Oct 26, 2021 | Marketing, Strategy
There are a number of common phrases used in marketing that should be redundant.
‘Go to market’ is often used before words like ‘strategy,’ ‘Plan’ and ‘Process.’
‘Product/market fit’ is increasingly used in the context of digital products, as in ‘seeking product/market fit’ with prototypes and ‘Minimum Viable Product’ tests before committing to the expense of production.
They have served their purpose but are now redundant.
Independently there has been a rise in the use of the term ‘customer centric.’
I seem to be hearing it a lot, even from those who have never seen a customer, let alone interacted with one. It is fast becoming a cliché.
At the same time, we have a phalanx of tools at our disposal that can segment and re-segment customer cohorts down to the micro level. These are used by those flogging digital space for ads, ‘micro-targeting’ and regrettably, often micro retargeting.
It seems pretty obvious to put these together and start thinking about ‘go to customer’ strategies.
Surely if the customer is truly central to what we are seeking to do, add value to their lives, solve problems, and make a bob delivering that value to them, we should be figuring how to talk to them as mentors and peers, rather than yelling at them from the sidelines.
Micro segments, or micro groups of customers with specific needs, problems, contexts, or indeed, lapsed customers, those who have dropped out of the ‘funnel’ in some way. We can now focus our efforts on understanding these people and re-engaging with them in a human way.
It is all about finding the places potential customers look for information, for engagement, and all the rest of the things they do before they actually make a purchase decision.
Customer centric means you go where the customers are, not try and force them into a funnel that assumes they all act in a similar manner.
These days with all the tools at our disposal, you need an ‘always on’ marketing strategy rather than the traditional episodic campaign communication processes.
Oct 18, 2021 | Branding, Marketing, Sales
In competitive markets, price is a bit like a game, typified by the ‘prisoners dilemma’ of game theory, where two players acting in their own self-interest will result in a suboptimal outcome for both.
In the classic scenario, you have two people, suspects of a crime held in separate rooms with no means to communicate.
The copper tells each of them that if they confess and testify and the other does not, you will go free.
If you do not confess and the other does, you will get the maximum sentence of 3 years.
If both confess you will both be sentenced to 2 years.
If neither confesses, there is enough evidence to have you both serve 1 year.
The result is that if the prisoners act out of self-interest, the result is worse than if they had cooperated.
When you consider this in a competitive duopoly market, to keep it simple: what happens if one party cuts its price?
The other has the choice of cutting theirs to match, which inevitably results in less profit for both if competitor two cuts their price in response. However, if the reaction of the second mover is to keep their prices up, they might sell less, but very probably make more profit. The price cutter will be relying on selling more at the lesser price to increase profit, or grabbing market share which is usually the driver, because of the added volumes.
Given most organisations have KPI’s around sales volumes, the temptation to cut prices in the face of competitive activity is almost irresistible, despite the profit impact which is often ignored.
The Fountain Tomato sauce story: I joined Cerebos back in 1981. Fountain Tomato sauce had a share in NSW of about 40% of volume and 50% of value. Fountain sold for .72 cents for the 600ml bottle, I remember the numbers well. A short time after I joined, discounter Franklins brought out No Frills tomato sauce, on shelf for .69 cents,
The sales force was in a panic, as Fountain was a big part of their sales and they insisted that we had to drop the price to match No Frills or lose huge volumes.
I did the numbers, and convinced the marketing manager, and MD to overrule the sales manager, and we put the price of Fountain up, so it was on shelf at .81 cents, and we started advertising: ‘Rich Red Fountain Tomato Sauce’
The logic was that Fountain at .72 and No Frills at .69, were very close, so the consumer found it sensible and easy to save a few cents, as after all, they must be pretty much the same if the price was so similar.
However, at a price difference of .12 cents, very substantial in percentage terms, but not particularly significant in the mix of a weekly shop, consumers figured that they had to be very different. Fountain had to be the far better product, and the advertising we did confirmed that view. More tomatoes, no filler, ‘Rich Red Fountain tomato sauce’. Our volumes did drop marginally, and our profits went up.
