Dating and mating

'Dating and then mating' - this is not about us humans, but about brands.

There used to be a time when there were brand loyalties, but a recent survey which conducted bathroom audits, proves otherwise. There were multitude of shower gels, toothpaste and soap brands found in two bathrooms which housed 3 ppl - pa, ma and a 10 yr old.

What this goes to show is that no longer is it true that 70% shop out of habit. Infact, what is now going to help the brand is whether it is present in the line of sight (say, at supermarkets), how well it is dressed up(packaged) vs its competitor, what zumba zumba (*remember the Reliance comm gym ad*) does it offer.

Customers now shop for similar rather than the same brand- either would do- a vaseline or a nivea, a Pantene or a L'Oreal or a Dove, a lifebuoy or a Santoor white, a pepsodent or a colgate.....so brands now need to build their muscles----so is it going to be a 6 or 8 pack for yours ?

Who is the bigger brand?

Am sure this question is haunting most of our minds. All of us who have been closely tracking the Escorts -Dr Trehan fall out are keen to know - is it the Singh's Escorts Hospital or is it Dr Trehan - the man behind the success of the hospital who is the bigger pull for the consumers (the patients). It is believed that he is likely to pull along with him a team of 70 out of the 200 doctors at Escorts to Apollo. This waits to be seen.

It could be argued that - it is Dr. Trehan, the bigger brand. For consumers (patients) who have interacted with him/ been treated by him, he symbolises "customer service" or the "product" offered by Escorts. So Escorts is only a channel and not the actual service/ product.
While on the other hand it could be argued that - it is Escorts - its facilities, infrastructure, and all staff that symbolises "customer service" and Dr. Trehan is only a component delivering that promised service.

I ask myself - is it the Dr. or the hospital that is the bigger brand, and I would think it is the Dr. He is the "brand"

Brand Sluts

This morning I was reading an article by Marian Salzman, the lady who popularised the term Metrosexual.

The new word doing the rounds - "Brand Sluts". A slut, as we understand, is someone who changes her sexual partners constantly with little "loyalty". A brand slut does something quite similar. (S)He changes brands at quite the same pace as a slut changes partners.

I have often wondered, when people talk brand loyalty, whether it does really exist. This article only made my doubt about its existence even stronger. How could a consumer be Brand Loyal when there is a slew of brands available to him/ her today. There is so much choice in terms of product offering, price and promotions. Why on earth would anyone exercise Brand Loyalty ? While in India there were close to ~15,000 brands in the late 1990s, today there are atleast over 1,00,000 of them.

Infact I remember whilst I worked at one of the firms, Loyalty was defined as willingness to repurchase or use more or recommend strongly a particular brand. Does it really work that way? If I decide to purchase an LG refrigerator primarily because the Company has a promotional offer which will help me exchange my older LG refrigerator for a newer LG one, then is it because I am Brand loyal ? or is it simply because of the promo offer ?

As Jean Noel Kaepferer writes in a Business Journal "Brand Loyalty can no longer exist because the very intrinsic nature of the definition of the term is contradictory to the actual relationship between the producer and consumer. Brand loyalty implies a type of matrimonial relationship based on EXCLUSIVITY and this relationship is impossible because the producer does not reciprocate the relationship" and our society is premised upon fluidity of choices.

People in the pro Brand loyalty camp would argue that it is not JUST the product offering, price, promo offer that matter....it is the experience...with the brand, the people servicing the consumer.

It is easier to believe the first theory than the next. Don't you think ?

Competitive Advantage

What if your competitive advantage is easily replicated. Does it still remain one?
I read an interesting piece which said that the best competitive advantage lies in providing a unique customer experience. It is so easy to replicate a product, price off, promotional offer with the current technologies....but it is definitely not the same with customer experience.

An interesting example is that of a Harley Davidson. The product can easily be replicated, but what Harley sells is the sheer experience to dress in leather, ride through rough roads and not so frequented areas, with people frightfully looking on and STILL get noticed!