India's Most Wanted IT Brands

PCQ Bureau
New Update

The real value of a brand is not only realized by how many people own it, but

also by what it does to stay shining in the future. This can be measured by how

readily its name is recalled by buyers in their minds. Further, how many of

those who recall it would also like to buy it? If they do buy it, then are they

likely to stay with it in the future as well? These are also some of the key

points we've focused on in our survey this time. The traditional Users'

Choice that we had been doing every year is now passé. This year onwards it

will be called Most Wanted IT Brands of India. The survey part of the story,

however, remains the same. What's different are our findings and analysis of

brands in each category. We've still gone out to key IT decision makers and

consumers with buying power across the country for enterprise and consumer IT



But how we analyze the results has changed completely. We've gone beyond

finding out which IT brands users are likely to buy in the coming six months,

and instead compared and analyzed each IT brand's performance. This time, we've

looked at 20 enterprise and 5 consumer IT brands categories. While you'll find

the analysis of individual categories in the subsequent pages, there were a few

patterns we noticed from our survey, which we'll talk about here.

We found that for each category, there were, on an average, three to four IT

brands that had the lion's share. And in many cases the brands that had the

highest current ownership weren't as persuasive as the ones with lower

ownership. Some underdogs had a stronger brand pull. In most categories, you'll

also notice in the graphs, a crowded corner of brands with lower top of mind

recall and current ownership. We've not really analyzed the movement of these

brands, because their overall numbers were too low to pass any judgments on



Lastly, in many enterprise segments, there were some CIOs who didn't name

any brand that they might shift to over the coming six months. The inference

here is that enterprise IT purchasing is completely different for different

types of products and solutions. For instance, if you've already deployed ERP,

the probability of shifting to another ERP package later is pretty low. So the

brand loyalty here would be pretty high. Likewise for many other enterprise IT


Now let's look at the methodology we've followed for the survey.

Survey methodology

Mrutyunjay Mishra and Sanjay Tiwari, JuxtConsult


Every year PCQuest modifies the methodology and presentation of how to judge

the IT brands. Two years back, they made a major change in the presentation, by

tracking brand shift and brand loyalties. Last year, the split the whole

exercise into two-separated the Developers part of the survey and introduced

the online survey. This year they have taken the presentation a level ahead and

we have been the consultants for the same.

This time we again conducted an online survey for consumer products. The survey
was open for 10 days and 564 users responded. For the enterprise segment, we

decided to cover only the key decision makers from the top 1,000 companies of

India. We are really grateful to the key decision makers in 176 organizations

who could take time out from their schedule to respond.

We have modified our questionnaire a little this year by adding 'top of

mind recall' as the first question for each category. The other two questions

remain the same as last year-second asking them for their 'most likely'

choice of the primary brand if they were to buy the same category of products in

the coming six months and the third asking the respondents for the primary brand

they currently 'own' for the same product category.

The modification was essentially done to capture and measure both the current
market (user) share as well as the current mind share of the brands. The reason

to do so was the realization that it is only a combination of both current

market share and current mind share that determines the real 'equity' of the

brand or its 'future readiness;' not its 'past performance.'

To assess and measure the future 'readiness' of the brands surveyed, we

used our proprietary Brand Momentux Model, which is a simple but unique brand

tracking model based on the time tested 'theory of momentum' from the world

of Physics.


Just as the combination of a body's mass and speed (velocity) is used in

Physics to measure the 'momentum' with which the body is moving, the

combination of a brand's mass (its current market share) and its speed (its

current mind share) can be used to measure the 'momentum' with which a brand

is moving in to the future to compete for market shares.

Brand Momentux model

Each 'measure' used in the model reflects a 'milestone' in the consumer's
interaction with the brand during the buying process -from recall to

consideration, to intention to buy, to usage.

To measure how well a brand is performing at these three critical 'transition

points', the JuxtConsult Brand Momentux Model uses a set of simple but

effective diagnostics. These are:

  • Brand Persuasion: How much the consumer is convinced about the

    brand to not just consider it but also 'prefer' it over the other brands

    in the category (by intending to buy it). It reflects the 'persuasive'

    power of the brand (of its positioning, proposition, benefits, image, value,

  • Brand Pull: How much is the brand able to attract and convince the

    consumers of competing brands or non-users of the category to prefer or 'switch

    over' to the brand. It reflects the 'consumer pull' power of the

  • Brand Loyalty: How much is the brand able to convince its existing

    consumers to 'continue' to prefer and buy the brand. It reflects the

    retention or

    'loyalty' power of the brand.
  • Brand Momentum: It is measured as a combination of the current 'mass'

    of consumers the brand has, together with the 'current speed' at which

    it is (likely to) gain or lose consumers as a result of its current

    marketing performance. Symbolically, the brand momentum indicates the future

    'market share' potential of the brand.

