It is a shared realisation among marketers that customer loyalty stems from purchase satisfaction, however in the current climate of ‘me-too’ products, sceptical consumers and media fragmentation, loyalty has become something more complicated to achieve. In this new century, the satisfaction-loyalty model may no longer be as relevant to explain the behaviour of consumers (McAlexander, Kim & Roberts, 2003). While there may be many ways to build customer loyalty, this essay will examine the notion of brand community to build long-term loyalty. A range of literature will be examined and an example will be used to further illustrate the theory of brand community. I will begin by defining the terms used and by looking at the traditional satisfaction-loyalty model.
Joe Hockey was on Sunday this morning. He talked about Kevin Rudd and his regular appearance on Sunrise as well as the ‘outrageous’ amount of money the Labor Party will spend between now and the election in November.
Joe tried to suggest that Rudd’s appearances on Sunrise are no longer appropriate because he is the Opposition Leader. However he defended his own appearances. Why is it acceptable for a minister of Parliament to appear regularly on a light, entertaining morning show but not for the opposition leader?
He also suggested that the Labor party will spend around $100 million leading up to the election ($88 million from the unions and $12 million from the state Labor branches). This continues the governments attack on the Labor party for being ‘ruled by the union’s’. Meanwhile the Federal Government has been described as the biggest advertising spender in Australian political history - (see quote below from SHM - 2005).
“Crikey! Remember crocodile hunter Steve Irwin bobbing about on your TV screen a year or so back warning you not to bring any plants or animals into the country?
“You paid for that ad. Irwin received a $175,000 appearance fee for one day of filming, a recent Senate estimates committee revealed, and the Quarantine Matters campaign cost $5.3 million.
“Yet it was a comparatively cheap campaign for the Federal Government, which is the biggest advertising spender in Australian political history, and a significant player when compared with the corporate sector.
“Federal Government spending on advertising jumped by nearly $70 million last financial year [2004-05] to $170 million, according to Opposition figures released this week.” - Stephanie Peatling, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 Mar 2005, p.19.
Joe said the government’s spending of millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money is necessary to let people know about the policies they are putting forward. I tend to agree. However…
the Constitution allows political parties to advertising as much as they like,
the Labor party is spending about half the amount the government is spending (according to the quote above), and
the Labor party isn’t spending taxpayers money > unlike taxpayers, a union member can choose to leave the union if they disagree with this use of their money.
Source: SMH: Good Weekend -
Melissa Sweet, “Meal or Medicine?”, 17 Mar 2007 “Eating fish could prevent heart disease. Then again, it might not. It depends on who you listen to. With the media and marketplace awash with claims and counterclaims about the health benefits of food, it’s never been harder trying to work out what’s best to eat.”
The article suggests that consumers are confused about the health benefits and health risks of food. People have no idea what they should and shouldn’t be eating; what is improving their health and what could be potentially exposing them to disease and obesity. The article warns that this could get worse with Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) soon to allow companies to put a greater range of health claims on their products such as “may reduce the risk of bowl cancer” and “helps to prevent osteoporosis”. However other health organisations are worried that adding more health claims to products would further confuse the public and would also reduce the appeal of fresh fruits and vegetables which would be unable to use health claims because they are largely unpackaged
So what is the solution. One might say to increase regulation on health claims; to stop “Brunchtime Bars” from being labeled “high in fibre” or “low GI” or “may help protect against lymphoma”.
SMH advertisement for McDonald’s new ‘tick approved’ meals “Tastes good. Better for you. Now you can feel better about enjoying the great taste of McDonald’s when you choose one of our nine Tick Approved Meals.”
I found it interesting that this McDonald’s advertisement was featured in Good Weekend just a few pages after this article. So here is a health claim for you: “Better for you.”. The copy suggests that these ‘tick approved’ meals contain 45% ‘less salt’ and are ‘virtually trans-fat free’. Yay.
Think of the fruit and vegetable section of Woolworths or Coles. The products are generic; you have no idea who grew it, how and where. You can’t choose products from suppliers who don’t use pesticides or from regions that produce superior quality because you have no way of distinguishing between products. What does a consumer know about the products they buy in the fresh fruit and vegetable section of their supermarket? Nothing…
How can mere - trans-fat free, salt free, preservative free, hormone free, vitamin and mineral enriched - fruits and vegetables compete. They don’t have packaging to carry ‘health claims’ nor do they have the marketing budget of McDonald’s to tell people how much “Better for you” they are.
The solution. Brand it all. Put a name on every last apple, orange and kiwifruit and every last pumpkin, onion and leek. Split the produce section of the supermarket up and sell it like shelf space. Consumer would have to choose between producers, and producers would have to advertise and differentiate. We would see advertising on television for this producer and that producer showing images of their farm and their fresher, healthier produce. Truly healthy food would suddenly have a voice in the marketplace. Apples would be marketed to kids as ‘action-packed’ and salad would be advertised to office workers as ‘light, quick and simple’. The sales of fruit and vegetables would rise and people around the country would drop a few kilograms.
The energy drink market is one beverage segment Coca-Cola is yet to dominate. This year however Coke will again try to capture the hearts and minds of a new group of consumers with the launch of Mother. Coke will reportedly spend over $10 million dollars marketing Mother as an all-natural energy drink to young men (Sydney Morning Herald).
The campaign includes three 30 second executions (Lemur [above], Turtoad and Monkeydog) featuring animated ‘Amazonian’ creatures.
In response to this challenge by Coca-Cola, V has reportedly upped its marketing budget, released a new product, and created a new advertisement (shown below). Red Bull has also increased its marketing budget but hasn’t yet broken away from its Red Bull Gives you Wings advertising and no doubt will continue to place heavy importance on extreme sport sponsorships.
The energy drink segment is definately a lucrative segment. It is “worth $151 million and is growing by 47 per cent a year. Energy is the fastest-growing category in soft drinks and account for 22 per cent of total drink sales …” Sydney Morning Herald. However Coca-Cola has a task on its hands with Red Bull and V already accounting for 94 per cent of total energy sales in convenience stores. ” Sydney Morning Herald. So, can three brands share the energy drink market?
In my opinion: with Coca-Cola’s distribution network, Mother will have every chance of success. V has already been removed from the QUT (university in Brisbane) cafeteria and replaced with Mother (in a special branded fridge). I have also seen supermarkets and petrol stations with dedicated, branded Mother refridgerators and other branded material. Consumers will therefore be encouraged to at least trial the product when there are no other “energy/caffeine” options available. As for the V energy drink advertising: I have heard both positive and negative reviews. I think the advertisement shows a brand forced to join the race, rather than remind. I don’t like it - too sex-centric, not that cleaver.
SMH advertisement for McDonald’s new ‘tick approved’ meals
and replaced with Mother (in a special branded fridge). I have also seen supermarkets and petrol stations with dedicated, branded Mother refridgerators and other branded material. Consumers will therefore be encouraged to at least trial the product when there are no other “energy/caffeine” options available. As for the V energy drink advertising: I have heard both positive and negative reviews. I think the advertisement shows a brand forced to join the race, rather than remind. I don’t like it - too sex-centric, not that cleaver.