Ronald McDonald had a farm and he used it for brand advantage

At first glance, the decision by McDonald’s to open up some of the British and Irish farms that supply beef and eggs to its UK restaurants to selected consumers appears to be a clever, carefully crafted PR exercise to take advantage of the horsemeat debacle.

Except, of course, it’s not the first time McDonald’s has taken this step; it did so in 2010 as part of a PR campaign in the run up to the London Olympic Games. For this reason, it is too easy to merely dismiss the move as a PR stunt. As a brand McDonald’s has worked consistently to promote health and the provenance of its ingredients. If it is a PR stunt at least it appears to be one with substance; an effort by McDonald’s to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

But there are some interesting elements to the move. For a company that is renowned for exercising close control over the way its brand is managed and perceived, allowing consumers to roam around farms suggests an apparent surrender of control even though the initiative is almost certainly being managed in a very controlled manner. But perhaps the balance is that it may contribute significantly to McDonald’s ability to modify perceptions of what fast food is all about. In this sense, by focusing on provenance McDonald’s has put itself in a space you might more likely expect to be occupied by a Waitrose or a Morrison’s.

It is not unreasonable, though, to believe that McDonald’s would only have taken this step if it felt it was commercially the right thing to do. Could it be that the ethical thing has now also become the commercially best thing to do? If that’s the case, this could represent something of a sea change for brands. Will it make us feel better about McDonald’s if we are users, or reappraise McDonald’s if we are not? And how do you measure that?

Understanding the impact on the target audience from this kind of campaign is important. If you don’t get insights from it that can be fed back into the business, you have to question whether the bulk of the value is being missed. Experiential marketing like this can, and should, go hand in glove with experiential research. By using the farms, McDonald’s is giving its consumers an experience of its business they wouldn’t otherwise have gained. They will be immersed in the brand and encouraged to re-evaluate the way they think about it, offering unique and fertile ground for researchers to till. Indeed, conducted effectively, research at this stage will enhance consumer engagement still further and produce a better level of insight than would otherwise be obtained from more classic research techniques. This adds depth to an initiative that might otherwise be dismissed as a stunt. It creates a “co-creative” attitude amongst all stakeholders – tell consumers what the issues are so that they can help address them. By using the farms, they have an unusual venue that will help create more theatre and experience. They could optimise the events by enabling direct interaction between client teams and consumers, which is great for client teams because they get to ask questions immediately, observe people up close and personal and also answer questions to move the process along; great for consumers because they feel valued and included and their curiosity about who is behind their favourite products is satisfied.

The company's confidence in its proposition is such that McDonald’s is going even further and giving its consumers a broader experience to secure more detailed insights. Why stop at the farm? It's quality scouts initiative is now leading it from field to box with a group of consumers observing the chain from the farm through production all the way to the restaurant

Engage with consumers, don’t market to them

There’s a Holy Grail for brands and retailers: to embed themselves so much with the families that make up their core demographic that their place in the family shopping basket is secure. Some try this through sporadic, tactical promotions which tap into interests and trends – collect tokens for a free tennis lesson, for example – whilst others try to create initiatives that lead to deeper, longer term engagement.

So it seems with Waitrose, which has unveiled a national ‘Grow and Sell’ initiative aimed at encouraging 7 to 11 year olds across the UK to grow their own produce and sell it to Waitrose customers, and Heinz with a Grow Your Own campaign to encourages families across the UK to grow their own tomatoes. Heinz is giving away free seeds via Facebook.

There are sound commercial as well as social reasons for these initiatives. The growth of online shopping and Click & Collect will lead to fewer people coming in store. With less pester power going on in the aisles, brands need to find new ways of engaging with parents and their children, whilst over the longer term consumers are going to be expecting brands and retailers to be engaging with them more at this deeper, more genuine level. Note the difference between “engaging” with them and “marketing” to them.

Both Waitrose and Heinz seem to have found something with authentic consumer appeal. The initiatives not only tap into families but, by virtue of their educational content, to teachers and businesses as well. They warm up the parents, remain close to each company’s particular brand values, fit with current trends and interests whilst being undeniably child friendly and educational.

Unlike the more sporadic promotions, where there seems to have been little contextual research undertaken into what parents really value and what would have a legacy beyond the immediate life of the promotion, here research appears to have helped create something distinctive but which has genuine appeal. Using a more experiential approach to qualitative research, promotions teams can create that engagement with mums as part of the ideation process for these initiatives. Quantitative research can also be designed to better engage with respondents – getting them involved with the issues, enabling and empowering them to feed back.

