Aug 8, 2011 | Customers, Demand chains, Marketing, Small business
On Friday I made a very modest contribution to the proceedings of the Organic and Green trade show in Sydney. A bunch of committed, passionate people, working their collective butts off to build businesses that deliver on the organic promise to consumers.
The numbers however are daunting.
The Australian grocery trade is north of $106 Billion, the organic market, counting everything, (perhaps twice) with the most optimistic assumptions is $500 mill, including all the cosmetics, soaps, candles, recyclable bags, et al, many not included in the grocery figures, and probably constitutes 50% of the total. In other words, perhaps 1 in every 5,000 dollars spent in Australia on food is spent on organic food. How do you win in that arena?
Answer, one person at a time building a tribe, connecting them, giving them a reason to connect with others, supporting the ways they can connect, and working 20 years to be an overnight success.
Organic products are at what I believe to be a unique point in time, the confluence of two great social impacts.
The first is the tools to connect being given to us by the web 2.0.
The second is the sudden realisation that food matters more than as just fuel, that there is a powerful social and familial force present when you prepare and share good food, on top of the obvious benefits of the impact of healthy food on the individuals health.
Had you told me 3 years ago that a TV reality show would contribute to a major change in behavior, I would have told you to stop smoking illegal stuff, but perhaps the change was lurking, and Masterchef just provided the catalyst.
Jul 19, 2011 | Branding, Customers, Marketing, Social Media
Procter & Gamble is a huge branded consumer business, but seems to be able to maintain the agility and innovation capability of an SME. Supermarket retailers have to be nervous when they display a determination to build a direct business model for their brands, and when they start talking about “qualified retailers” it is music to my ears, having struggled in an unforgiving Australian FMCG duopoly for years. It is the other side of the coin from retailers developing their own brands beyond Housebrand status, noted previously.
P&G tried with Amazon, and the effort had its challenges, so they are quietly widening the approach with this facebook collaboration, creating a new descriptor in the process, “f-commerce” and recruiting Wal-mart as a “qualified retailer” (not bad for a start)
This also ticks facebooks boxes, as it is a strategy to monetarise their huge base of connections to consumers, and sets them against Amazon in the e-fulfilment business.
Poor old Microsoft, increasingly it seems to have missed the boat. Just a decade ago the US government had them in court trying to break them up to give others a chance.
What’s the old saying about roosters and feather dusters?
Jul 18, 2011 | Branding, Customers, Marketing, Strategy
There is a new boy on the block to match Colgate, P&G, and other international brand owners, but one who does not play fair, one who controls access to consumers, removing their options of choice. Tesco. A retailer with the clout of Tesco that comes from its scale, with its ability to determine which products consumers will see on shelf, is aiming to develop international housebrands in competition with its suppliers.
Some will see this as just commercial common sense, Tesco leveraging their hard won position with consumers, whilst others will see it as the death-nell of brands, something to be opposed by any means.
I suggest it is neither, but neither is it something in the middle, there are other dimensions to the decision that will determine the outcome:
- Will a retailer be able to develop the deep consumer understanding that feeds a sustainable marketing, brand and product development effort necessary to build a real brand as distinct from labels on shelf?
- When a consumer has a problem with a Tesco branded product, and Tesco fails to manage that problem in a satisfactory manner, will the consumer just move to an alternative product, or move to an alternative retailer?
- Will the presence of Tesco branded products on shelf in a category further remove the incentive for proprietary brands to invest in category growth, and will the further removal of that support damage category profitability for Tesco? This profitability squeeze appears to be happening currently in many categories being demolished by retailer housebrands, will it just get worse?
This development is a logical evolution of the path retailers have been travelling for some time, the only real question is weather evolution accepts the change in the model, or will the model, having evolved past the point of sustainability, now wither and die in the face of more effective competitive models.
Jul 7, 2011 | Customers, Marketing, Social Media
Every marketer tries to build in switching costs into his product, something that makes the decision to change a bit more difficult. These switching costs have 2 elements:
- Real costs, like contract penalty clauses, loss of use of some useful feature that needs to be replaced, physical costs of going to the bank and closing/opening accounts, pulling out a piece of machinery, and so on.
- Emotional costs, and these are the killers in consumer categories, the loss of “cool” the loss of relationships with a brand and other adherents, the perception that by not using brand A, you no longer have something of value to your “tribe” a sense of belongingness.
So how will the much hyped Google+ attract Facebook users?
The hype says that Google+ has lots of features that social media wonks want, and it may have, certainly seems there are some good ideas, but what it does not have, and will possibly never have is the emotional investment that users have sunk into Facebook. To move your social identity to a new platform means you have to move everyone else in your network, and replace the manner in which the interactions occur, ands make it better. Seems pretty unlikely to me no matter how much better Google+ may be.
Myspace has just been flogged by Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd for $33 Million, which is a huge bath. A purchase price of $900 million in 2005, and accumulated losses that could run into billions, and despite the advantage of first mover in the social space, it got mowed down by FB, which now has an “installed base” of users of 750 million, with all the links and networks that number implies.
Short of Google+ having an “app” that enables the downloading of all material and links a FB user has on his site, something I cannot see FB allowing, Google+ will be starting from scratch., and who needs a second social site that is just a “bit more” that the familiar FB? will the attraction of limited free video confering be enough? Myspace has proved probably not, particularly as it is unlikely FB will sit around wondering
Jun 26, 2011 | Branding, Customers, Innovation, Marketing, Sales, Social Media, Strategy
The future of produce marketing in Australia is fraught with difficulties that many who just buy their produce in the supermarket will never think about.
The dominance of the chain supermarkets, lack of innovation, fragile investment outlook, environmental concerns, regulatory inconsistency and political blather in place of certainty coming from any philosophic foundation, an ageing workforce, trade barriers, the list goes on.
The report below was commissioned in an effort to put some framework around the marketing of produce in Australia, and to take lessons from what was happening elsewhere, and whilst it is a relative scratch at the surface, it highlights the challenges. Download it, and let me know what you think, what have I missed, where it could be improved. Its free to download, but I would appreciate you letting me know by commenting.
Embracing Innovative Marketing & Promotional Methods
Jun 21, 2011 | Alliance management, Collaboration, Communication, Customers, Personal Rant
Negotiation is a process of finding a solution to a question that is acceptable to all parties. It should go without saying that the first step is to actually communicate, setting out to find areas of compromise, and places of potential value not immediately obvious that occur in many disputes.
The alternative is standing back and throwing rocks, which can only be a winning strategy when you hold all the cards, but then it is not a negotiation, but a statement. However, when the power in a dispute is spread around, declining a seat at the table almost inevitably means you end up on the menu.
The unilateral banning of the live cattle trade to Indonesia was such a rock throwing exercise. Thank heavens the dills in Canberra appear to have woken up in time, and are at least communicating with stakeholders, hopefully with the intention of finding a solution, rather than just doing a post cock-up arse cover.
