Maybe we will have more fun as we get older….

There’s no denying it, we’re getting older as a society. Only last week figures released by The Office for National Statistics showed that the number of people in the UK working beyond the state pension age has almost doubled since 1993, to stand at 1.41 million in 2011. Of course, this growing and ageing population not only puts pressure on more people to work longer, it will put pressure on brands to give greater consideration to how they address and exploit this fast growing demographic. After all, not only are older people likely to be the ones with most readily disposable income, they can be key influencers on both the choices made by their parents and their children. Key to brands could be our changing aspirations and expectations as we get older, as well as our income. Those of us who will work some way into our previously planned retirement because our pensions or our savings had turned out to be inadequate may become miserable and reactive against spending money for fear of running out. This group could end up being of little value to anyone outside of the alcoholic drinks sector. But there will also be those – and hopefully more of them - who do have enough money for themselves, but who will either have to or choose to stay at work because of their children. We know that children are living at home for longer and more children are staying in education, so a lot of parents are having to support them long after they should have flown the nest. It is interesting to note, though, that whilst the concept of an extended family all in one home is seen as a negative here, in some cultures, like Italy, for example it is more of a norm. Arguably this leads to less stigmatisation of those in old age. These developments have placed an added burden on people as they reach their 50s and beyond whilst some may also be having to support even older parents of their own. What makes this group interesting to brands is the enormous breadth of categories they either spend on or act as gatekeepers for. The economic situation is behind much of these newer developments. The Daily Mail recently reported on the rise of "helicopter parents", who having paid of the education of their children and now making a greater financial contribution to their further education, feel they have a right as well as a responsibility to "hover" in their kids' lives and be part of their decision making processes. Many of these “pensioners” will still be “young”, or at least younger than they used to be in terms of health and outlook. Their need to continue in work may well turn out to be a good thing as it minimises the risk of becoming lost in retirement, which in turn will maintain their desire and ability to exercise their purchasing power. This could be good news for travel, lifestyle, automotive and food and drinks brands for a start. The key, though, may be for brands to recognise these developments more overtly than they have to date and be less focused on the young, beautiful demographic. The figures suggest it could be time for brands to focus their messaging more clearly on the over 50s and not restrict it so obviously to age-related products, like healthcare, insurance or dareisay it, even funeral plans. Where’s the fun in that?

Cracking the codes of value

Value is centre stage again and Tesco’s recent replacement of its iconic blue and white striped range as a more comfortingly retro-packaged Everyday Value range has changed the rules. But how? We decided to dig deeper, by applying a semiotic eye to the way that the major supermarkets package their “value” ranges. The first thing that even a cursory semiotic skim tells us is all these ranges are missing the customary “brand adornment” (photography, benefits, serving suggestions, extensive colour palettes...); we see a plethora of products with white backgrounds, simple retail master brand colourways, “handwritten” script fonts, line drawings of products. So one of the key rules of value range packaging – it is all about absence. The “conventional” meaning of this is that no money has been spent on anything other than hygienic containment of the product and basic information – stripped down to give you, the customer, best value. But Tesco’s decision to break the rules and opt for a “de-stigmatised” design quietly breaks this rule. It reminds us that being able to afford the unnecessary adornment of branded packaging is central to the pleasure of consumption, of buying what I “want” rather than what I “need”. So, in contrast to Sainsbury and Asda who remain loyal to the puritanically stripped down approach, Tesco has decided that its value shoppers can have their Everyday Value cake and eat it, without being seen as “too poor to choose”. But (like the playfully redesigned M-Savers from Morrisons) it remains, recognisably, a value range. The Tesco range also breaks the “standardisation” rule. Products in the Everyday Value range do not carry exactly the same livery – yes, they are recognisably of the same stable but use different colours, have different product shapes. This provides just enough of a sense of visual variety for the products to provide some of that “unnecessary” adornment needed for proper consumption. What’s more the visual style and the product shapes have a loosely retro style and so connote a bang-on-trend simpler time of housewifely thrift. At the other end of the value market Waitrose essentials range conforms to many classic value codes. However its minimalist white “essentials” pack is dressed in picture-book-retro product drawings which connote an idea of lashings of ginger beer & a simple & more reassuring time. M&S reinterprets the value range rules in another way, principally through the motif of the “torn from a note pad and handwritten” label. Again the overt absence of “design” here says what all other value ranges say, (no wasted money), but behind the casual “notepad” motif, it is hard not to paint a picture of the surrounding domestic scene (a well stocked and well appointed middle-class kitchen or shopping basket carried from store to store collecting provisions). So below the surface these ranges play with cultural narratives of need vs want, conspicuous consumption & cultural capital, puritanical rejection of adornment, the aesthetics of the Protestant work ethic and ideas of thrift & nostalgia...there is so much more going on here than value ! Tesco & Morrisons have shifted subtly away from the classic codes of value of Sainsbury and Asda. Time will tell which is the best approach, but Tesco’s move has implications for brands not just their retail competitors. The introduction of more visually (and thus socially) acceptable value ranges can only mean more private label competition for them. In belt-tightened-Britain brands should at least be aware that even retailer value ranges are now offering some aspects of the “consumption experience” that brands offer to their consumers, but at half the price. And that should be cause for concern.

