The Death of Brands?

Not if branders really get (and give) the value of their value.

A recent Time Magazine story entitled Brand Names Just Don't Mean As Much Anymore posited that belt-tightening in the wake of the Great Recession has brought on the slow, steady decline of brand-name goods. The story cites the no-name or generic items that sit next to the similar (sometimes identical) brand-name equivalents on grocery store and drugstore shelves.

Consumers have long known that generics compare well to the brands in quality, and purely outshine them in price. It seems that in this "new normal" of everyday cost-consciousness (where 93% of shoppers report changes in buying habits due to the economy), consumers are now choosing generics with increasing regularity.

So should the brand names be panicking? Well, not exactly — especially since many of the brand-name producers also supply the generic or store-brand goods. This trend might be cutting into profits, but it isn't yet erasing them.

But consumer goods suppliers, and indeed brand managers everywhere, should definitely be paying attention. What we're seeing here is a shift in the consumer mindset, and a forecast into their brand-loyalty — or the lack of it — for generations to come.

Because brand loyalty hasn't died, it's just stopped being blind. Consumers really do want to embrace familiar brands, instead of scrambling for bargains each week. Consumers are happy to support companies, products, and yes, brands they believe in...providing they see those things as worthy of their support.

And what makes them worthy? Is it price? Not exactly.

It's value.

Don't make the mistake of conflating price with value. Price is an element of value, but it's not the entirety. Value is a complicated algorithm that's computed unconsciously in the consumer's head. It integrates variables like quality, availability, and even brand equity, to arrive at a value-based buying decision. And clearly, if two side-by-side products are identical in every way except price, that lower price tips the scales of value.

So brand managers, what can you do if you can't compete on price? Compete on value — make a better product, market it better, service it better, and build a quality-centric brand to stand behind it.

The best part of this formula for success is that it doesn't just apply to the consumer goods that Time was speaking of. If you've got a brand, no matter your business, focus on value and you can't go wrong.

The C4:

1. Time Magazine just reported that due to shifts in buying habits, brand-name consumer goods are losing market share to their generic, no-name, or store-brand equivalents. We like Time's reporting, but this particular revelation surprised exactly no one. 
2. Economies can change rapidly, but buying habits, not so much. Consumers are now in the habit of seeking out the best values, brand loyalty be damned. This is the new normal, and marketers need to get used to it.
3. It's not (necessarily) a matter of price. It's value. It's bang for the buck. If a no-name brand compares well in quality but is 20% cheaper, most consumers won't agonize over the decision very long before putting that no-name in their shopping cart. 
4. Marketers take heed. No matter what you're selling, you'd better be selling it with value. If you can't compete on price then you have to be offering something else, something of value, that the cut-rate brands just can't provide. This is an axiom we all should have been living by all along, but now it's a matter of success or failure.

Never Send A Hamster To Do A Gecko's Job

Insider lingo is off-putting to everyone who isn't inside.

Healthcare, life insurance and reverse mortgages: if you’re over 65, it seems like advertisers think these are the only classes of purchases in which you’re interested.

Generational Marketing is a grand idea. But too many marketers and brand managers seem uninterested in all but a few of those younger generations. They’re seeking brand sustainability, early wrought loyalty and some of the purchasing power of the 20-somethings’ new money.

Understandable goals, all around.

But do they forget the established tendency toward loyalty — and the rock-solid purchasing power — of the generations they habitually ignore?

Gaps in communication only compound the gen-gap. Trying too hard to emulate the lingo of the youngest, they send incomprehensible lingo right over the heads of elders. That’s not just ignoring part of your audience — that's flirting with their annoyance.

Two possible solutions: Spend big like Geico does, on parallel marketing platforms aimed toward every possible age of buyer. Or spend cheap by sticking to the basics, by talking about value and benefits in plain English.

Yes, you should know your audience, and talk right to them. If your only possible buyers are too young to remember the sounds of dial-up, then by all means dazzle them with your hippity-blingy hamsters.

But stop and consider the couple billion older consumers to whom you’re not selling. Ask yourself if your hamsters aren’t gnawing into your bottom line. Ask yourself if you can afford to ignore any generation.

The C4:

1. Generational Marketing means fine-tuning your message for the benefit of your buying demographic. It doesn’t mean ignoring or annoying potential buyers.
2. Hip lingo and youthful swagger are cute. “Cute” is complementary for only so many brands.
3. Every age of consumer is interested in value, in features and in benefits. Talk about those and you’re talking to everyone.
4. Don’t send a hamster to do a caveman’s job.