Dunkin’ Donuts, that staple of the American mall, has just been named by Brands Keys Customer Loyalty Engagement Index as number one in customer loyalty for the highly competitive US coffee sector for the sixth year in a row. It doesn’t take a marketing guru to see that they’re obviously doing something right, but is customer loyalty a genuine phenomenon and, if so, what can brands do to influence it?
On one level, of course, loyalty schemes have as much to do with loyalty as reality television is about reality. Loyalty cards are simply promotional devices that work in both directions; as a customer I get money off my next bill and the retailer in turn collects a lot of data about me they wouldn’t otherwise have got. But is this really inspiring my loyalty?
There will always be individuals or groups of consumers who align themselves with brands with which they think they have something in common or which they feel say something about them and their status. This is particularly the case with high end fashion or jewellery brands or consumer electronics, of which Apple is the prime example.
But this aside, when it comes to brands are we really talking about loyalty or are we talking about convenience and opportunism on the part of the consumer. Loyalty as a concept speaks of our unwavering need to stick by something even in the face fierce opposition – the way football supporters, for instance, stand by their team through thick and thin.
Convenience, though, is something different. I may have a Tesco loyalty card because I shop there three times a week. I may not be doing that out of loyalty, but out of convenience. If I move house and Sainsbury’s becomes my nearest supermarket, the likelihood is that because of convenience my “loyalty” would transfer to them. It is too easy to confuse loyalty with frequency. Loyalty is much more about emotion and an instinctive reaction to a brand and this has to be considered differently.
Good customer service is certainly an important factor in brand loyalty but there has to be a good product too. Brands also have to stand for something; if you know what the brand is about and why it is right for you, you will almost always pick that brand over a competitor at price parity and most likely even at a premium price position. Sometimes, though, what we believe is loyalty may just be inertia. We may be inherently dissatisfied with our bank, utility company or broadband provider, but we simply can't be bothered to switch because it seems like such a hassle.
The flip side to this loyalty question is the lack of rewards for being loyal versus the bonuses you might get for switching brands. This is more likely to occur in the services sector but there don't seem to be many advantages in staying with say a bank or a savings provider. Often introductory offers are better than the ones available to current customers. The 'savvy' consumers are thought to be those who are the most promiscuous in terms of brand behaviour.
Whether it is loyalty or not, what is clear is that people warm to brands that show a degree of humanisation. Consumers like it when they can see a brand that displays the characteristics of its community, no matter how large a corporate it is, and avoids adopting a rather soulless "one size fits all" approach. McDonalds and Dunkin’ Donuts are particularly good at this. Although the consistency of the brand experience is paramount it is the little things that make the difference that makes customers want come back and repeat purchase.
Thursday, 9 February 2012
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
The Brand Battle of the Sexes
So Lynx launches a female product – does this mean that feminism has finally run its course. Well maybe not, but it has certainly generated a lot of interest in the marketing community. One could argue that in our “lady to ladette” culture, it is surprising that it has taken so long for a brand which is all about youthful sexual attraction to extend its reach to women. But the more interesting questions are: whether this necessarily represents a game changer for the sector? Does it swing both ways – can female brands crossover to men, especially as the male grooming category has grown by adopting traditionally feminine products and behaviours? And are there any implications for other gendered categories and brands?
The rise of the unisex fragrance sector in recent years has shown, particularly in the bathroom, that the boundaries between the genders are beginning to blur. The impact of programmes like The Only Way Is Essex on crossing over grooming and tanning products from the women's to the men's markets had underpinned the success of the sector. However, this has largely been on the back of discernibly male brands developing new products, rather than established female-friendly brands breaking into the men's market.
Developing cross gender brands, though, is nothing new. It is something that Levi's has successfully done in the jeans market and Gillette has achieved with razors, though both are examples, like Lynx, of a male brand being adapted to target a female audience. There are fewer examples of it working as successfully the other way around. Unilever’s other global personal care brand phenomenon, Dove, has arguably made the move from female to male, especially given its assertively female positioning, with the male equivalent Men+Care successfully launched a couple of years ago. However before the Campaign for Real Beauty came along, Dove was a more gender neutral soap and its challenging of gender stereotyping has also made it something of a post-gendered brand.
It is interesting that this is a lack of female to male brand extension, whilst products freely travel, suggesting that there is something insecure in men’s psyche which makes “appearing female” far less acceptable than women adopting some male traits. This despite years of the apparent “feminising” of traditional masculinity (male grooming, male parenting, male emoting...). So it seems that it would take a brave brand to make that particular play. So where do we see more gender ambiguity in branding?
