There
was a day not too long ago, when a free sachet of shampoo cello taped with the
bottle would bring a joyful glee on our faces. And, now, we look for the free
sachet before we decide to buy the shampoo. It seems like copycat marketers
(and agencies!) have coached us to not see any real difference between one
brand of shampoo and another, except for the free sachet, of course!
In
his book, The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less, American psychologist Barry
Schwartz argues that increased choice leads to more anxiety and less happiness
for consumers. Could it also be that this increased choice forces less informed
decision making, as a coping mechanism? In, other words, does this portend an
increase in the dreaded "buying shorthand', that disproportionately
rewards the dominant players in the market?
How
should the intelligent strategist get on top of this ‘auto-pilot’ trend? How
does he prepare the brand to win in a world of whimsical consumers?
I
see three possible solutions.
The
first possibility: To hold pole position on some desirable attribute of the
category and continually improve it by investing behind its R and D. Call this
the Apple strategy, if you may. Another brand that does this well is Gillette,
which keeps adding a blade every two years, and makes the shaving male feel
inadequate without it. Deep inside, this approach hopes to ring fence a loyal
tribe of consumers who will be willing to pay an irrational premium for the
attribute in question. The risk is that, sooner or later, some paradigm busting
technology will makes the proposition, attribute and category irrelevant.
The
second possibility: To cultivate a club of independent opinion leaders whose
word is taken as gospel by the information-stressed average consumer. In
knowledgeable circles, this is fashionably called ‘Advocacy’. Look at how Whole
Foods has conquered the American health trend completely. Or, how increasingly,
cosmetics communication is owned by the indie beauty blogger. This strategy
hopes for a significant number of mainstream followers to ignorantly follow the
opinion leader into consumption heaven. And, that is till the independent
opinion maker demands to be paid for it, in which case, the brand owner adopts
possibility number 3!
The third
and truly unsexy possibility: To be ‘just good enough’ in all the 4P’s of marketing
while being truly entertaining and engaging at the point of purchase. The only
brands that seem to do this well are the house brands of retail chains, given
that they have little else to reach out to consumers. They tap into the
powerful insight that today’s consumer is not looking for the smartest deal or
the cheapest deal, but for the most delightful deal. It is not called ‘retail
therapy’ without any substance.
When
increased choice makes every category a commoditized minefield, where would you
put your money to create some tangible and positive behavioural change among
your ungrateful consumers?
In
summary, it is not about story telling (branding) or story re-telling
(advocacy) any more. Consumers want to act out and be the hero in your story,
every day! The era of participatory marketing is here.
p.s.
I know what you are thinking - some may opt for the safe ‘all-of-the-above’
solution. But, seriously, does any one have that kind of money to invest into
marketing today?
This article has also been published at
No comments:
Post a Comment