Earlier this month, Clinton Cards, a mainstay of the British high street, posted a 3% decline in like-for-like sales for its year to date. As a result, it has announced a number of new initiatives and store improvements in order to turn trading around, including a new smartphone app, a loyalty card which will appear this autumn and an in-store web-based kiosk which will allow customers to design their own cards. The company has also been working with a branding and store design specialist on four redesigned stores.
But will that be enough? Can Clinton engage with consumers and persuade them again to buy in bigger numbers? Or is this a case of traditional bricks and mortar businesses being usurped online for good?
I think card shops are a bit like book shops or the Royal Mail in that that their core business (physical communication/media) feels a little like it is in terminal decline. However unlike some physical media businesses which have been sluggish to diversify, anyone who has recently been into a Clinton store might have been struck by the already evident diversification.
But the Internet, once a dark, serious and impersonal place, is now more able than ever to compete with cute, fluffy person-to-person affection – whether that is the brash and direct approach of Funky Pigeon or the ever increasing social networking, smartphone interaction amongst Clinton’s target audience. A web kiosk also sounds like fun, but feels like it relies on people being in the store rather than being a reason to visit in itself.
Customer insight will be key to sending Clinton’s down the right track. Research will help them understand what people want from a card, what a card can do like no other medium – so that they can leverage the physical equity of sending something tangible and understand what the card needs to convey so that the offer is aligned. They can explore specific card occasions and behaviours around them, understanding what pulls heavier and lighter buyers of cards apart so that you can find ways to encourage heavier buying (buying for more occasions, for more people, gaining a greater share of all purchases, …).
Clinton’s will have explored buying behaviours (ad hoc vs stocking, planned vs impulse) so that offers can be tailored to maximise purchasing, as well as reviewing what other lines can be offered (for example, cards and wrapping paper) and what role they can play
They will also be very aware of their position relative to the competition. Brands that do well tend to really stand for something in the consumer’s mind . If Clintons’ positioning statement is ‘cards for all occasions’, where does that place them in the context of W H Smith, M&S or Funky Pigeon? Where is their point of differentiation?
Consumers want, as much as ever, to connect with each other and to express how they feel, to share, to gift – all the things that Clintons is about. But they have an infinite virtual world of possibilities with which to do this; so success for bricks and mortar businesses is all about embracing the multi-channel world which is so fast moving. This means that ongoing consumer connection and insight is absolutely essential to deliver the innovation in store that is needed to bolster the business. Here’s hoping Clinton’s are on for some congratulations cards of their own before too long.
Thursday 19 May 2011
Tuesday 10 May 2011
London's not the only show in town...
London is, without question, one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the world; more than 300 languages are spoken and there are more than 50 non-indigenous communities. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that, as of 2006, London's foreign-born population accounted for 31% of the total, and it has probably risen again since then.
This cultural melting pot, for all its strengths and benefits, poses a challenge to marketers. How do you target your product marketing effectively to a population this diverse? And does this make London a special case in the marketing mix compared with your approaches to populations elsewhere in the country with a less multi-cultural demographic?
In one sense we’re asking is there any such thing as typical Londoner, any more so than a typical New Yorker and for brands is there a disparity between this and how they might market their product to a typical Huddersfield or Grimsby resident, for example.
So in the aftermath of a Royal Wedding that placed the capital as the focus of world attention and with next year’s Olympic Games and Diamond Jubilee still to come, is there – or could there be - such a thing as Brand London?
We’re not sure. We believe that the sheer size and complexity of the London population makes it impossible to have a single London strategy. Experience would suggest that brands look closest of all at the buying habits and tastes in the capital, and research can play a role in determining opinions and attitudes of consumers in the capital compared with other parts of the country, but this appears not to be on the basis of diversity or ethnicity.
There are, though, now marketing communications agencies in London that specialise in targeting diverse communities, which suggest it is, at the very least, an area of interest for brands. What, of course, this can do is enable a brand to align itself culturally with a particular group or other. There a few brands that are so all-encompassing that they transcend national or cultural boundaries, but for others niche targeting can be a way to introduce your product to a group previously resistant, and research delivering customer insights is critical in preparing the path for this.
We have seen instances of products being launched in cities or towns perceived as “cool” or “diverse” but this is usually more than just London and more connected to of the perceived target audience for the product. Beyond that, though, there seems little evidence at present of London-centric planning. Brands may focus on needing or wanting to be seen in a cool context to give them the kudos they need, whether that is in London or anywhere else. For grocery products, the emphasis is different. Their sales volumes do not come from being in cool places but from being bought regularly by people in regular places: familiarity and availability are key wherever in the country you happen to be.
The flip side of this is an over-interest in London at the expense of other areas. Brands that are based in London, managed and marketed by people who live (and may always have lived) in London can often act as if what’s right for London is what’s right for everyone else. In a city with restaurants of every origin, the concept of exotic food, for example, is not the same as it would be in a small, provincial town and getting that messaging and positioning correct for both audiences can be something of a balancing act.
This cultural melting pot, for all its strengths and benefits, poses a challenge to marketers. How do you target your product marketing effectively to a population this diverse? And does this make London a special case in the marketing mix compared with your approaches to populations elsewhere in the country with a less multi-cultural demographic?
In one sense we’re asking is there any such thing as typical Londoner, any more so than a typical New Yorker and for brands is there a disparity between this and how they might market their product to a typical Huddersfield or Grimsby resident, for example.