The current 'mass' of the brand is measured as the 'cumulative'

market (or user) share the brand has accumulated in the market place. This is

reflected by its existing consumer base (including historical buyers who are

still using the brand).


To measure the 'speed' at which a brand is moving in the market place,

the model uses the three critical speed 'acceleration' factors from the

brand's current performance parameters. These are the brand's current 'persuasion'

power, 'consumer pull' power and 'loyalty' power.

In simple marketing terms, the model states that how many consumers a brand

is likely to gain in the future depends on how many consumers prefer the brand

today, how many are likely to switch-in to the brand and how many are likely to

continue staying with the brand.

Reading the charts

The relative position of the brands in the adjacent graph needs to be understood
and interpreted in two different ways:

  • First, the 'position' of the brand falling on either side of the

    diagonal and in any of the four quadrants. This position represents a brand's

    'performance' on the measured attribute (brand persuasion, brand pull,

    brand loyalty or brand momentux).
  • The second way to interpret the graph is to look at the brand's relative

    positions along the diagonal starting from the bottom to the top. This

    reflects the 'size' of the brand in the market place for the measured

    attribute (brand persuasion, brand pull, brand loyalty or brand momentux).

    The higher is a brand positioned along the diagonal towards the top, the

    higher is its share ('size') for that parameter and a bigger player it

    is on that parameter in the market place.

Reading brand momentum

The brand falling on the left of the diagonal is being driven more by its 'mass'
(current cumulative consumer base) than by its the speed accelerators (current

marketing performance), ie Market Share Driven. It means the brand is 'slowing

down' in the race for the future.

In contrast, the brand falling on the right of the diagonal is being driven

more by 'speed accelerators' but has a correspondingly lower cumulative

consumer base currently, which is Mind Share Driven. It means the brand is 'gearing

up' for the race for the future.

Reading brand persuasion 

If the brand falls on the left of the diagonal, it means that its conversion
from brand recall to intention to buy is relatively lower. This implies that the

brand has been less effective in persuading the consumer who recalled the brand

to also think of buying the brand (for whatever reasons).

On the other hand, for a brand which falls on the right of the diagonal, more

consumers are thinking of buying the brand than recalling it. It implies that

the brand has been relatively more effective in persuading the consumers to not

just think about it per se but to think about buying it (for whatever reasons).

Reading brand pull

The brand falling on the left of the diagonal has more consumers leaving the
brand than the number of consumers switching-in to the brand. It means the brand

is a 'net loser' of consumers, is losing consumer pull and is more

vulnerable in the market place.

In contrast, the brand falling on the right of the diagonal is gaining more

consumers than those leaving the brand. It means the brand is a 'net gainer'

of consumers, is gaining consumer pull and is progressing steadily in the market


Reading brand-switch matrix

The brand-switch matrix is a simple one glance tracking of any brand's
switch-ins, switch-outs and loyalty performance. It is essentially a

cross-matrix of responses to two questions asked in the survey.

The first, “Which brand do you currently own?” Note that if they owned

multiple brands, then the primary brand was recorded.

The second, “If you were to buy or recommend the same product in the next

six months, which brand would you buy/recommend?”

All figures in the matrix are percentages of those who currently own the

brand mentioned in the rows and likely to buy the brand mentioned in the


The 'diagonal' cells represent the loyal consumer base of the brand. That

is, those who own a given brand and said that they will buy/recommend the same

brand. On the left is the current ownership; on the right, are future choices.

Read along any row and you will get the shift-outs 'from' the brand to

the other brands mentioned in the columns. Read along any column and you will

get the shifts 'into' the brand from the other brands mentioned in the rows.

Enterprise Backup Solutions, Large Volume Storage

Enterprise Backup Solutions

Though there are lots of players in this space, three brands stand out from

the crowd. HP-Compaq, IBM and Veritas all have higher brand persuasion than the

rest of the players.

