Own brands v branded products - which one's the Finest?

Sainsbury’s has announced that is has embarked on “the single biggest own-label development” it has ever done as a business. Apparently 7,500 of Sainsbury’s standard own label products are being revamped over the next year to feature the new ‘By Sainsbury’s’ label.
The ‘own label’ sector has come of age. Long gone are the days when you simply bought a Sainsbury’s this or a Tesco’s that, most likely to save a few pence off the brand leader. Now, there are sectors within the own label sector itself. Tesco’s offers products across its Value and Finest ranges, Sainsbury’s pairs its Basics range with its Taste The Difference products, and even Waitrose got in on the act recently with the launch of its Essentials range.
The power of the own label became evident last Christmas when Waitrose enlisted the help of celebrity chef Heston Blumenthal to put his name to some of its own Christmas ranges. Thwarted shoppers turned to eBay, apparently bidding up to £250 for Blumenthal’s Waitrose Hidden Orange Christmas Pudding despite an rrp of only £13.99. Retailers have upped the stakes by revamping their own-label products and investing in strong-growth, high-margin premium products.
With retailers working hard than ever to give their own-label lines the cachet of branded products, own labels have become brand labels in their own right and in some categories have achieved brand leadership. But given that they not only offer extensive product ranges, they also own the major supermarkets, what are the longer-term impacts for established brands?
At a time when the price gap between branded and own-label products is lower than ever, you would expect branded products to be regaining ground. Yet, aside from ‘heritage products’ like Lea & Perrin’s Worcester Sauce, Heinz Tomato Ketchup and Coke and Pepsi, to what extent will branded products - established or new – be able to compete with own brand products in their own store environment over the next ten years?
Are we looking at a future where, with a few legacy brands aside, you will only be buying own label products from different own label premium or value ranges?

The reality is that established brands have been concerned with own label products for years and, although many manufacturers make those own label products, sometimes to a more successful recipe, the power of the retailer and its own label arsenal means that manufacturers are often searching for innovation that is harder for own label products to copy e.g. packaging innovation, or brand development via innovation or marketing.
But then, there is one retailer that is simply bucking the trend. For years, Marks and Spencer only sold own label products. Now it has started stocking certain brands like Marmite, proving that there can be a limit to own label domination if the positioning and the marketing of the branded product is so distinctive that there is no commercial advantage for an own label equivalent.
So, in that sense, this isn’t just any old blog. It’s an M&S blog.

Back To Basics - Social media offers nothing if you don't get the fundamentals right

Simon Carter, marketing director of Fujitsu’s government arm, was quoted in Marketing Week as saying that marketers are becoming lazy by over-using social media and ignoring the skills and disciplines traditionally learned by marketers.

And we think he may have got it right. The Internet explosion and the seemingly exponential growth in social media provides enormous opportunities for brands to connect and engage with consumers. But at the end of the day it is just another channel to market – a powerful one – but just another one. Getting the most effective use out of social media requires the fundamentals of marketing strategy to have been conducted first.

This means identifying achievable commercial objectives and appropriate demographic groups, arrived at through effective customer insights, which are then used to inform strategic marketing planning. Only once the strategic building blocks have been put in place can you look at the tactical roll out and which channels or communications tools are going to be used to bring your proposition to market. Leaping right in with your social media – or indeed your PR, your direct marketing or your advertising – is like building something on shifting sands. It’s not secure and you can never be absolutely sure it’ll be there in the morning.

Some brands are so eager to leap on to the social media bandwagon that not enough consideration is given either to the synergy with the brand or product or whether the form of social media being used builds a bridge with the consumer.

We think that it’s important that social media is used as a natural part of an integrated marketing programme. Marketing this week reports on how Comparethemarket.com has almost defined the way to use social media with its ‘Meerkat’ campaign. Although the social media campaign was successful, this was only because it formed part of a well thought-through and well conceived marketing campaign brought to life by iconic television advertising.

Craig Inglis, director of marketing at John Lewis, is quoted in the same article as saying: “You should not let the channel dictate the communication. Start with the big idea then the media channel comes second.” He’s spot on!

Carter believes that social media has made some marketers less concerned than they should be about accuracy and targeting. Some marketers, he says, no longer worry about even getting email addresses right. “If something goes wrong it’s like ‘so what, we’ll send another batch of 10,000”.

True marketing, though, is all about targeting and messaging – it’s not always a case of reaching the highest numbers full stop. If you get the fundamentals in place, you’ll reach the numbers you need and your message will be more relevant and accurate for doing so. And that’s the key route to achieving brand cut-through – social media or no social media.

I’m A Celebrity…Get Me A Product To Endorse

Have you ever bought chewing gum because Ben Fogle told you to? Maybe your decision to treat yourself to a coffee machine was influenced by George Clooney? Or perhaps Kerry Katona and Jason Donovan lured you away from your usual supermarket to join the other mums going to Iceland?

Celebrity endorsement is an ever-present part of brand marketing these days but though the face may fit the brand at the start of the relationship, there can be any number of reasons why a parting of the ways becomes inevitable.

Gatorade, AT&T and Accenture all ended their association with golfer Tiger Woods following his admission that he had been unfaithful to his wife. And now Coca-Cola has ended its relationship with Wayne Rooney. The footballer’s contract with Coca-Cola expired last year and is not being renewed. Although Coke are focusing their promotional efforts on the 2012 Olympic Games, Rooney’s alleged infidelity and latest dalliance with authority by swearing into a television camera after a recent Premier League game wouldn’t have done much for his stock.

In a sense there is an irony to this. His alpha-male, total committed approach and attitude – all of which are cited as what makes him the footballer he is – chimed with the target market for Coke Zero, where the male-focused campaign built around no compromise seemed a perfect fit. Now, though, Rooney it would seem has taken the ‘no compromise’ just a little too far.

With the level of investment – financial and otherwise – in securing the right face for your product, brands are increasingly using research to determine if the 'fit' is going to work. And this means understanding your brand 'shape' and the correct 'shape' of the celebrity to promote it. A star who may be perfect for hair and beauty products may not be the right person to offer relationship advice, for example.

Testing the market perception of celebrity options is crucial, not so much for asking why a celebrity may be suitable for the brand, but as importantly asking why not. Ask not only what the consumer’s perception of the celebrity is in the context of the product, but also what their general opinions of that person are. The rest, to an extent, is a game of chance and ensuring there is a swift get-out clause for the brand in the event of celebrity misdemeanour.

It’s impossible to accurately say whether there is any retrospective re-interpretation of a brand when its associated celebrity goes bad. However, effective research can help highlight the risk areas and then swift action in the event of a problem can help minimise any lasting collateral damage.

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.

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.

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.

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.