After a government-commissioned report found that just one per cent of packed lunches were as nutritious as school meals, it is being claimed in some quarters that packed lunches should be banned and free school lunches made available to all primary school pupils.
Whether this is practical – or even desirable – is a matter for others to decide - but what steps can brands take to win over children and mums to healthy food? Can – or should - brands be taking steps to become the champion of the healthy packed lunch, or is their responsibility simply towards selling the products they make?
The report found that the packed lunch bias remains in favour of a sandwich, crisps, drink, chocolate and fruit (which is often returned uneaten). In an ideal world the aim would be to subtly change the 'make up' of a packed lunch, but the vast majority of parents probably want something that is easy to prepare and acceptable to their kids – eating something of indifferent long term health is better than the short term risk of their kids eating not eating anything.
Combining the benefits of convenience and acceptability to children gives us the plethora of "individually wrapped" products to place in a lunch box. However, there are products like Cheestrings, which are undeniably child-friendly in their focus and convenience, which have also tried to leverage their health credentials.
So how might brands develop products that kids will love and parents will approve thus making inroads into this significant territory? How can they get the correct balance between the sometimes competing wishes of kids, parents, teachers, campaigners, the government...
One of the problems in this debate is the dissonance between what people need, what they want, what they say they would like and what they subsequently do. It is undoubtedly the case that the children of our nation need healthy lunches (whether in boxes or school meals), however what our kids want is often a different matter. Thus, when asked, parents might say that they would like healthy options but what they then put in their packing up reflects what their kids want rather than need. How can better research help brands navigate this sea of cognitive dissonance.
First of all do involve parents – who will probably remind you that convenience is the elephant in the room in all of this – preparing several packed lunches day in day out can be a tedious and time consuming chore. But don’t just involve them by asking them what they want. Instead a combination of self-ethnography (e.g. via smartphone to capture real behaviour, real rituals) combined with a behavioural economics-inspired quantitative study will provide a far more authentic account of what will work in market, than relying on a more classic approach.
Brands that take this more sensitive approach will understand which buttons to press to deliver the healthiness that many parents would love to provide, in a way which fits with kids wants & with the practicalities of family’s everyday lives.
Wednesday 31 July 2013
Tuesday 16 July 2013
He who shouts the loudest - when brand advertising offends….almost nobody
Britain is becoming a complainant’s society. A report published earlier this year by the Institute of Customer Service reported that Britons are more likely to complain than they were five years ago.
Indeed, it seems, if you are to believe some recent examples, that this complaint culture has been extended to brands and the ways in which they advertise their products. In recent weeks, soft drink IRN-BRU and Lynx shower gel have been among the products whose advertising has been subjected to scrutiny and subsequent decisions by the Advertising Standard Authority based on viewer complaints. In both cases, the complaints were dismissed.
However, closer examination makes for interesting reading. The IRN-BRU case was investigated on the back of 176 complaints; the Lynx advertisement on the back of just seventeen. IRN-BRU is the third best selling soft drink in the UK, after Coca-Cola and Pepsi in a carbonated soft drinks market worth £3.2bn per annum (1). In Scotland the equivalent of 12 cans of IRN-BRU 330ml are consumed every second (1). Yet the brand was held to account on the back of just 176 complaints. Similarly with Lynx, a brand used by more than eight million men across the UK & Ireland every day; equivalent to having the brand in one of every four households in the country(2). And seventeen people complained.
So how representative are these complaints about television advertising, especially compared with market research? And are these complaints a proper barometer for public opinion, or just the dissent of a vocal minority? On its website, the ASA confirms it needs just one justified complaint to begin an investigation into an advertisement. The ASA’s concern is whether the Advertising Codes have been breached rather the number of complaints it receives. In this sense it is judging whether the brand has breached the code rather whether it has caused offence, which can be quite a subjective measurement and may not always be the same thing.
Whilst no brand intentionally sets out to offend in its advertising, brands will knowingly tread the line between appealing to the demographic most suited to its products. A brand targeting 25 year old men is not necessarily going to be thinking about the impact on 55 year old women if they are not its core target audience.
