Introduction
Since this post is planned as a first in a long series, let me give a short background here. I had been in Mumbai all my life till I shifted to Indore a year and a half ago. In this series, I wish to compare Indore and Mumbai, highlighting how non-metro consumers are different from the way consumers are usually described in MBA schools and boardrooms of metros. These are all personal opinions and don't reflect the views of my present or past employers. And while I have tried my best to be objective, my sincerest apologies to anyone who finds anything offensive. Do point it out, and I would try to revise wherever possible.
Chapter 1: Religion-, not retail-therapy
What brings people to a metropolis are the job opportunities. Hence, professional networks assume priority over personal relationships. In stark contrast, the reason for a group of people coming and staying together is religion or community practices. This presents a social construct very different from the one we see in metros.
Thus, implications:
- Places of worship, not shopping or entertainment, are the common meeting places.
- Days of festivals, and not days of end-of-season sales, are the prime drivers for purchase of new garments and durables.
- Days of importance to community are celebrated (and are much bigger celebrations) than that of personal importance like birthdays and anniversaries. For the same reasons, the weddings too become occasions for big-ticket expenses, gifting, etc.
- Rallies and gatherings organised by politicians are around festivals. Sometimes, rallies are organised as 'yatras' with local customs and practices influencing start and end points.
- These customs and traditions are a critical source of income for shopkeepers and traders who have built their businesses around items required at these occasions.
Interesting, isn't it? More about the non-metros in the coming posts.
Any unique observations, or anecdotes about the non-metros?
Do share in the comments.
Jan 28, 2015
Does your ad change behaviour?
In the movie 'Bruce Almighty', while explaining His powers to Bruce
Nolan, God gives out a caveat: Bruce couldn't affect free will.
Affecting free will, or causing someone to change his behaviour, is
perhaps the most difficult goal to achieve. The reason is pretty simple:
the moment you try to influence it, the other person pushes back to
ensure it remains free will.
Because behaviour is so difficult to change, this goal becomes the acid test for good advertising. Consumers have their routines already set. They are already making so many decisions day in and day out, that they will gladly go for their 'default' choices wherever possible. They will habitually buy the same toothpaste, shaving cream, shirt, and even tyres and engine oil, unless something influences them to change those habits.
Now, only if a brand makes choosing itself as a more convenient or a more gratifying option than the default choice, it is able to show that it understands the consumer, and stands a chance of being bought. This proves to be beneficial too, since this brand will now be the default choice till the next 'behaviour-changing' communication comes along.
So what kind of change in behaviour should the brand go for?
There are multiple alternatives here. A brand (or brand manager) might believe in cutting to the chase, and aiming straight for the brand choice decision: switching from existing brand to new brand. This is called the 'better mousetrap' approach. The argument (and even the ad) usually explains rationally: 'Buy us because we are better'. Duracell has been using this approach for years.
Some other brands want to take a high ground and showcase the brand or users as ones that would make the world a better place. Brands like Google and Coca Cola can make these claims, and even deliver on them using their dominance in the market, and omnipresence in consumers' lives. Procter and Gamble's Olympic Games campaign was on similar lines - creating a new aura around household goods brands.
These two approaches are at extreme ends of a spectrum, and none of them are sure-shot ways of success. Research and testing can help brands choose the right cues and ultimately help create behaviour-changing communication. When they do, the result is nothing short of extraordinary!
---
Views and opinions are my own. They do not reflect my present or previous employers' stand on the topics.
Because behaviour is so difficult to change, this goal becomes the acid test for good advertising. Consumers have their routines already set. They are already making so many decisions day in and day out, that they will gladly go for their 'default' choices wherever possible. They will habitually buy the same toothpaste, shaving cream, shirt, and even tyres and engine oil, unless something influences them to change those habits.
Now, only if a brand makes choosing itself as a more convenient or a more gratifying option than the default choice, it is able to show that it understands the consumer, and stands a chance of being bought. This proves to be beneficial too, since this brand will now be the default choice till the next 'behaviour-changing' communication comes along.
So what kind of change in behaviour should the brand go for?
There are multiple alternatives here. A brand (or brand manager) might believe in cutting to the chase, and aiming straight for the brand choice decision: switching from existing brand to new brand. This is called the 'better mousetrap' approach. The argument (and even the ad) usually explains rationally: 'Buy us because we are better'. Duracell has been using this approach for years.
Some other brands want to take a high ground and showcase the brand or users as ones that would make the world a better place. Brands like Google and Coca Cola can make these claims, and even deliver on them using their dominance in the market, and omnipresence in consumers' lives. Procter and Gamble's Olympic Games campaign was on similar lines - creating a new aura around household goods brands.
These two approaches are at extreme ends of a spectrum, and none of them are sure-shot ways of success. Research and testing can help brands choose the right cues and ultimately help create behaviour-changing communication. When they do, the result is nothing short of extraordinary!
---
Views and opinions are my own. They do not reflect my present or previous employers' stand on the topics.
Nov 12, 2014
Consumers need brands too
As marketers, advertisers and brand owners, we are pretty weird. We talk of brands as lovable and significant entities: adored by consumers, playing an important role in their lives, making a difference in the world, and so on.
And at the same time, we also talk of marketing as mostly 'interruptive' - things that stop consumers from going about their daily lives and pitch sales stories to them. From this lens, brands are seen as desparate entities fighting for survival. When consumers notice our brand, and recall it from our ad campaigns, we celebrate. When consumers recommend our brand, and talk about it through their social media profiles, we earn the title of industry experts.
But how can an entity worry about relevance, and talk about affinity at the same time? Perhaps, it is led by our perception we aren't too willing to admit - Brands need consumers, consumers don't need brands. "We" need "them" because they buy our products, prefer dealing with us, pay more for our services, etc.
But we never think that consumers need brands too.
We don't discuss from this perspective. We don't have conferences or conclaves from this point of view. We are busy proving advertising effectiveness, calculating social media ROI using grand metrics, even creating new metrics, all in an effort to justify the existence of our brands.
Of course, we are taught all the right theories on how to tap into consumer needs, and building great brands. But the perspective is always that of a survivor. Books and speakers address their audience as people struggling with identity crisis.
Perhaps it's time to change this point of view.
Perhaps it's time to treat brands on an equal platform with consumers.
And perhaps, with that stance, brands will truly make a difference in the world.
--
Crossposted on LinkedIn
And at the same time, we also talk of marketing as mostly 'interruptive' - things that stop consumers from going about their daily lives and pitch sales stories to them. From this lens, brands are seen as desparate entities fighting for survival. When consumers notice our brand, and recall it from our ad campaigns, we celebrate. When consumers recommend our brand, and talk about it through their social media profiles, we earn the title of industry experts.
But how can an entity worry about relevance, and talk about affinity at the same time? Perhaps, it is led by our perception we aren't too willing to admit - Brands need consumers, consumers don't need brands. "We" need "them" because they buy our products, prefer dealing with us, pay more for our services, etc.
But we never think that consumers need brands too.
We don't discuss from this perspective. We don't have conferences or conclaves from this point of view. We are busy proving advertising effectiveness, calculating social media ROI using grand metrics, even creating new metrics, all in an effort to justify the existence of our brands.
Of course, we are taught all the right theories on how to tap into consumer needs, and building great brands. But the perspective is always that of a survivor. Books and speakers address their audience as people struggling with identity crisis.
Perhaps it's time to change this point of view.
Perhaps it's time to treat brands on an equal platform with consumers.
And perhaps, with that stance, brands will truly make a difference in the world.
--
Crossposted on LinkedIn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)