Chanel, widely perceived as a predominantly female brand, has had success winning men over to its range of watches, but less so to its core fragrance products. Success seems to come most readily at the luxury end of the market, where there is less of an obvious demarcation between male and female product use than elsewhere. Brands like Hugo Boss, Louis Vuitton, Chanel and Cartier seem to say more about the user's status and success than they do about their gender and this seems to override any gender sensitivities.
Some companies have succeeded in developing genuinely unisex brands, most obviously in the fragrance market, whilst others, like the watchmaker Swatch, have developed as distinctly gender-neutral brands. Perhaps the future lies in this continued development of androgynous brands, like Calvin Klein, which will challenge established brand demarcations head on, both in product design and brand positioning, and may well win.
So what might this tell us about other gendered categories : cars, media, clothing, technology...Lynx’s move must question the assumption that brands targeted largely at men OR women are basing their gender bias on functional needs, historical precedence, even the idea of psychological pre-disposition (which seems to have become fashionable again as the nature nurture debate lurches back towards “nature” in matters of gender). So will we see hitherto staunchly “male” brands such as Yorkie following Lynx and targeting a female audience and, hopefully, classically “female” brands like Comfort successfully targeting men. Then surely the post gendered brand world will have arrived.
The rise of the unisex fragrance sector in recent years has shown, particularly in the bathroom, that the boundaries between the genders are beginning to blur. The impact of programmes like The Only Way Is Essex on crossing over grooming and tanning products from the women's to the men's markets had underpinned the success of the sector. However, this has largely been on the back of discernibly male brands developing new products, rather than established female-friendly brands breaking into the men's market.
Developing cross gender brands, though, is nothing new. It is something that Levi's has successfully done in the jeans market and Gillette has achieved with razors, though both are examples, like Lynx, of a male brand being adapted to target a female audience. There are fewer examples of it working as successfully the other way around. Unilever’s other global personal care brand phenomenon, Dove, has arguably made the move from female to male, especially given its assertively female positioning, with the male equivalent Men+Care successfully launched a couple of years ago. However before the Campaign for Real Beauty came along, Dove was a more gender neutral soap and its challenging of gender stereotyping has also made it something of a post-gendered brand.
It is interesting that this is a lack of female to male brand extension, whilst products freely travel, suggesting that there is something insecure in men’s psyche which makes “appearing female” far less acceptable than women adopting some male traits. This despite years of the apparent “feminising” of traditional masculinity (male grooming, male parenting, male emoting...). So it seems that it would take a brave brand to make that particular play. So where do we see more gender ambiguity in branding?
Chanel, widely perceived as a predominantly female brand, has had success winning men over to its range of watches, but less so to its core fragrance products. Success seems to come most readily at the luxury end of the market, where there is less of an obvious demarcation between male and female product use than elsewhere. Brands like Hugo Boss, Louis Vuitton, Chanel and Cartier seem to say more about the user's status and success than they do about their gender and this seems to override any gender sensitivities.
Some companies have succeeded in developing genuinely unisex brands, most obviously in the fragrance market, whilst others, like the watchmaker Swatch, have developed as distinctly gender-neutral brands. Perhaps the future lies in this continued development of androgynous brands, like Calvin Klein, which will challenge established brand demarcations head on, both in product design and brand positioning, and may well win.
So what might this tell us about other gendered categories : cars, media, clothing, technology...Lynx’s move must question the assumption that brands targeted largely at men OR women are basing their gender bias on functional needs, historical precedence, even the idea of psychological pre-disposition (which seems to have become fashionable again as the nature nurture debate lurches back towards “nature” in matters of gender). So will we see hitherto staunchly “male” brands such as Yorkie following Lynx and targeting a female audience and, hopefully, classically “female” brands like Comfort successfully targeting men. Then surely the post gendered brand world will have arrived.
Wednesday, 11 January 2012
Celebrity Brand Match
Using celebrities to advertise products is nothing new. Even before Hollywood legends Rita Hayworth and John Wayne took up the challenge of promoting Tru-Color Lipstick and Camel cigarettes respectively in the 1940s and 1950s, brands had recognised the allure of being associated with the idols of the day.
So this week’s news that chocolate bar Snickers is replacing A-Team hero Mr T with former Dynasty sirens Joan Collins and Stephanie Beacham shouldn’t be that much of a news story. Except it raised eyebrows in our office and nobody I have spoken to since can see an overt Joan Collins – Snickers connection. But we also remembered that some initially arresting associations turn out rather well (John Lydon with Country Life); and some which look solid gold (Tiger Woods and Gillette) can become somewhat tarnished.
