Wednesday 15 June 2011

Never Mind The Pollocks – Sustainable Fish Drive Reflects Behavioural Economics

There’s something new taking place at your local Sainsbury’s. The supermarket’s “Switch The Fish” campaign is offering shoppers free portions of lesser-known fish as Sainsbury’s contribution to the sustainability drive.

For one day only – this Friday - Sainsbury’s shoppers who ask for cod, haddock, tuna, salmon or prawns - the ‘big five’ – on fish counters, will be offered a portion of one of six lesser-known fish free of charge instead. These include coley, megrim, hake, mackerel, rainbow trout or pouting (which is something I thought only Amy Winehouse did).

But is there really substance behind this ambition or is ‘sustainability’ just the latest transient campaign following on from ‘organic’, ‘locally produced’ and ‘non-genetically modified’ to give shoppers the sense that their multiple of choice is leading the way in social responsibility?

The biggest challenge to the success of the sustainability campaign lies in the way we think compared to the way we act. As a nation, we’ve been eating cod for generations – it’s a British staple, and so shoppers have a very hard time believing that it’s actually now an endangered species. Moreover, the drive to change our fish eating habits rests largely with those who buy from the fresh fish counter, who are more likely than others to be prepared to experiment.

Television documentaries are increasingly being recognised as a successful medium for prompting social and behavioural change. High-profile examples have included Supersize Me, and Jamie's School Dinners, and it is true that in the aftermath of Channel 4's Fish Fight campaign earlier this year, all of the leading supermarkets reported significant increases in the sale of fresh fish.

I would imagine, however, that the % of sales from the freezer remains higher than at counter and the ability to cross these shoppers over to more sustainable breeds will be more challenging. My impression is that the freezer brands (Birds Eye) etc are talking much more about authenticity of the product (i.e. real cod in the fish fingers, Scottish salmon, not just salmon etc.) than sustainability. And, at the moment, of course, they speak to the mainstream shopper.

In this sense, this seems like a classic application of behavioural economics, the notion that people often don’t make rational or logical purchasing decisions. Is there a dissonance here between what people feel, think, say and then what they ultimately do?

I think there will be. How will consumers act when presented with a more relevant choice to push them towards sustainable behaviour, especially when it is a – more or less - cost neutral choice? On the face of it, you would expect them to opt for the sustainable choice but we are asking the public to eat fish they’re not familiar with and, at the point of making the purchase decision, how many will truly opt to take home megrim or hake to the family table instead of cod, haddock or plaice?

Wednesday 8 June 2011

Is Twitter helping to define brands of the future?

Unless you’re Ryan Giggs, it would seem, most celebrities are big fans of Twitter.

Many are active not only in informing their adoring followers of every new development in their lives but also in interacting in a way that previously would not have been possible. Twitter makes our celebrities (and our brands) more accessible. It has become the forum for interacting with consumers as well as the playground of the famous; the sniping and counter-sniping between VIPs in the Twittersphere are feeding the media with content in a way the previously only ‘exclusive’ interviews in a celebrity magazine might have done.

I wonder, though, if this emergent behaviour in media shows us the way that brands and marketing may begin to go generally. We are moving towards a position of sharing a brand with consumers, who will purchase on an increasingly pragmatic, needs basis. If this is the case, it places a greater onus than before on how to customise products and involve consumers in your “brand”.

In the mass-market, people are increasingly turning away from the physical to the online and this is perhaps the defining move of the new digital age. Fewer and fewer people are buying ‘physical’ music any more, books are increasingly digital and our lives are lived online. What does this mean for the consumer and the brands of tomorrow?

The music sector is already embracing this quite effectively. For their new album, Kaiser Chiefs have made 20 tracks available and when fans buy the album they can choose which ten tracks they want to be on their particular version of the album. They can set the track listing, and choose the album. If fans then sell their particular ten track album to others, they will receive a £1 commission for each one sold.

From people I’ve spoken to, I can see that many consumers are already wrestling with the implications of this and it’s not necessarily split down age lines as one might expect. The suggestion is that a book or a vinyl record has more inherent value that the digital copy of the music or the e-book which is merely reproducible content. This may be down to cost but also down to markets splitting between products of either actual or perceived high added value versus those that are seen as functional commodities.

So there seems to be an ever-growing divide between consumers who still want to own physical product and people who really don’t care anymore as long as they can access the actual content; a divide between the niche “haves” and mainstream “have nots”. Consumers battle between their heads and their hearts, where the heart says physical but head says digital. The key for brands is to learn the lessons of this development and be on the right side of that battle.

Thursday 2 June 2011

Fighting the food price flak - how customer insights can assist in winning consumers over


Whether it's perception or reality, I'm not alone in thinking that food prices are rising. When I reach the checkout in my local supermarket, notwithstanding the buy one get one free offers, the extra points on my loyalty cards or the promotions to feed my family for a week for only £50, the money in my wallet doesn't seem to be stretching as far as it did twelve months ago.

But who is the consumer going to blame? Whereas the government and to a lesser extent the oil companies seem to be in the eye of the storm over petrol and diesel prices, are the latest promotions from our leading supermarkets a way of deflecting consumer anger that they are making higher than necessary profits at a time when some families are struggling to put food on the table.

The multiples would argue, and not without some justification, that their ranges have adapted to suit the changing economic circumstances. Whilst the prestige own brand ranges continue, the multiples have also broadened their ranges of value or basic products. Even stores with a perceived higher end clientele have adjusted, with Waitrose extending its Essentials range and Marks & Spencer re-running its Dine In for £10 promotion.

Perhaps the highest profile bid to wear the "we're on your side" crown has come from Sainsbury's with its Feed Your Family for £50 campaign. More interesting than the microsite with meal plans, recipes and nutritional information, is the way Sainsbury's are using social media not only to extend the reach of the promotion but also to engage with consumers and reinforce the positioning that "we're on your side".

This is evident in the video application on the microsite which encourages consumers to film their interpretations of the meal plans, with some being featured on Sainsbury's advertising in the breaks of Britain's Got Talent.

It is even more evident on the Sainsbury's Facebook page. What is more interesting than the slightly gushing comments about the recipes - "it was delicious, much tastier than I expected," according to Dionne, and "lovely, lovely" according to Russell - is the fact that Sainsbury's has fronted up to some negative comments and is engaging with consumers to resolve their issues. To do that in a public forum is a sign of a confident brand.

But that confidence will not have been arrived at by accident. Using customer insight and knowing the issues that concern its customer base, Sainsbury's has taken a calculated risk that this promotion will not only protect it against any flak that may fly over food prices, it will encourage loyalty among its price sensitive consumers and support the company's ongoing financial performance. But, given the research that would likely have supported this strategy, Sainsbury's will already know that the risk is low.