Switching Costs and promising the impossible

“Many consumers remain loyal due simply to the absence of a negative because it is often easier to put up with something that is less than perfect than go to the trouble, and potential expense, of switching”

PricewaterhouseCoopers summed up their findings above in July regarding cell phone and pay TV customer loyalty. In the midst of swirling hysteria over cable TV “cord-cutting”, their survey restated the power of inertia and loss aversion.

In the hysteria that is the US presidential elections, Jon Stewart showcased the FDR video clip recently on The Daily Show. It was used to underline the current predilection Governor Romney has for stating he can not only improve the financial and military strength of the country, but do so at no extra cost to the taxpayer. This has met with puzzlement in the press. Romney has yet to fully describe how he plans to do both these things at once. It smacks of promising the impossible (not that Obama has been much more candid in his own policy details).

In politics, as with brands. If you are asking someone to change their allegiance from one thing to another, said person must consider whether the pros of changing affiliation outweigh the cons. If a brand or political party wants to be that change, they must convince the buyer – or voter – that the switching costs are low enough for it to be worth their while.

This can lead to overpromising, which in marketing can lead to a disappointed buyer and post-purchase dissonance. (Sadly it is less easy to return your ballot and ask to vote again). The ebullience of the sell can ultimately damage the brand. That is why marketers must strive to be honest with the consumer. If long-term commitment to a product or service is what is being sought, hyperbole or a disengenuous call to action can permanently damage a brand’s equity. You just have to think about what makes your product or service truly stand apart from its peers. If this is too much to ask, then its to time to rethink your offering.

K-Swiss demonstrate the Powers of Media Neutrality

One of the myriad benefits online media platforms provide to brands is that they don’t need to appease the censors that stand between them and a TV audience.

If you want to do something a little risque or simply profane you can upload it, promote it and hope it goes viral.

One example is this video in which Kenny Powers from Eastbound and Down becomes CEO (or rather MFCEO) of K-Swiss. In it the character played by Danny McBride sets about recruiting a number of athletes, including NFL stars Matt Cassel and Patrick Willis, MMA champions Jon “Bones” Jones and Urijah Faber, and super-trainer Jillian Michaels to run various departments within the company and promote the Tubes line of footwear.

Warning! Lots of profanity, probably best listened to on headphones…

The campaign is also supported on Facebook and uses Microsoft Tag technology to enter consumers into sweepstakes and provide them with secret content when they scan the K-Swiss posters in Footlocker.

“Pretty much every person walking around has a mobile device. It is an accepted medium of communication that consumers are becoming more aware of.”  said Bryan Ogle, K-Swiss director of business development, explaining the strategy.

“Mobile is not ancillary but rather complementary to the overall messaging strategies employed during this campaign. Significant visual content was created for this campaign and mobile aids the brand in delivering the content to the consumer.” he added.

Initial reaction to the online content has been positive with the target audience and with more family friendly pieces being filmed for a TV audience the campaign is a great example of a brand maximising the benefits of each media channel rather than simply putting an extended TV ad online.

Brand minimalism

When is less, more? Some brands could arguably benefit greatly from a scaled-down facelift, removing all but the most basic artwork from the brand or the packaging. But change can be dangerous, and unwelcome. Certainly retailer Gap had to return to consumer cap-in-hand when they attempted to fiddle with their logo. And now Starbucks, the ever-present coffee store, has also decided to alter their logo, removing the words “Starbucks Coffee” from it for one thing. What do you think?