groups, while the other brands in Keuring Dr Pepper’s portfolio saw a decline (-0.06).

Purchase intent was higher for Keurig Dr Pepper’s portfolio brand norms, with a small increase (+0.05), while Hawaiian Punch Lava Burst had a decline of (-0.71).

Overall, Hawaiian Punch Lava Burst demonstrates strong brand engagement across awareness and favorability, but Keurig Dr Pepper’s other brands show more stable purchase intent. This suggests that while Lava Burst’s creative is visually impactful and memorable, future campaigns will need to have clearer messaging and be more pursuasive to convert into more purchases of the drink.

LAVA BURST

COMPARING INDUSTRY LEVEL NORMS ACROSS ALL CAMPAIGNS

FANTA BRISA TROPICAL

POWERADE LIGHTNING LIME

SPRITE VOLTAGE

COCA-COLA MIDNIGHT

SCHWEPPES HONEY GINGER

SNAPPLE SPICY MANGO

7UP CITRIS CHILL

HAWAIIAN PUNCH LAVA BURST

A&W FROSTED MAPLE

PEPSI RED

MOUNTAIN DEW THUNDERFANG

CANADA DRY GLACIER PEACH

MUG ORANGE CREAM

STARRY NIGHTFALL BERRY

ALL CAMPAIGNS

AD AWARENESS

BRAND AWARENESS

BRAND FAVORABILITY

INTENT

HAWAIIAN PUNCH LAVA BURST

AD AWARENESS

BRAND AWARENESS

BRAND FAVORABILITY PURCHASE INTENT

CONTROLLED GROUP

EXPOSED GROUP

Hawaiian Punch Lava Burst outperformed the other compaigns in a d awareness (+0.72) compared to (+0.52). This suggests that the creative an d messaging for Lava Burst were particularily effective in cutting though and g rabbing attention. Brand awareness lifts were also notably stronger for Hawaiian P unch Lava Burst compared to the overall campaign average. Brand favorability is higher for Lava Burst’s campaign, though did not improve from controlled group to exposed groups. Whereas there was a very minor improvement among the ot her campaigns. Purchase intent was higher amongst the other campaig ns (+0.15), whereas Hawaiian Punch Lava Burst had a decrease in purchase in tent (-0.71).

Overall, the Hawaiian Punch Lava Burst Campaign outperformed th e average of all the campaigns in awareness and favorability metrics, demons trating strong creative impact and brand-building strength. However, like the other campaigns in the dataset, it struggled to influence purchase intent.