What is perhaps more interesting is that proper market research is being conducted every day on behalf of brands in a scientific and proven manner, to test products, packaging and advertising for the way in which they resonate with their target audiences. There investment in this research will produce, inevitably, some negative comments but this will be fed back into the process to deliver a result that works best for the brand and its consumers. How, then, can it be right that brands can be held answerable to a number of people that are, without being disrespectful, a statistical irrelevance? Even if you accept that the number of people who complain are representative of a bigger, silent demographic, their numbers would still be insignificantly small.
The ASA has long demanded on all our behalves – and rightly so – that advertising be legal, decent, honest and truthful. Three of those are black and white decisions; the fourth – decent – is always going to be a matter of opinion and it remains questionable that the decency of brand advertising should be questioned on a sample as potentially small as one person out of the nearly 70 million who live in the UK.
1Source AGBARR.co.uk 2Source: unilever.co.uk
Indeed, it seems, if you are to believe some recent examples, that this complaint culture has been extended to brands and the ways in which they advertise their products. In recent weeks, soft drink IRN-BRU and Lynx shower gel have been among the products whose advertising has been subjected to scrutiny and subsequent decisions by the Advertising Standard Authority based on viewer complaints. In both cases, the complaints were dismissed.
However, closer examination makes for interesting reading. The IRN-BRU case was investigated on the back of 176 complaints; the Lynx advertisement on the back of just seventeen. IRN-BRU is the third best selling soft drink in the UK, after Coca-Cola and Pepsi in a carbonated soft drinks market worth £3.2bn per annum (1). In Scotland the equivalent of 12 cans of IRN-BRU 330ml are consumed every second (1). Yet the brand was held to account on the back of just 176 complaints. Similarly with Lynx, a brand used by more than eight million men across the UK & Ireland every day; equivalent to having the brand in one of every four households in the country(2). And seventeen people complained.
So how representative are these complaints about television advertising, especially compared with market research? And are these complaints a proper barometer for public opinion, or just the dissent of a vocal minority? On its website, the ASA confirms it needs just one justified complaint to begin an investigation into an advertisement. The ASA’s concern is whether the Advertising Codes have been breached rather the number of complaints it receives. In this sense it is judging whether the brand has breached the code rather whether it has caused offence, which can be quite a subjective measurement and may not always be the same thing.
Whilst no brand intentionally sets out to offend in its advertising, brands will knowingly tread the line between appealing to the demographic most suited to its products. A brand targeting 25 year old men is not necessarily going to be thinking about the impact on 55 year old women if they are not its core target audience.
What is perhaps more interesting is that proper market research is being conducted every day on behalf of brands in a scientific and proven manner, to test products, packaging and advertising for the way in which they resonate with their target audiences. There investment in this research will produce, inevitably, some negative comments but this will be fed back into the process to deliver a result that works best for the brand and its consumers. How, then, can it be right that brands can be held answerable to a number of people that are, without being disrespectful, a statistical irrelevance? Even if you accept that the number of people who complain are representative of a bigger, silent demographic, their numbers would still be insignificantly small.
The ASA has long demanded on all our behalves – and rightly so – that advertising be legal, decent, honest and truthful. Three of those are black and white decisions; the fourth – decent – is always going to be a matter of opinion and it remains questionable that the decency of brand advertising should be questioned on a sample as potentially small as one person out of the nearly 70 million who live in the UK.
1Source AGBARR.co.uk 2Source: unilever.co.uk
Friday 12 July 2013
Do brands need to get into bed with promiscuous consumers?
The news this week that product promotions in supermarkets are failing to produce the increase in sales they once did could prompt not only a change in the way brands and retailers approach the issue of deals but also has potential implications for the relationship between brand and consumer.
