If you tuned in to ITV2 this week for Gordon Ramsay’s new series of Hells Kitchen USA you will have noticed that the The English Provender Company has done the deal to sponsor the series with its Very Lazy ingredients brand.
Their marketing manager, Karen Fowler, is quoted as saying that the sponsorship is being used to promote the speed and ease of using the products, thereby tapping into the growing prevalence of time poor, convenience-driven consumers.
In this context, the sponsorship makes perfect sense. After all, identifying and then aligning yourself with emerging consumer trends is fundamental to long term brand success. Increasingly our eating patterns are being forced to fit around our busy lifestyles. Research has shown that because we are hectic and time poor more and more of us are actively looking to reduce the time we spend preparing meals. But balance this with the economic downturn and more consumers are also cooking at home in order to conserve cash. This is one reason why many of us are opting to buy in fully or part-prepared meals, but also one reason why we are looking for products that enable us to prepare healthy food, more quickly at home.
The popularity of new television concepts like “Come Dine With Me” and “Dinner Date” are testament to our growing interest in eating at home, and are perfect partners for convenience ingredients products.
What is clear, as well, is that although consumers are cutting back on the amount they spend eating out, the convenience of good value restaurants remain a substantial pull. Restaurants are already targeting the time poor, cash strapped consumer. Two for one offers on main meals and sharing platters in some restaurants are beginning to re-define the eating out experience for some, whilst ‘formalising’ a new lower cost route to eating out. Similarly, take-out food, whilst under pressure because of the economy, is also seen by many as a way to continue enjoying the eating-out experience without the costs attached to restaurant dining.
These trends are increasingly reflected in the briefs that clients are bringing to us. There is an increase in the mood for price vs value–based promotions and a growth in the number of innovations that are being considered in the area of convenient but still “good” food. It’s a trend that is unlikely to fall away any time soon.
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
The Apprentices Make Schoolboy Errors
Were you glued to the television? Were you one of the record 10.7 million people who apparently tuned in to watch Tom Pellereau win the seventh series of BBC1’s The Apprentice, thereby securing himself Lord Sugar as an investor and business partner in a new business which, by the end, I think was about producing orthopaedic chairs?
I say I think, because to be honest, by the end, it wasn’t entirely clear what any of the business plans were given that most had been systematically deconstructed and thrown on the scrapheap by Lord Sugar’s henchmen.
The Apprentice makes great television. Not so much some of Britain’s brightest business brains, but certainly some of Britain’s biggest egos competing for a prize which is, frankly, all about television entertainment and not so much about business. The saddest thing of all is that for many this is their only interaction with entrepreneurial Britain and how sad it was that all of the ideas this year seemed to lack any semblance of innovation.
And part of the reason for the deconstruction of the business plans was because each of the finalists appear to have done little, if any, market research. Jim’s plan for an e-learning business hadn’t involved any market testing among head teachers; Susan’s extravagant forecasts for her cosmetics business were based on what she had achieved from one market stall; Helen ‘s idea for a concierge business hadn’t taken into account what requirements her potential clients would have and whether she had the contacts to deliver on those requirements, and even Tom’s initial idea to go into companies to assess potential for back pain hadn’t been run past any real companies.
Aside from the sadness that here was a group of people, smart people, who had managed to only come up with a collection of dull, unoriginal business concepts, it was more frustrating to see that they had failed to even undertake the most basic form of market research. Yes, we need programmes like The Apprentice to promote entrepreneurialism, but we also need it to enthuse and inform current and future business people. And that requires the show to also pass on some fundamental business tenets – one of which is the absolute need to research your market thoroughly before launching a business, service or product, and that requires you to gain the insights of your potential customers as to whether there is even a desire or a need for what you are proposing to sell.
Failure to do so means you are likely to always remain little more than an Apprentice!
I say I think, because to be honest, by the end, it wasn’t entirely clear what any of the business plans were given that most had been systematically deconstructed and thrown on the scrapheap by Lord Sugar’s henchmen.
The Apprentice makes great television. Not so much some of Britain’s brightest business brains, but certainly some of Britain’s biggest egos competing for a prize which is, frankly, all about television entertainment and not so much about business. The saddest thing of all is that for many this is their only interaction with entrepreneurial Britain and how sad it was that all of the ideas this year seemed to lack any semblance of innovation.
