Marketing by Not Advertising
No-Ad sunblock has an interesting strategy for marketing itself, and it's built right into its name: it doesn't advertise, and (at least in theory) passes the savings along to the consumer. That's the part it can control; it also hopes that word of mouth will spread the word. So, are its hopes realistic? Let's look at how a user experiences this product:
-When purchasing sunblock, No-Ad is right there on the shelf alongside the name brands, and presumably costs the least. So far, so good...
-A critical juncture is right here: the consumer must consider sunblock a commodity, where sunblock is sunblock is sunblock, no real differences between them. So, special features and brand loyalty aside, No-Ad becomes the obvious choice.
-Now and for the rest of the product's use, the intended consumer feeling is the opposite of buyer's remorse: buyer's pride, for having saved some dough on a product that gets the job done.
-And hopefully, that pride makes it into conversation!
So, yes, it looks like they've got at least a plausible, "usable" business model here - and evidence confirms it, as they've been in business since 1960. Even better, it's not tricking the user - this one's really win-win. Here's to more of the same - and fewer ads everywhere!
4 comments:
I always thought that their business model hinged on educating the consumer/ would-be buyer about what a large chunk of margin goes to advertising expense.
I feel that the opportunity to present that argument is on the actual bottle of sunscreen / aloe (that's what i have--No-Ad aloe).
If you could delineate what proportion of the $5 the customer's looking at paying for Coppertone or Banana Boat, or whatever, goes to raw materials, G&A, retailer margin, and, of course, advertising, you could show exactly what part you were passing on to the customer (e.g., $50, let's say)
I haven't looked at the packaging lately, but last time I did, that argument wasn't all that salient, relying more on user prior-knowledge, which is a shaky bet.
Pete, some very cogent points! I agree that the space on the packaging itself is the proper place to make the no-ad argument, but I'm not sure I agree with the need to educate rather than relying on prior knowledge - or at least a gut feeling - of the cost of advertising to consumers. At least, it would have to be done in a very "for dummies" kind of way: "Did you know that you pay $5 more for other sunscreens because of how much money they spend on ads?" Though the whole spiel about raw materials, G&A, retailer margin, etc, may appeal to number jockeys like you and me, it may be a bit heavy for store-aisle reading...
Oh, I wasn't advocating a whole pie chart, but i feel something that nice and salient like, "Did you know that on average $1 out of every $5 of retail price goes to pay for advertising budgets?"
Something easy, like www.thesecomefromtrees.com states on their stickers: "This sticker can save up to 100 pounds of paper a year."
Easy, to the point, and believable.
Yup, I think you've got it just right! And just imagine that if this approach took off, the cacophony of ads in which we live may finally begin to quiet down...
Post a Comment