A Step-by-Step Guide to Winning the Customer
Companies
that understand the stages of consumer purchasing decisions have an outsized
influence in their outcome.
Let’s begin with a question: Who are
your competitors? Take a minute to list two, three, or four companies. Then ask
yourself how you know that these are your closest rivals. Are they the
companies that most often pitch for business alongside your company? Do their
brands sit beside yours on the shelf? Are they coming up close to your brand in
search-page rank? Do they compete with you for resources and employees? Do they
vie with you for the consumer’s dollar?
If a company or brand is truly your
competitor, you should have answered yes to at least some of these questions.
But ultimately, only one condition really determines a rival: whether your
target customers include it among the brands they consider in relation to
yours.
So let’s ask the question
differently. Instead of considering which brands are your competitors, ask
which brands the customer considers before making a choice. To determine this,
you have to find a way to get into the customer’s mind. This is not easy, but
it is worth doing, because your list of competitors and the customer’s list may
not be the same. Invariably, the latter is more relevant and indicative of your
true competition than the one you prepare in the comfort of your office.
Of all the products available to
fulfill a given need, the customer will generally consider fewer than a handful
before choosing one to buy, even in the most elaborate of purchasing scenarios.
This group of products is the consideration set—your closest
competitors. These brands are evaluated on a limited number of criteria before
one is ultimately chosen for purchase. From a marketer’s perspective, then, how
you analyze and address the competition boils down to three critical issues:
- How do you make sure your brand is among those considered for purchase by the customer?
- How do you ensure that, for as many people as possible, there are as few competing brands as possible in that consideration set?
- Which other brands are in the consideration set, and how do you make sure your brand is the one chosen for purchase from among those?
Now let’s delve a little deeper into
the consumer’s thought process to understand how you can systematically
increase your chances of success in addressing each of these strategic
concerns.
Gaining
Entry into the Consideration Set
Customers simplify the large set of
available alternatives to the much smaller consideration set by applying rules
of thumb that use certain criteria as cutoffs or must-haves. Any of the
following, for example, could be a cutoff criterion for consumers forming
consideration sets before choosing an automobile: It must have six seats and room
for the dog, be a hybrid, be priced below US$25,000, be made domestically, be
from a German brand, get at least 30 highway miles per gallon, and be easy to
parallel park. These cutoff criteria are so pervasive among consumers that car
companies often define the target segments by their customers’ cutoff criteria:
the large-vehicle segment, the environmentally friendly segment, the
price-conscious segment, the domestic segment, the German-car-enthusiast
segment, the fuel-efficient segment, and the urban-car segment. Under this
definition, a segment is a set of consumers who are sufficiently convinced by a
given criterion to use it as a cutoff in forming their consideration set.
Your first strategic goal, then, is
to convince as large a segment of the market as possible to use cutoff criteria
that favor your brand. Sure, German car brands compete with each other, but
they also have a collective interest in ensuring that a significantly large
segment of consumers continue to be sufficiently fascinated by the mythology of
German engineering to use that as a cutoff criterion in forming their
consideration set. The simplifying heuristic of “German” makes the consumer’s
decision much easier because it eliminates a large swath of available brands
that are irrelevant to this segment’s choice. A look at the chat boards of
German-car enthusiasts shows that to this customer segment, a Lexus, an
Infiniti, an Acura—and all other luxury Japanese car brands—simply do not
compare with the solidity and drivability of a German-made Mercedes, BMW,
Porsche, or Audi. So convinced is this segment of the superiority of German
engineering that year after year, members of the group willingly ignore the Consumer
Reports testing results that place several Japanese brands higher on tests
of both drivability and reliability, even as they accept the higher annual cost
of owning a German vehicle. The marketer of German brands could not hope for a
better cutoff criterion or a more convinced set of customers. After all, BMW’s
marketing managers would much rather limit their consideration set to Mercedes,
Audi, and Porsche than compete with a more extensive set of global brands. One
benefit of comparisons with these brands is that it improves BMW’s relative
value per dollar, more than would a comparison with a broader set of less
expensive brands.
BMW would rather limit its
consideration set to Mercedes, Audi, and Porsche than compete with a more
extensive set of brands.