EMC is also there but with a slightly lower top of mind recall and likelihood

of buying, as can be seen from the graph. The remaining players didn't get

sufficient response for us the pass any judgments.

What's a little concerning is that even top brands in this category are not

persuasive enough. The number of enterprises inclined to buy them is lower than

those who recall it as top of mind. Relatively though, EMC reported the highest

persuasion, followed by Veritas, IBM, and then HP.

When it comes to attracting customers from competing brands, HP-Compaq showed

a clear advantage over others. It doesn't mean that the rest of the brands don't

have brand pull. Interestingly, they all seem to have more CIOs switching in

than those switching out. This can become a little clearer after looking at the

actual brand shifts.

Veritas showed the highest brand loyalty at 97%. The remaining 3% didn't

have any plans to shift to any other brand over the next six months. HP-Compaq

showed 92% brand loyalty, with only 4% of its existing customers likely to shift

to IBM. IBM and EMC both have very interesting cases.


top of mind recall:

Highest current ownership: Veritas

Most likely to buy: Veritas

While 4% of IBM's existing customers were inclined to shift to HP-Compaq,

32% were possibly unsure of their plans or the brands they would like to shift

to in the next six months.

The case for EMC was even more interesting. A whopping 71% of its existing

customers were unsure of their plans to shift to any other brand. This is a good

sign for them.

So the overall brand loyalties in this category are very high, and so is the

brand momentum. Veritas and HP-Compaq had the highest brand momentum. IBM is

just a little behind, and EMC should get more active to gain more customers.

Brand Switch Matrix


Veritas HP-Compaq IBM EMC
Verities 97%      
HP-Compaq   92% 4%  
IBM   4% 64%  
EMC       24%

Large Volume Storage

There's so much competition in this market that brand persuasions were

fairly low across all brands. The only four brands that had high top of mind

recall, current ownership, and likelihood of buying were HP, IBM, EMC/ Legato

and Veritas. Amongst these, on a relative scale, IBM seemed to have relatively

higher brand persuasion than the rest. More enterprises said that they are

likely to buy IBM storage than those who had higher

brand recall.

One brand seems to have a higher pull than the rest. EMC/ Legato had more

enterprises who were likely to switch to it from competing brands than those

switching away from it. The remaining players had the reverse situation, ie more

switch out likely than switch-in.

In terms of brand loyalty, EMC/ Legato had the highest brand loyalty,

followed by HP, IBM, and then Veritas in that order. About 8% of EMC's

existing customers were likely to shift to HP. On the other hand, HP's

existing customer base had 6% IBM fans and 3% Dell fans. EMC/Legato has fans in

6% of IBM's existing users, and 3% HP fans. Veritas has a different story

altogether. Some 7% of its existing customers are likely to move to Sun. Even

more interestingly, 44% of the overall respondents were unsure of their plans to

shift to any brand over the next six months. They were even unsure of whether

they were likely to remain with the brand that they currently owned.


top of mind recall:

Highest current ownership: HP

Most likely to buy: HP

The brand persuasion, pull, and loyalty combine to give the brand momentum.

From the graph for this, it's clearly visible that all the key brands are more

market share driven than being driven by anything else. Their current ownerships

are higher than thier brand speeds. On a relative scale, HP had the highest

brand momentum, followed by IBM, EMC/Legato and finally Veritas. Maxtor, NetApp,

Dell and Iomega had a fairly low base and therefore need to do much more to

catch up to the four leading brands.

Brand Switch Matrix


HP IBM EMC/Legato Veritas
HP 62% 6%    
IBM 3% 58% 6%  
EMC/Legato 8%   5%  
Verities       57%

Network Switches, Servers

Network Switches

The interesting trend we noticed in network switches was that all brands had

nearly similar brand persuasion characteristics. They all have higher brand

recall than the number of enterprises that are likely to buy them.

The brands that received a significant number of votes for current ownership,

likelihood of buying, and top of mind recall were Cisco, D-Link, Nortel, and

3Com. The key marketing characteristic of all of these brands is better brand

persuasion. They all need to be more persuasive. If we keep market share out of

the picture, then 3Com seems to be the most persuasive brand, followed by

Nortel, D-Link, and Cisco. There were more enterprises who had high brand recall

for these brands than those who were likely to buy them.