Is the use of Joan Collins an example not of direct “endorsement” or association, but of the way that some brands are abandoning the traditional view of needing a celebrity that has an obvious brand fit in favour of one that offers talkability? Or is the brand merely continuing to tap in to the prevailing mood of 80s nostalgia providing a warm feeling from the past as we contemplate a somewhat chilly immediate future ! Time will tell when we see the campaign.
Whilst ad agencies might be nervous of the role of research in such “irrational” celebrity associations, we think that good research should be key. It can be fundamental to understanding how to maximise the value of this style of campaign and can explore irrational appeal of an apparently unconnected character, as in this case, as well as the more straightforward fit of an obvious celebrity link (Parky with over 50s life assurance for example). Ensuring that you bring on board the right ‘face’ (one which can resonate with your target audiences whether rationally or irrationally) as well as getting the tone and humour content of the campaign is essential and research will help here.
We can only presume that research has been undertaken that shows Joan Collins works – in the context of this campaign - for Snickers’ target audiences. Although an older celebrity like Joan Collins significantly reduces the risk of tying your campaign up with a one hit wonder, none of that is beneficial if it doesn’t achieve the desired cut-through and again good research which “gets” the creative idea can help here.
The choice to link Snickers with Mr T was clearly well researched. Not only was he retro and identifiable to those of us of a certain age, he was also cool to a younger generation through a resurgent interest in The A-Team on the back of the Hollywood remake of the television series. It remains to be seen how well Joan Collins will straddle these various demographics.
So this week’s news that chocolate bar Snickers is replacing A-Team hero Mr T with former Dynasty sirens Joan Collins and Stephanie Beacham shouldn’t be that much of a news story. Except it raised eyebrows in our office and nobody I have spoken to since can see an overt Joan Collins – Snickers connection. But we also remembered that some initially arresting associations turn out rather well (John Lydon with Country Life); and some which look solid gold (Tiger Woods and Gillette) can become somewhat tarnished.
Is the use of Joan Collins an example not of direct “endorsement” or association, but of the way that some brands are abandoning the traditional view of needing a celebrity that has an obvious brand fit in favour of one that offers talkability? Or is the brand merely continuing to tap in to the prevailing mood of 80s nostalgia providing a warm feeling from the past as we contemplate a somewhat chilly immediate future ! Time will tell when we see the campaign.
Whilst ad agencies might be nervous of the role of research in such “irrational” celebrity associations, we think that good research should be key. It can be fundamental to understanding how to maximise the value of this style of campaign and can explore irrational appeal of an apparently unconnected character, as in this case, as well as the more straightforward fit of an obvious celebrity link (Parky with over 50s life assurance for example). Ensuring that you bring on board the right ‘face’ (one which can resonate with your target audiences whether rationally or irrationally) as well as getting the tone and humour content of the campaign is essential and research will help here.
We can only presume that research has been undertaken that shows Joan Collins works – in the context of this campaign - for Snickers’ target audiences. Although an older celebrity like Joan Collins significantly reduces the risk of tying your campaign up with a one hit wonder, none of that is beneficial if it doesn’t achieve the desired cut-through and again good research which “gets” the creative idea can help here.
The choice to link Snickers with Mr T was clearly well researched. Not only was he retro and identifiable to those of us of a certain age, he was also cool to a younger generation through a resurgent interest in The A-Team on the back of the Hollywood remake of the television series. It remains to be seen how well Joan Collins will straddle these various demographics.
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
Can brands feel consumers’ pain?
A report by the housing charity, Shelter, this week has confirmed that almost one million Britons have taken out an emergency ‘payday’ loan to help pay their rent or mortgage in the last year. In addition, the charity also reported that seven million Britons – that’s 10 per cent of the population - are relying on some form of credit to help pay their housing costs.
With so much of the population under such fundamental financial pressure this situation necessarily has implications for brands.
Consumers will likely be more vigilant and more eagle-eyed than ever and are likely to be not only rationally searching for the best bargains but will be willing to put more effort into securing them. They will also be looking for emotional pay offs: higher level benefits such as “doing the right thing”, “being responsible” etc as well as more basic “animal” drivers such as “competing for scarce resources”, “protecting your family” etc. It will be interesting to see how people’s well developed need to be part of herd and community plays out against this background.
