And a little book called Moneyball
Following up from my last post, I gave my second blog a little time to think itself through. For some reason, I kept thinking about this book while I was listening to Professor Fader's ideas. That set me off on another line of thought. What is marketing research all about? The professor kept talking about the value of conventional wisdom and using information more effectively. Perhaps a few innovators in baseball have hit upon the answer. So, without much further ado, let me introduce the reader to the book using the omnipresent Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=438445). Here you can find a pretty succinct summary of the book. The core of the book to me, however, is the essence of innovative marketing research.
Every industry has its own conventional wisdom. Take, for instance, the motion picture industry. Traditional wisdom says that movies should be released on Fridays so that they can benefit from the weekend crowd. While this might have held true in times when the average movie-goer went to work 5 days a week and looked for some Friday night entertainment, but will this theory change if we had flexible working hours? Is the pre-release on Wednesdays and Thursdays an attempt to get an early edge? Is it the reflection of an extended weekend? Do these rules apply equally in the summer? I don't have a definitive answer, but I just know that the new trend certainly isn't conventional wisdom.
Baseball, too, suffers from its multitude of opinions. What Billy Beane and his crew did was to challenge opinions using statistically-backed stats. For example, they found that a college player's chance of making it in the big leagues is way greater than a high school player's odds. This flies in the face of traditional baseball thinking - but is validated by research! This allowed a middle of the pack team like the A's (when it came to budget) to run with organizations like the cash-rich Yankees or the Red Sox who in the past have simply shelled out exorbitant cash for the best established players.
I am sure marketing researchers at this point are smiling to themselves. Haven't we all faced some brand manager who seems to believe that her brand is premium despite all evidence to the contrary? Or that TV advertising still generates 15% incremental sales for a mature CPG product?
To me, the professor's theories, the book and the current state of marketing research all point in the same direction. Research is useless if it is only used to validate conventional wisdom. True value in research is driven by finding previously undiscovered nuggets - and not by doing the tried and tested.
Wading Through A Deluge of Recession Pricing Advice
Over the past year or so a lot of advice has come out from business thought leaders about recessionary pricing strategies. Below are three articles from what are considered to be well-regarded sources:
INSEAD: When to push the panic button?
Harvard Business School: Marketing Your Way Through a Recession
McKinsey: Pricing in an inflationary downturn
Although there's a lot of valuable advice in these perspectives, it is surprising that some of these studies propose a one-size-fits-all approach to recessionary pricing.
Sorry to burst the bubble, but the consumer decision process is not that simple. For instance the INSEAD article proposes that consumers are not more price sensitive during a recession, the extra sensitiveness shown during recessionary times is attributed to income smoothing and advices firms to focus on share of customer wallet rather than share of market. Good advice, but while it is great to focus on share of wallet, share of market ultimately determines the financial performance corporate stakeholders will be evaluated on. Share of wallet as a metric is focused on retention(up-selling and cross-selling). While retention is critical, acquisition is important too in driving growth. Market-share is a more wholesome metric that takes into account performance of both retention and acquisition activities, especially if the firm is in a growing category, where acquisition could be a greater determinant of performance than retention. On the other hand for mature industries, retention would certainly be more important. This highlights the perils of subscribing to generic strategies.
Another frequent advice I have come across is to not take a perceived increase in price sensitiveness during economic downturns as a signal to aggressive pricing strategies that may lead to unprofitable price wars. That is all good, but game theory suggests that in multi-competitor industries, you will always have a player that will try to increase their payoff by defecting and using aggressive pricing strategies to garner market shares. In this case should you take the higher road and trust in your customer loyalty or protect your market-share?
The Harvard article scores on a few points, for instance Advice #6 is to "Adjust Pricing Tactics"- some good nuggets of wisdom here, but #3 "Maintain Marketing Spending" is no all that realistic. Margin pressures inevitably result in budget cuts.
The McKinsey article actually has some pretty good advice on how research steps that can help fine tune pricing strategy, without actually trying to generalize findings. I especially liked these:
Monitor customer-level profitability
Update price sensitivity research
Monitor your industry’s microeconomics
Consumers reaction to pricing in recessions is not generic across all of their purchases. For instance, if a Brand is in a category with relatively low product differentiation, price discounting could forever forfeit brand premium, while Brands in categories with higher product differentiation can actually leverage pricing without damaging longer term equity. Also for service-based industries, brands can drive longer-term market-share by lowering price and locking in customers over a longer-period. Ultimately the key thing to remember is that when it comes to pricing strategy- one size certainly doesn't fit all.
INSEAD: When to push the panic button?
Harvard Business School: Marketing Your Way Through a Recession
McKinsey: Pricing in an inflationary downturn
Although there's a lot of valuable advice in these perspectives, it is surprising that some of these studies propose a one-size-fits-all approach to recessionary pricing.
Sorry to burst the bubble, but the consumer decision process is not that simple. For instance the INSEAD article proposes that consumers are not more price sensitive during a recession, the extra sensitiveness shown during recessionary times is attributed to income smoothing and advices firms to focus on share of customer wallet rather than share of market. Good advice, but while it is great to focus on share of wallet, share of market ultimately determines the financial performance corporate stakeholders will be evaluated on. Share of wallet as a metric is focused on retention(up-selling and cross-selling). While retention is critical, acquisition is important too in driving growth. Market-share is a more wholesome metric that takes into account performance of both retention and acquisition activities, especially if the firm is in a growing category, where acquisition could be a greater determinant of performance than retention. On the other hand for mature industries, retention would certainly be more important. This highlights the perils of subscribing to generic strategies.
Another frequent advice I have come across is to not take a perceived increase in price sensitiveness during economic downturns as a signal to aggressive pricing strategies that may lead to unprofitable price wars. That is all good, but game theory suggests that in multi-competitor industries, you will always have a player that will try to increase their payoff by defecting and using aggressive pricing strategies to garner market shares. In this case should you take the higher road and trust in your customer loyalty or protect your market-share?
The Harvard article scores on a few points, for instance Advice #6 is to "Adjust Pricing Tactics"- some good nuggets of wisdom here, but #3 "Maintain Marketing Spending" is no all that realistic. Margin pressures inevitably result in budget cuts.
The McKinsey article actually has some pretty good advice on how research steps that can help fine tune pricing strategy, without actually trying to generalize findings. I especially liked these:
Monitor customer-level profitability
Update price sensitivity research
Monitor your industry’s microeconomics
Consumers reaction to pricing in recessions is not generic across all of their purchases. For instance, if a Brand is in a category with relatively low product differentiation, price discounting could forever forfeit brand premium, while Brands in categories with higher product differentiation can actually leverage pricing without damaging longer term equity. Also for service-based industries, brands can drive longer-term market-share by lowering price and locking in customers over a longer-period. Ultimately the key thing to remember is that when it comes to pricing strategy- one size certainly doesn't fit all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)