This outcome was not just instinct, it was based on research and experience.
‘No Frills’ margarine was the very first cheap housebrand on the Australian market. It was proposed and supplied by the business that at the time owned Meadow Lea margarine, my employer. I had done quite a bit of research after the launch of No Frills margarine to understand the consequences, and so was lucky to be in a position where I had some understanding of the dynamics that were at play, without at that time having any solid idea of the psychology that drove them.
Later, both Fountain and Meadow Lea allowed the retailers to dictate their strategies, so redirected advertising funds into price promotions, boosting the retailers margins and destroying their brands. Both Fountain and Meadow Lea are now just ‘also-rans’ in their markets, (judging by shelf presence) and neither would be anywhere near as profitable as they were in their heyday.
The lesson is that the intense pressure to reduce price as a competitive reaction is almost always a very bad choice. Resist the pressure and protect profit, without which you will be out of business.
Oct 5, 2021 | Customers, Marketing, Small business
We usually look at objectives and goals as the things we want to achieve. We then set about figuring out the path towards achievement.
There are always hundreds of ways to achieve a goal. Often we find ourselves bewildered by the options, and procrastinating or picking a fuzzy path as a result.
Try drawing a line through the things you will not do to achieve the goal, rather than struggling to pick what you will do.
This will help focus on a path quickly that removes ambiguity and the many opportunities to be distracted.
Over the years I have worked with a number of SME’s in the food industry. In almost every case, the seductive promise of the volumes delivering profitability to be extracted from the two supermarket gorillas is there somewhere. This always confuses the focus on delivering value and building brands for those who care about quality and differentiation before price. In addition, the resources for mass marketing and promotion that are necessary for success beyond an initial flurry in supermarket chains are usually absent in SME’s.
Failing to Recognise the mechanics of the supermarket business model, and the resultant infrastructure necessary to service this model, is a major source of financial and strategic failure of many SME’s in this space.
In those cases, I encourage people to set their goals, by excluding the option of supermarket distribution. Instead, focus their minds on the many opportunities outside supermarkets that better suit the capabilities and resources available.
Sep 29, 2021 | Communication, Marketing, Social Media
As we all know, a camel is a horse designed by a committee.
So it is with many websites.
Digital camels.
Every page on a website should have only two objectives:
- Provide the catalyst to ‘convert’ to the next step.
- Make the conversion easy.
Not every page is a sales convertor, but each page should play a role in the progressive process towards a transaction, whether it be the first, or the twenty first, only the number matters.
The most common response I get when I make these sorts of observations are: ‘we need to educate‘ and ‘the objective of the site is brand building‘.
Both are valid drivers of the content of a website, but unless they ultimately lead to sales, they are little more than platitudes and good intentions.
Is your website just an elegantly coiffured camel?
Sep 15, 2021 | Analytics, Category, retail
‘Elasticity’ is something most of us did in economics 101. Why have we not used it more than the evidence of my eyes would suggest?
The price elasticity of demand is usually defined as the relationship between changes in price and the resulting changes in volumes sold.
Elasticity = % change in quantity/ % change in price.
For example, assume you raise the price of a widget from $100 to $120, which causes the volumes sold to go from 1,000 in each period to 900. The price increase is 20%, the volume decrease is 10%. Elasticity is therefore 10/20, or 0.5.
It is the absolute value of the metric that is important, the distance from zero, rather than if it is positive or negative. If the number of widgets sold had been 750 after the price increase, the elasticity would have been 1.25. (25/20) a more elastic response to the price increase than the 10% drop in the example.
It is crucial for marketers to understand the elasticity of their products if they are to optimise the price/volume relationship, as price is the most sensitive driver of profitability.
The challenge is that there are a whole bunch of psychological and competitive factors that weigh into the equation in a consumers mind, simply not accommodated by the simplistic price/volume curve we all saw in that economics 101 class.
You can speculate all you like about price elasticity, but the only way you will know is to evaluate it in the marketplace.
