Nearly a third of Active Traders, investors who make three or more trades on a monthly basis via a self-service online trading platform, indicate they are likely to open a new online trading account in the next six months. While this group of investors recognizes 19 online brokerage providers, only six firms have a solid opportunity to gather new accounts.

While brokerage provider consideration criteria varies by trader segment, firms that can clearly demonstrate and support perceptions of a “superior trading platform” are most likely to attract Active Traders. Traders are very savvy and are seeking relationships with firms that can offer best-in-class trading technology, tools and support. While firms like E*TRADE, Charles Schwab, Fidelity Investments, and TD Ameritrade are most likely to be associated with this attribute, smaller providers like FXCM, Cobra Trading and Interactive Brokers are also likely to be identified which highlights the fact that no one firm truly owns this brand trait.
 
In addition to differentiating on “superior trading platform,” firms must also communicate key advantages in research/analytic tools and pricing structure. Emphasizing key strengths in these areas is important to both prospective and current clients, especially given that nearly one-third of Active Traders did not place their existing provider in their future account provider consideration set.
 
There is a huge opportunity for firms that can clearly communicate their key points of platform differentiation and superiority relative to competitors – however, many firms are missing the mark in reinforcing their status as a leading edge trading solutions provider among existing clients.
 
Combined, these insights indicate that firms serving the Active Trader community must continually innovate and communicate core competencies to attract and retain this elite group of investors.

Source: Cogent Research, The Active Traders™: 2012

Here at Cogent, our mission is to provide data-driven solutions and strategies that help our clients make more informative decisions regarding their business. In order to achieve this we spend a lot of time doing Qualitative Research. What is Qualitative research you might ask?!

Well, Qualitative research is about finding out the ‘why’, not the ‘how’ of a subject through the use of market research using tools like open ended surveys and discussion groups. Qualitative research isn’t just about numbers but also about learning why people behave a certain way, what their attitudes are, what concerns people have, what motivates people and why, etc.

Have you ever participated in Qualitative Research for a company? Possibly in a focus group?

For those of you that don’t know, Cogent has it’s own syndicated research group that is committed to keeping us and our clients on top of new trends. Not only do we stay on top of upcoming trends but we also actively participate in public dialogue about the future of the industry.

Cogent puts out 3 types of Syndicated Research Products:

1. Perspective Series – reports about large issues an industry is facing.

2. Discovery Series - reports about a specific problem within an industry.

3. Insight Series – short reports on an upcoming issue within an industry.

To learn more about these reports and what we specifically focus on, go here.

Happy Veteran’s Day! Special Thanks to our Veterans that have served our country, protected our freedom and kept us safe!

For more then 10 years, Cogent has been focused on Health Management. We work with clients in:

1. Pharmaceutical
2. Healthcare delivery
3. Diagnostic
4. Biotech
5. Supplement
6. Food
7. Nutrition industries

Cogent brings actionable insights to product development, brand research and communications strategy, patient and customer loyalty, and more.

For many years, the three major exchange traded fund (ETF) providers—iShares, State Street, and Vanguard—have been able to grow share by leveraging their volume, early pioneer status, and strong brand reputations. However, the ETF landscape is changing, as new providers enter the market or continue to announce their intent to offer solutions in this growing market segment. Indeed, over the past 12 to 18 months, a number of established asset managers and distributors—including firms Legg Mason, T. Rowe Price, Eaton Vance, John Hancock, PIMCO, and Charles Schwab—have entered the market or have filed to offer some ETF variant.

While the established ETF players have survived primarily on massive flows to products that cover the most popular passive indexes, many new filings are actively managed ETFs that leverage their unique strengths in sectors such as fixed income. Of particular interest in this regard is PIMCO, which officially entered the ETF arena in the summer of 2009. Early results show that the firm has been able to leverage its reputation and track record as a fixed-income brand in the ETF market with products that offer active management, low expense ratios, and monthly dividends. Initial results have been positive in terms of flows—as of June 2, 2010, the firm has $1.55 billion in assets. Additionally, the firm is not sitting back on its laurels and enjoying its early success— PIMCO has indicated that it will soon offer new ETFs that protect against inflation in portfolios. While it remains to be seen, PIMCO’s success could trigger other mutual fund firms to enter the ETF fray with a focus on their core asset management strengths, whether they be domestic growth, international fixed-income, or some other sector or management approach.

