Offensive marketing

Greetings.

Interesting to note that the comments made here on Mummy Leave are continuing to resonate, and from some of the most unlikely of sources. It seems that we may have united the Sisterhood by giving them a common enemy. Glad to be of service.

You will know by now that Cicero just hates shopping. In fact he would rather stab his eyes with knitting needles than drag his ageing and weary body around the shops. With two exceptions-he loves book shops and he has no objection to shopping for music though increasingly he is shopping for these online and cutting out the whole trailing around the shops experience.

Cicero has been reflecting on the kind of music he buys and he has noted that his repertoire is becoming increasingly limited to a handful of known and trusted (usually old!) artistes and musical combos. He reads the reviews of new bands and thinks they might sound interesting, maybe worth a purchase, but lest he wastes bawbees buying music he might not like, Cicero always errs on the side of caution and buys music from artistes he knows and recognises and trusts. And so you will find a lack of garage, techno, grunge or even garage grunge techno house sounds in his very extensive and eclectic music collection.

This may just be an age thing but this helpful piece of self analysis might have wider ramifications.

Now you might at this point be wondering where this is going but if you will hold on for a few more lines you will soon see the point we are trying to make.

Now this record buying experience got Cicero wondering how tougher economic times will affect how consumers might buy brands. Will they trade down and shop around more looking for a bargain or will they stick with the brands they know and trust, just like Cicero and his CD collection? And what are the implications of this for us marketing folk?

And so we spoke to some people and we found out that only a third of people claim that as money gets tight they will shop around more with the rest saying they are unlikely to change their shopping habits.

So what factors are driving consumer choice?

Interestingly only a quarter of shoppers claim to buy on price. 63 per cent claim that they will buy brands that offer the best value, 59 per cent buy brands they trust and 47 per cent go on brand recognition. So as you can see it is not just Cicero who fears making a mistake when he is down the shops.

In American football terms if you’re not on offense you are on defence and while businesses might be tempted to go on defence and just hope to ride out these tricky times, consider this.

The Profit Impact of Marketing Strategy Database (PIMS) has been tracking the business performance of over 3000 business units for over 40 years and has been described by Tom Peters as ‘’the most extensive strategic information database in the world’’, allowing businesses to identify those critical strategic factors that enable a business to achieve an improved sustainable position. This key source of business intelligence has identified that those brands that went on the offensive and continued to invest in marketing emerged into the recovery phase with higher return on capital and improved market share.

When money is tight customers want to be sure they are making the right choice. They don’t want to waste money buying something that is not what they wanted so they will increasingly buy brands they know and trust. This is not the time to cut but to maintain investment in brands and continue to develop and to deliver a trusted, relevant and distinctive brand positioning.

There are consumers out there buying almost exclusively on price alone but these are the minority and are least likely to be brand loyal. So why chase this market?
Businesses now need to focus on brand loyalists and on trying to grow their share of wallet or purse and successful brands must be seen to offer better value than the competition - focus on telling customers why your brand is worth the price by emphasising the added value and functional advantages that it offers.

Now is the time for your marketing to become truly offensive. As you know Cicero is great at being offensive.

Is it only me.......but there is a Plan B.

Last week I went shopping. I know that will come as a great surprise and shock to you but from to time it is something I have to do. I am not sure that after last week’s experience I will be hurrying back to the High St.

One of my stops was the M&S Food Hall. As we know M&S make great food and wonderful ads but they omit to tell you that when you buy some of their yummy food that they will charge you to be issued with a bag so you can easily transport their scrummy food to your kitchen.

Did you know this?

I was shocked and truly flabbergasted. And so I stood my ground and tried to reason with them. Fat chance. M&S is now in the thrall of the eco-mentalists. Yet there are arguments are so unconvincing that I am convinced that this is nothing to do with eco-mentalism but an attempt to widen margin.

Firstly I can have as many small green bags as I like for free. It was therefore possible for me to load my grocery into 10 green bags instead of one big bag. How does that help the environment? Surely even the dumbest eco-mentalism must concede the nonsense of this.

Secondly it is only the food hall that has put in place such a dumb policy. And this is a dumb policy. So I can buy a suit, a jumper, a pair of socks even, and be given free and gratis a carrier bag. So why is it only with food that I cannot be given a bag?

And thirdly, as I questioned, does anyone have any idea how much landfill space is taken up by plastic bag waste? Let me tell you. Only 0.3%. Disposable nappies take up more space but I don’t hear anyone think of trying to ban them. And if they did just listen out for the shrieks and howls of outrage from Harry Harperson and the Guardianistas. Never in the field of eco-mentalist conflict has so much been done for so little. I will repeat even if every carrier bag which went to waste came from M&S which it won’t, we would only save 0.3% of landfill space per year.

What nonsense. If M&S and their customers want to kow tow to the eco-mentalists that’s fine, but don’t fine those of us who can see through the fallacy of their arguments and who are un-believers.

Now it might only be me but I do think it morally reprehensible that a big mass market retailer brand should seek to inflict its values on those who might not share these values. And in any event, contrary to what M&S and its eco-mentalist friends might say, there is a Plan B.

Other retailers do not use sticks to beat recalcitrant shoppers like me into line but instead apply the principles of behavioural economics and behave like liberal paternalists. At Waitrose you have to ask for a bag. The default setting is no bags. At Tesco you get extra Clubcard points if you don’t take a bag. There are other ways.

And here is a free idea for M&S. Give the bags away for free but instead of splashing your logo across the plastic why not print the bags with slogans like ‘The carrier of this bag is a climate change denier’ or ‘This bag means more landfill waste’ or ‘The carrier of this bag is too mean to pay 5p for a proper bag’. And so on. You get the message. Only the most recalcitrant would opt for a bag with an offensive message.

Happy to help.

Please don’t come calling for the next couple of weeks. Cicero will be away enjoying the holiday break, refreshing his body and thoughts, and more importantly avoiding That Wedding and its associated flim-flammery. Enjoy the break.

Have a great week.

Sis felix. Et sis fortunatus.