And part of the reason for the deconstruction of the business plans was because each of the finalists appear to have done little, if any, market research. Jim’s plan for an e-learning business hadn’t involved any market testing among head teachers; Susan’s extravagant forecasts for her cosmetics business were based on what she had achieved from one market stall; Helen ‘s idea for a concierge business hadn’t taken into account what requirements her potential clients would have and whether she had the contacts to deliver on those requirements, and even Tom’s initial idea to go into companies to assess potential for back pain hadn’t been run past any real companies.
Aside from the sadness that here was a group of people, smart people, who had managed to only come up with a collection of dull, unoriginal business concepts, it was more frustrating to see that they had failed to even undertake the most basic form of market research. Yes, we need programmes like The Apprentice to promote entrepreneurialism, but we also need it to enthuse and inform current and future business people. And that requires the show to also pass on some fundamental business tenets – one of which is the absolute need to research your market thoroughly before launching a business, service or product, and that requires you to gain the insights of your potential customers as to whether there is even a desire or a need for what you are proposing to sell.
Failure to do so means you are likely to always remain little more than an Apprentice!
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Nifty at 50 may be new brand mantra
They used to say that life begins at 40, but now it would seem, being 50 is particularly cool. Madonna, George Clooney, Michelle Pfeiffer and Denzel Washington have all chalked up their half centuries, and now it seems, the 50 plus age group is the one in most demand for marketers.
Behind the headline figures that a record 28.6 million people in the UK visited Facebook in May and that both Twitter and LinkedIn are also recording unprecedented visitor numbers, is the revelation in a piece of UKOM/Neilsen research that older age groups are more likely to visit Twitter than younger age groups.
Moreover, it seems, Facebook’s growth in the UK is being driven by the over-50s. Since 2009, the number of 50 to 64 year-olds visiting the site has grown by 84%. As a result, the membership of Facebook is now more representative of the overall UK population than it previously has been, whilst under-18s are less likely to visit Twitter than they were two years ago.
So are the over 50s becoming the marketer’s new nirvana? Well, official statistics would suggest that, in an economic downturn, they are a demographic worthy of consideration. The over 50s not only hold 80% of the country’s wealth, but also have a 30% higher disposable income than those under 50. The over 50s also make up over one third of the population and the 55 to 64s have the highest disposable income of any age group.
From a customer insight viewpoint, this has us questioning some of the standard client sample requests for 18-49s or 18-64s, but it also underlines what we have been saying for a long time about the validity of online research for a wide range of demographics. If the social media stats are true and the over 50s are making Facebook and Twitter their natural home, then targeting them online is a great way for brands to tap into their accumulated years of experience.
And there may be a plausible reason why brands will be targeting this demographic through social media. Whilst many brands are keen to target their share of this grey pound, they are wary of being seen to overtly target older consumers by younger people. Brands are trying to ride two horses at once and social media provides a more discreet way of targeting the older consumer, now that they are making the medium their natural home.
But I’m not sure it’s a straightforward as this. The master of marketing to the over 50s is, of course, Saga, which has been selling cruises, insurance and other products for decades. I can think of any number of brands that would love to get their hands on Saga’s database and the information that it contains, but marketing to the over 50s is about tapping into a mindset not just an age.
In addition to minding the sensitivities of the younger consumer, brands also need to be aware that some people just don’t want to be reminded that they are getting older in what is increasingly a youth-obsessed world. Only in recent years have brands like Dove broken the mould and used older people in their advertising.
The key, I think, is not to focus on age but to focus on older people’s desire to stay younger older. If brands can tap into that, then they may well be able to profit from a new kind of grey market.
Behind the headline figures that a record 28.6 million people in the UK visited Facebook in May and that both Twitter and LinkedIn are also recording unprecedented visitor numbers, is the revelation in a piece of UKOM/Neilsen research that older age groups are more likely to visit Twitter than younger age groups.
Moreover, it seems, Facebook’s growth in the UK is being driven by the over-50s. Since 2009, the number of 50 to 64 year-olds visiting the site has grown by 84%. As a result, the membership of Facebook is now more representative of the overall UK population than it previously has been, whilst under-18s are less likely to visit Twitter than they were two years ago.
So are the over 50s becoming the marketer’s new nirvana? Well, official statistics would suggest that, in an economic downturn, they are a demographic worthy of consideration. The over 50s not only hold 80% of the country’s wealth, but also have a 30% higher disposable income than those under 50. The over 50s also make up over one third of the population and the 55 to 64s have the highest disposable income of any age group.
From a customer insight viewpoint, this has us questioning some of the standard client sample requests for 18-49s or 18-64s, but it also underlines what we have been saying for a long time about the validity of online research for a wide range of demographics. If the social media stats are true and the over 50s are making Facebook and Twitter their natural home, then targeting them online is a great way for brands to tap into their accumulated years of experience.