There’s a lesson here for all of us. Creating authentic engagement requires brands to work harder, think longer and research their promotions better. It needs them to research again once the initiative has happened to undertake a proper evaluation and explore how it can be developed further. Above all, it’s about showing not telling and demonstrating a willingness to have an authentic two-way relationship.

Putting everything into promotions risks unbalancing the marketing mix

New research from the British Promotional Merchandise Association says that half of the British public have taken action after receiving a promotional product, compared with only 19% after seeing TV advertising, 11% for online advertisement, 10% for print and 9% for direct mail. Promotional products are also considered the least annoying by consumers.

But what does this actually tell us and are there lessons that brands can draw as a result? First, the top line shouldn’t really come as a surprise to most of us. It merely underlines the fact that people love free stuff and that in a world of virtual complexity and interactive communication, the brute simplicity of a classic marketing approach can still cut through.

The other caveat we would add is that consumers, generally, ALWAYS ask for free samples. It shouldn’t be a surprise they claim this to be the most effective form of promotion, because it is tangible and they are aware of the link between getting a sample and then making a decision to purchase. You don't necessarily rush off to the shops the moment you see an ad on TV but it will subconsciously warm you up to that brand next time you're in the supermarket. And a promotion might lead to a very short term response whereas advertising is more likely to build brand perceptions over the long term.

Given we know that other forms of marketing work, often at a more subconscious level, we would caution that research used to identify (a) what sorts of promotional strategies brands should adopt and (b) what has been effective, need to take account of the unconscious effects of different comms strategies. This will range from observational qualitative approaches which explore the effect that a range of communications, media etc, have on people's behaviour, perhaps over time, to quantitative work which uses behavioural economics frameworks to cut through what people claim, to identify what they are likely to actually do.

We should also be careful in research not to equate likeability with effectiveness - e.g. before the now familiar approach to Cillit Bang advertising became all post-modern and iconic, consumers just found it plain annoying - but it worked!

Promotions are also rarely used in isolation and are usually part of a wider marketing mix. If I've seen an ad for Cereal X and I get given a sample at the same time - it's more likely a combination of the two that leads me down the brand bonding route. This makes it problematic to genuinely measure the effectiveness of a promotion quantitatively or try and disentangle it from a wider campaign mainly because few people ever claim to have seen/experienced the promotion and if they had it was mixed up with a multitude of other brand touchpoints.

Brands, for example, which use digital and social platforms most effectively, are those who do so to engage with their target market and reward users for their time. Promotions may deliver short term spikes, but persistence is the key to sustainable relationship-based marketing. This means combining engagement with measuring RoI as far as possible and then repeating if successful.

That's not to say promotions aren't effective. As well as getting a product into people's hands they can also work to build good feeling towards a brand - consumers are getting something for free. And that is probably the real message here - marketing these days is much more of a dialogue with consumers - consumers don’t want to just be told to buy something, more and more they expect something in return.

Don’t mourn for lost brands – understand why they’re dying in the first place

It’s not been a spectacularly good year for some of our leading High Street brands. Well known names like Dreams, the bed retailer; Axminster Carpets, and fashion chain Republic have all followed other leading names like HMV, Jessops and Blockbuster in calling in administrators.

However, for some of these brands, there may be a new lease of life. Republic has been snapped up by Sports Direct whilst news broke last week that ASDA was in negotiation to buy HMV with a view to reviving the brand. Tesco’s decision to buy the Giraffe restaurant chain is clearly a statement of intent to not only ramp up destination shopping and appeal to families, but also to balance the expected growth in click and collect and online shopping with a channel to drive consumers in-store.

Some leading names, of course, have already hedged by upping their online game enabling them to successfully integrate both their bricks and their clicks. This recognises the balance to be struck between consumers buying online, dependent on the product, but only when they have seen the product in store.

When questioned, many consumers will express sadness at the loss of some of their High Street staples – there’s still a Facebook group called “I Miss Woolworth’s” with 4000 members – but often many won’t be surprised either. But if these brands inspired such warmth and loyalty, why did they end up in so much trouble…and are there steps that others can take now to militate against nasty surprises further down the line?