Close
the Door behind You
As a member of a consideration set,
you have a second strategic imperative: to ensure that the membership of the
set remains as exclusive as possible. A smaller consideration set means fewer
competitors and, thus, less intense competition. In a study of computer
purchasers, I found that consumers who bought an iMac considered 2.11 brands
prior to the purchase, whereas consumers who bought a Windows-based PC
considered 3.35 brands. The cutoff criteria that led consumers to consider an
iMac were based on its differentiated positioning (its use of a different
operating system, its emphasis on design and usability, and even its higher
price), which automatically eliminates numerous competitors and leaves the iMac
playing in a much smaller consideration set than Windows-based PCs.
One way to make the cutoff more
exclusive is to convince consumers to raise the bar on the cutoff criteria they
use, stranding competitors that do not match the new standard. Consider the
arms race on the cutoff criteria of smartphone “generations.” Many consumers
are aware of a correlation between the generation of the network (the G) and
network data transfer speeds, but the real meaning of the Gs plays out in the
competitive battle. Smartphone manufacturers must match the latest cutoff
criteria or risk being left out of the game. Few consumers today would consider
buying a 2G or even a 3G phone, which was the standard a couple of years ago.
And given the pace of development in network technology, the cutoff continues
to rise, as criteria such as LTE (long-term evolution, a network technology
that speeds up data transfers) set new standards. And although it is true that
these technological advancements are resulting in superior performance,
carriers and manufacturers aggressively market their latest breakthrough
standard as a way of trying to redefine the rules of competition.
Indeed, a technological lead becomes
a downstream competitive advantage only if customers use the distinctive
technological feature as a criterion of purchase. Otherwise, your investments
in its development are merely a means of staying in the game, and they are
unlikely to have the returns you expected. The goal is to develop technological
features that competitors cannot easily replicate and that customers
will use as criteria to eliminate numerous alternatives from their
consideration set.
You may have noticed that the two
strategic imperatives discussed so far are likely to be at odds with each
other. On the one hand, you want to convince the largest possible segment of
consumers to use your cutoff criteria. On the other hand, you want to limit the
number of brands entering the consideration set. The more “exclusive” the
cutoff you use, the fewer the people who are likely to use it. Given this
trade-off, the marketer’s strategic options are often framed as a choice
between a niche-player approach (such as for the iMac), so that you contend
with fewer competitors inside the consideration set, and a wider-market
approach (such as for a Dell computer), which gives you the concomitant burden
of more competitors. Most brands can be successful only by choosing one
approach.
Who
Else Is in the Consideration Set?
The third strategic move for
marketers is to influence not just the size of the consideration set, but also
its composition. Yes, you have a say about who else gets into the consideration
set with you. The Honda automobile website, like those of many other
manufacturers, helpfully provides visitors with a comparison tool that allows
them to benchmark the Civic against competitor brands such as the Toyota
Corolla, the Chevrolet Cruze, and the Ford Focus—but, crucially, not the
Hyundai Elantra, the Nissan Sentra or Versa, or the Mazda 3. The absence of the
Nissan and Mazda brands may be attributed to their small market share, but the
Elantra’s absence is conspicuous because it is the most serious challenger to
the Civic’s position as a market leader. Honda excludes the Elantra in its
suggested comparison set presumably to reduce the likelihood of the competitor
car’s inclusion in consumers’ consideration sets. Of course, consumers today
can find comparisons of any combination of products online if they make the
effort. But sellers, by presenting their product judiciously, can influence
which products consumers will make the effort to compare, and which criteria
they use to do so.
The second, third, or fourth players
in a market sometimes use comparative advertising that pits them in a contest
against the leading brand. This technique serves three purposes. First, it
attempts to limit the consideration set to the two brands compared. Second, it
raises consumer awareness of the criterion on which the comparison takes place
(which presumably favors the challenger). Finally, it allows the challenger to
piggyback on the awareness of the leading brand to introduce a lesser-known
name into the consideration set. The market leader rarely engages in
comparative advertising. Because its brand is well known and belongs in the
consideration set, its focus is on reinforcing the criteria that customers are
already using. Coke does not compare itself to Pepsi, but Pepsi compares itself
to Coke, and presumably leaves smaller brands and private-label colas out of
the fray.