Another recent ETF entrant is Charles Schwab, which has been very aggressive in its quest to be an ETF player. Unlike PIMCO, Charles Schwab has decided to differentiate on price. The firm entered the ETF business at the end of 2009 and has recently reported surpassing $1 billion in ETF assets. Just recently, Charles Schwab’s move to reduce ETF expense ratios and offer commission-free ETF trades for its brokerage clients was followed by a surge in flows, and not surprisingly, counter moves by BlackRock (iShares/Fidelity) and Vanguard. Time will tell if Schwab can go toe-to-toe with Vanguard on low fees, especially since the latter has announced that their yet-to-bereleased new family of ETFs will be “the lowest cost” in the category.

As other firms such as Eaton Vance, Legg Mason, and T. Rowe Price prepare to enter the fray, the competition will only become fiercer, as these firms are likely to launch innovative new ETFs—blending active and passive management, derivative strategies, alternatives, and other investment approaches with an eye toward differentiation. At the same time, increased competition will also force (and already has) existing players to closely examine fees and their own active ETF strategy, thus escalating the ETF wars further. As this strategy unfolds, two things are certain to happen. First, the roster of ETF providers will continue to expand. Second, both advisors and investors are likely to be treated to at least one ETF “flavor of the month” for the foreseeable future.

It wasn’t long ago that many advisors avoided Putnam Investments, whether due to poor performance, lack of wholesaler support, or lingering associations with the mutual fund market timing scandals of 2003 and 2004. However, today advisors are taking a second look at one of the oldest mutual fund families in the United States. In fact, in our study, the firm is closing the gap with other providers as measured by our Advisor Brandscape™ CoRe Score. In 2009, the firm ranked at or near the bottom for component measures in loyalty, usage, revenue, and brand equity. This year, Putnam has improved in all categories and has closed the gap with other competitors. In fact, the firm’s CoRe Score is within 10 points of firms like The Hartford, MFS, Janus, Eaton Vance, and Columbia Funds (now part of Ameriprise).

Much of the firm’s recent success can be tied to the strategic vision of its President and CEO, Robert Reynolds. Unlike past Putnam leaders, Mr. Reynolds has been very visible in industry publications, at conferences, and at other events. In addition to having a strong voice in industry issues, he has been behind major operational changes at Putnam, including tying portfolio manager compensation to investment performance, launching the firm’s Absolute-Return Funds, and managing other internal reorganizations designed to get the old-time Boston money manager

back on advisors’ radar screens. All of these actions have no doubt contributed to a stronger ranking in our study, as well as strong numbers in other studies such as Barrons, who ranked Putnam the overall winner in the 2009 Mutual Fund family rankings, a vast improvement over the number 57 spot (out of 59 firms) in 2008.

Third-party rankings are important and, to some extent, have resulted in more advisors mentioning the firm as a mutual fund provider of choice in our study, where it moved to 15th overall from 30th place in 2009 in unaided consideration. Now that the firm has started to gain momentum again with advisors, it must continue to demonstrate integrity and honesty through ongoing positive investment performance and thought leadership. While they are not yet out of the woods, Putnam has made a strong case for reconsideration among advisors, who for a long time period felt the firm was going in the wrong direction and in dire need of stronger leadership.

Source:

Sullivan, Tom. (February 2010). Best Mutual Fund Families, Barrons.

Once viewed as a low-risk way to generate additional returns on funds, structured investment vehicles have taken some heat recently as companies reinvested securities collateral in them and they sank in value during the market downtown. In fact, after the Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers fiasco, these products have come under heavier scrutiny from advisors, investors, and regulators alike. As a result of ongoing issuer risks, more and more firms have been tinkering with the design of these products to reengage advisors. However, based on our 2010 Advisor Brandscape™ results, not all advisors are taking notice.