The first point to make, of course, is that customer loyalty alone is never enough. Businesses fail because of a myriad of other factors, from management structure, to size of property portfolios, to product mix to pricing strategy. But there is a clear indication of cognitive dissonance when it comes to customer perception of brands like this.

Some years ago we were involved in exploring the effect of recession on the high street. What was apparent was that whilst people had genuine affection and nostalgia for brands like Woolworths, few people could remember either the last time that had visited the store or when it had been their first choice, rather than fall-back destination, for whatever it was they were looking to buy.

There’s a similar feel this time around, with many HMV and Blockbuster customers, for example, acknowledging they had visited the stores to browse new releases which they then either bought more cheaply online or simply downloaded. So why wait for the post-mortem? Why aren’t brands, who feel that the path they are treading is not completely risk or problem-free, using such research now to help navigate their way through? Identifying customer loyalty and satisfaction is one thing, but using research to pinpoint why people are coming in store, what they are (or are not buying) when they are there will deliver a gap analysis between attendance at the brand and actual purchasing behaviour. Insights gained from such work can inform all aspects of the company’s strategy and allow changes, some radical, to be made before it’s too late.

Who knows it may just save a few “much loved” brands and hundreds of jobs and even contribute to renewed vibrancy on our High Streets. Surely that has to be something to work towards?

Getting up close & personal to the consumer

So, picture the scene. I was sitting back at my desk, mug of coffee on my right, cheeky hobnob on my left and I began to read some new research from The Village Bakery that claimed that eating unhealthy snacks at your desk could cause you to put on almost half a stone a year. Apparently, the average woman puts on 6lb 3oz – the equivalent of a whole dress size – while men see their weight increase by 5lb 2oz. Needless to say, I put the hobnob back in the pack.
Biscuits, apparently, are our most common vice, closely followed by chocolate, crisps and cakes. A third of us tuck in as a way of coping with stress and nearly a quarter look for a sugar rush to get us through the afternoon.
Now this contrasts (or perhaps partly explains) the explosion in the specialist diet product market in the UK. More of us than ever, it seems, are turning to specialist slimming foods to lose weight as sales of diet shake mixes, food bars and meal replacements have risen by up to a third in the past two years. Brands such as Weight Watchers, Complan and Slim Fast have gone from being niche to mainstream in relatively rapid time. Indeed, it has been reported that Slim Fast products have seen sales increase by 32 per cent across the leading supermarkets over the last two years with sales of these products likely to continue to grow as adults see them as an easier option to help them lose weight.
The possibility here, therefore, is that niche becomes the mainstream and begins to seriously impact on the brands which presently mostly make up our weekly shopping basket. However, from developments over the last couple of years, it seems apparent that brands are recognising not only our need to eat more healthily but also that there are potentially rich commercial pickings available for them by doing so. You need only look at products like McVities Digestives Light biscuits (30% reduced fat), Baxters' Healthy range of tinned soups and reduced sugar/reduced salt baked beans to see the direction the market is taking. Couple this with the drive by the multiples to offer healthier own brand products as well as vast amounts of online information and recipes on healthy cooking and eating and it’s clear to see where the battleground for the consumer is moving.
Fundamental to this, however, is an understanding of what is going through the consumer’s mind, motivating them in how they eat and drink and, it would seem, how they assuage any feelings of guilt from having indulged a little more than they strictly would have wanted to.
Research here is fundamental. Detailed work with a panel of consumers can really help brands drill down and fully understand what motivates, what concerns and ultimately what influences their purchasing decisions, in this case, as it pertains to healthy eating. We ask consumers to keep a weekly diary before we meet them to illustrate their thoughts and feelings towards food and drink; we look at their shopping receipts to see what they actually buy, when and where and why; we look at their purchases in the context of their lifestyle and their priorities, and we even look through their cupboards to explore their relationship with their chosen brands. The level of insight that this kind of ethnographic research can deliver to a brand can be critical in creating understanding of consumer motivations and can make a profound contribution to both product development and marketing strategies.
And, in case you were wondering, I put the hobnob back and had an apple.
www.engage-research.com

