Oct 14, 2024 | Analytics, Marketing
Against my better judgment, I recently engaged in a conversation about the ‘Law of Purchase Duplication’ with a young marketer. He seemed quite convinced that he was delivering a groundbreaking insight to a marketing dinosaur.
In essence, the law argues that the larger a brand’s market penetration, the more likely a consumer is to purchase alternative brands within the same category. Smaller brands, on the other hand, struggle with loyalty, relying primarily on occasional or incidental purchases when they fall within a larger brand’s ecosystem.
This concept, while not new, remains fundamental to understanding brand dynamics in the marketplace.
Back in the day, we referred to it as the purchaser’s ‘acceptable pool of brands.’
This young hot shot expanded on the advantages of being the dominant brand, and how it becomes self-sustaining through positioning, weight and quality of advertising, brand salience, product accessibility, and consumer perception. While this may all be true, the notion of it being ‘self-fulfilling’ is a step too far.
The reality is that maintaining market dominance requires constant effort and adaptation to changing consumer preferences and market conditions.
During our discussion, the topic of brand loyalty surfaced, leading to several useful questions about what brand loyalty truly means in today’s fast moving consumer markets:
- Does it mean that no other brand will ever be purchased under any circumstances?
- Does it only matter when a preferred brand is unavailable?
- Is there a sliding scale of brand loyalty that correlates to price differences?
- How does this law of duplication apply to sub-categories within the same brand?
- What are the varying impacts of demographics and psychographics of consumers?
- Could brand loyalty simply be a combination of awareness and preference, disconnected from actual purchasing behaviour in-store?
These questions highlight the complexity of consumer brand loyalty and the need for an understanding of the nuanced drivers of consumer behaviour in every market.
Over the years, I’ve been intimately involved with several instances where this so-called ‘Duplication of Purchase Law’ played out in real-world brand battles:
Meadow Lea Vs all comers. The rapid ascent of Meadow Lea margarine in the late 70s and early 80s was astonishing. The brand evolved from one of many competitors to a market leader, at its peak dominating with three times the market share of its nearest rival. Although it was driven by exceptional advertising, there were several alternative brands consumers could have turned to. However, consistent availability, competitive pricing, and in-store sampling helped cement its position. These instore marketing activities supported the brand advertising that built long term brand salience and loyalty.
Yoplait Vs Ski. The yogurt wars between Yoplait and Ski during the 80s and 90s are another example. Yoplait initiated huge market growth by making yogurt mainstream when it launched. This left Ski, the previous leader, floundering and scrambling to recover. Both brands became largely interchangeable despite product differentiation. Yoplait strawberry was an acceptable alternative to Ski strawberry, and vice versa. However, this dynamic didn’t extend evenly across other flavour categories or packaging formats. If Ski strawberry was unavailable, Yoplait strawberry was more likely to be purchased than an alternative ski flavour. These inconsistencies across the product categories and pack sizes, highlighted how nuanced and context-specific the Duplication of Purchase Law can be.
Having reliable data from the likes of Ehrenberg-Bass provides the statistical credibility necessary to sell what to date have been qualitatively understood wisdom, to the boardroom. However, it’s crucial to remember that this qualitative wisdom, built over time, should never be discarded or obscured by academic multi-syllable descriptions or management jargon. One-dimensional data cannot replace the wisdom accumulated by thoughtful marketers over time.
Aug 12, 2024 | Change, Strategy
2024 is very challenging for SME’s.
It is proving to be a time of an unusually high rate of SME mortality. This is driven by the problems that emerged with the Corona virus, followed by a period of historically low cost of capital, then a burst of inflation now being wrung out by aggressive rises in interest rates, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, uncertainty of supply chains, and a host of other items.
It makes sense for every business owner to consider the value of their business. While having an exit plan is always a good idea, few are proactive in creating one.
While you may not be considering selling any time soon, (or going broke) it remains a valuable exercise to uncover the drivers of value, and double down on them.
Following is my list of value drivers, in a rough order, which will vary with circumstances and conditions in any specific market.
Cash flow.
Managing cash is the single most important thing every business can do to ensure survival, after looking after your customers. Cash is not subject to accounting rules, conventions, or differential tax treatment, as are the P&L and Balance sheet. You either have it or you do not.
Calculating free cash flow, the cash left over after capital expenditure over time, gives an extremely sensitive view of the health of a business.
Happy and committed customers.
You can make customers happy by giving discounts, but that is not a good measure of value. A committed customer will be prepared to pay at least the going rate for your products, and will not be moved by short term incentives from a competitor. Two of the best measures are Share of wallet and customer churn.