Whilst brands might be tempted to introduce “value” variants of their best loved products we would caution against straying too far from accepted brand values and setting the brand up for a later fall. Brands could more fruitfully consider greater innovation in promotional strategy (we have seen iterations of this with retailer schemes such as Asda’s “Price Guarantee” and Sainsbury’s “Brand Match”). They could do this by applying product innovation research techniques to create, develop and test truly innovative new value/promotional ideas rather than relying on the classic well-trodden path. Larger, global brands may even look to see what has worked for them in less well off, emerging markets to see whether messaging or products for ‘poorer’ consumers might be transferable.
In this sense, there is also a communications role here for brands. They, a little like MPs during this period of austerity, could do worse than to try and look like they are feeling the pain too. It’s tricky to pull off authentically but can cement the relationship with your customer base if you can do so.
As much as there may be temptation for brands to set themselves up to operate within a recession, they often forget to plan for leaving a recession. Launching value brands might bring some dividend now but longer term could damage their positioning if it they operate in a more premium segment. Own Label will by default boom right now, and may be the trick for brands and retailers alike is to promote ‘the game’ of saving money with rewards who can shop savvy whilst still retaining the brands to which they are emotionally and behaviourally are too strongly connected. Who can be the first supermarket to genuinely reward consumers by spending less or buying more efficiently? It is something energy companies have tried in the past – rewards for being more energy efficient. Let’s try rewards for being more shopping efficient.
Brands will need to work harder to put themselves in a position that they do not become the ‘dropped brand’ so that when the inevitable exit from recession arrives they are, from a value perception, in the right place for their brand. In a current economic climate dominated by us having to ‘make do’ with a raft of bland value brands, there will always be a place for more premium products that we aspire to, those brands have to work harder though to keep those emotional ties both through maintaining their position but without appearing to be out of touch with the financial reality people face.
With so much of the population under such fundamental financial pressure this situation necessarily has implications for brands.
Consumers will likely be more vigilant and more eagle-eyed than ever and are likely to be not only rationally searching for the best bargains but will be willing to put more effort into securing them. They will also be looking for emotional pay offs: higher level benefits such as “doing the right thing”, “being responsible” etc as well as more basic “animal” drivers such as “competing for scarce resources”, “protecting your family” etc. It will be interesting to see how people’s well developed need to be part of herd and community plays out against this background.
Whilst brands might be tempted to introduce “value” variants of their best loved products we would caution against straying too far from accepted brand values and setting the brand up for a later fall. Brands could more fruitfully consider greater innovation in promotional strategy (we have seen iterations of this with retailer schemes such as Asda’s “Price Guarantee” and Sainsbury’s “Brand Match”). They could do this by applying product innovation research techniques to create, develop and test truly innovative new value/promotional ideas rather than relying on the classic well-trodden path. Larger, global brands may even look to see what has worked for them in less well off, emerging markets to see whether messaging or products for ‘poorer’ consumers might be transferable.
In this sense, there is also a communications role here for brands. They, a little like MPs during this period of austerity, could do worse than to try and look like they are feeling the pain too. It’s tricky to pull off authentically but can cement the relationship with your customer base if you can do so.
As much as there may be temptation for brands to set themselves up to operate within a recession, they often forget to plan for leaving a recession. Launching value brands might bring some dividend now but longer term could damage their positioning if it they operate in a more premium segment. Own Label will by default boom right now, and may be the trick for brands and retailers alike is to promote ‘the game’ of saving money with rewards who can shop savvy whilst still retaining the brands to which they are emotionally and behaviourally are too strongly connected. Who can be the first supermarket to genuinely reward consumers by spending less or buying more efficiently? It is something energy companies have tried in the past – rewards for being more energy efficient. Let’s try rewards for being more shopping efficient.
Brands will need to work harder to put themselves in a position that they do not become the ‘dropped brand’ so that when the inevitable exit from recession arrives they are, from a value perception, in the right place for their brand. In a current economic climate dominated by us having to ‘make do’ with a raft of bland value brands, there will always be a place for more premium products that we aspire to, those brands have to work harder though to keep those emotional ties both through maintaining their position but without appearing to be out of touch with the financial reality people face.
Tuesday, 20 December 2011
Getting out the crystal ball – what does 2012 hold in store?
With the outlook for 2012 not exactly optimistic, I’ve dusted off my crystal ball to try and see what the next year hold for brands, marketers and consumers.
