Why would you even want to read this?
Because this is the second and last installment of our
discussion on how the concept of Brand fits in the EAR model of
Consumer Decision Making. If you have read the first part then you would not
want to miss the conclusion. If you have not, still it is worth delving into a
matter which poses daily challenge to marketers across organizations and
geographies. While I would try to briefly put all the key takeaways of previous
articles in this article as well, it would be great if you visit the three previous
articles written in this series viz. EAR Model, Brand, Brand & Decision
Making – P1 to get a detailed understanding on the topic.
My Approach:
From last few articles, we know that while making any
purchase decision, a consumer, evaluates the available options on a mix of
three parameters: Emotional (E), Aspirational (A) and Rational (R). The
weightage given to each of these parameters are dependent on many factors
including the personal preferences (persona), category, occasion/ reason for
purchase and budget considerations.
We also know that Brand, at a Concept level, is a
differentiator which facilitates the evaluation process in purchase decision by
evoking benefits and emotions associated with them.
We have discussed, in previous article, that consumers
usually are bounded by the following constraints:
(S)he does not want to regret his/ her decision. And though
dissonance is very normal too, consumers seek satisfaction and peace of mind
from their decisions.
The second thing to keep in mind is that consumers seek to
simplify their decision process.
Also there is only so much an average human mind can recall
and put into context at any given point of time
We have also discussed our EAR model in the context of brands
and seen that at any given point of time, for every relevant category, a
brand map exists in consumer mind which maps all the active options/ brands on
these three parameters. This map keeps on changing with time, exposure and
experiences.
We also know from the previous article that there are
primarily 7 zones in a consumer mind for every relevant category in which the
brands are mapped. We will take the discussion from this point onwards.
Zoning Brands:
We will again put the image representing the 7 zones
discussed by us for better visualization.
Whatever we have discussed till now pertains to an individual
consumer/ buyer mind. There is a collective reality too. When a brand starts
occupying a zone in the mind of a significant population then it starts
belonging to that space. A brand may occupy one or multiple zones i.e. having differing
meanings to multiple groups with sizable population. Brands are thus Zoned:
they mean one or multiple things to sizable groups but they are limited in a
sense that they cannot at one go occupy all the zones. Apart from leader
brand, usually a brand would be confined to a couple of zones at max. Again in
most of the cases, a brand would have a dominant zone among these zones as
well. To elaborate, even if a brand has taken two zones among two sizable
groups, usually, one group would have significantly higher number than the
other one.
We are now dealing with mind map and zones. A new brand,
on its own, often enters into the Rational zone. Think about it: It appears logical too. A new
brand would not have anything to offer to its target consumer apart from benefits
which are rational in nature. It is difficult to get instantly into Aspiration
zone: a brand may try and succeed but it mostly happens if the category is new;
is relatively small; has very few players or if the promoter has deep pockets.
Otherwise it is difficult to create an impression related to Aspiration in a
short span of time. Obviously entering into Emotional zone is certainly ruled
out as it requires prolonged bonding. This is also the reason for this zone to
be too crowded.
In the above para, I have argued that it is very difficult
for a brand to directly enter into Aspiration zone. Aspiration requires social
imagery; a brand also has to evoke an emotion of achievement if acquired. All
this requires sustained (and often significant) inputs in communication.
With this explanation, the usual assumption would be that
brands in Rational zone would not feature in the leaderboard: it is too cluttered;
in conventional wisdom, stronger brands should either feature in Aspirational
or Emotional zone. This assumption is not always true: Rational zone does
throw strong and leader brands. This space, however, by design is
competitive and so the leadership board is also very dynamic. Any brand which
starts offering greater value/ benefits to consumers would turn the table. You
would agree that this is risky space to be in and hence successful brands
in this zone should look to move to a different zone.
I would illustrate this with an example: Let us take Mobile Handset Industry in India. Till
a few years back, a brand named Micromax was challenging the leader Samsung. It
even overtook it in terms of Sale in around 2014. It was a home grown mobile
handset manufacturer/ seller which offered Value for Money products which for
easy understanding means good specifications at lesser price. It was a
perfect Rational Brand for Indian consumers. And it suddenly declined fast
ceding its space to a newly rising Xiaomi. Xiaomi went on to become the leading
brand in the Indian mobile handset industry (it still is). There are many
reasons which led to what actually transpired in the Indian mobile handset
market but one of the main reasons of this sudden change in the fate of
Micromax was its inability to get away from the Rational zone. Not that it
did not try: In fact, it tried a lot to move to either the Aspirational Zone (Hugh
Jackman Ad - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2NcmF1xruc;
Nuts, Guts, Glory Ad - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x9iHeoqhtg)
or the Emotional Zone (Unite 4 Ad - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcvCRHYoQzg).
It could not make the cut and thus when a better player of the game arrived, it
had to give way to it.
Is Rational a Bad Zone to be in?
It is not this simple. It all depends on nature of the category
(including maturity and dynamism), life stage of the brand, target consumers
and business objectives among other things. Sticking to the above example only,
Micromax as a brand grew and challenged the leader only because it played in
the Rational space. It succeeded as the industry was yet to mature and the
users were looking for Value options. It is thus important for any marketer to
recognize what is the most relevant zones for the category it is operating in
and the consumers it is targeting. A category, where maximum numbers of users
are looking for rational benefits would have leaders in the Rational zones as
well. The only word of caution is that in this case, since the entry to the
Challenger club is relatively easier, it is riskiest as well.
This brings me to discuss the stability of various zones in
brief. As you would have guessed, Emotional is the safest zone by far for any
category: but that does not guarantee that a brand would have high volumes.
What it does ensure is that the brand stays relevant for a longer time for
consideration and the decline, if it happens, is slower than usual. Aspiration
is an attractive space though a brand needs to work consistently to stay
relevant in that space.
We might remind ourselves here that the zone map in the
consumer/ buyer’s mind is not constant and keeps on changing with time. A
brand’s presence in that map and in a particular zone is not sacrosanct. This
is both an opportunity and threat to brands. It presents the marketers with the
unique challenge to stay relevant in target consumer’s mind all the time. Another
important aspect to note is that categories evolve and so does the consumer: what
makes a brand zoned in a particular zone at one timestamp may not help in
getting zoned to same place the next time; also what was relevant to consumer
in one timestamp may be irrelevant to him/ her when (s)he decides to purchase
next. This means a brand has to consistently track the category and consumer
to stay in touch with the reality. This makes the task of marketers much
more difficult and exciting at the same time.
What Next?
We have seen, in brief, how a Consumer approaches Decision
Making and how the world of Brands fit in that approach. However, it is still
not clear on what needs to be done to get into the consumer’s active map. Over
the course of next few articles we would explore other aspects which would help
us solve this riddle too.
Post Script:
I had initially planned to share a few examples (like the one
with Micromax) which I thought would have made this explanation clearer. Now I
realize that it may be great if I ask you to zone various brands as per your
understanding. Can we do this? I would like to start this with the following
brands: Apple, Motorola, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Maggi, Hyundai & Bajaj. You are
welcome to add other brands in this list as well. It will be fun if we continue
exploring this for all the brands we love.
I also need to emphasize that there are no actual maps or
zones in a consumer mind and an average consumer/ buyer would not be deciding
that let me pick this brand because it lies in this zone. Maps and zone are
props which help in understanding how (s)he approaches purchase decision.
Comments