How much of a customer’s spend on a category you could supply, do you supply, and what is the ratio of customer loss and gain that is occurring. Committed customers will also be happy to refer you to others, simply the best form of marketing there is.
Customer & supply chain diversity.
‘Don’t have all your eggs in the one basket’ is a dictum that has proved true time and time again. Businesses that allow one customer to become more than about 25% of their revenue are dicing with trouble. In the event that customer goes broke, changes personnel at the top, gets taken over, or a myriad of other things that can happen in commercial life, you can find yourself out in the cold. This is the structural problem facing Australian suppliers to FMCG.
It is the same in your supply chains, but in reverse. Every business wants to be a dominating force in their supply chains, to be able to exercise some level of control. The pandemic has shown us how fragile our supply chains are, so resilience has become a key KPI for many who were previously reliant on single sourcing and JIT supply.
Differentiated in ways hard to duplicate that customers value.
Charlie Munger often spoke about building ‘Moats’ around his businesses. We all understand that a moat is a structure that repels invaders, in a commercial case, competitors. It is a lovely metaphor, and works irrespective of the scale and type of your business.
You build moats by being able to create customer value that competitors cannot or choose not to match, and if they try, their resources are consumed by the power of the Moat. This sort of protection is rarely a function of just one element, in the metaphor, the height of the moat wall and depth of the water. It is always a combination of many contributing strategic and tactical measures.
‘Tide’ detergent in the US retains 50% market share of the washing products market. Any quick look would indicate it to be a commodity market. Anyone with the right gear can make a detergent that does a good job, so how has P&G retained this share? It is a combination of time, disciplined brand building tactics, consistently very good advertising, continuous innovation, and an ability to ‘shape’ the market by being strategically smarter than everyone else. These have delivered first mover advantage continuously to P&G as the ways Tide delivers value to consumers have evolved.
Defined Process maps subjected to continuous improvement.
Imagine a potential buyer comes into your business with a serious intent to consider purchase. Anything you can do that reduces the level of uncertainty that they will feel about the value of your business to them is worth doing. If a buyer sees that business processes are mapped, consistently applied, and the subject of continuous improvement, it will be immensely reassuring. Such an environment will remove a significant source of uncertainty and risk.
Revenue Predictability
Revenue predictability is gold. Forecast accuracy drives not only sales up, but operational costs down, and revenue generation activity more directly connected to results, and therefore accountability.
Over the last 20 years, the nature of revenue has changed from one driven by sales, to one driven by subscription. Once you have a customer ‘signed up’ to some sort of process that delivers revenue automatically, they are both more likely to spend more, as they have a sunk cost to recover, and less likely to leave.
Amazon Prime is the most effective subscription model ever seen. Currently Amazon prime has 170 million subscribers in the US. For $14.99 monthly or annual subscription of $139, subscribers benefit from a range of ‘free’ services from across the Amazon ecosystem. Numbers vary, but solid research puts prime subscribers buying up to 4 times as much on Amazon as the average non subscribing Amazon buyer, up from around $500/year to over $4,000. Not bad when you can also manage the margins they are buying at, and have already banked $11 billion in advance.
My local coffee shop has a loyalty program, the 11th coffee free, so I tend to buy from them when it is convenient to do so. If the situation were reversed, and I had paid a membership up front in order to get a discount, the incentive to go there would be significantly stronger. Amazon Prime has harnessed this basic psychological driver to generate billions of dollars.
Having a clear set of robust leading indicators of revenues, margins and profit, offers certainty to any buyer of your business, as well as to you. They also offer the explicit platform for improvement.
Focus
To optimise your business, and thus enhance its value, it will pay to focus aggressively on the areas where you have some sort of competitive advantage that can be leveraged. This always come down to trimming product ranges, brands, geographies, technology bases, and market segments aggressively. While the analysis is tough, and the choices even tougher, you will inevitably find that the pareto rule applies, and aggressive application drives profitability. A mantra I use with clients is ‘Pareto the Pareto’, suggesting that this optimisation is a continuous process.
Clean books
Using the business as an ‘ATM’ for the owner is a danger sign for any buyer. When preparing your books for the inevitable Due Diligence examination by a potential purchasers accountant, the less items that are up for deeper examination the better. Ensure you have a ‘normalised‘ P&L available for scrutiny that identifies and explains or excludes all the items that may draw a question. Similarly, many SME’s claim to have some component of cash transaction in their business. Expect those claimed transactions and resultant cash to be completely discounted by a potential buyer as a source of value.