The continued economic trouble will see will see consumers continuing to become more careful - which for people with little will mean an everyday focus on best value and for the better off will be more thrift and localism. Everyone will be looking for comfort or escape as well as some sense of hope. I think people will become quite cynical and will wish for a greater sense of community and support but will look after number one - this will translate into even further decreasing brand loyalty and continued "forced experimentation" to get the most from your cash.
Supermarkets will maintain their push to appear on the side of the consumer, with the public either sticking with supermarket closest to them because they will be less able to afford to drive to a cheaper one or favouring the more budget supermarkets if they are within close proximity. We anticipate a return to make it yourself food and there may be a push to support local shops in the light of the recent Portas Report, provided the price differential isn’t too great.
As times get tougher mental health may become more significant for the mainstream and brands might reflect this - expect wellbeing to emerge with a harder more urgent edge - functional foods for the mind (fighting depression and dementia as much as cholesterol and cancer).
We also see brands that continue to innovate and add interest in small areas (new flavours. new tastes, new ways of cooking) appealing to consumers as a way of spicing up their everyday lives in small (cheap) ways and as alternatives to more costly eating out. Brands in some categories may have to rethink how and why consumers buy their products and adjust to ensure they ride the tough times.
Culturally we will continue to be increasingly mobile, less patient and more stressed. The mobility will increase. The fact that I can put money on my pay as you go mobile phone and pay for shopping with it also means brands should be able track exactly what consumers are doing and therefore more accurately market their products.
Brands will need to stay close to their consumers and to see where consumers are lapsing in their purchasing. It may be a time for brands to revisit fundamental questions about their relationship with their consumers in an effort to consolidate existing customers but more importantly build a new base as well. Research into why buyers buy, why people stay loyal or move away from certain brands during periods of austerity and why some people have never bought particular brand will provide a level consumer understanding that could inform post-recession planning now.
In the marketing and research sectors we anticipate pressure to drive more value from every project; engaging consumers to get better data and therefore understanding, which ultimately enables us to inspire marketing teams with our 'voice of the consumer' to make better, more successful products. In a recession price becomes a dominating factor, leading to further heavy promotions. Brands, though, can be better served understanding the more subtle drivers of purchase to be more profitable, as well as the obvious BOGGINGOFF that we know and love. We are likely to see brands going into more in depth in their understanding of consumer drivers of purchase.
Apparently there’s also going to be a big sporting event in 2012. We will see lots of Britishness coinciding with the Olympics and I think brands will interpret this in lots of different ways from the reactionary (Rule Britannia nostalgic values) through the inclusive (modern multi-cultural Britain) to the purely aesthetic (Union Jack everywhere) also linked with our floating off into the Atlantic away from the EU. But the Brit's love affair with exotic products, tastes and new brand experiences will continue so innovation will remain key - it is a constant in the nation's ever evolving DNA. The biggest game, though, may be to spot the brand with no link to the Olympic Games and to see whether anyone really suffers because of non-association.
The continued economic trouble will see will see consumers continuing to become more careful - which for people with little will mean an everyday focus on best value and for the better off will be more thrift and localism. Everyone will be looking for comfort or escape as well as some sense of hope. I think people will become quite cynical and will wish for a greater sense of community and support but will look after number one - this will translate into even further decreasing brand loyalty and continued "forced experimentation" to get the most from your cash.
Supermarkets will maintain their push to appear on the side of the consumer, with the public either sticking with supermarket closest to them because they will be less able to afford to drive to a cheaper one or favouring the more budget supermarkets if they are within close proximity. We anticipate a return to make it yourself food and there may be a push to support local shops in the light of the recent Portas Report, provided the price differential isn’t too great.
As times get tougher mental health may become more significant for the mainstream and brands might reflect this - expect wellbeing to emerge with a harder more urgent edge - functional foods for the mind (fighting depression and dementia as much as cholesterol and cancer).
We also see brands that continue to innovate and add interest in small areas (new flavours. new tastes, new ways of cooking) appealing to consumers as a way of spicing up their everyday lives in small (cheap) ways and as alternatives to more costly eating out. Brands in some categories may have to rethink how and why consumers buy their products and adjust to ensure they ride the tough times.
Culturally we will continue to be increasingly mobile, less patient and more stressed. The mobility will increase. The fact that I can put money on my pay as you go mobile phone and pay for shopping with it also means brands should be able track exactly what consumers are doing and therefore more accurately market their products.
Brands will need to stay close to their consumers and to see where consumers are lapsing in their purchasing. It may be a time for brands to revisit fundamental questions about their relationship with their consumers in an effort to consolidate existing customers but more importantly build a new base as well. Research into why buyers buy, why people stay loyal or move away from certain brands during periods of austerity and why some people have never bought particular brand will provide a level consumer understanding that could inform post-recession planning now.
