In the age of social engagement, double opt-in emails and viral campaigns, some vintage marketing strategies are still as popular as ever, despite their venerable age.
The psychology of ‘the offer’ is of course, terribly basic: ‘choose our brand and we’ll reward you for it’. We’ll give you something, let you have two for the price of one, throw in a free gift or give you a deduction on your next purchase. Natural human lust for ‘something for nothing’ will do the rest.
Of course, we all realise there’s no such thing as a free lunch (or tin of beans, pair of jeans or Mr. Sheens). No, every offer is designed to engage you with the product, encourage you to try it, get to know it, make it your friend and continue to purchase it long after the offer has receded.
Fair enough, sounds like a win/win deal. The punter gets a modest treat, the producers show themselves to be a generous bunch as they push some brand loyalty and the retailer sells a touch more stuff. However, there is a golden rule when concocting these dream deals, a rule that is disregarded at the brand’s peril. A rule so important, that neglecting it can see a service or product actually paying to lose currency and reputation.
Take ‘the offer’. When our hunter-gatherer ancestors first started trading goats for wheat, it was probably no more than 24 hours before someone muscled in on the action, offering Buy-One-Goat-Get-One-Goat-Free (BOGGOGF).
The psychology of ‘the offer’ is of course, terribly basic: ‘choose our brand and we’ll reward you for it’. We’ll give you something, let you have two for the price of one, throw in a free gift or give you a deduction on your next purchase. Natural human lust for ‘something for nothing’ will do the rest.
Of course, we all realise there’s no such thing as a free lunch (or tin of beans, pair of jeans or Mr. Sheens). No, every offer is designed to engage you with the product, encourage you to try it, get to know it, make it your friend and continue to purchase it long after the offer has receded.
Fair enough, sounds like a win/win deal. The punter gets a modest treat, the producers show themselves to be a generous bunch as they push some brand loyalty and the retailer sells a touch more stuff. However, there is a golden rule when concocting these dream deals, a rule that is disregarded at the brand’s peril. A rule so important, that neglecting it can see a service or product actually paying to lose currency and reputation.
And it’s this: never make an offer which forces you to quibble when it is claimed.
If you do, you will wish you had never embarked on the promotion as your reputation tanks and the punters begin to view you as a confidence trickster.
The classic example is that of Hoover. It’s well trodden ground but bears repeating as it illustrates this reversal of fortune so well.
In the late 1980s, vacuum cleaner manufacturer Hoover (so successful, the makers’ name had come to be the preferred name for all cleaners, regardless of brand) hit on the irresistible idea of giving away free flights with every unit sold. Air travel at the time was still regarded as something of a luxury and so the offer was particularly attractive. So much so that people began to buy vacuum cleaners they didn’t need, in order to bag some free travel tickets to foreign parts.
In truth, Hoover had over extended themselves on this, getting the estimated uptake wildly wrong. But instead of gritting their teeth and stumping up for the air fairs regardless, they started to quibble – telling customers they didn’t qualify or could not have the flights on the dates they required them. It was a disaster. Punters went to the press and the press proceeded to savage Hoover. Investigations were launched, questions were asked in The House. Arguably the king of carpet cleaning never really recovered.
What had been conceived as marvelous way to reward the consumer and drum up some glittering PR had almost sunk the firm.
In truth, Hoover had over extended themselves on this, getting the estimated uptake wildly wrong. But instead of gritting their teeth and stumping up for the air fairs regardless, they started to quibble – telling customers they didn’t qualify or could not have the flights on the dates they required them. It was a disaster. Punters went to the press and the press proceeded to savage Hoover. Investigations were launched, questions were asked in The House. Arguably the king of carpet cleaning never really recovered.
What had been conceived as marvelous way to reward the consumer and drum up some glittering PR had almost sunk the firm.
Last weekend, my wife, adult kids and I thought it would be very lovely to gather in a local American/Italian themed diner on Sunday morning and have breakfast. We chose this particular outlet as it was running an offer: two breakfasts for £10.00 and all drinks came with ‘bottomless’ refills.
A very fair deal, I’m sure you’ll agree and a hearty banquet of eggs, bacon and muffins was enjoyed by all. At this point the party of seven couldn’t have been better disposed towards the brand in question. Indeed, there was talk of meeting at the establishment on a regular basis, offer or no offer. But then we went to settle the bill. And the quibbling began.
As we were an odd number, one breakfast would have to be full price as it had no ‘partner’ breakfast to attract a deduction. Perversely, had we ordered eight breakfasts, we would have saved money. Next ‘drinks’ enjoyed a whole new definition whereby orange juice was no longer a ‘drink’ but some sort of rare plasma at £2.00 a glass. The net result being the bill was around £15.00 higher than we anticipated.
I don’t really care about £15.00, I really don’t. What I do care about is being attracted by an offer, being persuaded to take part, enjoying the experience and then feeling fleeced. Because now my relationship with this particular brand is completely undermined. In essence, this restaurant chain has spent a portion of a king’s ransom to ensure I am never likely to be their customer again.
Everyone enjoys a little discount and the opportunity to save some expenditure, but companies would do well to consider whether serving up disappointment and dismay is really an effective way to court customers. In short, be careful what you offer.
As we were an odd number, one breakfast would have to be full price as it had no ‘partner’ breakfast to attract a deduction. Perversely, had we ordered eight breakfasts, we would have saved money. Next ‘drinks’ enjoyed a whole new definition whereby orange juice was no longer a ‘drink’ but some sort of rare plasma at £2.00 a glass. The net result being the bill was around £15.00 higher than we anticipated.
I don’t really care about £15.00, I really don’t. What I do care about is being attracted by an offer, being persuaded to take part, enjoying the experience and then feeling fleeced. Because now my relationship with this particular brand is completely undermined. In essence, this restaurant chain has spent a portion of a king’s ransom to ensure I am never likely to be their customer again.
Everyone enjoys a little discount and the opportunity to save some expenditure, but companies would do well to consider whether serving up disappointment and dismay is really an effective way to court customers. In short, be careful what you offer.
