Skip to main content

What Licious got right that FreshMenu didn't.

There was a time I booted online meat seller Licious' App out of my phone. Here was why. A drop in the local butcher's quality of meat and the crowds at Chef & Butcher got Licious back on my phone. A bout of information processing about Licious' meat delivery service had me hesitating due to the higher prices charged. However I felt the meat was probably going to be good. So I gave Licious a chance. I was right, the meat was better than good! The meat selling App has since stayed on my phone, and the rate of transactions have picked up substantially.

In 'alternate response hierarchy' language, my getting to buying from Licious can be plotted as the sequence, 'Think-Feel-Do'.

The FreshMenu App has been on my mobile phone for long. The prospect of a changing menu, and dishes delivered fresh has been the reason why the App stayed. Lately I've been having some problems. What has gotten me to buy from FreshMenu has been their attractive promo-pricing. At a pricing of 99/139 bucks, the dishes seemed like a steal. I was wrong. The dishes arrived in not the best state, and the once present vegetables like Broccoli and Mushrooms seemed to have vanished (cost cutting, perhaps?). A hair in the cutlery set seemed like the last straw. Despite my feedback on the unwanted ingredient, there was no response. I don't know when I will next have the courage to order from FreshMenu.

My getting to harboring a negative attitude towards FreshMenu can be plotted as the sequence, 'Do-Think-Feel'. 

In the case of Licious, my positive attitude towards the brand was formed as an outcome of cognitive information processing, without an actual trial. The trial then reinforced the attitude, which is why the buying act continued. Not so for FreshMenu. The act came first, engineered via promo-prices. The attitude followed. In my case, the brand inclination was negative, which is why I am hesitant about buying from FreshMenu again. Its important to note that attitudes towards brands that are outcomes of actual acts of buying stay longer, and are harder to change. Never mind the promos and every other marketing bait, what finally matters is how consumers look at an outcome of a 'real' engagement with a brand. That's the rubber hitting the road.

Who'll stay in the cruise mode and who'll crash and burn will be solely decided by post-consumption attitudes buyers harbor. So brands, drive safe. 


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).