Steady growth history
Any potential purchaser is only looking at what you have done in the past, as an indicator of what might be possible in the future. They are only interested in understanding the future return on an investment they might make in your business. Therefore, a history of growth will be an indicator that all things being equal, there is evidence that the growth that will benefit them will continue. Growth that is relatively smooth is always better than growth experienced in fits and starts in the eyes of a buyer.
This applies equally to all financial and non-financial measures.
A strong management bench
Across functions, you need people willing and able to step up as you expand. A balanced and robust bench with solid succession planning through all levels is a hedge against the uncertainty that accompanies an acquisition, and benefits the value of the business.
An obvious culture.
Every business has some sort of culture, the ‘way we do things around here’. A consistent, explicit, and aligned culture that is aimed at delivering a well understood strategy is like cheese to a mouse: irresistible.
None of these are easy to address. If they were, the mortality rate of SME’s would be less than it is.
Nov 13, 2023 | Branding, Customers
The best place to start this discussion is some sort of definition of ‘Brand Salience’. To me it is the extent to which your brand comes to mind. This might be unprompted, as in ‘what brands of beer can you name? That first question may be followed with a prompt such as ‘which of these brands are you familiar with? A brand with strong salience will be identified quickly, those with none will remain anonymous.
A common phrase in marketing is ‘build a brand’. The actions taken by marketers to address this often-mouthed objective differ. There is no template to build a brand, but there are well established principals.
Most young marketers would struggle to think past Instagram and Tick Tock, believing the way to build a brand is to do stuff that gains attention and eyeballs. The reality is that doing so barely scratches the surface of what is required.
Building a brand is a long-term proposition, inconsistent with the very highly targeted digital capability we now have. Building a brand requires that you create and leverage distinctive visual, verbal, and aural assets. On encountering one of these assets, a current or potential customer has the brand immediately brought to mind.
The first task is to identify any distinctive assets your brand might have on which to build. In most cases this is after years of zigzagging and bouncing around. The potentially distinctive assets of most brands are a bit like the jumble in the bottom of a kids toy box. Lots there, bits and pieces, but nothing that has been picked out and made really distinctive.
As a marketer it is your task to pick those pieces and build them into a distinctive asset of the brand.
The Ehrenberg-Bass institute has developed by grid that captures the essence of all the above by reflecting two factors: Fame and Uniqueness.
- Fame quantifies the percentage of category buyers brains where the brand has an immediate and salient link to the brand asset being tracked.
- Uniqueness quantifies the brands level of ownership of that asset versus competitor brands.
The challenge for marketers is that to build such a matrix that has real relevance can cost a lot of money. It is one thing to do an audit of an existing brand, entirely another to audit a market category to identify holes in the competitive profiles which can be leveraged.
Understanding the factors that will drive distinctiveness that are relevant to the consumer is the first point of call. There is often the debate about the role of creativity in determining what is distinctive and relevant, and how that distinctiveness is captured by the combination of visual, aural, and verbal characteristics.
For example, what I regard as being a truly great example of Australian brand building is Meadow Lea margarine. While it is now relegated to the discount bins through stupidity and poor brand management, the tagline ‘You ought to be congratulated’ would bring ‘Meadow Lea’ straight into the mind of most Australian women over 50. Early in the process of building Meadow Lea, qualitative research identified that women were still doing most cooking and housework while increasingly holding down a job and managing the family. They were sensitive to criticism in all these areas, and were looking for acknowledgement. Meadow Lea acknowledged the emotional need and addressed it by telling them they deserved to be recognised and congratulated. The advertising captured the essence of that acknowledgement, visually, aurally, and verbally. Over the course of a couple of years Meadow Lea went from being one of many brands of margarine, to being absolutely dominant. I would suggest that the remnants of that brand salience remains. 30 years after the idiots who inherited Meadow Lea after the usual multinational financial engineering occurred and the advertising stopped, most still correctly associate ‘you ought to be congratulated’ with Meadow Lea.
Typically, the steps to build a brand cost a lot of money in advertising, and importantly in the initial stage of identifying those elements that can be built into distinctive brand assets. Most small businesses do not have the resources to even begin. However, two points are relevant:
- If you are a local plumber, accountant, architect, whatever you may be, you need only be distinctive in your local market, however you define that market.
- AI is throwing up tools that locals can use that promise to deliver at a relatively modest cost, and with some marginally compromised accuracy, the sort of understanding previously only possible after big investments. Mark Ritson, Marketing Prof at large recently wrote a very useful post in which he labels this data as: ‘synthetic data’.
Thinking strategically and acting creatively is the foundation of identifying, building and leveraging distinctive brand assets. You should try it!