A study by IRI detailed how the volume of goods sold on promotion fell last year. The report outlined how the total volume of food and non food products sold on promotion here fell 0.8% year on year to the end of March. The UK remains, however, the most heavily 'promoted' market in Europe with 55% of food and 59% of non food products sold on promotion. That is a huge proportion, especially if you look at the most promoted categories, according to IRI: beer & cider, where 68.7% of goods are sold on deal and confectionary, 66.5%.
There is a long term trend behind these figures of which brands would be wise to take note. Promotions are a perfectly legitimate and valuable sales device whilst they retain the power to surprise or even shock. But when they become the norm and consumers take them for granted, returning a product to a normal price structure and margin becomes tough. This is compounded by situations in which brands are required to bear the burden of expensive trade promotions.
There is a need for research to assist brands in gaining a greater understanding of what goes through the shopper’s mind when they encounter promotions in-store. How do they affect shopping plans and habits and but also perceptions of brands? If continual promotion has the effect of decreasing brand equity in the eyes of the consumer, eroding its ability to command full price over time, what conversations do brands need to have with consumers to counter these perceptions.
Most retailers have moved some way in this direction with the launch (and subsequent rebranding) of economy ranges. This may well represent the future as a recent Mintel study revealed a drastic turnaround in the fortunes of economy and premium ranges. Their report showed that, of the 12,500 products launched in 2012, 9% were economy and 7% premium. This compares with five years ago when it was 9% premium and only 2% economy. The Mintel study further showed that of those surveyed, 55% said they would only buy certain brands and products when on promotion.
There are two learnings here: first, the balance of power is shifting in favour of the consumer. The consumer is beginning to dictate - perhaps by economic necessity or perhaps by a new-found canniness borne out of necessity - the way products are produced and made available to them and at what price points. The success of discounters like Aldi and Lidl supports this theory. Second, with multiples taking control over economy ranges with own label products, brands need to use research more heavily than ever to become intimate with the consumer across all the various retail platforms, understand their changing demands and buying promiscuity and use those insights to inform their NPD and marketing strategies moving forward.
A study by IRI detailed how the volume of goods sold on promotion fell last year. The report outlined how the total volume of food and non food products sold on promotion here fell 0.8% year on year to the end of March. The UK remains, however, the most heavily 'promoted' market in Europe with 55% of food and 59% of non food products sold on promotion. That is a huge proportion, especially if you look at the most promoted categories, according to IRI: beer & cider, where 68.7% of goods are sold on deal and confectionary, 66.5%.
There is a long term trend behind these figures of which brands would be wise to take note. Promotions are a perfectly legitimate and valuable sales device whilst they retain the power to surprise or even shock. But when they become the norm and consumers take them for granted, returning a product to a normal price structure and margin becomes tough. This is compounded by situations in which brands are required to bear the burden of expensive trade promotions.
There is a need for research to assist brands in gaining a greater understanding of what goes through the shopper’s mind when they encounter promotions in-store. How do they affect shopping plans and habits and but also perceptions of brands? If continual promotion has the effect of decreasing brand equity in the eyes of the consumer, eroding its ability to command full price over time, what conversations do brands need to have with consumers to counter these perceptions.
Most retailers have moved some way in this direction with the launch (and subsequent rebranding) of economy ranges. This may well represent the future as a recent Mintel study revealed a drastic turnaround in the fortunes of economy and premium ranges. Their report showed that, of the 12,500 products launched in 2012, 9% were economy and 7% premium. This compares with five years ago when it was 9% premium and only 2% economy. The Mintel study further showed that of those surveyed, 55% said they would only buy certain brands and products when on promotion.
There are two learnings here: first, the balance of power is shifting in favour of the consumer. The consumer is beginning to dictate - perhaps by economic necessity or perhaps by a new-found canniness borne out of necessity - the way products are produced and made available to them and at what price points. The success of discounters like Aldi and Lidl supports this theory. Second, with multiples taking control over economy ranges with own label products, brands need to use research more heavily than ever to become intimate with the consumer across all the various retail platforms, understand their changing demands and buying promiscuity and use those insights to inform their NPD and marketing strategies moving forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)