Apr
27th

What’s in a name? I’m pretty sure old Billy Shakespeare didn’t have spray lubricant and Napa Valley on his mind when he wrote Romeo and Juliet but that question has come up for me recently based on a couple of ads I’ve seen.

The first is from an online campaign  I saw by a coalition of vineyards seeking to protect “place,” the regions in which their grapes grow.

wine.png 

The second is a print ad for a new product from PB B’laster, a small but successful player in the lubricant category, that launched something called PB50. Can you guess the competitor they’re taking on?

 

 blaster_350.jpg

Name is naturally an important part of any brand and these ads are trying to achieve opposing goals around brand name in their respective categories – the former seeking to prevent encroachment from knock-offs, the latter attempting to play off WD-40’s brand equity and poach users.

I’m not sure trying to steal brand name (or place) is a viable strategy in the long run. A product, or service, is only as good as the value it delivers. Name is a heuristic to which users attach experiences. If that experience is poor then it doesn’t matter if you come up with a clever smokescreen of a name, your product will fail in the long run.

If PB50 is worth its salt, it should be able to stand on its own. Perhaps the thinking is that playing off the name will encourage trial and the resulting product performance will drive repeat purchase and loyalty. I’m not buying it.

The issue of the vineyards is a bit more dicey. If cheap bottles are being sold as Champagne, the poor quality erodes the value of the French region and its output while playing in a different price range. I lean toward the belief that playing a game with knockoffs like this is a race to the bottom.

As I see it, a brand whose name is being encroached on can:

1. Choose to ignore the knockoff and potentially see share erode

2. Race to the bottom in order to maintain share and run the risk of damaging the brand

3. Push back as the wine campaign is doing while drawing attention to the competition

4. Spend resources on improving the brand and its offerings, counting on the user to see value, not just price

It will be interesting to see what WD-40 does. I’d go with option 4, not an easy road but one that allows you to act, not react, maintain control over that which is in your purview, and protect profit margins along the way.

What do you think? Would you choose a different option? Are there any good examples of brands that launched into the stratosphere off the back of another brand name or are they all just low-price players?

Apr
22nd

Calculating Consumption

Posted by Anna Muoio

steep-cliff1.jpg

A steady stream of headlines prophesize doom and gloom: We’re falling off an economic cliff. We’re in the midst of an economic war. Our debt-ridden, over-consuming, under-producing way of life has suffered a fatal shock. However we define the current crisis, one thing is certain: When the dust settles we’ll be in a place that probably won’t look like Kansas anymore.

We wanted to move beyond the headlines to see how this crisis is playing out in the lives of real people. And more, what this could tell us about the new emerging order. Do the behaviors we’re seeing—which may be typical for recessionary times—represent a momentary change or do they signal a deeper shift in people’s values? If so, what does this mean for how we think about creating the things—the products, services, strategies, experiences and businesses—for this new normal.

So we revisited people we have come to know over the years through our work. These families welcomed us back into their homes. We sat at their kitchen tables to talk beyond the grim statistics of wealth destruction—the eye-popping $10.2 trillion that has evaporated in this country over the past year—to tell us what they’re doing to navigate through this crisis: To make ends meet.

In a period when people arguably have more time and less money—and this less money is being asked to do more, a considered and complex calculus around consumption is driving spending behaviors. This is evidence in small ways, by the increase of “orphan items” retailers are seeing—items picked up in one section of the store and then abandoned in another as people go through the process of asking “Do I really need this?” Under this intense scrutiny, products need to serve a real function. This does not mean products have to be frugally functional, stripped down to the bare basics. Rather, they have to work harder to connect to people’s values—to what they really care about.

[Note: On our homepage, you’ll find several videos of our interviews with people—here’s a brief encapsulation of what we’re learning…]

The Great Migration We see this in our conversation with Rebecca, a cost conscious mom, who has devised a clever solution to her “diaper dilemma.” Rebecca, like many, has already made the “migration” from higher cost to lower cost supermarkets in search of discounts. But she is also migrating across product types in search of products that are “good enough.” She is carefully customizing product mixes to find solutions that work better for her.

For example, diapers are an expensive part of her household budget. She now makes a separate shopping trip to buy generic diapers to use during the day. But the important “overnight” diaper is still reserved for Pampers. The fact that Pampers doesn’t leak and will keep pajamas dry—and Rebecca’s laundering load to a minimum—would seem the obvious value to address. But it’s only half of the story. What Rebecca really believes is that uninterrupted sleep means that her child is getting the restorative rest she needs in order to develop properly. It is this, her child’s well being, that Rebecca truly values. It is why Rebecca will endure the frequent diaper changes with generics during the day; but will not forgo the “luxury” of a more expensive diaper when it comes to nighttime sleep. Even when times are tough.

Indulging Indulgences The challenge then becomes how to broaden a products definition of value—and understand a deeper purpose it needs to meet. The instinct for a company may be to slash prices in response to an emerging frugality: We’ll survive through price cuts, the logic goes. Again, it is not this simple—as we see that even in trying times, indulgences still play a vital role.