My thanks for the catalyst of this post, and the outline for the header graphic goes to the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for marketing science.
Feb 8, 2023 | Governance, retail, Strategy
We all need to eat, but we seem to take for granted the access to processed and fresh food and groceries. To consider the ‘food industry’ as one entity ignores the entirely different strategic drivers of the three main components: Raw material production or ‘farming’, Manufacturing, and retail.
They should be treated separately as while interdependent, they are driven by entirely different forces.
In addition to food products in the FMCG basket, you have many non-food items from cleaning and homewares to health, beauty, and personal and pet care categories. Go into any supermarket, and these non-food categories take up somewhere around 20% of shelf space.
Farming.
The ‘family farm’ used to dominate the farming sector, but that is diminishing as scale enabled by capital takes the place of family intergenerational ownership. Costs come down with corporate ownership, but you are most likely to see agricultural monocultures emerge, as short-term financial returns creep up the priority list.
The register of foreign ownership, flawed as it is, records in the latest report June 2021, that 14.1% of agricultural land is in foreign hands, up from 10.9% the previous year. The National Farmers Federation estimates that 99% of farm enterprises are owned by Australians. Clearly the big are getting bigger at the expense of the small.
The infrastructure necessary for the management of farm production requires substantial investment, the rail networks have broken down, and the roads are a mess. This is a long-term problem, and the logistic costs of farming will increase faster than the inflation rate.
Manufacturing.
A report from the AFGC concludes that profitability is declining, due largely to the concentration of retail, and that imports will gain ground as a result. Currently the food & beverage manufacturing industry employs 276,000 people, 40% of them in regional areas, and has an output value of 127 billion, 32% of total Australian manufacturing output. In other words, it is big and diverse both geographically and demographically, and therefore should hold a significant place in the thinking about how we educate and groom future leaders.
The gross figures for the industry indicate that there is almost 30% of production value exported. Problem is that the vast majority of this is raw or minimally processed meat and grain, employing few people, anywhere in their supply chains, and competing in commodity markets.
Of The 8 directors of the Australian Food and Grocery Council, the industry’s ‘representative’ body, one is the CEO of an Australian beverage company, the other 9 are all the chief executives of multinationals. This is not a bad thing beyond the obvious fact that it perpetuates the lobbying and resulting policy positions of government in favour of MNC’s vs the locally owned industry.
As a young bloke coming into FMCG in the late 70’s after a few years as a nomad, there were many businesses of a whole range of sizes and types to work for. Over time, the number and diversity has been radically reduced. Significant industries like dairy are now almost complete branch offices of multinationals. The exception is produce, where there are still many farming suppliers, although there are now a few very big consolidators, like Costas, who dominate the supply chain into retail. There are no proprietary produce brands in retail, beyond a couple of minor organic brands. Retailers have ensured that they absorb all the proprietary margin in produce.
If there is a light in the tunnel starting to be seen evolving as a result of the disruption of supply chains, and the low profitability of FMCG manufacturing, it may be Bega. Bega Cheese, which was rescued from the clutches of the receiver by now foreign owned Dairy Farmers Ltd way back in (about) 1991, has been able to expand by buying the Port Melbourne site of Kraft, as it was taken over by Mondelez, and ending up being able to buy the Vegemite brand, and more recently the rebranded peanut butter business. Perhaps this is the beginning of a resurgence?
Retail.
Grocery market size and share in Australia is debateable depending on what is included. By most analyses, Woolworths has around 37% share, Coles 28%, and Aldi, now the real third force 11%, and the wholesaler supplied groups around 7%. The remaining 17% is made up of a patchwork of fresh and farmers markets, direct from farm delivery, small independent retailers, and convenience outlets.
In addition to grocery, there is the huge food service market, varying from the local owner operated restaurant and takeaway, to fast food chains and five-star dining. This sector consumes a large amount of product and employs thousands of people.
The power wielded by this bloc of 76% of grocery sales is immense. As they have scaled out of the ruck that was the retail playing field in the 70’s and 80’s, taking over or leaving to the receiver less robust competitors. They have squeezed manufacturer margins by a range of strategic weapons that are a classic case study of Michael Porters 5 forces. In response, manufacturers have similarly scaled by using regional manufacturing hubs, most often in Asia. The impact on domestically owned manufacturing has been dramatic, accelerated during the period where the $A was above parity with the $US, which encouraged wider adoption of house brands manufactured overseas, wiping out what remained of locally owned manufacturing. With a couple of notable exceptions, (San Remo, and now Bega, and Sanitarium who do not pay tax, for example) Australian owned food manufacturing is down to sub scale cottage manufacturers relying on the fragmented but still difficult 24% not controlled by the three retail gorillas.
