What is the ‘right’ price for your product?

What is the ‘right’ price for your product?

 

This is one of the most common questions asked, particularly when configuring a new product.

The ‘right ‘ price will be the pricing model that delivers superior value to customers while delivering optimal returns to the seller.

Developing a pricing model involves a series of strategic and market driven choices. Packaging, high Vs Low, the channels used, marketing collateral deployed, shape of your business model, identification of your ideal customer, and a host of other factors that make up the ‘marketing mix’.

However, despite most of us knowing these things, typically price is set on a cost-plus basis, mixed with what others are charging for the same or similar/substitute product.

For an entirely new product, it is a guessing game that has potentially serious consequences. At one end you kill the product, at the other, you leave money on the table.

Dutch economist Peter van Westendorp introduced a method that ended up being named for him in 1976. It has been used sparingly since, but not as widely as it should be.

It is a simple and reasonably reliable method to determine the ‘right’ price for a product or service.

There are four questions that will set your price ‘guidelines’:

  • At what price would it be so cheap that you would question quality?
  • At what price would you consider the product to be a bargain?
  • At what price would you start to think the product is getting expensive, but you still might consider buying it?
  • At what price would you consider the product to be too expensive, and you would not buy it?

Analysis of the responses will give you the point at which you are attracting the most customers who make the trade-off between buying intention, price, and quality perceptions. Putting this on a simple two-dimensional chart makes explanation easy.

Header courtesy Wikipedia

 

 

Colesworth: Is it collaborative gouging or ruthless collaboration by oligopolies.

Colesworth: Is it collaborative gouging or ruthless collaboration by oligopolies.

 

 

Collaboration between competitors is illegal, but tough to prove. It is also the natural state of affairs in an oligopoly.

When a competitive market evolves over time into an oligopoly, the focus of management attention of the remaining oligopolists moves from the customer to the competitor. With the resources available to an oligopolist in any decent sized market, they will know in considerable detail the strategies, internal processes, pricing, and resource allocation choices made by their competitors almost as quickly as they happen.

Supermarket competition in Australia has evolved in this manner. It has turned from ruthless competition for customers 40 years ago, to ruthless collaboration between the two major players now.

Collaboration is illegal, and I am sure that the leaders of the two supermarket gorillas are not setting prices together, or collaborating in other ways that would be contrary to the competition laws in this country. However, given there are only two of them, and they have the resources to watch the other very carefully, there is a sort of quasi co-operation that emerges.

It is driven by the commonality of their activities: The need for shareholder returns, driven by market share acquisition costs, both fixed and variable. They work aggressively on both, and if they did not, the senior management would be fired. In addition, directors have legislated fiduciary responsibilities under the Corporations act in relation to shareholder interests and importantly, returns.

We must also remember that via our superannuation funds, we are all shareholders in Coles and Woolworths.

Once again, just like the ‘housing crisis’, we have short term populist press release driven band-aids being suggested. They are touted as the remedy for long term strategic choices made in the past that to some, have turned sour.

The time for institutional concern about the increasing power of supermarket chains was when they were assembling the scale they now have. All of the take-overs and mergers that have happened have been waved through by the ACCC. This is despite commentary at the time about the impact of the lessening of competition for the consumers dollar.

Now it is too late, other remedies must be found, which do not include a forced break-up. Apart from the immorality of retrospectively applying new rules to the conduct of business, there is no logical or practical way to break apart either of the supermarket chains.

We should stop bleating, and get on with life, while ensuring we do not make the same mistake again.

Header credit: Gapinvoid.com. The cartoon put a huge amount of meaning into a simple graphical form. Thanks Hugh!!

 

 

 

 

 Is your market research project just a crutch?

 Is your market research project just a crutch?

Every market research proposal must answer a duo of critical questions before it proceeds, if it is to be of any value.

What is it for, and how will it be used?

Market research is done for all sorts of reasons. Many commissioned projects have little to do with the examination of the critical factors in driving success.

They just provide a convenient crutch.

Several projects commissioned and paid for from marketing budgets I controlled would come in under the ‘what the F&&k’ category. However, in my defence they were usually quant studies designed to generate the numbers necessary to pass the accountants various thresholds. This enabled me to progress projects that qualitatively and ‘in my guts’ were winners. That is the way they usually turned out!

In the absence of clearly understanding how the research results were to be used, how they would add strategic, operational, or technical value, why should you bother?

There is a further tier of understanding that is required: Are you looking to define an objective outcome, or are you seeking understanding and insight?

In the case of the outcome required being quantitative, simple yes/no, black/white answers to a question are sufficient.

When you are looking for insight, there may be a few numbers, way below a level of statistical significance, but they can be reassuring. However, the value lies in discovering the connections, implications, options, and potentially hard to anticipate consequences.

Research is a critical step in successful marketing programs. However, in the absence of a very clear and compelling answer to the ‘What is it for’ question, it should not proceed.

The header illustration is the only AI used in this post.

4 critical strategies for FMCG profitability.

4 critical strategies for FMCG profitability.

 

Price promotion is just a price subsidy to consumers, and margin subsidy to retailers in disguise. .

