Fundir ou eliminar marcas

A propósito deste artigo "Why Consolidating Brands Can Be a Strategic Mistake" que termina assim:

"The lesson for managers? Don’t confuse your sense of the company’s identity with your customers’ sense of your brands’ identities. If you do, you’ll only spread your own confusion."

Faz-me recuar no tempo:

• Modelo e Continente (2016)
• Será uma boa decisão? (2011) 
• Proposta de valor e marca (2009)
• Qual será a actual proposta de valor do Millennium BCP? (2006)

O artigo inicial chama atenção para o que a maioria esquece:

"Interestingly, companies that are expert in branding are usually comfortable with managing the brands separately. Executives at P&G, for instance, have a very strong sense of corporate identity even while they manage a huge portfolio of standalone branded businesses – and with multiple brands in each segment."

Julgo que a maioria dos decisores por fusão ou eliminação de marcas não percebem que os clientes são heterogéneos e valorizam diferentes propostas de valor. Como só pensam em reduzir custos, passam ao lado de um instrumento de marketing que podia ser utilizado de forma interessante aqui em Mongo.

"psychological ownership"

"psychological ownership. That’s when consumers feel so invested in a product that it becomes an extension of themselves.
.
Companies that encourage psychological ownership can entice customers to buy more products, at higher prices, and even to willingly promote those products among their friends. But if businesses disrespect this feeling, sales can suffer."

Em "How Customers Come to Think of a Product as an Extension of Themselves" um texto sobre como promover a "psychological ownership":

• "One way is to allow customers a hand in forming the product"
• "Businesses should strive to make products customizable. When consumers can personalize products, they buy more and are happy to recommend those products to friends."
• "Building intimate knowledge - This occurs when customers believe they know every facet of a product or brand so well that they have a special, unique relationship with it."

"Companies legally own their brand, but their most devoted customers may own it psychologically. Businesses should cultivate this feeling—and then respect it."

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.

Um mundo mais fluido?

Reflectir sobre:

"Among the top 100 CPG brands, 90 experienced share declines, according to a 2015 study by Catalina, a leading digital and consumer loyalty firm. Take a moment to let that soak in …90% of the leading household goods brands are losing market share on consistently low-growth categories.
...
The erosion of consumer loyalty among the most esteemed brands represents a changed philosophy of buying. The standard for brand switching is no longer the failure of a brand to perform but rather its inability to seem like an entirely new and interesting option at every single purchase cycle.
...
Two thirds of consumers surveyed said that the number of companies or brands they consider when making purchase decisions has increased significantly compared with 10 years ago.
...
They recognize that establishing and maintaining ongoing connections between consumers and their brands is becoming less and less realistic. Instead, those companies must continue to transform their offerings to treat each and every purchase occasion as a victory and invest in innovation that meets a constant need for change. Lifetime consumer loyalty is no longer a valid goal in the world of CPG because as much as it suits manufacturers, it’s simply no longer meaningful to consumers."

Não, não creio que seja por causa do que Simonsen defende, "O papel da marca em Mongo". Acredito que é mais por causa do Estranhistão e do referido em "Conciliação possível?"

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