May 23, 2012 | Branding, Communication, Customers, Marketing
The holy grail, the prime objective of billions of dollars of advertising, the wall behind which many campaigns that have failed to generate incremental sales have hidden, Brand Loyalty.
I cannot help but wonder if the label “Brand Loyalty” is sometimes just a metaphor for making the purchase choice easier. The environment we inhabit is now so absolutely over-run with messages information, and tactics to build “customer engagement”, that we all must have a serious case of cogitative overload, weather we know it or not, so we need a mechanism to sort the options.
In this context I am reminded of the old “KISS” principal, Keep It Simple Stupid.
Apple is often cited as the greatest marketing machine we have ever seen, an accolade I am comfortable with, but perhaps there is another dimension. Rather than building brand loyalty, perhaps they have just so simplified the purchase decision in an environment that is psychologically threatening by the number of alternatives, and the techno-speak that most use as communication , that they grab the sales almost by default.
Apple has successfully made buying a piece of tech few buyers understand simple, and attached a cache to that simplicity. This spoof makes the point, but mind the language.
May 18, 2012 | Customers, Marketing, Strategy
Marketing groups usually set about segmenting markets by one of two basic ways:
- By demographics, age, sex, education, income, with/without children, and so on, or,
- By product category, for example meat is usually segmented by breed, cut, pack size, price.
However, there is a third way, one that disregards the traditional segmentations, one that recognises the difference between cause and effect.
You do not buy fillet steak because you are a 35 year old graduate earning 150k +, with no children, you buy filet steak because you like it, or your partners school friend is coming around for a BBQ, you buy it because it is the right product for the job to be done. Nobody buys a Ferrari to get from point A to point B, they buy a Ferrari to make a statement, as a car costing 10% of the Ferrari will offer reliable, relatively comfortable transport.
The marketing of every product can benefit from these simple questions, asked from the point of view of the prospective customer:
- What job do I want done?
- How will this product deliver on the job to be done?
- Which of the acceptable product options offers the best value, however the I define value in the circumstances?
May 17, 2012 | Innovation, Marketing
Years ago I worked for a Marketing Director who took his job seriously. That meant that every pack design, advertisement, poster, publicity shot, research proposal, all the day to day business of a busy marketing function had to be OK’d by him.
Not only did this lead to a huge bottleneck, it virtually stopped anything worthwhile, or a bit different getting through the approval processes.
We had a bad, almost terminal, case of the “Marketing HiPPO’s”, highest paid persons opinion. Its sibling, highest paid persons wife’s opinion (HiPPW’sO) is the only condition affecting marketing management that I can think of that is worse.
The antidote is a dose of marketing by analytics, using data to guide decision making. When dealing with innovation, things that are genuinely new, data can be misleading because assumptions are easily fumbled, but for all other situations, data is king.
Edwards Deeming said years ago that “in God I trust, all others bring data” and that still holds, it is just that we are now able to gather and analyse so much more data, much better, giving us the potential for huge increases in the productivity of marketing investments.
The emergence of A/B testing via the web is in the process of transforming the way marketers approach their markets, by enabling lots of small scale experiments, differentiated offerings tested against a standard whose performance is understood. It is a technique used for years in labs, particularly in applications like optimising manufactured food products that are a mix of flavours, densities and textures, and has become routine in software development in the last decade.
Now with the advent of theflexibility and tools on the web, the potential for use is far wider, and the returns tangible.
May 14, 2012 | Branding, Marketing
Selecting the best branding option is a topic that always attracts debate, in any business I have worked with. What is usually missing in these conversations is a framework for the thinking, boundaries against which to measure the options.
This post from David Aaker offers a framework with considerable merit, and the webinar link in the post expands on the ideas.
Original thinking on marketing is hard to find, Aaker is original.
May 7, 2012 | Branding, Marketing, retail
30 years ago when housebrands were making their first inroads into Australian supermarkets, I took over management of Fountain tomato sauce. At the time it was a runaway market leader in NSW, but was being badly hurt by emerging cheap housebrands, priced a few cents less, 0.69 cents Vs 0.73 cents. Clearly to consumers there was not much difference in the products, they may as well take the few cents for themselves.
We lifted the price of Fountain significantly, the shelf price difference was then sufficient to suggest to consumers that Fountain was substantially better than any cheap housebrand, which was in fact, the case. Lo and behold, not only did our margins improve, so did our volumes.
The perception of the value delivered by Fountain overcame the rational response that sauce is sauce. Test yourself on this next time you walk into a liquor store, and consider a purchase of wine. Obviously, the greater the price, the better the wine?
In this great TED talk, Rory Sutherland, a big cheese in British advertising makes the point beautifully that decision making has three components.
- The technical considerations
- The cost/benefit considerations
- The psychological considerations.
The first two have a range of widely used and well understood models, whilst the third is often the province of the mavericks, creatives, and other assorted ratbags, and is therefore often dismissed as having a valid role in decision making. However, the best decisions are made at the intersection of these three perspectives.
May 2, 2012 | Category, Demand chains, Operations, retail
The word sustainable holds connotations of farming practices, and environmental sensitivity, all true, but only half the story.
A sustainable chain must also be commercially sustainable, and one without the other is by definition, unsustainable.
The characteristic that drive both are similar, transparency, and connections through the chain, both facilitated by the collaboration tools of the web. The outcome is increased productivity of the whole value chain.
The price deflation being experienced in the value chains supplying Australian retailers are testing the limits of Australian suppliers, and those that are surviving are dedicated to the implementation of chains that are commercially sustainable, and increasingly environmentally sustainable as consumers interest in product provenance increases.
Quietly, out of a home office, GFAP, a small chain consultancy that supplies a customised web based tool that manages value chains, to this point largely around horticulture, is flourishing. Very few pieces of produce arrive at Woolworths or Coles without being touched in some way by this system, but few have ever heard of it.
