Marketing Strategy : Is Time on Your Side ?

Renowned marketing guru Dr Philip Kotler calls this era as the era of experience economy. Consumers live in an experiential world where,rather than products, the quest is for experience. The level of experience factor in consumption varies from urban to rural markets but marketers has to accept the fact that consumer's penchant for experience will only increase as years goes by.

Time is the most critical component in an experiential world. Experience is about time spent with a physical product/service. So for marketers, Time has become a part of the product. The importance of TIME as a part of the product package is practiced in services marketing for long. But although we learn that in theory , seldom Time is treated with importance it deserves.

The beauty of experience economy is that it treats physical products ( goods) in the same league as services. Even while purchasing a physical product, consumers will look for experience. The experience while purchasing physical products happens while the product is purchased ( at the store) and also when it is consumed.

The TIME component of a physical product varies across categories.The importance of TIME in the marketing of a soap will be less compared to marketing an automobile.

Although large established service firms take the TIME factor seriously, it is the small business owners that are left clueless about TIME. Sometimes businesses views TIME in their perspective rather than customer's perspective.

A tailor that misses the date of delivery of a suit, a taxi that arrives late, a courier that delivers late , a soap variant that is not available at the store when advertisements are running , are all examples where marketers fail to understand TIME as a component of the product.Historically , time is viewed as an input for business. For consumers , Time forms a part of the cost.

Does it make sense for marketers to view time as a part of the product so that they could use the time to create positive experience ?

When time is considered as a part of the product, the whole marketing mix elements come into play. There will be conscious thoughts about adding value to the time spent with the consumer.

For a marketer of physical product, TIME is about reaching the consumer. This is a period when speed matters most . How fast a product reaches the channel and to consumer's home is an important determinant of a product's success. Domino's used TIME as the key differentiator with its " 30 minutes home delivery " proposition. It is a classic example where TIME added value to the physical product.

For a business, treating TIME as a part of the product opens new opportunities to create an experience.

• Sometimes consumers have to wait inorder to avail a service/product. In such cases, marketers should be able to add value to the waiting time of the consumers. The waiting time is the time spent with the marketer. Hence it is the responsibility of marketer to make an impression on consumer during that waiting period. If the consumer is waiting at the company premises ( like showrooms, clinics) then he should be treated in a manner where he enjoys the time spent with the firm. In cases where he is waiting for the product at his home, such time should be adequately rewards. For example, during the launch of Nano,Tata Motors announced that it will pay an interest on the booking amount for Tata Nano since the actual delivery of the car will be made only after a few months.
• Another strategy is to reduce the waiting time so that the perceived value of the product/service goes up.
• In cases where such value cannot be provided, marketers should be able to set only reasonable expectations with regard to the time factor.
• For a marketer of physical product, the time is about speed . TIME translates to - How fast the new products are launched, the stocks are replenished, product improvements made, information passed to the consumers and after -sales services are performed.

Brand Update : Can Katrina Boost Yardley's Fortunes ?

In November 2009, Wipro acquired the rights for marketing Yardley in Asia , Middle East, Australasia and parts of Africa. That was an important turning point for this 240 year old heritage brand.

The acquisition of a brand like Yardley makes sense for Wipro whose personal care portfolio is having only one major brand - Santoor. Yardley range of personal care products gives Wipro an instant access to the premium segment of the personal care market.

Yardley , though a brand with high recall and recognition, was languishing in the Indian market because of the lack of marketing support. There was seldom any campaign for the brand neither it was promoted at the store level. The new owner in Wipro has a very successful marketing history demonstrated by the success of the brand Santoor.

Wipro has made its first major initiative for Yardley by roping in the current Bollywood Diva Katrina Kaif as the brand ambassador for Yardley. The brand expects to ride in the current sensation's popularity to make a comeback in the Indian personal care market.

The brand is currently running a campaign featuring Katrina

Watch the ad here : Yardley

Before going into the quality of the campaign, its important to understand the tactical significance of such a move. Yardley wants to move fast in terms of reinforcing its brand credentials. It want to announce its resurgence fast and make an impact. For that celebrity endorsement offers a reasonable strategic sense.

