Skip to main content

Why Alphy is making wine, & why we do or buy.

For a while I’ve been trying to convince Alphy about foraying into the world of homemade wines. I wasn’t able to make much progress until recently. What did the trick was her coming across a news article that claimed drinking wines is good to keep one’s weight in check. I don’t know how far that’s true, but I ain’t complaining. No Sir! We now have a bunch of grapes snoozing in a jar with other stuff. It will be there for another 21 days (at least that’s what the recipe said), and we then hope to partake on what is the nectar of Gods. Alphy I guess on her part is looking forward to that ‘lighter feeling’.

The wine lesson I learnt? You see, people do stuff only when there’s something in it for them. Ditto for consumers. Brands can persuade only when they can convince their buyers on what’s in it for them if they buy! Such convincing is not easy. Especially when you have to construct a message that both catches buyer attention and delivers on a message of superior value delivery (vis-à-vis competitors who too are trying to do the same). The brand that has impressed me over and over with its ‘buyer benefit’ message is Fevikwik. In fact the brand has gone two steps further in humorously portraying the ‘sticky’ benefit a consumer would derive for a mere five bucks. The setting in the Fevikwik Antique Shop TV commercial is apt. The genuinely funny story-line that depicts a commonplace incident is something Indians can identify with. The language and acting is hilariously near perfect. What a delightful piece of benefit messaging!

It’s important we realise people and buyers will bite only if we can offer them what they seek. No one bothers until they are benefited. Not people. Not buyers. The prospect of ‘doing’ by people and ‘buying’ by consumers gets a start-on only when a message that promises benefits is accepted and considered.

Benefit is why Alphy is pursuing the wine-making act with a missionary zeal. It’s why we glue stuff together using Fevikwik. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Situational Involvement of Consumers

There are two types of involvement that consumers have with products and services, Situational and Enduring. Situational involvement as the term suggests, occurs only in specificsituations whereas Enduring involvement is continuous and is more permanent in nature.

Decisions to buy umbrellas in India are driven by the onset of Indian monsoon. Monsoon rains arrived in India over the South Andaman Sea on May 10 and over the Kerala coast on May 28, three days ahead of schedule. But then, after a few days of rain, South India is witnessing a spate of dry weather. Temperatures are soaring in the north of India. The Umbrella companies in the state of Kerala are wishing for the skies to open up. So is the farming community and manufacturers of rural consumer products whose product sales depend totally on the farming community. The Met. department has deemed this dry spell as 'not unusual'.

India's monsoon rains have been static over the southern coast since last Tuesday because of a…

Prior Hypothesis Bias

Prior Hypothesis bias refers to the fact that decision makers who have strong prior beliefs about the relationship between two variables tend to make decisions on the basis of those beliefs, even when presented with the evidence that their beliefs are wrong. Moreover, they tend to use and seek information that is consistent with their prior beliefs, while ignoring information that contradicts these beliefs.

From a strategic perspective, a CEO who has a strong prior belief that a certain strategy makes sense might continue to pursue that strategy, despite evidence that it is inappropriate or failing.


Ref : Strategic Management : An Integrated Approach, 6e, Charles W L Hill, Gareth R Jones

Consumer Spending

Carpe Diem Blog: From Visual Economics, a graphical representation appears above (click to enlarge) of Consumer Expenditures in 2007, using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Note that total spending on food ($6,133), clothing ($1,881) and housing ($16,920) represented 50% of consumer expenditures and 30% of income before taxes in 2007. In 1997 by comparison, 51.1% of consumer expenditures were spent on food, clothing and housing, and 44.6% of income before taxes was spent on food, clothing and housing (data here).