In the marketing and research sectors we anticipate pressure to drive more value from every project; engaging consumers to get better data and therefore understanding, which ultimately enables us to inspire marketing teams with our 'voice of the consumer' to make better, more successful products. In a recession price becomes a dominating factor, leading to further heavy promotions. Brands, though, can be better served understanding the more subtle drivers of purchase to be more profitable, as well as the obvious BOGGINGOFF that we know and love. We are likely to see brands going into more in depth in their understanding of consumer drivers of purchase.
Apparently there’s also going to be a big sporting event in 2012. We will see lots of Britishness coinciding with the Olympics and I think brands will interpret this in lots of different ways from the reactionary (Rule Britannia nostalgic values) through the inclusive (modern multi-cultural Britain) to the purely aesthetic (Union Jack everywhere) also linked with our floating off into the Atlantic away from the EU. But the Brit's love affair with exotic products, tastes and new brand experiences will continue so innovation will remain key - it is a constant in the nation's ever evolving DNA. The biggest game, though, may be to spot the brand with no link to the Olympic Games and to see whether anyone really suffers because of non-association.
Monday, 5 December 2011
BRITONS FOCUSING ON HOPE AND TRADITIONAL VALUES AS WE PREPARE FOR AN AUSTERITY CHRISTMAS.
A new qualitative research study that we will publish this week shows how Britons plan to reject traditional consumption and spend Christmas reconnecting with the things and people that matter most and are closest to them.
The study paints an emotional picture of a traditional Christmas as respondents talk about sending cards to and buying gifts for a closer set of people than normal; people they care about rather than gifts as random tokens and looking forward to “just spending time” with those close to them.
We found that consumers are viewing this Christmas as a buffer against a painful present, a time to recharge batteries, and to reconnect with matters they view as genuinely important. Consumers seem less concerned with magic and spontaneity, more with practicality and planning. There is more emphasis this year on planning and buying early as a way of budgeting at a time when thrift has become more than merely a lifestyle choice.
Linked to this is feedback that being savvy is not only a necessity but also something that can be genuinely rewarding. Greater effort is being invested in finding a bargain or in doubling up vouchers, finding a discount code, collecting and using points across all purchases, really checking deals in order to make hard earned money work harder and go further.
Christmas is obviously about enjoyment and escape, and a certain degree of excess is traditional but, in keeping with the subdued times, our respondents have said that a sense of modesty and restraint is the order of the season.
This Christmas will be about reconnecting, being playful rather than
over-indulging, and a more careful and thoughtful, rather than excessive, consumption of products, food and drink. This will be the Christmas of only moderate excess.
And in response to the prevailing sense of economic gloom, consumers appear to be responding best to brands which are using their advertising and marketing activity to capture the traditional spirit of Christmas.
Consumers seem also to be tapping into the power and comfort of ritual. In these times of uncertainty the comfort of rituals is very appealing. Most respondents saidthey were looking forward to “the day” and “the people” rather than “the things” and are being attracted by brands which convey that.”
In terms of brand advertising, the John Lewis advertisement, which revolves around a playful inversion of the classic ritual of waiting for Christmas day, has tapped most particularly into our desire for a return to a traditional sense of giving. But the advertisement that was cited most often was Coca-Cola’s “Holidays are Coming” spot with the illuminated Coca-Cola truck and convoy snaking through the wintery hills to a “universal” town. This advertisement was spontaneously discussed as a signifier of Christmas, and welcomed as enthusiastically as the families in the advertisement welcome the Coca Cola truck.
In the face of what feels like unrelenting economic gloom, unrest and
uncertainty affecting many levels of society, respondents have been switched on
by advertising that has captured their mood, hopes and fears.
There is a real hunger for hope. As well as being a lovely seasonal story, the John Lewis advertisement particularly resonates with people’s need for stories of hope; hope that values of giving are alive and well in a world which has been so much about receiving or taking; Even the more ambiguously received M&S advert captures a hope of a future where “dreams come true.
Five themes emerge from the study, which have significance
beyond Christmas, long after the decorations have been put away. These are (1) a profound need for hope; (2) a sense of post materialism; (3) a focus on people and things closest to us; (4) the comfort of ritual and (5) the idea of the rewards of practicality, planning and hard work. So what should brands take away from this seasonal analysis?
The messages from our respondents are quite clear.
