When Consumers and Marketers are as Illogical as Each Other
Years of market research practice has taught me that hypocrisy and contradiction are part and parcel of human nature, and that logic and consistency is one of the last things to expect from the average person.
This is the only explanation I can find for the recent marketing activities I have noticed that fly in the face of everything we are now expected to believe about ourselves. For many of the self-promoting beliefs now peddled about
For example, much has written in recent years about how New Zealanders have shed their cultural cringe and are more proud of their country than ever before. Our ability to laugh at ourselves has never been healthier, Kiwiana themed fashion has never been bigger, and being a New Zealander has never been more chic.
Those believing this will point to the Flight of the Conchords as a recent example of this, but conveniently forget that the duo was infamously rejected by TVNZ. Only now that they have been embraced overseas have they been recognised back home. Their connection with Neil Finn (NZ Herald, 2nd May) is especially ironic given that Finn’s Crowded House band was also ignored in
Secondly, there is the recent case of the Ace Rentals ‘whaka’ billboard. Old news it now is, and many have cited jokes made by Billy T. James to illustrate that Maori – English wordplay has a fine tradition in local comedy. But no-one has pointed out where the problem really lies. Consider for a moment if there were Maori placenames beginning with “joka”. Would a billboard that listed these names, concluding with the statement that “now you can visit any joka” have attracted the same bile? Clearly not (BroTown’s success confirms this). This illustrates that it was not so much the use of the Maori language that was the root of the problem but the implied use of the F-word. So when Pita Sharples stated that "It is an abuse of a people, our history and our culture" he revealed that he was more concerned with the use of the Maori language than the implied use of an English swear-word, which was the real source of the offense. Complaints about the billboard would have borne more gravitas had they been made by a racially-impartial group, and it is interesting to note that when Rove made heavy use of the same whaka pun on his television show, broadcast to millions, nary a complaint could be heard.
In contrast, complaints can certainly be heard on a regular basis from Telecom customers, and often for good reason. But these complainants are likely to be significantly outnumbered by the upcoming tsunami of upset customers who realise that they have been sold cellphones by Telecom that Telecom itself knows will be inoperable once its CDMA network is phased out in exchange for their upcoming GSM network. Undoubtedly Telecom’s marketers will put a positive spin on the change and introduce a phasing-in period, matched by all manner of deals on new handsets that will operate on the new network. But customers will simply see this as retrospective activities, a case of Telecom admitting that “we actively promoted and sold these handsets, knowing all along they would become inoperable in a few years”.
Sure, consumers have been known to upgrade cellphones every 18 months or so, but as the recession bites and the dollar falls, consumers will be more reticent to make such upgrades. All told, this reeks of Telecom treating their customers with disdain and contempt. A far better approach to the situation would have been to bundle in their planned network phase-in promotions from the outset, for example by promising a discounted new phone three years hence – a ‘future-proofed phone’. As it stands, customers will feel cheated and exploited – as already indicated in various online discussion groups. More than ever, marketers have to be open and honest with their customers, but some are still to realise this.
Finally, within the vein of “how gullible do we think the public is”, is the press release from Bluebird potato chips to counter complaints from the Ministry of Health about the Super 14 card promotion that Bluebird is running. Bluebird claims that the cards are not encouraging excessive consumption, only that the promotion is about market share - “a short term competitive marketing strategy designed to encourage a person to select one brand of snackfood over another…The promotion has been set up so that it does not encourage excess consumption.”.
This beggars belief. Collecting and card-sharing is a proven track to sales growth that has a history dating back to 1887. So claims that Bluebird is only interested in gaining sales at the expense of other brands hold as much water as tobacco companies claiming they only seek to gain share amongst existing smokers. One look at their product range confirms this, as the company produces so many other products in the category (e.g. Burger Rings, CC’s, Kettles, Grainwaves etc) that increases in share, not consumption, will inevitably mean cannibalisation of other Bluebird brands.
For Bluebird to claim otherwise smacks of insincere PR-spin. In this age in which brands and the companies behind them have to be more transparent than ever before, Bluebird should simply call upon parental restraint in the face of exceptional demand. Current parents and children alike are said to be the most savvy consumers ever, so why can’t they be treated as such?
The message from each of these examples is the same – marketers have to stop treating consumers as idiots – and consumers have to stop accepting such treatment.