Is Your Strategy Scaring Consumers? General Mills Online Legal Policy.

Posted by on May 22, 2014 in Big Data, Brand eCRM, Brand Value, Branding, Consumer Data, Consumer Privacy, CPG, Digital Strategy, iBeacon, innovation, Retail Disruption, Strategy, Technology | 0 comments

Seems to be a lot of tension in the relationship between consumers and marketers these days. As I re-read  an article from my April 17th AdAge  (General Mills Legal Policy Could Threaten Consumers’ Goodwill), I was reminded of something that happened the summer between my 4th and 5th grade year. It was my first time at sleep away summer camp.  We were all swimming and having a great time in the large camp pool, but suddenly – it seemed – every time I would come up for air this little boy named David would splash water in my face. I would duck underwater, hold my breath and swim as far away as possible – but again, he would find me, and splash water in my face and laugh. This happened three times when finally I got out of the pool, tears of frustration streaming down my face. Why was he being so mean to me? Later, around the campfire, it turned out that David has a crush on me. He “liked” me, and actually wanted me to be his girlfriend (remember, this was 4th grade, although I’m pretty sure it works the same way today). Marketers want so badly to connect with and engage consumers, yet so many of the techniques and attempts have the exact opposite effect. I don’t know, maybe it’s time we grew up a little? Susan O’Neal Gear has over 20 years of experience at the intersection of consumers, marketing and technology. Passionate about all aspects of a consumer’s relationship with brands and retailers, we’re spending the next year looking for new, groundbreaking thought leadership  – if not disruptive solutions – with the potential to redefine the parameters of consumer loyalty. If you also want to see some game changing happen -then follow Upstream Insight, contribute your voice, share this post…do something! ...

Read More

Is Tech Eroding Consumer Loyalty? (Absolute Value)

Posted by on May 15, 2014 in Amazon, Brand Purpose, Brand Value, Branding, CPG, Digital Strategy, innovation, Leadership, Learning, Online Marketing, Retail Disruption, Strategy, Target, Walmart | 0 comments

Itamar Simonson and Emanuel Rosen have me thinking differently about the components of  brand value and how “consumer loyalty” is derived. I thank them for that – in over 20 years of working and thinking in this space  I rarely, rarely say that  -original thought is so hard to come by, especially in a space where everyone is kind of an expert, because everyone is kind of a consumer. Yes, I understand the role of brand value to brands – it creates consumer demand for their product which increases leverage with distributors and retailers which, in turn, drives both sales and profitability.  And I have been aware of the trust factor for the consumer, you want to trust that the values you ascribe to a brand exist whenever and wherever that brand appears (consider Target’s brand characteristic of affordable style, WalMart’s brand of everyday low price). Having spent some time in Bulgaria, in 1998, just as it was coming out of decades of communism and finding its way into free market marketing, I also appreciate the role that having different “brand values” plays in a society . When you don’t have consumer choice, you don’t have brand value – and so, to me, being able to create choice – with brands that have different values – as a means of consumer self-expression and empowerment – is also an angle I understand. But there is something about the way this article breaks it down that is intriguing to me. It will take a while for the seeds they planted in my brain to germinate into something really useful, but here is what they have me ruminating about: What is the Role of Brand Value in Consumer Loyalty?  (or I would say creating “consumer demand”) Simonson and Rosen essentially say the value is “quick reference”.  Consumers either don’t have to do the research, or don’t have to do as much research – before buying – because they trust the brand, or more specifically what the brand means. They hypothesize that in an age of “almost” perfect information, – the research that used to be able to be “assumed” by certain brand value attributes, is now readily and easily available online. They conclude that, in this case, it is the “absolute” value (not the relative “by association”  brand value) of the product that is most important. As I try to break this down, I think that is probably true in some instances – particularly where the fact is easily verified or quantified. Examples of this would include quality, safety or some other quantifiable standard or feature (like gluten-free, or organic  ingredients). But even then, the value is relative – the consumer now trusts the online recommendations more than...

Read More