Another noteworthy point in this segment is that none of the players seem to

have strong enough brand pull. D-Link is the worst hit. It faces risk that its

customers might shift to competing brands. Going further, 17% of its existing

customers said that they're likely to move to Cisco. Another 21% were unsure

of their plans on which network switch brand to buy. In fact, all the key

players in this segment are likely to lose their market to Cisco. These include

10% of Nortel's existing customers and 33% of 3Com's customers. It's no

wonder then that Cisco enjoyed a brand loyalty of 69%, with another 26% of its

customers saying they were unsure of plans to shift to any brand in the next six



top of mind recall:

Highest current ownership: Cisco

Most likely to buy: Cisco

The resultant brand momentum graph clearly indicates Cisco and D-Link are the

leaders in current ownership. Cisco leads by a wide margin and sits in a very

comfortable position due to high current ownership. D-Link needs to do something

to prevent losing its existing customers to Cisco. For the remaining brands, the

current ownership is far lower. The closest competition to D-Link and Cisco is

Nortel, but even this brand needs to build up the momentum considerably if it

wants to gain market share.

Brand Switch Matrix


Cisco D-Link Nortel 3Com
Cisco 69% 1%   1%
D-Link 17% 60%    
Nortel 10%   80%  
3Com 33%     67%


The survey results for this segment are quite interesting. While HP-Compaq

and IBM have high top of mind recall and most enterprises are likely to buy the

brands, it was Dell that came up as a more persuasive brand. That's because

more respondents were likely to buy Dell servers than those who had recalled it

as a top of mind brand. The situation was reverse for HP-Compaq and IBM, meaning

that of the CIOs who had high top of mind recall for HP-Compaq and IBM, a lesser

number expressed thier likelihood of buying these brands in the next six months.

So if better brand persuasion emerges as the key marketing issue for

HP-Compaq and IBM, then for Dell it is brand recall.

Interestingly, possible switch-ins to HP-Compaq and IBM from competing brands is
lower than the switch outs, thereby reducing their brand pull.

Here, IBM is the worst hit, while Dell has a relatively higher brand pull.

Dell enjoyed the highest brand loyalty among all brands, followed by IBM,

HP-Compaq, and HCL in that order.

Possible switch outs of 6% of IBM owners to HP-Compaq makes IBM vulnerable.

On the other hand, HP is likely to lose 7% of its customers to Dell.


top of mind recall:

Highest current ownership: HP-Compaq

Most likely to buy: HP-Compaq

Interestingly 28% of the total respondents were possibly unsure of their

plans or the brands they would like to shift in to in next six months. These

included 25% of HP-Compaq's existing customers, and 20% of IBM's. The

probable reason for this unsurity is that server configurations change very

fast, so organizations would prefer to choose a brand that offers the best deal

at the time of buying.

The relative plotting of the Brand Momentum for these brands makes it clear

that their high market share drives HP-Compaq and IBM servers against the

competition. Dell on the other hand has got the momentum and is an accelerating

brand. Other brands like Sun, Acer, and HCL had didn't have sufficient numbers

for us to be able to pass any judgement about them.

Brand Switch Matrix


HP-Compaq IBM Dell HCL
HP-Compaq 67%   7%  
IBM 6% 71% 1% 1%
Dell 14%   86%  
HCL       60%

Structured Cabling, Wireless Access Solutions

Structured Cabling

Avaya stands out as the most persuasive brand in the structured cabling

market despite of being a relatively smaller brand with a cumulative ownership

share of just 7%; little less than 1/7th of the top brand D-link's cumulative

ownership. Irrespective of being the biggest player, a much higher recall and

likelihood of purchase on absolute terms, D-link is the least persuasive brand

on a relative scale against its competitors. That definitely makes this category

as well the brands more interesting to understand. 

Interestingly, two of the brands, Avaya & AMP are also enjoying more

brand pull against D-link in relative terms. The logical explanation stays with

the brand switch-ins and switch-outs and loyalty trends of this category. In

fact, we must understand that structured cabling is something that is normally

considered at the stage of building a new facility and meant to last for many

years, therefore CIOs are not concerned about choosing a competing brand

immediately unless they have definite expansion plans and/or in the process of a

new facility development. 