It’s NPD but not as we know it…

Research has revealed that launches of own-label products overtook those of branded goods for the first time last year. The economic imperative, renewed promotion behind own brand value and prestige ranges coupled with a consumer shift away from the perception that own brand products are inferior to their branded counterparts are among the reasons why. But what are the implications of this for brands and how can they compete against own brand products? What makes us favour a branded product versus an own brand product and are we moving to a stage of own-brand only categories or even supermarkets? The first point to make, of course, is that own label npd is not always new product development in the sense that brand owners might mean - own label innovation is often (and unashamedly) as much about copying than creating new products. Although this is not completely true as in some categories, e.g. fresh food, own label drives some innovation; but generally speaking much supermarket own label is a copy of a branded product. In fact we’re even moving into an area of 'phantom brands', own label products that don’t carry the retailer’s name. Retailers might counter that they invest a lot in creating their (cheaper) copies of branded products and the consumer benefits from this. And they would also say that their innovation is not just skin deep. When ASDA relaunched its standard own label range as "Chosen by You" they made a play on the fact that each product had been tested and rated highly by its consumer panel, thus implying an active product development process. And Tesco recently claimed that the launch of its new Everyday Essentials range was much more than a rebranding exercise – their fish fingers are fishier! So brands need to make sure they remain relevant to their buyers and offer something that justifies the price premium. Many brands remain successful in convincing consumers they are better than own-label, so it can still be done. For whatever reason, the ketchup, salad cream and baked bean markets continue to be dominated by Heinz, whilst for many consumers Coca-Cola is and will remain the real thing. In addition, some brands are perceived as offering better value despite a higher price point. Many consumers are willing to pay a premium for Fairy Liquid in the expectation that they will get more washes from each bottle. But other factors are also at play. Cash strapped mums might buy branded products for other members of the family, including their pets, but will buy own-brand products for themselves; whilst some consumers are influenced by ethical sourcing or charity links to particular brands. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that on laundry products consumers retain their belief in performance and claims about the ability of a product to clean whiter than its own brand competitors. So yes, we are happy to buy more and more own brands but we still somehow see them as second best. If, as had been suggested, consumers now have greater faith in own label products as a result of a significant improvement in quality, that’s surely not a bad thing? But it does throw down the gauntlet to brands to find new points of differentiation and new ways of making themselves an indispensible part of our shop, now that our loyalty to branded products seems to be growing looser all the time.

If the going gets tough, how will the brands get going?