In consumer goods, most volume that comes from a price promotion is just bringing forward sales that would have happened anyway, just over a longer time-frame. Alternatively, it is volume taken from an opposition product by buyers who will avoid ever paying the full retail by switching products based on price. It is common in FMCG for consumers to have a basket of ‘acceptable’ products that they shop from via promotional pricing.

Over the 45 years I have spent in FMCG, I have seen the terminal erosion of most proprietary brands on supermarket shelves as a direct result.

In times of inflation, the gap in real wages and price widens. This pressure will only increase over the next year or so as retailers push for better and better price promotional deals, despite the current focus on their pricing tactics.

Now is a great time to go broke being successful at securing price driven promotional slots.

To dodge the ‘go broke’ outcome, there are a few simple to say but very difficult to implement marketing practises.

Understand the elasticity of demand for your product, and tactically market accordingly. This requires that you quantify the break-even points between the tactical volume increases you generate while on promotion, the lost margin from the discount, and the cost of the promotional slot. The strategic challenge here is that erosion of margin happens over time, as buyers from whom your product is in their ‘basket’ wait to buy on promotion, and most often only buy then.

Zig as others zag. Many, if not most suppliers will stop advertising, and direct the funds into short term price and promotional activity. This offers the opportunity for those brave enough to take it to generate a higher share of advertising voice for less. Over time. the body of research that examines the relationship between brand health and price delivers irrefutable evidence of the negative impact of price on brand health. Advertising share of voice is a leading indicator of market share. In tough times, most cut advertising investment to salvage the bottom line, as advertising is seen as an expense rather than an investment in future profitability.

Understand the reality of attribution. It is way too easy to make simplistic single source attribution of price promotion as the driver of volume. This moves the sightline from the more important ‘delivered’ margin. We now have the tools to do a much better job than has been the case in the past of separating volume and margin. However, the explosion of digital channels and tools has led to a quagmire of conflicting attribution claims, most of which are no better than marginal contributors.

As a kid, the Arnott’s red trucks delivering biscuits to supermarkets were always polished to a high level, no blemish in the polish was allowed. Even now, over 60 years later, that stays with me as an indicator of the effort put into quality which feeds into my view of the Arnott’s brand, despite the years, and ownership changes.

Resist the siren song of volume. For an SME to be successful, they need to make a whole series of tough choices. Amongst the most seductive of those choices is the perceived trade-off between price and volume. I say perceived because most see the trade-off as the traditional price/volume choice drawn as the graph they saw in Economics 101. It is grossly misleading to see it in this one-dimensional way. Consumers make their purchase choice on a whole range of ‘value-delivery’ parameters, of which price is only one. When you allow it to be the only one, it will logically dominate. As a marketer, your task is to make price a minor component of the purchase choice consumers make. While short term that may dampen volume, and even deny you distribution in a retailer, the point of being in business is to make enough to remain in business. You will not do this by giving away margin for no return.

Know your costs. This seems pretty obvious. However, the number of SME’s that do not understand the detail of their costs and the difference between marginal costs and overheads never ceases to amaze me. One of the most valuable tools, previously noted, in the SME toolbox is a sophisticated understanding of their break even. When you have this model working it enables you to add in some assessment of the impact of price and volume over time. It enables consideration of the impact of pulling forward your sales volume and delivered margin on promotion, the volume and margin delivered off promotion, and volume and margin impacts of competitive promotions.

Following are a few of the many research reports that articulate the linkages between price, volume, and brand salience. I include them to demonstrate the views expressed above are way more than just my opinion.

https://tinyurl.com/496vwphy Ehrenberg Bass. Brand health (podcast)

https://tinyurl.com/4wzkebav Ehrenberg Bass. Brand salience

https://tinyurl.com/4b5er6rc Amity University. Impact of price promotion on brand equity.

https://tinyurl.com/36fr8xwf Research Gate. Long term effects of price promotion on brand choice and purchase quantity

 

Cash flow as the lifeblood is only half a metaphor.

Cash flow as the lifeblood is only half a metaphor.

 

 

Cash flow is often described as the lifeblood of a business.

While it is correct, it leaves a lot on the table.

If cash flow is the lifeblood, you also need a heart to pump it around the body. The leaner and more efficient the body in which the heart resides, the easier it is to pump, reducing the stress on the mechanism, reducing risk.

Similarly, to be effective blood requires oxygen to be attracted and distributed through the system.

Oxygen is what keeps everything working, it is the source of the power required to run the system, without which the system rapidly grinds to a halt.

In a business context, the oxygen is the input of information, the lungs and heart are the analysis and leveraging of that information, and the culture of the organisation is the body that holds it all together.

You go to the doctor to get a physical, where do you go to get a ‘commercial’?

An accountant will give you part of the picture, based on the books.

A ‘lean’ expert might offer many insights into the operational processes, particularly in a factory, and at the same time offer cultural insights.

A ‘6 sigma’ expert will deliver an arithmetic analysis of the efficiency of each part of a process.

A marketing expert (if you can find a bullshit-free one) will give you opinions based often on questionable and partial information, and usually biased towards their particular view of the role of marketing.

A sales expert will opine that everything else will be OK if you just get more leads for them to convert, and here is how!!

The point is that each will give you a picture of your business as they see it based on their experience, training, predisposition, domain knowledge, and their own assessment of WIFM.

Finding someone who ties all that together, and offers a complete, unbiased, and expert picture is a challenge.