Label legendmeasuredconsensusderivedassumptionno data
01At a glance
96,359
Monthly situation search volume
7
CEPs
7
Unclaimed situations
85.2%
Largest CEP share · 간식이 생각날 때 간단하고 달달한
Start here
1간식이 생각날 때 간단하고 달달한 간식 찾을 때Unclaimed situation volume 82,102No brand shows up in this big situation yet → plant content & ads on its search terms first
2숙취가 있을 때 숙취 해소 음료 찾을 때Unclaimed situation volume 4,610Low search volume → deprioritize for now (start with the big situations above)
3아침 식사 대신 아침 대용 찾을 때Unclaimed situation volume 3,560Low search volume → deprioritize for now (start with the big situations above)
Unclaimed situation = a CEP where no brand was detected in its journeys or SERPs · Unclaimed situation volume = situation volume × (1 − brand fit). Situation volume is a proxy for how often the moment happens, not the volume of category-name searches
Low search volume → deprioritize for now (start with the big situations above) evidence weak
Click a column header to sort by it · click a CEP name to jump to its detail card
Power = this situation's share of all CEP situation searches (bigger = wider door in) · Brand competition = whether brands show up in this situation's journeys/SERPs · Evidence = strength of the supporting search evidence (strong/medium/weak)
Cell = that month's average volume ÷ overall monthly average (1.0 = average). Bold = peak month.
Monthly search volume per situation over 48 measured months: when and how often each situation occurs. Combined with survey data, it shows both the size of a situation and how it changes.
Rule: growing/declining = trailing 12-month sum vs the prior 12 months ±20% or more / peak month = calendar-month index ≥1.30 / seasonal = max ÷ min month index ≥1.8. Monthly values are measured monthly search volumes [measured]; CEP series are sums over measured measured queries [derived]. Unlike survey CEP power (share of respondents), this frequency is search occurrence.
Open has two kinds: measured with no brand mentions is a claim candidate; unmeasured needs a deep run or survey before claiming. · Contested = gap between #1 and #2 ≤10pt · dispersed = leader share <35% · HHI = sum of squared shares. Core CEPs (power ≥ median) are filled, others faded. Unmeasured are dashed (unknown, not empty).
05CEP power
each situation's share of all situation searches
total 7 CEP · [derived] power = the CEP's search volume ÷ total volume of all CEPs
06Brand × entry situation
claimed vs. open (all CEPs)
Brand links measured for 0 of 7 entry situations · the other 7 are graded as opportunities. Small k/m in a cell = brand-mention sample (small m = low confidence).
Brand link
간식 찾을 때85.2%
Big land-grab: large unclaimed situation 85.2% · mo. 82,102
숙취 해소4.8%
Land-grab: unclaimed 4.8% · mo. 4,610
아침 대용3.7%
Land-grab: unclaimed 3.7% · mo. 3,560
아이 간식3.2%
Land-grab: unclaimed 3.2% · mo. 3,086
시원한 음료1.5%
Small situation: low priority 1.5% · mo. 1,423
간식거리1.2%
Small situation: low priority 1.2% · mo. 1,130
운동 후 음료0.5%
Small situation: low priority 0.5% · mo. 448
[derived] · colored cell = measured share (k/m sample) · green/amber row = land-grab opportunity (no brand linked, by situation size) · gray row = small · "·" = not queried (no data ≠ 0)
Link rate = share of search paths through this situation whose later queries contain a category term (바나나우유) [derived]. low <20% · high ≥50%. Power ≥ median and low = category-growth candidate (the situation is big but the category is not chosen yet). Only journeys starting from the situation term are used; the category-anchor journey is excluded (linked by construction). CEPs whose own queries already contain the category term are skipped.
lowhighEach cell is that age band's share (%) of the CEP's searchers
09Audience in the query
Who it is for
Only searches that name an audience (the recipient, companion or user) are counted, and their monthly volume summed. It reads who people search for, and with whom, straight from the queries.
Measured queries × fixed lexicon classification [derived]. A query naming two audiences counts in both.
10Search data used in this report
A CEP is a situation that many search signals point to together, not a single keyword. This shows how much related-search, search-path, search-cluster, SERP text, PAA and AI Overview data was collected, and which of it served as evidence for each CEP's scene (when, where, why, with whom) and its nano context, KBF, constraints and avoidances.
Data
Collected
Used as CEP evidence
Related searches
250
in the dossiers of 0/7 CEPs
Search paths
653 paths (incl. 0 deep-measurement paths)
in the dossiers of 0/7 CEPs
Search clusters
0 clusters · 0 queries
in the dossiers of 0/7 CEPs
SERPs (Google results)
0
in the dossiers of 0/7 CEPs
AI Overview
0
in the dossiers of 0/7 CEPs
PAA (People also ask)
0
–
Where each CEP showed up
CEPs surface in different places depending on the topic and situation: some in search paths, some in clusters or related searches, some in AIO and PAA. Left: share of the CEP's measured query volume found in each source (discovery). Right: how often each source was cited for the scene 7W and attributes. 'none' means that source never reached this CEP.
structure open YoY (12M) -27% · Peak 7·8mo.decliningseasonal
The situationassumption
운동을 마친 후에는 갈증을 느끼게 됩니다. 이때 달달한 음료로 시원하게 갈증을 해소하고 싶어집니다. 사람들은 '운동 후 음료', '달달한 음료'를 검색합니다.