And there may be a plausible reason why brands will be targeting this demographic through social media. Whilst many brands are keen to target their share of this grey pound, they are wary of being seen to overtly target older consumers by younger people. Brands are trying to ride two horses at once and social media provides a more discreet way of targeting the older consumer, now that they are making the medium their natural home.
But I’m not sure it’s a straightforward as this. The master of marketing to the over 50s is, of course, Saga, which has been selling cruises, insurance and other products for decades. I can think of any number of brands that would love to get their hands on Saga’s database and the information that it contains, but marketing to the over 50s is about tapping into a mindset not just an age.
In addition to minding the sensitivities of the younger consumer, brands also need to be aware that some people just don’t want to be reminded that they are getting older in what is increasingly a youth-obsessed world. Only in recent years have brands like Dove broken the mould and used older people in their advertising.
The key, I think, is not to focus on age but to focus on older people’s desire to stay younger older. If brands can tap into that, then they may well be able to profit from a new kind of grey market.
Monday, 4 July 2011
Howdy partner – can brands really work well together?
Although brand partnerships have been around for years – some successful, some less so – I was intrigued by the news that Heineken and the relatively new national newspaper i are launching a joint hybrid app that will gives readers the chance to read the paper's content in selected pubs and bars.
The initiative forms part of Heineken's Hub initiative, which kicked off in April and involves providing superfast broadband in selected premium bars and pubs across London and Cardiff. The brands will also offer monthly competitions with prizes such as new gadgets and technology.
Brand partnerships in FMCG can work nicely if you are a brand that goes together, although often this is retailer-driven, unless you are Unilever or P&G and you can cross sell your brands by giving freebies or vouchers of one onto another. In the media sector, publishers often bundle magazines to encourage trial but ultimately the partnership has to offer a degree of synergy and consumer benefit.
What’s interesting is that this particular example seems to buck the trend of many brand partnerships, which often adopt the safest route by pairing two brands which have an obvious synergy: luxury and luxury, indulgent and indulgent, active and active. The tie up between Apple ipod and Nike works because there is a direct and beneficial link between the brands through the offer, whilst the link between McDonalds’ McFlurry with, say, Smarties is based on them both being – allegedly - yummy products.
But perhaps more impact can be achieved if you have a surprising juxtaposition but one that works. So i and Heineken – apart from Heineken getting into media relationships that other beers can’t reach - may both benefit from the initially surprising fit. Heineken appears a little more intellectual, but not too heavy – the Volvo/Audi of beers - whilst “i” cements its “more rock n roll than its parent” image.
But who knows where this might lead? After Marks & Spencer threatened Ann Summers with legal action for adapting its “Your M&S” logo and slogan for a promotional deal on lingerie and other goods, I suspect we’re still a way off of M&S joining forces with Ann Summers to launch an S&M range. Or are we?
The initiative forms part of Heineken's Hub initiative, which kicked off in April and involves providing superfast broadband in selected premium bars and pubs across London and Cardiff. The brands will also offer monthly competitions with prizes such as new gadgets and technology.
Brand partnerships in FMCG can work nicely if you are a brand that goes together, although often this is retailer-driven, unless you are Unilever or P&G and you can cross sell your brands by giving freebies or vouchers of one onto another. In the media sector, publishers often bundle magazines to encourage trial but ultimately the partnership has to offer a degree of synergy and consumer benefit.
What’s interesting is that this particular example seems to buck the trend of many brand partnerships, which often adopt the safest route by pairing two brands which have an obvious synergy: luxury and luxury, indulgent and indulgent, active and active. The tie up between Apple ipod and Nike works because there is a direct and beneficial link between the brands through the offer, whilst the link between McDonalds’ McFlurry with, say, Smarties is based on them both being – allegedly - yummy products.
But perhaps more impact can be achieved if you have a surprising juxtaposition but one that works. So i and Heineken – apart from Heineken getting into media relationships that other beers can’t reach - may both benefit from the initially surprising fit. Heineken appears a little more intellectual, but not too heavy – the Volvo/Audi of beers - whilst “i” cements its “more rock n roll than its parent” image.
But who knows where this might lead? After Marks & Spencer threatened Ann Summers with legal action for adapting its “Your M&S” logo and slogan for a promotional deal on lingerie and other goods, I suspect we’re still a way off of M&S joining forces with Ann Summers to launch an S&M range. Or are we?
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?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)