Efforts to influence the composition
of the consideration set are not limited to communication tools. Automobile
manufacturers and dealers have made significant efforts to maintain a
brand-based dealership structure, in which dealers sell only noncompeting
vehicles, and have resisted moves toward independent car superstores that carry
multiple competing brands. As a result, the car buyer rarely gets to do a
side-by-side comparison and may be deterred from considering too many cars,
because of the time and cost involved in visiting multiple dealerships. The
same logic is evident in many other industries. Take Häagen-Dazs, the
superpremium ice cream, which offers retailers special display freezers in
which, by agreement, only Häagen-Dazs ice cream is displayed. These units limit
comparison: Once consumers have opened the freezer door, they have redefined
the comparison set to the banana split, vanilla bean espresso, and dulce de
leche flavors of the Häagen-Dazs brand.
Trade-Offs
and Exchange Rates
Once your brand is inside the
consideration set, the competitive game changes. Customers use their criteria
not as hard cutoffs, but to make trade-offs. Their information-processing goal
is no longer to eliminate brands that do not fit their needs, but to pick the
one that fits best. With just a few brands to consider, customers engage in the
more complex task of evaluating multiple criteria simultaneously, trading off
price for reliability, roominess for style, sportiness for comfort, and so on.
The use of trade-offs means that the brand the customer eventually chooses is
not necessarily one that dominates on all criteria (there are very few brands
or products that do), but rather one that offers the best compromise.
The use of trade-offs means that the
brand the customer chooses is not necessarily one that dominates on all
criteria.
Your first goal is to ensure that
once inside the consideration set, you understand which criteria are
important to customers and comprehend the exchange rate the customers use in
their trade-offs: How much fuel efficiency will customers trade off for greater
roominess in a vehicle? Understanding customers’ trade-offs allows you to
tailor your products and messages. Knowing that roominess is more important
than fuel efficiency to the family segment allows you to give that feature
appropriate emphasis in product design, in brochures, and in sales pitches.
The second goal of marketing inside
the consideration set is to influence the trade-offs that consumers
make. The competitive task here is essentially to increase the relative
importance of attributes associated with your brand as well as the perceived
value of your brand on these attributes. Brand managers for erectile
dysfunction drug Cialis challenged Viagra for market leadership by first
emphasizing the importance of duration as a criterion of purchase for patients
and physicians and then demonstrating their brand’s unequivocal superiority on
this dimension.
Let’s consider another example. If
you’re Volvo, you may have convinced a segment of consumers to use a very high
safety standard as a cutoff criterion—a standard that leaves only Volvo in the
consideration set. This is Volvo’s core segment of consumers. But for many
other consumers, the cutoff criterion for safety is somewhat lower and is thus
met by several brands, all of which enter the consideration set. Inside this
set, other criteria come into play. Volvo brand managers would like to ensure
that these consumers still use a relatively high exchange rate for the safety
dimension when considering the other criteria. The managers want consumers to be
reluctant to trade safety for any other criteria, such that the buyers are even
willing to accept less-than-optimal styling or fuel efficiency in exchange for
an enhanced feeling of safety. This, of course, is why Volvo’s ads stress both
the importance of safety and the dire consequences of the lack of it.
If you’re BMW, on the other hand,
you want to turn safety into a basic cutoff criterion in the consideration set.
Indeed, brand managers would aim to make safety no longer relevant in the
consideration set, because all cars inside this set meet the requisite safety
norms. BMW would prefer that inside the consideration set, consumers evaluate
cars on criteria such as driving dynamics, styling, and pleasure. At BMW’s
popular daylong driver training courses, where customers (and soon-to-be
customers) learn about driving from professional race-car and rally drivers,
for example, the trainers begin by underscoring both safety principles and the
safety of the BMW vehicle. They then spend much of the day in hands-on
demonstrations of the handling prowess and driving dynamics of BMW vehicles.
The higher the value consumers attach to these latter criteria, the less
willing they will be to trade them off against other criteria and the more
likely they will be to choose the BMW brand from among the brands in the
consideration set.
The rules of the competitive playing
field spell out how brands compete for consumers’ consideration, choice, and
loyalty. You can’t play if you’re not considered, and you can’t win if you don’t
exert strong influence on the elements of consideration.
by Niraj Dawar http://www.strategy-business.com/article/00238?pg=all
No comments:
Post a Comment