But as usual , the execution failed the brand strategy. The ad was poorly made in the sense that there was no creative spark in it. The theme, execution, message everything was so cliche that the ad never made any impact (in me !). At best it reminded about the brand nothing more nothing less. The ad give Yardley a new tagline " My Yardley, My Fragrance ".

The ad wanted to give the message of heritage , London Connection, Signature fragrance , attributes of Yardley.But although these messages were conveyed, the ad failed to create a premium image for the brand.

As an immediate tactical move, the current campaign does achieve its purpose but like Santoor, Wipro needs to find a sustainable positioning platform for Yardley. It should push the creatives working for the brand to do another Santoor.

Lets hope that Yardley achieves its true potential under Wipro.

Related Brand

Yardley

Candyman : Kuch Bhi Karega for Candyman

Brand : Candyman

Company : ITC

Ad Agency : Draft FCB Ulka

Brand Analysis Count : 462

Candyman is ITC's ambitious foray into the Rs 2300( approx) crore highly competitive Indian confectionery market. The brand which was launched in 2003 is fighting for its share in a unique way .

Candyman, as the name itself describe ,was born as a hard-boiled sugar candy product. The brand was launched first in fruit flavors - Fruitee Fun variant which came in banana, pinapple, orange and mango flavors.

Candyman was launched with a campaign featuring a naughty boy and a cartoon boy as the central characters. The campaigns revolved around the fight between the real and cartoon boys for Candyman.

Watch one campaign here : Pool Fight

There was a problem with the ads because there was a chance that the fight between the two boys would scare the primary audience (kids). Although the ads meant to portray friendly competition for Candyman, the scenes of the ad showed very bitter, deadly fights between the characters. For example , the ad where the boy trying to drown the cartoon character cannot be taken in a light spirit. Since the cartoon boy was perceived to be a representative of Candyman, the ads portrayed the brand in a negative light .

Soon the ads were changed to portray friendship between the cartoon character and the real boy. The brand realized the negativity of the first theme and corrected it in the following campaigns.

The brand was positioned as a candy/confectionery which is irresistible and adopted the tagline " Kuch Bhi Karega for Candyman " translated roughly to " Will Do Anything for Candyman ". The brand was targeting the kids (naughty types) who seek delightful candy experience.

Usually while choosing the brand name, one has to be careful not to choose names which restrict the brand's movement across categories/product lines. In the case of Candyman, the brand name obviously suggested that the product is a candy. Candy is a product form which belongs to hard-boiled confectionery. So theoretically, it would be difficult for Candyman to launch anything other than candy because of the association of brand name to the candy category.

But the brand defied that rule and launched a slew of flavors and variants that transcended the boundaries of candy and chocolate .

The strength of Candyman was its relentless innovation interms of flavors and variants. Some of the variants of Candyman is given below :

Candyman Natkhat Mango

Candyman Maha Mango

Candyman Echlairs

Candyman Mangolicks in 2007

Candyman Toffichoo Strawberry in 2009

Candyman Lacto Creme center in 2008

Candyman Butter Scotch licks

Candyman Choco Double.

These large number of choice together with the strong ITC distribution network gave Candyman enough room for growth.

Some of the campaigns for the variants was quite successful. One of them was the Natkhat Mango TVC which was well received by the viewers.

This is one candy brand that does not believe that it should only be a candy in its entire life. Thus came Candyman Echlairs and followed by Candyman Choco Double. These chocolate products directly competed with Cadbury Echlairs not only in the market but also through the campaigns.

Cadbury Echlair when released the campaign " Chocolate ka Sweet Bomb" , Candyman countered it with the Choco Double spoof . ChocoDouble came with the tagline - " No Waiting for Chocolating " taking on the Cadbury Dairy Milk Echlairs ' ads.

Candyman's variants have a different personality and slogans but also shares the common tagline. The large number of variants has its advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that consumers ( kids) will be delighted with choices and there is always some excitement with the brand. The negative side is the proliferation of the product line extension can create challenges interms of brand promotion. At a given point of time, how will the brand manager allocate the promotional budget among these variants ? Which should be promoted more ?

