Acerca da lealdade às marcas

A propósito de "The Death Of Brand Loyalty: Cultural Shifts Mean It's Gone Forever":

"In the old days, consumers would find a brand that did what it promised: ... In the busy, sometimes overwhelming lives of primary grocery shoppers, a brand earned its place in the pantry or laundry room or refrigerator, and consumer packaged goods manufacturers were rewarded with consistent purchase.
...
Consumers are not inclined to be loyal to brands as they once were because the underlying value of loyalty itself is no longer particularly relevant. In the old world, loyalty was good and something we aspired to give and receive across all aspects of life . . . with friends, family, employers, dentists, doctors, bankers, and maybe even the federal government. But generational experiences have made sticking with “tried and true” a sucker bet. Loyalty means remaining the same. Not exploring alternatives.
...
The preference for “new and different” is well known to the Procter & Gambles, General Mills, and Kimberly-Clarks of the world that are making acquisitions, unloading what can’t be resuscitated, and funding their own VCs. They recognize that establishing and maintaining ongoing connections between consumers and their brands is becoming less and less realistic."

Já não é a primeira vez que aqui torço o nariz a esta teoria de que os clientes são cada vez menos leais a uma marca. Recordo Simondson e o que escrevi em "Plataformas, Mongo, emprego e confiança nas marcas" ou em "Leu aqui há vários anos...".

O exemplo da Chobani ou da Halo Top por um lado, e o das Procters and Gambles e Krafts deste mundo suportam a minha teoria de que não é a lealdade às marcas que está em causa, mas a lealdade às marcas do mercado de massas, as marcas do século XX, as marcas do Normalistão, as marcas amorfas que têm medo de desagradar, que têm medo de não serem apetecíveis para os que estão dentro da caixa e que acabam na suckiness dos gigantes.