Articulate hope and a positive long term vision as consumers are looking for inspirational light at the end of the tunnel; reflect the way that consumers have, in some ways, temporarily lost faith in materialism and focus on values rather than things; focus on the local, facilitate family, be active in communities and, at very least, continue to overtly support the British economy with products created and built locally. Brands should continue to tap into
rituals which offer familiarity, comfort and trust for consumers and create promotions which reward planning and effort, as well as “hard to ignore” deals.
The study paints an emotional picture of a traditional Christmas as respondents talk about sending cards to and buying gifts for a closer set of people than normal; people they care about rather than gifts as random tokens and looking forward to “just spending time” with those close to them.
We found that consumers are viewing this Christmas as a buffer against a painful present, a time to recharge batteries, and to reconnect with matters they view as genuinely important. Consumers seem less concerned with magic and spontaneity, more with practicality and planning. There is more emphasis this year on planning and buying early as a way of budgeting at a time when thrift has become more than merely a lifestyle choice.
Linked to this is feedback that being savvy is not only a necessity but also something that can be genuinely rewarding. Greater effort is being invested in finding a bargain or in doubling up vouchers, finding a discount code, collecting and using points across all purchases, really checking deals in order to make hard earned money work harder and go further.
Christmas is obviously about enjoyment and escape, and a certain degree of excess is traditional but, in keeping with the subdued times, our respondents have said that a sense of modesty and restraint is the order of the season.
This Christmas will be about reconnecting, being playful rather than
over-indulging, and a more careful and thoughtful, rather than excessive, consumption of products, food and drink. This will be the Christmas of only moderate excess.
And in response to the prevailing sense of economic gloom, consumers appear to be responding best to brands which are using their advertising and marketing activity to capture the traditional spirit of Christmas.
Consumers seem also to be tapping into the power and comfort of ritual. In these times of uncertainty the comfort of rituals is very appealing. Most respondents saidthey were looking forward to “the day” and “the people” rather than “the things” and are being attracted by brands which convey that.”
In terms of brand advertising, the John Lewis advertisement, which revolves around a playful inversion of the classic ritual of waiting for Christmas day, has tapped most particularly into our desire for a return to a traditional sense of giving. But the advertisement that was cited most often was Coca-Cola’s “Holidays are Coming” spot with the illuminated Coca-Cola truck and convoy snaking through the wintery hills to a “universal” town. This advertisement was spontaneously discussed as a signifier of Christmas, and welcomed as enthusiastically as the families in the advertisement welcome the Coca Cola truck.
In the face of what feels like unrelenting economic gloom, unrest and
uncertainty affecting many levels of society, respondents have been switched on
by advertising that has captured their mood, hopes and fears.
There is a real hunger for hope. As well as being a lovely seasonal story, the John Lewis advertisement particularly resonates with people’s need for stories of hope; hope that values of giving are alive and well in a world which has been so much about receiving or taking; Even the more ambiguously received M&S advert captures a hope of a future where “dreams come true.
Five themes emerge from the study, which have significance
beyond Christmas, long after the decorations have been put away. These are (1) a profound need for hope; (2) a sense of post materialism; (3) a focus on people and things closest to us; (4) the comfort of ritual and (5) the idea of the rewards of practicality, planning and hard work. So what should brands take away from this seasonal analysis?
The messages from our respondents are quite clear.
Articulate hope and a positive long term vision as consumers are looking for inspirational light at the end of the tunnel; reflect the way that consumers have, in some ways, temporarily lost faith in materialism and focus on values rather than things; focus on the local, facilitate family, be active in communities and, at very least, continue to overtly support the British economy with products created and built locally. Brands should continue to tap into
rituals which offer familiarity, comfort and trust for consumers and create promotions which reward planning and effort, as well as “hard to ignore” deals.
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
Don’t diss the innovators in our society
“Britain rock bottom of world innovation league” was the leap-out headline from the business pages of The Independent this week. The story behind the headline was the news that the Thomson Reuters Top 100 Global Innovators survey was about to place the UK bottom of the innovation table ranked alongside Lichtenstein.
At a time when the economy is creaking and we’re all doing our level best to keep creating wealth and jobs, to say the headline and the story is unhelpful is something of an understatement. Is it, I wondered, another example of Britain’s ability to talk itself down and into the dreaded double dip recession?
On closer reading, though, I am happy to take issue with the findings. The survey has been put together based on patents: volume, global reach, how frequently a company has a patent granted and the so called influence of those patents.
