Demand (consumer insights, the study of preference) + shopper activation (shopper insights, the study of how these preference evolve during the act of shopping) = sales*
*this is oversimplified, but illustrates the point I'm trying to make.
It's important to understand both sides, because they don't always match perfectly. In fact, I like to look at strong preferences/ demand (brand equity) as a getting a head start in a race; it gives you a good chance of winning, but doesn't guarantee success. And on the flip side, you might start from behind, but still win the race (e.g. lower preference, but you still get the sale).
The fact of the matter is that most decisions are made while people are shopping.
Another definition - 'act of shopping' - from need recognition through to post purchase
Let's take an example. I recently traveled to the US. I wanted to fly Virgin - I like what the brand stands for and I think they offer a good service. If you were to measure my brand equity, I would be a Virgin 'lover'. However, when looking at hotels in San Francisco I noticed a United Airlines offer for Aus - US return flights. The end result, I purchased a ticket with United Airlines. Why? They did a better job of shopper activation; they reached me with a relevant offer while I was in the act of shopping. Admittedly the service was terrible, you couldn't get more surly flight attendants if you tried, but this is another issue entirely and not something I won't to go into now (experiece>loyalty>brand equity).
You can see how this example fits with the framework presented in the diagram. I entered the shopping process with preference for Virgin, during the act of shopping I ignored preference and acted on an offer, I was disapointed with the consumption experience and therefore I'm now a rejector of United.
An interesting article re P&G focus on shopper marketing
http://adage.com/article?article_id=139127
No comments:
Post a Comment