Wednesday 30 March 2011

Supermarkets are failing to use their loaf



In a survey a couple of years back, baking bread was recorded as Britain’s second favourite smell, just behind fish and chips. Apparently the aroma of bread, lovingly prepared by hand and freshly baked, is comforting and evokes fond memories of childhood.

So, whilst not many of us have the time to bake our own these days, how fantastic it is that all of our major supermarkets, it would seem, have invested in their own in-store bakeries. Or have they…

We were drawn to Rose Prince’s interesting piece in the Daily Telegraph this week – “The truth about your supermarket loaf” – which in its opening headline asserts that the said loaf is made with flour that’s been shipped across the globe, then frozen for up to a year before you buy it.

According to Rose, we all need to wake up to reality. “That crusty loaf on sale at opening time in your local supermarket may not have been kneaded, shaped and proved by a real baker, but brought in deep-frozen from a plant hundreds of miles away, defrosted and “baked-off” by staff who only need to know how to throw a switch.”
If that’s genuinely the case, we’re not ashamed to admit we feel a little bit violated and are ready to scurry off back to our local independent bakers. Because this is another example of big supermarkets using smoke and mirrors to give the impression of one thing when the reality is quite different. They might argue that the loaves and the cakes are, technically, being baked in-store. But the concept of an ‘in-store bakery’ conveys more than the technicality; it gives off the concept of freshness and all that is encapsulated by bread being prepared from scratch on the premises each and every morning.

But is this even important? We think so, because when brands play fast and loose with the truth and start using huge amounts of artistic license, the consumer’s belief in them as a truthful and trustworthy brand becomes severely tested. The consumer doesn’t like to be treated like a fool!

We know this from quantitative research we conducted last year around the whole issue of healthy labelling of food. In the research consumers told us that manufacturers had deceived them in the past with marketing strategies that lead them to believe products were healthy. Consumers were clear; they wanted honesty. Now this issue of baking in-store would seem to be the flip side of the same coin.
The game, it would seem, though, may soon be up. The Telegraph reported that a change in European law will require retailers to identify all foods that have been previously frozen. This means that the “thaw and serve” will be revealed for what they are and, perhaps as importantly, the hood they have been pulling over the consumers’ eyes will be lifted once and for all.

Wednesday 23 March 2011

Can Brands Make You Happy?


Buried amongst the doom and gloom of spending cuts, rising prices and military action, the Government recently decided that it wanted us to be happy; and, just to make sure, it is going to measure how happy we are. It’s interesting that brands don’t really overtly tell consumers they will make them happy so tend not to measure this directly. So who’s got it right? Rather than settle this the Harry Hill way (“Fight!”) we asked our consumer consultation community - the Engage Brain – what they thought happiness was all about and how it related to brands. Here’s what they said.

First of all it seems that there is more to happiness than just being happy. Our community told us that there are really two kinds of happiness – short term “joy” and longer term “contentment”. (Interestingly this matches academic thinking in this area which defines two forms of happiness “dynamic” and “peaceful”).

Our consumers say that both are necessary – joy provides the highs, the hits of happiness, the peaks to our days that keep us going through the troughs. However underlying contentment with who you are, what you are doing, the people you are surrounded by, where you are going ...is more fundamental and somehow more authentic. As one consumer put it short term happiness is what we all want, but long term contentment is what we probably really need.

Another theme in consumers’ definition & discussion of happiness is the idea of the smaller things making a bigger difference. In fact the disproportionate joy that finding a misplaced favourite novel, your partner coming home early from work, the stereotypical child’s smile can give makes those small things so significant in contributing to longer term happiness.

On the other side of the equation the things which make people unhappy also fall into short term irritations and longer term disappointments, stresses or problems. So whilst short term joy can alleviate the anxiety of missing a friend, worrying about a sick relative, feeling insecure about jobs and finances, these longer term issues do not go away and how we deal with many of these things being out of our control ultimately has a greater effect on how happy we are.

Short term irritations get people very angry in the moment, and can sour relationships with people and so with brands – rudeness, unfairness, waste, other people’s bad behaviour or bad moods are all common everyday downers for our consumers!

So where do brands fit into all this. Well consumers tend to lump brands (and consumption generally) into the “short term joy” category. There are some exceptions, but the general feeling is that brands should focus on bringing moments of happiness rather than trying to make us fundamentally more content (which they will not be able to achieve).
This is because people feel (indeed they know from experience) that buying something, however fabulous, provides short term elation, a hit of happy, but that this rarely lasts beyond the point of purchase or first use. So even though we might not be able to buy long term happiness, brands can offer a welcome distraction from the challenges and anxieties of everyday life. How do consumers feel they do that?
Well they can simply amuse us – consumers consistently feed back to us that they love funny or warm ads (the Andrex puppy, The Specsavers mistaken identity kiss, the BT Adam & Jane story) whilst ads which are probably effective through irritation (Compare the Market, Go Compare are examples that were shared by consumers) really tick them off.
Consumers tell us that brands can also make people feel happy by making them feel special; this might be through the experience they provide or by reinforcing their choice, again one consumer put it thus : a reinforcement of our good judgement, our cleverness for selecting it in the first place, for using our discriminatory senses and not buying something inferior. I bought the very best – and I am happy.
Brands can also make us happy by being happy brands. A brand with a bright, fresh image or a personality which exudes positive warmth, can lift a consumer’s mood (Persil, Top Shop, Heinz all do this, consumers tell us, but in different ways). Brands which play on our guilt, make us feel needy, create want where need doesn’t really exist – consumers know that these brands might be successful but they do not make us happy!
Brands can also contribute to longer term happiness by having an honest, human relationship with consumers, by keeping promises or making things right when they have gone wrong; by rewarding loyalty; by delivering a succession of joyous moments to consumers to keep them going through their bad patches. In fact focusing on the smaller things in life seems to be a blueprint for greater happiness.
So brands don’t need to try and make us happy to be successful, but as life gets more grim brands which adopt this strategy might be more successful than those which are seen as more cynical. So if they are concerned with making consumers happy brands should take these simple steps :
• Think small, not big
• Think personality as much as product
• Make promises that you can keep...and keep them
• Reward me, genuinely, realistically for my loyalty
• Surprise me
• Deliver serial joy, everyday happiness hits

Simple as that.