But are patents really a useful (or indeed reliable or only) barometer of innovation in our society? I don’t think so. Using patents as the benchmark misses the fact that innovation is endemic in many UK companies, from the smallest to the largest, day in, day out. Simply registering hundreds of patents does not make a company successful; they have to be insightful and relevant patents, a few good ones will always be more innovative than a truck load of bad ones.
Few would argue that Google is one of the world’s great innovative companies; perhaps even a model for a 21st century brand. But Google is the perfect example of how innovative thinking isn’t always a success. Just think Google Buzz, Google Page Creator, Google Audio Ads and Google Wave to name but a few. The jury’s still out on Google Plus.
This brings forward the question: what is innovation?
One could argue that newer or smaller brands are innovating more because they have to make a footprint in the market and to simply replicate what is already there is unlikely to lead to success. There are plenty of SMEs innovating within their own sectors in order to compete but at a time when multi-nationals dominate western economies and are making in-roads into developing markets too, it can be difficult for smaller brands to bring their innovations to market. Some older, bigger brands meanwhile are ‘renovating’ to keep alive what they already have; this may mean replicating the innovations of smaller companies using their greater reach and bigger budgets. True innovation is always going to be more ground breaking and ‘new’ than renovation but it doesn’t actually mean that it will be more successful. The relationship between innovation and success is not necessarily a given.
One of the report’s authors, Bob Stembridge, comments in the article that the lack of UK patents (and therefore purported absence of innovation) is down to the economy. This is unlikely to be true as most Western countries are gripped by the same global downturn. One can argue that it’s a pretty level playing field in that respect.
A more pertinent question, perhaps, is whether we as a society really value innovation and recognise it well enough. In the current “heads down, just get through it” economy, few people lift their eyes above their computer monitors to see the real intelligent business thinking going on around them – whether that’s in product design or development or even, for example, in the way one can apply new thinking to something as apparently mundane as market research, yet we are.
Innovation isn’t necessarily about making things – innovation is a state of mind, a culture. In this sense, I think many of our businesses are ahead of our cultural curve.
At a time when the economy is creaking and we’re all doing our level best to keep creating wealth and jobs, to say the headline and the story is unhelpful is something of an understatement. Is it, I wondered, another example of Britain’s ability to talk itself down and into the dreaded double dip recession?
On closer reading, though, I am happy to take issue with the findings. The survey has been put together based on patents: volume, global reach, how frequently a company has a patent granted and the so called influence of those patents.
But are patents really a useful (or indeed reliable or only) barometer of innovation in our society? I don’t think so. Using patents as the benchmark misses the fact that innovation is endemic in many UK companies, from the smallest to the largest, day in, day out. Simply registering hundreds of patents does not make a company successful; they have to be insightful and relevant patents, a few good ones will always be more innovative than a truck load of bad ones.
Few would argue that Google is one of the world’s great innovative companies; perhaps even a model for a 21st century brand. But Google is the perfect example of how innovative thinking isn’t always a success. Just think Google Buzz, Google Page Creator, Google Audio Ads and Google Wave to name but a few. The jury’s still out on Google Plus.
This brings forward the question: what is innovation?
One could argue that newer or smaller brands are innovating more because they have to make a footprint in the market and to simply replicate what is already there is unlikely to lead to success. There are plenty of SMEs innovating within their own sectors in order to compete but at a time when multi-nationals dominate western economies and are making in-roads into developing markets too, it can be difficult for smaller brands to bring their innovations to market. Some older, bigger brands meanwhile are ‘renovating’ to keep alive what they already have; this may mean replicating the innovations of smaller companies using their greater reach and bigger budgets. True innovation is always going to be more ground breaking and ‘new’ than renovation but it doesn’t actually mean that it will be more successful. The relationship between innovation and success is not necessarily a given.
One of the report’s authors, Bob Stembridge, comments in the article that the lack of UK patents (and therefore purported absence of innovation) is down to the economy. This is unlikely to be true as most Western countries are gripped by the same global downturn. One can argue that it’s a pretty level playing field in that respect.
A more pertinent question, perhaps, is whether we as a society really value innovation and recognise it well enough. In the current “heads down, just get through it” economy, few people lift their eyes above their computer monitors to see the real intelligent business thinking going on around them – whether that’s in product design or development or even, for example, in the way one can apply new thinking to something as apparently mundane as market research, yet we are.
Innovation isn’t necessarily about making things – innovation is a state of mind, a culture. In this sense, I think many of our businesses are ahead of our cultural curve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)