D-Link owners for instance, showed a brand loyalty of 68%, while another 30%

did not give a clear answer on which brand would they choose if they were to do

so in the coming six months. There were a miniscule number of respondents who

said they'd shift to Krone though. Likewise, Siemon enjoyed a high degree of

brand loyalty at 91%. The balance 9% said they would shift to D-Link. Likewise,

Systimax had 86% brand loyalty..


top of mind recall:

Highest current ownership: D-Link

Most likely to buy: D-Link

If we forget the category characteristics for a moment it is imperative that

all of the brands need to become more speed driven. D-Link has almost equal mass

and speed and therefore appropriately future ready with the highest brand

momentum; followed by Siemon and Systimax, but the latter didn't have the

mass. Avaya seems to be the brand to watch with highest speed, if they continue

to perform then they would acquire mass soon.

Brand Switch Matrix


D-link Siemon Systimax Panduit Avaya AMP

D-link 84%          
Siemon 9% 91%        
Systimax 7%   86%      
Panduit 17%     17%    
Avaya         18% 9%
AMP Netconnect         23% 8%

Wireless Access Solutions

Just like network switches, this market is also split largely between Cisco

and D-Link, as can be seen from the brand momentum graph. The remaining players

had very low likelihood of buying, despite having top of mind recall. So as far

as the relative brand persuasion is concerned, Cisco leads the way, followed by

D-Link. Nevertheless, both Cisco and D-Link need to work considerably on

converting the high brand recall to buying.

In brand pull, D-Link is again having higher switch-out than switch-in from the
competing brands. 

Nortel and Avaya seem to be in the best situation with an equal ratio of

switch-out and switch-in. Cisco is also having more customers switching out than

switching in, it's relatively better off than D-Link.

On the brand loyalty front, we didn't find any major shifts happening

overall. We did find that around close to 40% of the CIOs didn't choose any

brand for purchase over the next six months. In fact, they didn't even say

that they'd go with the brand that they currently owned. So Cisco's brand

loyalty was the highest at 77%, but it doesn't seem to face a threat from any

particular brand. About 19% of its existing customers didn't choose any other

brand to purchase over the next six months, including Cisco itself. 


top of mind recall:

Highest current ownership: Cisco

Most likely to buy: Cisco

D-Link on the other hand had only 53% brand loyalty, 5% of its existing

customers said they'd like to buy Cisco in the next six months, and another 2%

said they'd move to Dax. The remaining 16%, however, wanted to shift to some

other unspecified brand. This could possibly be due to the onslaught of so many

new players in the wireless space, offering very cost effective products with

similar features. 23% of D-Link's existing customers didn't give any brand

preference to shift to at all. Perhaps D-Link needs to investigate. The existing

market shares for the rest were too low to analyze brand loyalty.

All brands in this segment need to work on building brand momentum, including

Cisco and D-Link, who own a large chunk of the current wireless market.

Brand Switch Matrix


Cisco D-Link Dax

Cisco 77%    
D-Link 5% 53% 2%
Dax (APCOM) 25%   25%

Security Solutions, Network Infrastructure Mgmt Solutions

Security Solutions

The key brands to watch out for in this category are Symantec, Cisco,

CheckPoint, TrendMicro, and McAfee. However, the brand persuasion is low across

all brands. Their top of mind recall is high, but intention to purchase isn't.

Relatively, McAfee has better brand persuasion than the rest. Trend Micro and

CheckPoint follow, and then Cisco and Symantec come in. The market shares for

the remaining players was too low for us to pass any judgement on them.

It seems there's a major tug of war happening between these brands, leaving

the customer confused on which one to really go for. That's exactly what the

brand pull situation seems to indicate. It's low for all the brands, and the

worst hit is Symantec. This can be seen by Symantec's position in the brand pull

graph. None of the brands seem to be getting more customers to switch in from

competing brands. On the contrary, there are more switch outs happening. On a

relative scale though, Trend Micro seems to have the best brand pull. In brand

loyalty, many enterprises were not sure about which brand to possibly buy in the

coming six months. Relatively, McAfee has 53% brand loyalty, and is in a tug of

war with TrendMicro.

While 7% of McAfee's existing customers are likely to switch to TrendMicro,

another 8% of Trend Micro's existing customers said the same thing about

shifting to McAfee. Cisco had a brand loyalty of just 50%, and is in a similar

tug of war with CheckPoint; Cisco's likely to gain 7% of CheckPoint's existing

customers, and CheckPoint likely to gain 4% from Cisco. Symantec had a brand

loyalty of 70%, with minor shifts happening to TrendMicro and Cisco. TrendMicro

has a brand loyalty of 69%, is already loosing some customers to McAfee, and

another 8% likely to move to Symantec.


top of mind recall:

Highest current ownership: Symantec

Most likely to buy: Symantec

Overall, Symantec is the mass driven brand with highest current ownership.