Edna is a coupon connoisseur who lets sale prices drive her purchasing. Edna is keenly aware of the price of everything. Pineapples are “a luxury” at $4.99; but a steal on sale for $2.99. But in the next sentence she talks about the $3,500 television she and her husband just purchased. Still, she contests, “we don’t spend extravagantly.” In Edna’s considered, if not confusing, calculus her TV is worth 1,140 pineapples—rattling assumptions about how frugality and thrift are being expressed. But for Edna, the five TVs in her house are an expense that offsets every other entertainment need for her family. It’s a way for them to spend time together—the true value she seeks. And so, it’s a justified expense. This “change purse” versus “blank check” mentality may not seem rational—but it is increasingly pervasive.

It reminds us that in a time when frugality and thrift are the “new black” and one of the few things on the rise is the sale of penny candy, there is still plenty of room for indulgences. Jeannie delights in her expensive pod coffee maker (sales of which were up 31% in 2008) and knows the exact price per capsule. She then rattles off the commercial jingle “each cup is specially brewed for you.” It’s served just for her.  Does this explain why she lugs out the “old school” drip pot to serve the crystal coffee brew when company comes? Her indulgences—once the facials, manicures and pedicures that kept her content—may be smaller now and have been brought into the home; but are just as treasured and solely for her.

Edna and Jeannie demonstrate that people are compartmentalizing purchases and dramatically overestimating the difference between small amounts and underestimating the difference between larger ones. The reality of what people can and cannot do without is not so obvious and much more complex these days. Even the most basic product may serve a broader purpose than is assumed. The importance is to understand what roles these products are really filling—and how to remain relevant in that context.

Brands versus Generics The need to remain relevant and recognizable plays itself out in the perennial contest between brands and generics. If two-thirds of people see no difference between brands and generics, why do moms like Rachel and Jeannie go to deliberate and considered lengths to “keep face” with their children around brand food purchases—even in light of one mom’s imminent home foreclosure? Why does Jeannie put bags of generic cereal in CoCoa Pebbles boxes? Store brand mac and cheese bags in Kraft boxes? Why does Rachel still buy brand food products for her older children; but for her 2 year old, “who doesn’t know the difference anyway,” generics will now do?

Conspicuous consumption has given way to a more pragmatic and considered calculus. In times when little feels “in control,” complex mental models drive spending. And a sense of control is important.

What new “calculus of consumption” behaviors are you seeing?

Apr
6th

The Gray Lady Hears from a Hog

Posted by Jon Campbell

Where the Sun Don’t Shine

The March 22 New York Times ran a story on the troubles Harley-Davidson is experiencing as its aging boomer audience buys fewer bikes. The article mentions recent efforts being made to bring in younger and more diverse riders but apparently even that nod to a potential brighter future wasn’t enough to satisfy the leather-clad powers that be in Milwaukee.

This past Sunday, readers were treated to a full-color, spread ad in the Times business section from the Motor Co. in response to what they viewed as unfair treatment. Brilliant copy written in the form of the American Flag started off, “You can file our obituary where the sun don’t shine.”

Laced with attitude, the ad goes on to ask a series of either/or questions – cower or live free; succumb to fear or seize the throttle – before laying down the Harley ethos in stark terms for the nation.

“We see American companies and good old American ingenuity wrenching the life back into this economy of ours.”

It’s a powerful statement in these economic times and a perfect fit for the brand. Americana. Rebellious attitude. A call for “us” to push back against “them.”

After spending close to three years at the Motor Co. I found myself swelling with pride in seeing the ad. It’s a knee to the groin of malaise. A poke to the chest of anyone who says America can’t come back from this. And what’s perhaps most important, the ad speaks to everyone. You don’t have to own a bike, work at the company or even hold their shares. You just need to have a desire to fight back, to want to feel good again. And that in turn reinforces the brand in the public’s mind.

Former Starbucks CMO Scott Bedbury said, “A brand is a metaphorical story that’s evolving all the time. This connects with something very deep – a fundamental human appreciation of mythology. People have always needed to make sense of things at a higher level. We all want to think that we’re a piece of something bigger than ourselves. Companies that manifest that sensibility in their employees and consumers invoke something very powerful.”

Harley may be down right now but as long as they keep doing this, their brand, and by extension the company, will be just fine in the long run.

Screw it. Let’s ride.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/business/economy/22harley.html?_r=1

Swissnex

swissnex Boston, the Consulate of Switzerland in Cambridge is pleased to announce an event on innovation strategies and on the intersection of innovation and sustainability. The two-day conference takes place on April 30th and May 1st and will bring together large corporate, entrepreneurs, venture capitals, startups, academics, business leaders, consultants and other professionals involved in innovation management. Its main objectives is to present and discuss recent methods, practices and innovation for coping with downsizing and troubled economy and the new paradigms required to build new business model based on open innovation and innovation partnerships.  Harry West, VP of Design Strategy, will be participating in the first panel discussion and Mark Bates will be leading a breakout session on Sustainable Design.

The event will take place on Thursday April 30th and Friday May 1st at: swissnex Boston, Consulate of Switzerland, 420 Broadway, Cambridge, MA (close to Harvard Square). The program can be viewed here. The fee to participate in this event is $150 the 2-days, or $80 per day (either April 30 or May 1). Seating is limited.

Please contact Pascal Marmier at swissnex Boston for more information: pascal@swissnexboston.org 

Filed under: Events | No Comments »
  • Subscribe

  • Categories