Monday 14 March 2011

Doing something funny for money

It’s that time of year again. The Comic Relief bandwagon rolls into town this week with Red Nose Day 2011 and your chance to do something ‘funny for money’.

But increasingly it feels like it’s becoming ‘buy something funny, slightly funny or only vaguely connected with the event…for money”, as Red Nose Day – like most major charities – becomes intrinsically bound up with major retail brands.

We’re not knocking Comic Relief. Far from it. It’s a fantastic charity doing amazing work and we’re sporting our monster noses as we write. The association with major brands and retailers is logical; it spreads the word about the event and, through mass product marketing, adds significantly to the charity’s coffers. And, at a time when charities are suffering because of the economic downturn, we understand that perfectly. Indeed, where there has been a long term association with a brand – for example Sainsbury’s and TK Maxx with Comic Relief or Tesco’s ten year support for the Race for Life – the relationship seems perfectly natural.

But more so than ever this year, it seems, there are Comic Relief products on our shelves that make you question the extent of genuine altruism and the extent to which there is a rush for any brand to link itself to Comic Relief. Has the charity reached brand overload this year and does the consumer see through that?

So far this year, I’ve eaten my Jimmy Con Carrne and Stephen Fry-up crisps for Comic Relief, munched on my Kellogg’s Comic Relief Rice Krispies Squares with edible noses, supported the Mini Babybel and Comic Relief Guinness World Record attempt for the most jokes told in a one-hour relay, washed my clothes with a special pack of Ariel Liquitab, eaten some
Carte D'or Chocolate Inspiration Comic Relief ice cream, spread Comic Relief Flora Buttery spread on my bread to have with my salad, that’s dressed with Hellmann's Balsamic Salad Dressing, with a proportion of the price going to Comic Relief. I’ve even sprayed myself with Impulse True Love Body Fragrance and seen 5p from the special pack donated to Comic Relief. You have to question whether any brand is really recognised for its association with the charity in such a crowded field. And that’s before I’ve bought any ‘official’ Comic Relief merchandise.

This in itself isn’t inherently wrong. Comic Relief is a great national event, a time for everyone – brands included – to come together in a combined endeavour. But are we reaching the point when the novelty wears off if anyone can be persuaded to buy a product in aid of Comic Relief when only a matter of a few pence is actually finding its way to the charity? And how can smaller charities possibly be able to compete with this?

You don’t need to be in such a crowded field to do good, be seen to do good and yet remain true to the values of the brand. Waitrose champions local charities by giving shoppers a token to give to one of three charities local to each store every month; similarly Marks & Spencer has been running its range of pink products for Breakthrough for a number of years.

The risk here for brands is quite simple. The more crowded the charity association, the more likely they are to be seen to be associating simply to avoid being seen as not associating. And therein lies the potential for brands to be accused of riding the Comic Relief bandwagon. Charities and brands should be a natural fit, but it may sit better with consumers for brands to build their alliances with charities with which there isn’t such an obvious commercial clamour. The brand still fulfils its CSR obligation, a needy cause still benefits and yet the brand creates some stand-out from the crowd and becomes a leader rather than a follower. Plus, and I say this still wearing my nose, there are other causes worthy of brands’ support.


Tuesday 8 March 2011

Will consumers be turned on by product placement?


Last week Nestle’s Dolce Gusto became the first example of paid product placement on British television when it appeared on ITV’s This Morning in what is rumoured to be a three- month, £100,000 deal.

But with recent research suggesting that most UK consumers do not believe product placement will increase their likelihood of purchasing particular brands, will product placement change the balance of brands’ marketing mixes? And what should brands consider?

Product placement is nothing new. It has been a feature of films and American television for some time – remember the specific car brands driven in different movies by James Bond or the blurred out Coca Cola cups on the judges’ desk in American Idol.

Indeed the 9.5 minute video for Lady Gaga’s single ‘Telephone’ featured at least ten different brands, including Virgin Mobile, Diet Coke, and Polaroid. And yet, she was accused of commercial opportunism.
So will product placement work for brands in the UK or could it leave consumers feeling dubious about both brand and media property?
Our view is that consumers are not really in a position to judge the effectiveness of product placement. It will likely prove as effective – or possibly more so - than other forms of "ambient" media, but what they can provide are the parameters for acceptability. A gratuitous product taking over a shot or scene will likely irritate whereas a relevant product or brand used in a natural setting or sitting inertly on the sidelines likely to be more acceptable.

Conversely using actual brands rather than either made up brands (bottles of ‘fake’ lager in the Vic on Eastenders) or products with their labels covered (from Big Brother to Blue Peter etc.) could become less distracting and maybe even less noticeable, as there will be less conflict between what we expect to see (familiar, branded products) and what we actually see (made up/covered up).

So the message to brands – make certain your placement clearly makes sense. Don’t be seduced by television, choose the property based on its synergy with the brand and its relevance to your target market (research can help you with this) and ensure the brand or product is set in a correct context. The setting should feel as authentic and 'real' as your brand does in the ‘real world’. If you achieve this, then success is possible when used in selective, tactical bursts.