Votes against austerity packages in France and Greece last week renewed speculation that the euro may soon collapse. Moreover, the bookies tend to agree. Ladbrokes suspended accepting any bets last week on Greece leaving the euro and have reported "plenty of support" at 33/1 on the euro being scrapped this year. But what might this mean for brands in Britain and their consumers? At the start of the recession, the strength of the euro against the pound made the UK a very attractive destination for European shoppers. A reversal this year with a strong pound and a weak euro would mean that British exporters would be less competitive in Europe, which in turn wouldn’t bode well for the growth outlook of the UK economy. This could mean a deepening recession and with UK banks having a high level of exposure to Europe, the consequences of another banking crisis could be dire indeed. If that nightmare scenario were to come to fruition, how might brands adjust their activities to deal with it? The true answer, of course, is this is uncharted territory so nobody truly knows. However, many should already be considering how they might react. Everything would depend, of course, on the depth and severity of any new downturn. However, we can expect there to be an accentuation of the squeezed middle. Household incomes will come under even more severe pressure, only this time, there will be no slack in salaries to provide any fat on the family bones. Housing repossessions have steadied out and are now significantly lower than in 2007 and politically pressure will be applied to keep as many people in their homes as is possible. But, 13 million people already live below the poverty line in the UK and, according to charity The Trussell Trust, food banks fed 128,687 people in the UK last year, 100% more than the previous year. If the cost of food and fuel stays high whilst incomes remain static or fall and unemployment increases, they could be in even more demand. This is both a challenge and an opportunity for brands. Politically, if we reach a stage where significantly more people are struggling to feed themselves, there could be downward pressure applied to brands and retailers, which have made major profits in the good times, to revise down their ambitions in order to help the population through. This would be in direct conflict with their commitment to shareholders to make profit and might be unpalatable for some. There will likely be an increase in demand for ‘value’ products in categories for every day usage; household cleaning products etc, and more so than at present across all other categories. Only the most established brands in the most established ranges are likely to be largely unaffected. Pressure could be applied on retailers and the brands for genuine money saving offers; promotional offers which provide genuine savings rather than ones that require you to spend more. The population’s drift away from loyalty cards is likely to continue as they seek cash savings rather than rewards. Aside from at the highest end, a deep downturn could spell the end of our flirtation with higher priced organic produce, at least for a while, though there is likely to be continue demand for reasonably priced fresh produce. Ironically, elsewhere, there could be positive news for charities, which have suffered from dwindling donations. Economy clothes retailers like Primark and Matalan may find that they are facing stiff competition from charity shops as a new generation of ethical shoppers seek higher quality products, albeit second hand, from which others similarly benefit. This is a dark and unwelcome prospect, but with the economic situation in such a state of flux, it should be one which brands and retailers consider now rather than waiting to arrive. We talk often about the need for brands to become more personal with their consumers. Those that appreciate the importance of this may find a way of incorporating their brand into targeted CSR activity, for example sponsoring or supplying foodbanks nationwide or clothes banks (in the way M&S are doing for Oxfam at present), which would not only create positive brand exposure for themselves and their products but could redefine their brand for a generation.

Tesco ditches the value stripes it earned

There's a new war brewing among the retail multiples. The battleground is 'value shopping' and the cause seems to be who can make their value range look as little like a value range as possible. Few product ranges have become as distinctive and instantly recognisable as the Tesco value range, products marked out from a distance by the bold blue and white stripes of their packaging. Sainsbury's tried it with a white and orange range of their own but somehow it wasn't as distinctive and, perhaps best for them, is didn't become as synonymous as the Tesco range with our collective struggle to get through the recession. However, when Waitrose introduced its sleekly packed Essentials range, I sensed it would be a game changer. There was nothing in the Essentials' packaging that marked it out so obviously as a value product. Perhaps the consumer has begun to feel self-conscious, even stigmatised, by pushing a trolley packed full of blue and white striped packages. Maybe there is a sense in which they feel it marks them out to their fellow shoppers as struggling a bit more, not being able to afford the branded goods. Even in recession it can still be a "Keep up with the Joneses" world. Hence Tesco's decision to ditch the stripes with the launch of its new Everyday Value range, with new colourful and more subtle packaging, is an interesting move. Although Tesco points out it’s not a straight like-for-like swap, the addition of the word "everyday" implies routine as opposed to "cheap as chips" whilst the new packaging creates less negative stand-out in the trolley. Value has been good for Tesco and has been good for the industry. It provided the platform for Tesco's dominance of the supermarket sector which, together with its Finest range, enabled it to pitch against Lidl, Aldi and ASDA at one end whilst Finest pitched it against Sainsbury's, Waitrose and Marks & Spencer at the other. It has enabled the multiples to compete across branded products across the complete category mix. But one consequence of the recession seems to be consumers being polarised across a number of sectors. There appears to be life at the economy end of the market and life at the higher end, but like so much of the country, the middle is being squeezed. It’s always been difficult for retailers to operate convincingly in both sectors. This latest move by Tesco may be the first step towards positioning it at the middle-higher end of the market in time for the recovery if – and when – it finally materialises.