Next actionLow search volume → deprioritize for now (start with the big situations above) evidence weak
Investment priority derived
Investment candidate #7Unclaimed situation volume up to 448/mo
Market size 0 · Brand fit – · Provability 0(evidence thin), highest-priority investment on this 3-axis combination
Combines the 3 selection axes + power/volume via a fixed rule; a new calculation only, no new data
Evidence queries measured
운동 후 음료 316measured달달한 음료 132measured
Selection axes (market · fit · provability)
Market size0
Brand fit–
Provability0
12Brand summary
behavioral MMS proxy · width×depth
MMS proxy [derived]
branded volume [measured]
width (#CEPs linked)
depth (avg rank)
가나디
–
169,170
0
–
빙그레
–
75,733
0
–
덴마크
–
70,276
0
–
매일유업IKG
–
63,400
0
–
서울우유
–
45,386
0
–
상하목장
–
24,773
0
–
푸르밀
–
15,186
0
–
칸타타
–
9,446
0
–
미노스
–
2,590
0
–
이도온화
–
2,490
0
–
13Limits
what this map does not say
Any brand share / response-priority judgment ("how a brand is doing") holds only where brand linkage was actually measured for that CEP; check the measured ratio in Evidence readiness just below. Where many CEPs are unmeasured, treat brand-related conclusions as provisional.
Search reflects familiarity and purchase-consideration more strongly than unaided recall; in person-level validation, recognition alone drove search only 1.22x (near-negligible), while familiarity/consideration were clearly larger, reaching 7.0x (smartphones) / 5.3x (autos) when all 5 positive brand attitudes were held (Dotson et al., Google). This correlation is confounded by brand size (bigger brands move on many metrics at once), and validation was done at brand-total level.
Existing/habitual buyers don't disappear from search; the same study found brand owners searched their brand 2.5-3.5x more than non-owners (Dotson et al., Google). But much of that is non-need-expressing (brand-name/navigational/support queries), so this map's need-type CEP distribution skews toward new-entry/switch-consideration demand.
Brand share is relative within the measured set; an unqueried brand x CEP pair is [no data], not zero.
Paths are aggregate graph flow, not one person's timeline; "transition" is a modeled statistic.
CEP power's denominator is classified queries, not people; it isn't directly comparable to survey-based CEP power (denominator = people); the same person's 10 queries count as 10 votes on this map.
Queries that pick by naming a brand/origin are closer to a search mode than a situation, and differ in kind from other CEPs - they're bucketed separately to avoid contaminating need-type CEPs, so when counting "number of entry situations," we recommend excluding this item and the unclassified long tail.
Before decisions like budget/resource allocation, we recommend pairing this with survey-based recall measurement (person-level CEP power / share of mind).
Recovery fallback mode: all AI-synthesized CEPs failed validation, so CEPs were built directly from measured occasions; KBF/RTB/brand evidence may be empty (re-run or narrow the keyword).
The code discarded 42 AI-suggested item(s) lacking evidence (evidence is enforced).
Evidence readiness: not ready · Recovery fallback; no CEP passed validation, so CEPs were built directly from measured occasions. Evidence is thin; re-run or narrow the keyword before drawing conclusions.
14Reproducibility
Search volume lookup 7 · Search paths 3 · Related searches 1 · AI synthesis 1
Volume is the trailing 3-month average monthly searches [measured]. Power's denominator is the set of queries classified into CEPs.
Brand share uses one method per CEP: brand appearance in search paths, measured brand co-searches, or brand mentions in the situation's search results and AI Overviews; never blended.
A CEP is a unit of "situation/scene," not "person"; from a penetration angle: more entry situations means a wider door for non-customers and light users.
Irrelevance screening: quarantined 3 homonym/other-market keyword(s) from the collection net (e.g. 에너지 음료, 바나나 주스 만들기, 활력 음료)
Reused a stored IKG (Intent Knowledge Graph) graph: topic '바나나우유', readiness: ready, 4-day-old snapshot, run cf68786bca90 (0 credits). 1 entry-situation and 0 attribute proposals were adopted only after passing this run's measurement and evidence checks (50 dropped); adopted items carry an IKG source tag in the report
5 CEP(s) with unmeasured brand linkage; can be expanded via a deep run
Give one keyword (category, product, service or brand) and it finds category entry points (CEPs) from real search paths, related searches, search volumes, SERPs and AI Overviews, then ranks them in a report. Marketers and brand managers use it to choose campaign situations and messages. Data comes from ListeningMind DaaS search behavior and Google results for Korea, Japan and the US.