To manage such large number of variants/flavors, Candyman is adopting a very smart brand-portfolio strategy. Currently the brand is using a strategy where Candyman will eventually become the endorser brand while there will be individual primary brands for various variants. For example in the packaging of Choco-Double Echlairs, Candyman is the endorser brand and Choco Double acts as the primary brand. Candyman brand name is displayed in small fonts while Choco-Double in larger fonts.

Candyman has the powerful backing of ITC's cash power and distribution strength. It has not yet being able to move into the top position of the confectionery market yet. But with the aggressive new product strategy together with high profile promotions make Candyman a brand to watch for.

Marketing Strategy : Customer Orientation Vs Competitor Orientation

Should Your Marketing Strategy Be

Customer Oriented or Competitor Oriented

Originally published here in Adclubbombay.com

Although many marketing literature propounds the dictum “Customer is the King”, it is seldom practiced in its fullest sense. Marketers would love to put customers at the center of their business strategy but the intense competitive environment forces them to think beyond the customer and move towards the competitors.

There is a dilemma in the marketers mind with the choice of whether the firm’s principal orientation should be towards customer or competitors. Conventional wisdom say that firms should be oriented more towards customers than competitor. Peter Drucker famously said “The purpose of business is to create customers “. When a firm is customer oriented, the entire business is centered on customer needs and satisfaction.

According to academic literature, there are three components of market orientation (1) Customer Orientation (2) Competitor Orientation (3) Inter-functional coordination. Customer Orientation is where the firm spends its resources on gathering information about customer needs and behavior. Competitor orientation is where the firm directs its resources to gathering information about competitor behavior and activities. The firm’s strategies will then be based on the information gathered through any of these orientations. (Source: Narver, John C. and Stanley F. Slater. 1990. "The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability." Journal of Marketing 54 (October):20-35.)

Customer orientation helps firms with a clear in-depth understanding of consumer which results in a focused marketing effort. Research has confirmed that customer orientation helps firms to increase performance and enhance customer satisfaction.

Too much customer orientation also can be dangerous. There is a chance of marketers becoming blinded by their current focus thus oblivious of the changes brought about by the competitors. There are critics who argue that customers may stifle innovation in companies because customers may not be able to explicitly state their expectations or anticipate future needs. Customers are often resistant to change and this forces the highly customer focused firms to maintain the status quo thus refraining from game changing innovations.

The firms who are skewed towards competitor orientation are blamed for launching me-too products in an effort to fight competition. Too much focus on competitor often forces firms to invest in understanding customers or anticipate their needs better. Too many resources will be spent on competitive activities which may restrict investment on breakthrough innovations. Competitor oriented firms are more open to the changing trend in the market. Since their actions are more directed by the actions of the competitor, there is less chance of lethargy in marketing activities.

Firms must understand that there is a trade-off between these two orientations. Firms will have to lose something if they chose either of the two orientations. The ideal option is to balance both the orientation. It is easy to advocate that firms should have both customer and competitor orientation but with a limited resources in-terms of men and money, firms will find tough to have best of both worlds.

Companies must realize that the choice of customer / competitor orientation is dependent on the environment in which firms operate. There are external and internal factors that will decide the orientation of the company. For example, there are organizations like Zappos.com which is totally customer oriented. The customer orientation run deep within the organization’s DNA and the entire firm is structured around the customer.

Competitor orientation is more preferable in markets which are growing very fast. In fast growing markets, firms should invest in gathering more data about competitors which will enable them to develop innovations at lower costs.

Customer orientation is preferable in more uncertain markets. When the markets are changing very fast, firms can focus on customers which will enable them to change their marketing strategies quickly in accordance with changing customer needs. Also firms that deal with complex markets need to focus on investing in customers rather than competitors.

The choice of customer vs. competitor orientation is ultimately depended on the top management’s world view. The choice is important because there are only limited resources available with the managers to spend on either of these orientations.

Firms can strike a balance between these orientations if they can focus on the following guidelines.

