When you purchase a generic, grocery store brand product that is all you’re buying, no fancy name, no advertising campaign, just the product. No Name is usually the cheapest compared to other brands, but there are exceptions. Here are some conclusions I’ve come to on No Name products:
- They have found the most inexpensive way to make and distribute their own products.
- They compete on price and price alone.
- People don’t buy No Name products because of the amazing quality
- The perception is that the quality is below average.
- Because of the lower expectations, it is much more difficult to under-deliver
- Quality to consumers is a flashy label that catches your eye and a more expensive price point
- When your product doesn’t need a large advertising campaign, you can price it lower.
- When no extra effort goes into making the packaging of the product “pop” whatsoever, you can price it lower.
If there is no expectation of the standard of quality of a No Name product, you are rarely dissatisfied with it because the value (benefits/price) is quite high. Why is the value high? Because the benefits remain close to the same but the price is less, thus increasing the value of the product.
In whatever industry you are in you can attempt to compete on price but always know there is someone out there that can make your product cheaper and ship it cheaper. Instead, ad some value, tell a story, create an added benefit in your customers mind, then you can begin charging more.
This ad has been creating controversy in the media this past week and for good reason. Originated on the CBC Canada website, the article talked about the condo developer taking the ad down and offering a formal apology as well as the agency that created them offered an apology but the comments on the article are much more interesting than the article itself, I have quoted a few below.
“They are sexist, tasteless and old-fashioned. They will attract the wrong sort of people who think this sort of thing is okay.”
“has anyone ever heard of this popular slogan: SEX SELLS”
“I don’t know about the rest of you… but I’m not wasting any of my 25 year old scotch on a 25 year old Blonde.”
“The ads don’t appeal to me. But you have to be pretty uptight to let these harmless ads bother you. Wil Knoll says he wouldn’t want to be in a room with people who thought it was a great ad. I don’t think I’d want to be in a room with Wil Knoll.”
From Twitter:
@Jaynauta: I bet the goal of that condo ad was to cause I huge uproar. I’m a guy in Regina not looking for a condo and I saw the ad.”
Yes it may have been a bit sexist but people are going to complain regardless of what you do. Remember, advertising that’s targeted at everyone is effective on no one. Timothy Ferris once said “Belief’s, belongings and behaviors, threaten these and you will get a response.” You don’t have to believe me, just look at the statistics so far on this ad:
275 Diggs on Digg.com
367 Comments
203 Recommends
It’s all over Twitter just search “Sexist Calgary”
Finally this is the comment that summed it up for me, I say smart advertising.
TimPaper wrote:
“Oh, lighten up, everyone. The ads were targeted to men – and they appeared in men’s washrooms at nightclubs. They didn’t target children. And they didn’t target women.
All they did was put in an ad in a place where only adult men could see the ads the very thoughts that go through the minds of 99 per cent of men when they’ve got a few drinks in them at a bar.
This is really a tempest in a teapot. You don’t like the ads? Fine, don’t buy a condo. But, please, get a life. All the overly-sensitive new men who complained about this ad managed to do is get a heckuva lot more publicity for the condo developer.
In fact, the cynic in me wonders if the complaint about sexism wasn’t orchestrated by the developer or the marketers of the project specifically to create a media fury and get a lot of free exposure. If they didn’t do it on purpose, well, they were born under a lucky star because I’m sure this nonsense really helped their sales.”
Read the full article at: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/03/24/calgary-ads-sexist-condo-midtown-withdrawn.html#socialcomments#ixzz0jWtcGHAb
Recently I have been asking a lot of people how they like their job and it didn’t surprise me that the vast majority said they were unsatisfied. The more I asked, poked and prodded about their career, the more positive it became. Then it dawned on me, sure there are some better careers than others, but our generation enjoys complaining. Let me explain.
If you have what most people would call a “boring” job (accounting, office job, the majority of the crown corporations) you probably have great security and make an above average wage. You complain about how board you are at work because they block you from using Facebook and Twitter but your paid four weeks of holidays and have “earned days off” so it’s worth it for now.
If you have what most people would call an “amazing” job (entrepreneur, creative director, manager at a small company) you probably have great flexibility and actually enjoy the majority of the work. You complain about how you’re underpaid and how it must be nice to collect a check every two weeks. You struggle but your passionate and an office job just isn’t your style.
So why must we always complain? Our generation is never satisfied, we want the greener grass and the internet has only made it easier to see the grass, touch it, tweet about it and then determine if we like it or not. Is their a solution? It’s an opinion so let me know if you disagree.
You need to stop comparing yourself to others. If you tell me how much money you make it’s because your job sucks and thats the only good thing about it, save it, I don’t care. Instead of comparing and complaining ever try making your job better? Possibly making work “fun” for a change? I know sounds weird doesn’t it.
Finally, I think managers in general need training on the “generation Y” employee; their expectations, their motivations and what they want out of life. Complaining gets you no where, start thinking of innovative solutions to making your job better, what have got to lose?
In some industry’s I would argue brand loyalty does not exist for the vast majority of people. For these products price is the main reason of choice. In the grocery store I have too many options in front of me, so like any other confused male in their twenty’s in a grocery store, I begin to compare prices and inevitably many of my choices are dictated on which is the cheapest. But a product can look good enough that you will pay a premium just because you perceive it to have more value (this happens a lot). Many products in the grocery store are sold because of implied value, which creates brand loyalty. Marketing has aided this effort for years, making products seem better than they actually are, just so people would buy.
Alright so you buy Kraft over the no name salad dressing, and you buy Bicks because No Name pickles taste funny (when in fact they taste fine). Marketing has done a great job building trusted brands for us but I don’t agree with buying a name brand products just so a multi-national company can keep marketing it. Presidents Choice Cola tastes strikingly similar to Coke Cola but you don’t want to be known as the guy who buys PC brand Cola do you? Well why not? It’s cheaper and it tastes like the real thing.
One could argue that the more informed shopper will purchase the generic brands more than big name brands because they understand that the extra cost supports marketing efforts not improving the product.
The next time you’re going for groceries ask yourself, “why am I buying the name brand product.”