Our findings show that slightly over one-quarter (27%) of advisors report using structured notes in their businesses today. Not surprisingly, wirehouses, where these products originated, report the highest usage of structured investments, at 39%. This is significantly higher than the Regional, Independent, and registered investment advisor (RIA) channels. Coming in a close second are banks, where 37% report using structured investments as part of their business model. This is in stark contrast to the RIA market, where only 13% of advisors report using these alternative products today in client portfolios.

In addition to variation by channel, there also appears to be differences across books of business as measured by assets under management (AUM) and advisor tenure. Only 16% of advisors with AUM below $25 million report using any structured investment products as part of their offering, while 37% with AUM of more than $100 million offer these products to their clients. Tenure is less of a correlating factor than is AUM, with the highest percentage of advisors offering structured investments having 5 to less than 20 years experience. Only one-fifth of advisors with more than 20 years of experience are recommending these products, while about 29% of advisors with less than 5 years under their belt offer them.

We recently did an annual study, 2010 Food & Health Survey: Consumer Attitudes toward Food Safety, Nutrition, and Health, for the International Food Information Council Foundation (IFIC), which examines what Americans are doing regarding eating and exercise, health habits, and food safety practices.

The report immediately picked up a lot of press coverage, especially regarding American’s perception of calories, weight and obesity.

Here are a few of the articles featuring the report:

• USA Today: Many Americans clueless of how many calories they do or should eat
• The Consumerist: Only 12% Of Americans Know How Many Calories They Should Eat Each Day
• Newsmax Health: Calorie Equation Confounds Dieters
• Art’s blog: Clueless in Calorie-Land
• HealthNews: Ignorance Is Not Bliss: Know Your Calorie Count

You can find more info and the full report on IFIC’s website.

The crisis that impacted the financial environment last year has escalated the need for informed decision-making. To leverage all knowledge assets more efficiently, companies are strengthening the ties between marketing research (MR) and competitive intelligence (CI) and seek to obtain a birds-eye view on their business and the marketplace. Yet, as industry players continue to face increased financial constraints, understanding markets or competitors and uncovering insights about products and services has never been more challenging.

However, a successful integration between traditional marketing research and competitive intelligence cannot be successfully accomplished by simply merging business units or mandating collaboration among internal teams. Success comes only with the understanding that these two distinct disciplines have numerous synergies that can be leveraged and put to work, while also recognizing some key differences.

Marketing research focuses mainly on understanding the customer, measuring attitudes, preferences, satisfaction, loyalty and behavior. Competitive intelligence focuses on understanding and learning about the competitors, trying to assess their ability to succeed and identify key strategies.

While both disciplines are predictive in nature, the approach in which they predict is different. Marketing research seeks to predict customer behavior based on trends and inferences backed up by statistical analysis and confidence levels given by large samples. Competitive intelligence aims at predicting competitor moves and strategies based on early warning systems and subjective interpretation of cues and changes in the marketplace.

Both marketing research and competitive intelligence rely on primary and secondary data collection techniques such as in-depth interviews, observation, web searches and others, but the targeted samples differ. While marketing research relies on large samples with the goal of building confidence and generalizing findings to the larger population, competitive intelligence is highly subjective and more often than not relies on small samples that can provide the needed information.

Marketing research can be seen as both an art and a science, requiring practitioners to have good project management skills, advanced statistical analysis knowledge and expertise in data collection and reporting. Competitive intelligence is certainly more of an art as it relies on practitioners’ industry expertise, business knowledge, intuition and strategic mindset.

Trying to merge these two disciplines may pose several challenges in a business, especially if there is no clear understanding and delineation between what each group and function can bring to the table to support confident decision-making. To avoid such problems, it is helpful to facilitate closer collaboration and coordination of efforts from early on, and most importantly share resources among teams. Clear job descriptions, realistic expectations, support from higher management and appropriate resource allocation will go a long way toward building a stronger organization. Communication, sharing and capability building are the key drivers of a successful integration of marketing research and competitive intelligence.