It is fair to acknowledge the strategic failure of local management, while throwing rocks at the retailers. There used to be major FMCG brands owned by domestic businesses, built up over extended periods that failed to recognise the long-term strategic importance of maintaining their brands. Instead, they surrendered to the tactical demands of retailers for short term promotional dollars that assisted retail margins while keeping prices low. Short term, consumers may have benefitted from the price competition while having significantly less choice. Long term, they face the impact of an economy that has only a tiny proportion of its biggest manufacturing industry being able to make strategic choices driven by domestic priorities.
A few thoughts about the future.
Technology cannot do anything but increasingly impose itself on the industry, in all its components. Australia is already a world leader in the development and deployment of Agricultural technology. Failure to accelerate the rate of innovation will find Australian agriculture losing the current productivity edge we have, as while we are really good farmers, the soils of the continent are old and poor, subject to significant climatic risks Therefore to keep our position, we must continue to be smarter.
Innovations in retail are happening elsewhere. ‘Amazon Go’ type technology will transform the shopping experience, and home delivery will not be going away. Meanwhile Australian retailers are wedded to optimising the business model that has made them successful in the past. This will open up opportunities for alternative retail formats and processes.
Retailers are good at retailing, but have been proven to be lousy at product innovation. In the past, product and category innovation has come from businesses tapped into the consumer psyche. Unfortunately, those businesses are virtually gone, so where is the next innovation going to spring form? Certainly not from the office of a buyer whose KPI’s are all about margin today
The logistic infrastructure so vital in a country as large and diverse as Australia is in poor shape. Rail networks are broken, roads are going the same way, a trend recently accelerated by flooding, and you cannot get drivers of heavy and long-haul equipment easily. The median age of all transport drivers is approaching 50, and long-haul semi drivers is now 55, and they are not being replaced. When considering specialised driving jobs like picking up cattle from farms, the situation is already dire.
In summary, the Australian food industry is faced with a series of significant challenges that have evolved over a long period. They will not be effectively addressed by industry or public authorities that think in terms of only a four or five year strategic horizon.
Note: this post was first published in the auManufacturing Linkedin group in December last year.
Nov 16, 2022 | Innovation, Marketing, Strategy
One of the standard assumptions about strategy is that it evolves from the top. Those at the top of the organisation have access to all the information and resources necessary to craft the strategy that will then be deployed through the organisation. Then, crucially, they have the power to make those critical resource allocation decisions that drive activity. Sometimes that strategic development process is assisted by people from a range of functions and levels, all given the opportunity to have their say, and be a part of the process.
When you think hard about it, this top-down dynamic, however it is constructed and communicated is a load of old cobblers.
It should never work that way if what you want is an optimised outcome.
The objective of strategy is to figure out how to outcompete the competition, current, emerging and potential. That implies that strategy should be born at the point of competition. This point is not the supermarket shelf, the procurement office of customers, or in the boardroom, but in the definition of the source of the competitive advantage you are creating.
Building competitive advantage is a long-term task that requires choices to be made about the way available resources are to be deployed. If the competitive arena is based on the outcomes of R&D, as it is a digital product, then you had better allocate the resources to ensuring you are at least amongst the best in the field. Similarly, if it is in the excellence of customer service, you had better build the infrastructure to ensure no customer is left waiting and wondering.
This sort of analysis consumes time and intellectual energy from a wide range of stakeholders, not just the few sitting around the senior management table.
Clearly there can be an internal conflict when a business has more than one offering that have different points of competition.
That challenge can only be managed by ensuring that there is a source of common leverage that can be applied to all the product portfolios. Usually this will prove to be a brand that has built the credibility necessary to be compelling in both arenas.
A current client has two competitive arenas with entirely different business models and sets of capabilities necessary to support them. However, the physical products are very similar, emerging from the same technology ‘home base’. The strategies being deployed are different, although there is some commonality in the value proposition, but tactically, they are entirely different. Two years ago, there was a third product range that seemed to be an obvious extension, but proved to be a major distraction, as the competitive coalface was focussed elsewhere. As we lacked the resources to accommodate three, the product category was exited. That has proved to be a good decision, albeit very tough at the time.
The moral is to craft your strategy around the competitive arena where you must win to be commercially successful. If you cannot win in a definitive manner, the better choice is to exit and deploy the released resources where the return for winning is higher.
This is challenging stuff, so call me whan a bit of wisdom from experience might help.