CheckPoint has the highest brand momentum. McAfee needs to speed up as it's the

trailing behind the key brands on future readiness.

Brand Switch Matrix



Cisco CA
Check Point 71% 7%  
Cisco 4% 50%  
CA     67%

Network Infrastructure Mgmt Solutions

In our survey, the market for network infrastructure management was split

largely between HP OpenView, IBM Tivoli, Avaya, Microsoft SMS Server, and CA

Unicentre. Though there were also a few instances of other players like Novell

ManageWise, OpenNMS, Satyam, and Zenith's Saaz, but their usage was far


The brand persuasion index wasn't very healthy in this segment. What this

indicates is that though these brands may have excellent top of mind recall, the

intention to purchase these brands in the CIOs' minds is not very high. This

can be clearly seen from the graph, where all the key players are positioned far

below the diagonal. On a relative scale, CA seems to more persuasive compared to

the other key brands. Zenith's Saaz and Satyam are relatively higher on brand

persuasion, but need to work towards building up more top of mind recall and

conversions from the same thereof.

The brand pull situation, however, was a little more interesting. HP Open

View had the highest degree of brand pull with more CIOs wanting to switch in to

it from competing brands. The next on line is IBM Tivoli. CA Unicentre needs to

be careful as in its case, there are more switch-outs visible.


top of mind recall:

Highest current ownership: HP

Most likely to buy: HP

top of mind recall:
HP OpenView

Highest current ownership: HP OpenView

Most likely to buy: HP OpenView

Coming to brand loyalties, there doesn't seem to be any brand shift

happening for any of the brands, except Microsoft SMS Server. Even there, the

11% that did say they'd like to shift to another network infrastructure

management package, didn't mention any brand. Another interesting point is

that there's a large chunk of respondents for each brand who haven't decided

on what brand to shift to. This is probably because these are all high value

investments so shifting to another brand can be quite difficult and time

consuming. Such decisions can't be given instantly in a survey.

So, HP OpenView has the highest brand momentum compared to other brands. IBM
Tivoli and CA UniCentre follow suit, but need to pick up momentum.

Brand Switch Matrix





CA Microsoft CISCO
HP OpenView 77%          
IBM Tivoli   64%        
Avaya (Lucen)     75%      
CA       100%    
Microsoft         44%  
CISCO           22%

Power Conditioning Equipment, Enterprise All-in-Ones

Power Conditioning Equipment

Whether it was top of mind recall or likelihood of purchase, or even current

brand ownership, we saw a similar ranking for all the brands. APC followed by

Emerson, Numeric, Siemens, etc. The brand persuasion situation is similar across

all brands-high top of mind recall, but likelihood of buying not as high. Some

of the brands towards the bottom of the graph are slightly better off, but would

need to leverage this to gain mass in the market.

When we reach the next level, called the brand pull, then the situation is

not very encouraging. None of the brands seem to have much of a brand pull.

There are more switch-outs than switch- ins from competing brands. The brand

loyalty figures tell us the reason for the same.

CIOs didn't seem to have an answer on which brand to shift to from what they
own currently. While 63% of APC's existing customers preferred to remain with

APC, another 30% were unsure of which brand to really shift to. The remaining 7%

were fragmented amongst the rest of the key brands. Likewise, Emerson enjoyed a

brand loyalty of 73%, but another 23% were unsure and didn't have any plans to

shift to another brand. The remaining 4% said that they might move to Siemens.

Numeric enjoyed a similar 73% brand loyalty as Emerson, but 9% of its

existing customers were likely to move to APC, another 9% to Siemens, and yet

another 9% had no idea or plans of shifting. Coming to brand momentum, the

situation is similar to that in structured cabling. All brands need to have more

momentum in the market to ensure brand retention, increase pull, and attract new



top of mind recall:

Highest current ownership: APC

Most likely to buy: APC

On a relative scale, APC enjoys the highest brand momentum and current

ownership of all brands. It's followed by Emerson and Numeric in that order.

<td width="20%" height="19</p>

Brand Switch Matrix


APC Emerson Numeric Compact Seimens DB Powerware
APC 63% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Emerson (Liebert)   85%     4%    

9%   73%   9%    
Compact       57%      
Seimens 17%       33%