So in the aftermath of a Royal Wedding that placed the capital as the focus of world attention and with next year’s Olympic Games and Diamond Jubilee still to come, is there – or could there be - such a thing as Brand London?
We’re not sure. We believe that the sheer size and complexity of the London population makes it impossible to have a single London strategy. Experience would suggest that brands look closest of all at the buying habits and tastes in the capital, and research can play a role in determining opinions and attitudes of consumers in the capital compared with other parts of the country, but this appears not to be on the basis of diversity or ethnicity.
There are, though, now marketing communications agencies in London that specialise in targeting diverse communities, which suggest it is, at the very least, an area of interest for brands. What, of course, this can do is enable a brand to align itself culturally with a particular group or other. There a few brands that are so all-encompassing that they transcend national or cultural boundaries, but for others niche targeting can be a way to introduce your product to a group previously resistant, and research delivering customer insights is critical in preparing the path for this.
We have seen instances of products being launched in cities or towns perceived as “cool” or “diverse” but this is usually more than just London and more connected to of the perceived target audience for the product. Beyond that, though, there seems little evidence at present of London-centric planning. Brands may focus on needing or wanting to be seen in a cool context to give them the kudos they need, whether that is in London or anywhere else. For grocery products, the emphasis is different. Their sales volumes do not come from being in cool places but from being bought regularly by people in regular places: familiarity and availability are key wherever in the country you happen to be.
The flip side of this is an over-interest in London at the expense of other areas. Brands that are based in London, managed and marketed by people who live (and may always have lived) in London can often act as if what’s right for London is what’s right for everyone else. In a city with restaurants of every origin, the concept of exotic food, for example, is not the same as it would be in a small, provincial town and getting that messaging and positioning correct for both audiences can be something of a balancing act.
Tuesday 3 May 2011
London 2012 – Brand marathon not a brand sprint
Did you book your Olympics tickets? Are you concerned that you might actually get the £10,000 worth you ordered and will have to pay the whole hog? Or are you heartily sick of the whole thing with more than a year still to go?
Given the minor furore over the ticketing process for London 2012 – namely the fact that you could only purchase tickets online with a VISA card – are you as an ordinary punter ready for the sheer bombardment that your senses are going to receive from sponsors over the next twelve months in what could easily become the most branded Olympics ever?
And it’s the brands themselves that perhaps need to be most concerned. In the enormous advertising and sponsorship noise of the Olympics, with all its commercial cacophony, the effectiveness of individual brands' activities and voices is bound to be diluted.
Brands which simply hang up their running shoes for the duration of the Olympics will inevitably come nowhere but brands which adopt guerrilla tactics rather than carpet bombing, stand a chance of prevailing over bigger spending brands like Visa and have the potential to make more of an impact, especially in a modern media and communication landscape. So we would recommend adopting a more subtle strategy than compelling people to use your brand or dominating consumer consciousness by sheer ubiquity. This way brands can still enjoy the benefits of a mass heightened attention to the Olympic shared spectacle but retain personality and integrity.
The key for non-sponsoring brands is to carefully plan their activity for maximum impact. It's not only how loud your voice is, but what you're saying that is going to be important. And research has an important role to play, exploring NOW how off beat and subtle communication strategies might work, co-creating ideas that will enable brands which haven't bought their place on the podium, to punch above their weight against heavyweight and heavy spending rivals.
And as for Visa and its monopoly on online purchasing, this seems to us to be an oddly one-sided conversation for any brand (especially a financial services brand) to be having with consumers at the moment. Some might say it exhibits an arrogance or unseemly wish to control that might see them sailing close to the wind in terms of balancing the benefits of being the sole credit card voice versus appearing to be telling consumers what to do. After all in the Olympics proper, we won’t be cheering an athlete for winning the 100 metres by virtue of being the only competitor on the track.
Given the minor furore over the ticketing process for London 2012 – namely the fact that you could only purchase tickets online with a VISA card – are you as an ordinary punter ready for the sheer bombardment that your senses are going to receive from sponsors over the next twelve months in what could easily become the most branded Olympics ever?
And it’s the brands themselves that perhaps need to be most concerned. In the enormous advertising and sponsorship noise of the Olympics, with all its commercial cacophony, the effectiveness of individual brands' activities and voices is bound to be diluted.
Brands which simply hang up their running shoes for the duration of the Olympics will inevitably come nowhere but brands which adopt guerrilla tactics rather than carpet bombing, stand a chance of prevailing over bigger spending brands like Visa and have the potential to make more of an impact, especially in a modern media and communication landscape. So we would recommend adopting a more subtle strategy than compelling people to use your brand or dominating consumer consciousness by sheer ubiquity. This way brands can still enjoy the benefits of a mass heightened attention to the Olympic shared spectacle but retain personality and integrity.
The key for non-sponsoring brands is to carefully plan their activity for maximum impact. It's not only how loud your voice is, but what you're saying that is going to be important. And research has an important role to play, exploring NOW how off beat and subtle communication strategies might work, co-creating ideas that will enable brands which haven't bought their place on the podium, to punch above their weight against heavyweight and heavy spending rivals.
And as for Visa and its monopoly on online purchasing, this seems to us to be an oddly one-sided conversation for any brand (especially a financial services brand) to be having with consumers at the moment. Some might say it exhibits an arrogance or unseemly wish to control that might see them sailing close to the wind in terms of balancing the benefits of being the sole credit card voice versus appearing to be telling consumers what to do. After all in the Olympics proper, we won’t be cheering an athlete for winning the 100 metres by virtue of being the only competitor on the track.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)