Mar 11, 2024 | Branding, Marketing
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
Mar 8, 2024 | AI, Management
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.
Mar 4, 2024 | AI, Change
Covid was a Darwinian catalyst, at least in my view.
A decade of slow change was supercharged into 6 months as businesses, institutions, and individuals, struggled with the need to change rapidly, and radically. It also unleashed an unprecedented innovation cycle in medical science that will have long term impacts on drug discovery.
In November 2022, another Darwinian catalyst struck. Open AI launched ChatGPT into the wild, setting off a chain reaction that surpassed the impact of Covid, which has since become endemic, and we have largely stopped worrying.
We have yet to understand the longer-term impacts of AI on social dislocation, personal security, and the ways in which the largess can be fairly spread across the community.
The trends in both cases were all there for those who looked closely enough with an open mind to see.
Pre-Covid it was clear that there were too many cafes, and we were generally over-shopped. Home delivery was increasing, as was remote work. The installation of ‘smart’ devices in factories and homes was normal, and product differentiation based on digital features was everywhere. Yet, it was slow going.
We had a binary mindset, the cake was a given size, and any change to the way it was sliced up meant there were winners and losers. Nobody wanted to be the latter.
Suddenly, in two whacks behind the ear, the cake has changed size and shape radically. The pre-Covid/AI status quo that included many points of friction and often unseen waste, previously sacrosanct, have been swept away.
All this costs money, so the cake has changed ingredients as well as shape and size. The suppliers of those ingredients have morphed into a few monster corporations that will continue to change the shape of our cake with little or no public oversight. Governance has become whatever it takes to make more money, as the power of regulators is substantially diminished.
This level of uncertainty has made us very jumpy, unwilling to trust, and wary of the future impact on our finances, security and familial connections. It has also made possible development of products and services inconceivable previously.
If you are a glass half full type, the opportunities are endless. If you are the other sort, find a comfortable place to hide, if there are any left.
How would Darwin see human evolution post covid & AI?
Header: Is a photo of Ghandi leading the ‘Salt march’ in 1930 which was the catalyst to the recognition that British rule over India needed to end.
Feb 29, 2024 | Change, Leadership, Marketing
If you asked a room full of marketers if marketing had changed in the last decade, you would get most of them telling you it had changed radically.
On the surface it has, the digital revolution has taken marketing by the neck and given it a great big shake.
There has been an explosion of sales, media, connection, and payment channels, customers are more wary, and do their own research before a marketer knows they are in the market. So called ‘content’ has almost infinite reach, but the frequency is rubbish, as there is so much digital noise, and so much competition for attention, that most of it is the digital equivalent of yesterday’s fish wrapper from the newspaper obituary section. The investment in marketing technology to manage all this has also exploded.
There is a welter of research and opinion that confirms the notion marketing has changed, some by very credible organisations.
I asked myself the question again, after stumbling across this report by Adobe, one of those credible organisations that supports the ‘yes’ vote, and came to a partly different conclusion.
Marketing has changed, absolutely, at the tactical level. The means by which marketers create and deliver a value proposition, then turn it into a transaction is unrecognisable from just 5 years ago. However, tactical implementation is just a small part of the pie.
Organisationally, marketing has changed a bit. Generally, it is still a function in a group of functional silos that reports to a CEO. A range of new titles have emerged, Chief Marketing Officer, Chief Engagement Officer, and so on, but that does not change the essential reporting and accountability of those in senior marketing roles. The marketing organisation in large enterprises has also siloed, now there is digital, customer service, technology, and a range of other functional roles within marketing not present 5 years ago.
Strategically, marketing has changed little if at all. The role of marketing is to tell the future and adjust the value proposition to customers ahead of the changing preferences and behaviour. That has always been the case, and remains so.
The only strategic change I can see is one of leadership.
In the past, marketing has generally been a passive corporate player, relegated to the role of managing one of the largest expenses in the P&L. Now the value of enterprises is so much more in the hands of intangibles, that marketing is increasingly demanding a seat at the big table. This requires that marketers are able to lead their peers and boss. Unless they can achieve this position of leadership, they will remain the simple gatekeepers to one line in the P&L, rather than being responsible for the future health of the enterprise.
Look at it from the top down.
Marketing has changed little strategically, but strategy is by far the most important component.
It has changed organisationally, and while it is important, in most areas, it is not a game changer.
Tactically, marketing is unrecognisable, but who really cares. Tactics are short term, able to be changed in real time as the situation evolves. Marketers need the organisational capability to be able to change in real time, but the impact of failing to do so is limited.
The marketing groups that will be successful into the future are the ones that are successful leaders of their organisation. To achieve this role of leadership, they must be able to identify the priority areas for investment and activity, as well as being able to remove the organisational constraints that operate in every enterprise, that are not directly accountable to marketing.
Well, they are not accountable until marketers are in the corner office, which should be happening more and more as they are the future tellers. Those who currently occupy that office are usually the engineers, lawyers, and accountants who are good at reading the past in the data, and hoping the future looks similar.
Who is next in your corner office?
Feb 26, 2024 | AI, Governance
The astonishing ability of the new AI tools to increase productivity relies on being able to ‘learn’ by mining pools of data, then detecting and projecting responses based on statistical outcomes of that mining.
The next step, Generative AI, Generative Artificial Intelligence, is the point at which the artificial systems can reason, much as we do. This happens by making ‘neurological’ connections between apparently disconnected data, depth of domain knowledge and experience, breadth of more general knowledge that provides a ‘thinking canvas’ and context. These add up to instinctive responses we sometimes describe as pure ‘gut feel’.
There is however, a middle point.
‘Deep mind’ is a research unit now owned by Google. Their models evolved as AlphaGo and subsequently AlphaZero. These models cracked the barrier that seemed uncrackable, the ‘4-minute mile’ of computing. By beating the best humans at the complex game of Go, it demonstrated the ability of an algorithm to replicate in some form, the neural networks we have in our brains. In short, it can learn from its own experience, not reliant on outside data.
Crossing this Rubicon opens whole new territories to be explored.
It is in effect a ‘rolling probability’ calculation, each step using an estimation of the outcome of the previous calculation to deliver an adjusted outcome, in an ongoing process.
This is how we learn: from our experience.
As a kid I remember my younger cousin crawling towards a campfire surrounded by rocks. The immediate response of most was to grab him to prevent him getting burnt. However, my aunt stopped us, pointing out he would not be badly hurt by the mildly heated rocks surrounding the fire. However, when he touched a heated rock, it would create a memory-response loop that connected the fire to a modest hurt, thus ensuring he would automatically adjust his behaviour, and not go near another fire.
That incident stuck in my memory, and it reflects the way these AI tools are evolving rapidly towards ‘thinking’.
The dystopian view is that such developments over a few decades will see the machines take over. I prefer to think that we humans will find a way, as we always have, to overcome such threats. I guess my great grandchildren might know the right answer.
The header was created with help from DALL-E in about 3 minutes using a short series of prompts.
E&OE: A few hours after posting this post, I stumbled across this post on Medium that might bring forward the passing of the Turing test by a machine back into my lifetime. It records the evolution and current state of Googles 1.5 Pro tool, claiming it is to Current ChatGPT4 what a Model T is to a Ferrari.
The pace of change is astonishing, logarithmic, which makes it hard to comprehend by normal people..
.