We are currently (September) in the season where there is a glut of avocadoes available. My local Coles store seems to be altering the prices daily, anywhere between 1.00 each to 1.69 each. It is probably that they are partly reflecting the deliveries into their distribution centres, but the data collected at the checkouts will give them a detailed view of the volumes at differing prices, and even the time of day. This data is invaluable market intelligence that can be used to optimise their profitability for the product category.
Given that cost is a lousy starting point upon which to base price, it may be that this Coles is leaving money on the table by reducing the prices below $1.49.
How many less avocadoes would be sold at $1.49 than at $1.10?
Someone in their data analysis system, somewhere, has the data to make this call with close to absolute certainty as it applies to this store.
Theoretical price research, outside of the real purchasing decision making, is at best inaccurate, at worst, misleading. A/B testing used to be a challenge, but increasingly we can use digital tools to interrogate the data that digital capture, in this case the checkout, that has become available to us.
Companies like Amazon with vast amounts of data are so good at it that they know the price elasticity of individuals in particular product categories. They display prices accordingly every time you search, in order to maximise the chance you will buy at the highest price they can charge, based on your history. ‘Dynamic pricing’ is the now common term being used to describe this process.
Once you understand the elasticity of the price/volume profile of your product, you are in a better position to maximise profitability, while delivering value to your customers.
Header cartoon credit: Scott Adams. Not sure the analogy is a great one, but the idea was amusing.
Sep 13, 2021 | Branding, Marketing, Strategy
One of the most quoted of quotes is attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson: ‘Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door’
Unfortunately, Mr Emerson got it almost entirely wrong.
The better product, on its own, never wins. Just being ‘better’ is simply not enough to win that competitive battle with incumbent but technically inferior products. I am sure there are a few exceptions, I just cannot think of any.
Why is it so?
Several common reasons pop up as I survey the field of my experience.
Customers must care.
What is the value of being different, technically superior in some way if customers do not recognise the value of that differentiation to them? If customers do not care then you will fail, despite the supposed superiority of the alternate. Customer indifference is often the reality, uncoloured as they are by the marketers enthusiasm for the new, improved features.
Peer pressure
We are social animals, and while we do like being one up on the next person, being a long way up puts us outside the herd, and therefore vulnerable to all sorts of attack.
Risk aversion
Doing what you have always done is safe, you know it works, so there is no risk. A change of any type invites risk, which we are shaped by evolution to avoid. While risk aversion varies enormously between individuals, it takes a significant effort to change from the riskless to the riskier, even if the change is slight. In addition, often we simply do not see the alternatives. Consider your own behaviour in a supermarket in commonly purchased categories. There might be something new, perhaps better, but you simply do not see it in the process of pushing the trolley down the aisle trying to get out as quickly as possible.
Habit.
Doing simple things without thought frees up cognitive space to spend in more productive ways. We develop habits, repeated relatively mindless actions as the tool to enable this more productive use of our cognitive capacity. As with risk aversion, it is an outcome of evolutionary psychology that we leave as much capacity as possible free to react quickly and decisively in a tough situation.
Incumbents leverage entrenched distribution channels.
Combined with the four above, incumbents have a huge advantage in that they have access to distribution channels that newcomers must buy their way into somehow. While it is a standard barrier to entry, it costs money to overcome, which leaves less cash available for other activities designed to counter the four above. Again, consider supermarkets. In this country (Australia) two supermarket chains have around 70% of FMCG sales. For a newcomer, no matter how superior to existing alternatives they may be, they must ‘buy’ distribution. This leaves less money available for advertising, and other demand generating activities. It is also easier for incumbents to ‘channel-stuff’ in the lead up to a competitive launch. I have both used this tactic, and been on the receiving end many times, and it works.
If you want to win the war on mice, do not just build a better trap, figure out a way to stop the buggars breeding in numbers in the first place. That way, the solution to the problem is both sufficiently different to be noticed, and it overcomes the value of incumbency given to the existing trap makers.