Never Knowingly Downloaded

The announcement by John Lewis that it has extended its range of services to customers, by launching its first own-branded broadband service, marks yet another stage in the delivery of multi-service retailing by the multiples. In one sense it is nothing new. The retail multiples have been diversifying into financial services, mobile phones and broadband for years and, indeed, this latest move broadens John Lewis Partnership’s existing range of services following the launch of John Lewis Insurance in 2010. It also takes over from the existing Waitrose and Greenbee broadband services whilst broadband has become a commodity purchase in its own right over the last two years, more in keeping with the supermarket shelf than anywhere else. But aside from selling us consumer electronics, most of which would have a wi-fi functionality, what track record or expertise does John Lewis Partnership have in the sector that would make us lean towards them as opposed to another, apparently more specialist provider? And does that matter anyway? The answer is all in the brand. The reputations of some of the pure broadband providers seem to have become tarnished by perceptions of being fly-by-night, offering higher downloads speeds than in reality they deliver, farming consumers out to distant call centres or providing questionable levels of customer service. Although the actual broadband may be being provided wholesale to the multiples via one of the mainstream providers anyway, there seems to be greater reassurance from buying our broadband from a reliable and trusted source. And they don’t come more trusted than John Lewis. In the UK Customer Satisfaction Awards 2011 John Lewis was named as Britain’s Most Trusted Organisation whilst also being voted Britain's favourite retailer for the 4th consecutive year. But herein could also lie a potential pitfall. Whilst the John Lewis brand is already fluid and inherently encapsulates service in its retail promise plus the financial services they offer, how will their service guarantee work when they are reliant on a third party delivering the broadband infrastructure? If they are not completely in control over what they are delivering to people and something were to go awry, would this match consumers’ existing expectations of a John Lewis service? And if it did, would this undermine perceptions of the John Lewis brand across its portfolio? They start from a strong position, though. Already they have consumer trust and the belief among their target base that they are not going to be ripped off by a John Lewis proposition. All they need to do is carry across their “Never Knowingly Undersold” price promise, make sure the speed is good, the customer service up to scratch and they could be onto a winner. One suspects if they didn’t think they could deliver that, they wouldn’t have taken the plunge in the first place.

Waste not, want not...convert waste food to an economic success story

In austerity Britain, where value ranges and price drops have become the norm on our supermarket shelves, everyone seems to be doing all that they can to make ends meet within constrained household budgets.

It was all the more surprising, therefore, to read on the BBC’s website recently that British households throw away 4.4 million tonnes of edible food a year.

According to figures published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs almost a third of all bread purchased by UK households is dumped when it could be eaten; add to this around a quarter of all vegetables and potatoes, a fifth of all fruit and even 6.3% of all alcoholic drinks.

The Flour Advisory Bureau states that bread remains one of the UK’s favourite foods, with 99% of households buying bread and the equivalent of nearly 12 million loaves are sold each day. That’s 4.38 billion loaves of bread a year at a conservative average price of, say, 90p per loaf, that equates to £3.9 billion a year on bread. Using DEFRA’s figures, this means we are wasting approximately £1.3 billion a year in thrown-away bread. And that’s before you factor in any other products

It all sounds shocking, doesn’t it?

Even more so when you consider statistics released by food redistribution charity FareShare which reveal a sharp rise in demand on charities for food as people all over Britain struggle to put dinner on the table. 42% of charities surveyed reported an increase in demand for food in the past year as food prices soar and the recession bites, putting additional strain on families and people on low incomes.

So behind that stats lies the scope for a campaign for any socially responsible brand willing to take it on that could reduce our waste food mountain whilst at the same time help inject much needed impetus into the economy.

In a similar vein to Persil’s Dirt is Good campaign, who would launch a Waste for Britain campaign?

Sainsbury have recently encouraged people to freeze food rather than throw away; Pret does it Charity Run where it donates unsold produce to homeless shelters at the end of each day; Waitrose supports the “Love food, hate waste” campaign... But the figures suggest that there is plenty of room for other brands to get involved. Their campaigns could focus making consumers aware of the food they are wasting and how much this is costing them – creating new habits to reduce this whilst encouraging them to spend their money elsewhere on enjoyable things. Or providing some means by which people who have a surplus could donate or redirect it to those in greatest need, e.g. through charities like FoodShare.

And it could be bigger than food – we are a nation drowning in “stuff”, but also with a strong urge to give. TK Maxx’s current “Give up Clothes for Good” campaign with Cancer Research UK brings these two themes together – don’t hoard your stuff, don’t chuck it, donate it.

So come on brands of Britain, who will take this on?