Chasing the niche consumer

Something’s afoot on our supermarket shelves. Gone are the days when beans would be beans, or cheddar merely cheddar. This, as we know, is the era of product diversity. But not just choice in format (sliced, block or grated cheese) or skimmed, semi-skimmed or whole milk (we now have soya and lactose-free as well); this is the era when brands see real economic potential in tapping into our special dietary needs or in tweaking a product formation to attract a new demographic to the category or the brand. More and more brands are doing it because it makes commercial sense for them to do so. The latest major brand to make the move is Heinz, which is targeting a UK gluten-free market estimated to be worth over £100 million per annum and rising, with new gluten free dried pasta and gluten free sauce ranges. The fact that there are known to be approximately 125,000 people with coeliac disease in the UK, a figure rising on average by around 7000 people each year shows that this new departure makes sound economic sense. In the US, the market for gluten-free products is huge and was estimated to have reached a value of $4.2 billion by the end of 2012 so for products that can play beyond national boundaries the return could be significant. However, as niche as the products may be, the shoppers are no less savvy or demanding purely because they are buying a gluten-free product. They will expect the same quality in taste, value and brand experience from a Heinz gluten-free product than they will from any other product that carries the Heinz name. And for Heinz, read any other brand looking to extend their ranges into new areas. This increases the importance of effective concept testing at pre-launch stage. It not only means finding people specifically appropriate to the proposition, but also presenting them with a concept that meets the particular needs of their condition. Beyond that, of course, it has to be more than just relevant to coeliacs, it has to taste good and not give them the impression that they are having to compromise in order to eat healthily for their condition. And then you need them to be interested enough in buying the product at the price point that you have set. The same rules apply, of course, whether the new demographic is being targeted on health or any other grounds. Douwe Egberts is launching its first flavoured instant coffee in the UK as a way, it is being reported, of driving sales among younger and non-coffee drinkers. They’re also hoping that the new range will encourage existing coffee drinkers to experiment a little more with their tastes. Concept testing will take into account the issues and requirements of the target demographic, prioritising on features within the product that meet those needs. It can help the brand identify potential conflicts product features and proposed price points, in so doing exploring other potential barriers to purchase. And, of course, it will expose what may be blatantly bad ideas. It isn’t foolproof, of course. There are always factors that will be beyond the control of the researcher. Research will not militate against a rival brand bringing out a product of their own that changes the consumer landscape and influences purchase criteria; a disruptive marketing campaign that affects the dynamics of the market or economic changes that influence price viability. But one thing’s for sure, not effectively testing your concept at all is almost a guarantee of failure in the market. Ends.

Brand loyalty - it’s more than just horses for courses

Independent butchers and farm shops have reported a 75% increase in sales in the month following the start of the horsemeat scandal which indicates that, wherever culpability may lie, some brands and retailers are losing the trust of the consumer. At present, that’s likely to be a temporary phenomenon with consumers expected to return to the leading brands for their meat and their ready meals once faith has been restored in the processed meat supply chain. But imagine for a moment that it isn’t temporary and imagine again if that decision to switch suppliers or brands extended beyond processed meat products into other areas. Would this breach of brand loyalty matter? And, if so, why? The brand consumer relationship is like any other. It exists on mutual shared interest and trust. In the same way that it is difficult to pin-point exactly what the attraction is between partners, so the brand consumer relationship is about the totality of the shared experience between the two. It is about the quality of the product, for sure, but it is also about more ephemeral factors, including how the brand makes you feel, what you think it says about you and about the reliability of that brand as a partner. Once you begin to question the reliability or the quality of the brand or its products, relationship breakdown is a real possibility and counselling may be in order to put the relationship back on track. In this instance, researchers can act as the counsellors. We are well equipped through a variety of techniques – from experiential-style focus groups, through structured online surveys carefully designed to elicit both a high quantity and quality of response, and even observational research and in-home interviewing - to help establish not only what the consumer feels about the brand or the product, but also what it expects from the brand or the product in order to consider re-engaging in the relationship. Situations like ‘horsegate’ not only anger, worry and even frighten consumers, they also empower them. Ultimately, these empowered consumers will be the ones to decide when brands have regained their trust. In such situations they often look for and act on the advice of others: family, friends and sometimes strangers; the media will bombard them with information and opinions that will also influence their views. Brands need to consider how consumers engage in social communities, online and offline, to share ideas and views. If brands can listen, learn, adapt and prove they have done so within these changing rules, then they may be able to win the consumer back. And the fact that the brand has taken the first step in seeking that reconciliation with the consumer could be the first step towards a bright new future together.