The Homa Files

Ken’s Take: I often say in class that “value” is the most over-used and mis-used word in marketing.  Glad to see that somebody else has noticed, too.

Excerpted from Brandweek “Enough With the Value Messages Already,” By Todd Wasserman, Apr 11, 2009

Perhaps no word in the marketing lexicon has been abused as much …  as “value.” … Marketing messages of this stripe are one strategy for addressing the fact that consumers are loath to open their wallets these days. But they’re also only one alternative to cutting prices. It seems like marketers aren’t exploring others.

An alternative way to go at it, for instance … is to create a “fighter brand” like Procter & Gamble did in 1976 with its Luvs diapers, which were meant to be a hedge against store brands while Pampers held down the high end of the market.

Still another tactic—and, lately, a more common one—is what some are calling “value brands.” Paradoxically, though, value brands may be the most expensive solution to the problem, which is why you don’t see a lot of them kicked off these days. Marketers who have the wherewithal to launch a value brand in this climate would probably be rewarded. But in case not, there are still many other ways of attacking the problem.

One of the biggest proponents of value brands is Martin Bishop, director of brand strategy for Landor Associates … Bishop differentiates value brands from fighter brands this way: “Unlike defensive fighter brands, value brands respond proactively and aggressively to opportunities in the value market. Instead of defending the flagship brand, these brands take advantage of a clear value opportunity. Their purpose is not to defend the status quo, but to take advantage of a new market opportunity” …

Red Bicyclette from E&J Gallo, for instance, “built an identity that is entirely separate from that of its parent company’s brand.” The brand is cheap wine with an adventurous and fun attitude—which is a different thing, Bishop says, from just cheap wine …

If you had to pull out one thing that separates a value brand from a fighter brand then, it would be that the brand has more going for it than just price. It’s also got some attitude in there as well …

In Bishop’s view, a value brand is a much better proposition, but … in this climate it’s probably too expensive an option for most marketers. In other words, it’s something that would have been nice to have launched two or three years ago, but is off the table today …

Luckily, marketers have other weapons in their arsenal. Bishop pointed out that when Nescafé wanted to grow sales in the Philippines, the company was very conscious about cheapening its brands, so it addressed another variable—portion sizes—and came out with single-serve packets that didn’t skimp on quality …

Unfortunately, right now such solutions (just like disposable income) seem to be in short supply. Instead of experimenting with value brands, fighter brands, portion sizes and portfolios, marketers are simply hurling the word “value” at consumers and hoping it’ll mean something to them. As everyone humps the same tune, all that expensive messaging could turn out to have no value at all.

Edit by SAC

* * * * *

Full Article:
http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/direct/e3id54466e9215cc2baf2a798becbda167a

* * * * * 

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link => The Homa Files Blog

This entry was posted on April 28, 2009 at 7:15 am and is filed under Value Mapping. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.