• Invest in a robust market intelligence mechanism in the marketing department. The mechanism can be internal or outsourced, but the emphasis will be on information gathering and dissemination. When a mechanism exists, depending on the market environment, organization can decide on the type of information that should be gathered.
• Encourage free flow of information within the organization. Market orientation tends to be ineffective if the organization is bureaucratic. Hence firms should ensure that important market information is passed to various levels quickly.

Brand Update : Can Ambassador be saved ?

Recently the good old Ambassador was in the news that the brand owners - Hindustan Motors is planning to relaunch /rejuvenate this heritage brand. Both the brand and company is in deep crisis with HM posting losses of Rs 43 crore last year and its networth declining by about 50%.

The company plans to relaunch the Amby in a new look and is planning to entrust a design house with the task. The report also suggest that the new Amby will have a retro- look and will be in the price range of Rs 5- Rs 7 Lakhs. The new Amby will be a niche product.

The interesting question is can this brand be saved with the new strategy ?

From the report about the new Amby launch, it will be tough for the brand to regain its lost glory if the brand is going for a niche variant. According to Economic Times, Ambassador sells around 600 units per month in a market of 2 lakh cars/month.

Ambassador is now in a rut which is its own creation. The brand is the classic example of marketing myopia. The company took the customers for granted and refused to change when the entire market changed. The brand did nothing when faced with competition from Tatas and Maruti. Instead of changing its core DNA, the brand relied upon cosmetic changes. When the brand needed a drastic revolutionary change, HM decided to get stuck with the old product.

The current strategy of a niche Amby is again a patch-up . This brand cannot survive on patch-up strategies. I don't think that the core brand Ambassador will revive with the launch of a niche high priced Ambassador. With the brand equity in shambles, how can the brand expect consumers to pay a premium for the new Amby variant ?

The high priced Marquee variant will work for iconic brand which are facing a decline. But Ambassador was not an icon. It was a market leader and consumers bought the car because they did not had a choice. Not because they were a die-hard Amby fan. Hence a high priced niche variant may not revive the sale of Ambassador.

Secondly HM as a company is now relying its future on Ambassador which again is a flawed strategy. A weak brand cannot save a weak company. And a niche variant will at best give some life support and not survival.

Another way to look at the current strategy is the transformation of Amby from a mass market car to a niche product. So instead of trying to sell large volume of Ambassador, the company hopes to sell high-end variant and hence generate more cash. In that perspective, the launch of a high priced Amby make sense. But the question is whether the brand has enough equity to support such a variant. Brands like Beetle and Enfield revived because these brands had strong equity existing in the market even after its previous life. The relaunch re-ignited the existing goodwill . But such a goodwill does not exist for Ambassador. Ambassador is known for its space and rugged nature .The product is also infamous for nagging problems and poor build quality. Still people bought because there was no choice. For such a product, the hope of renewal from a niche product seems too optimistic.

Having said that, Indian market has seen consumers embracing products with exceptional quality and/or utility. So if the new variant is exceptional, there are chances of getting accepted by the market.

Another interesting aspect of this issue is about the reliance of HM on Ambassador brand for its survival. Why didn't it think about an entirely new brand ? The trend in the Indian auto market is that multiple brands from different companies sporting the same engine. The engine becoming commoditized and design gaining prominence. In such a market why not come out with an entirely new brand with a proven engine ? Although building new brand is expensive compared to rejuvenation of old brand, in Amby's case, Ambassador comes with a lot of baggage and perceptions which is difficult to change.

If Ambassador wants to stay relevant as a brand, what it need is disruption. Disruption should happen both internally and externally. The brand should go for radical redesign and more importantly it should disrupt the market. The current price to value proposition of Ambassador is negative compared to the competitors like Indica . So if Amby wants to play the volume game, it needs to offer consumer something they cannot refuse. A diesel car below Rs 4 lakh can ignite interest in the brand but given the cost scenario, such a task is virtually impossible.

HM is again going for short-term strategy in pursuit of long-term results. For Amby, it seems to be the end of road .

Related Brand

Ambassador

Is Social Media a mere extension of traditional media ?

A guest post of mine was published in Indiasocial.in. Indiasocial is a resource- rich site for marketers interesting in social media. Marketers make a big mistake in viewing social media as mere extension of traditional media. But social media needs different learning and approach. Read the full article here .