Business School theory is great. Fascinating stuff. Intellectually intriguing but I am not quite sure what it has to do with reality and what people really do. Here are two quick examples
Steve Job's Strategy? "Get Rid of the Crappy Stuff" - a traditional management philosophy taught in business schools is to reduce risk by diversifying your product offerings.
Apple represents the anti-business school philosophy. Apple's approach is to put its resources behind a few products and commit to making those products exceptionally well. "Apple is a $30 billion company yet we've got less than 30 major products. I don't know if that's ever been done before," Steve Jobs told Fortune magazine .
Apple clearly bucks the trend that endlessly focuses on diversifying risk, milking cash cows blah blah.
Can Waitrose Have It All? - Why on earth would a brand with an enviably distinctive premium positioning promise to match Tesco prices on 1,000 branded products?
Waitrose will no doubt assert that it is not competing on price, but simply addressing the perception that it is expensive. However, by choosing to match prices with Tesco, it is in danger of being drawn into a price war with the big three supermarkets by proxy.
With Waitrose I am not sure what is going on. Maybe they just haven't read the text books or maybe they went to a poor business school but I don't quite get why they are trying to compete on quality and on price in the same store.
With Apple it clearly works; with Waitrose I am not so sure..
69 comments:
That were my thoughts exactly when I saw the first commercial: what on earth are they doing? Decreasing the perception of being value for money with quality products (and quality comes at a price). Are they forgetting their hedgehog concept?
Now I fear they are turning into an "also ran" the price war.
Pity
Karin H (Keep It Simple Sweetheart, specially in business)
Waitrose may end up getting in themess that M&S did. Remember how they 'lost their way' until they were revamped and started to re-focus on their core values. Always dangerous to stray from the core
I wouldn't normally visit Waitrose as I believe it is expensive full stop. When I think expensive I don't think good value for money I think expensive. If Waitrose want to increase their sales then the perception of their brand has to change from expensive, to excellent value for money.
Supermarkets need to sell more than thirty products to survive unlike Apple. A customer may well buy a premium bottle of wine or joint of meat from Waitrose but they don't want to feel they are being ripped off on the price of a box of cornflakes or a tin of baked beans if they buy them at the same time from the same shop.
This is probably where Waitrose is coming from but if nobody is sure about their message then they obviously need to sharpen up their act.
The last thing Waitrose want to do is square up to Tesco and Walmart.
1) You can't out-Walmart Walmart
2) Your customer base is entirely different
Fi
I don't think it is about out walmarting walmart. I think it is an attempt to add value to the brand by saying not only do we offer a great range of top quality products but do the staples at a competitive price.
Their problem is this, we have taken something different away from the adverts, the campaign is obviously not clear enough in terms of what they are trying to acheive.
It could be that we are starting from different perceptions in terms of how we perceive the brand. For me it is just an expensive overpriced supermarket for others it may be an exclusive shop that they aspire to use as defining their lifestyle.
Agreed - personally i think that they are watering down their brand - a loss of confidence maybe.
The question is whether this benefits their bottom lione in both the short run and the long run. Certainly we are considering revisiting Waitrose as a result of a campaign which says
1) we do the nice stuff
2) we do the basics at a competitive price
The Waitrose strategy makes no sense to me. All it does is alienate the M&S shopper, encourage the less well-off and water down the essential high quality/service offering
Jerry
Do you think Jerry that it is high quality or merely expensive?
Maybe there is a feeling abroad at Waitrose that changes in the circumstances for their customers brought about by budget changes may need to be addressed.
Perhaps someone in the know at watrose could share the thinking behind the campaign.
IMHO shopping at waitrose is about paying for the customer experience: service as well as product.
Jerry
Apple has always been a unique brand and since the launch of iPod and the whole integration with iTune managed to generate serious cash that helped development of the latest range of products. When I first saw the Waitsose advert I was stunned and I expect it will sting them back.
The Waitrose answer is simple....Richard Hodgson, the Commercial Director is ex-Walmart. I think the logic is, to price match on Known-value-items [KVI's] and to have the premium pricing on the others. They can only really match on branded lines, as their OL tends to be a higher spec v the other supermarkets.
I think they were worried that people were doing their main shops elsewhere and just choosing top-up items at Waitrose.
I too don't understand it, there is a snobbery about shopping in Waitrose. They regularly come up 20% more expensive in the weekly list that 'The Grocer' magazine do. If someone is happy going to a premium priced store, then why annoy them by lowering the prices, and making the store more busy with 'hoi polloi'.
V curious indeed...........
IMHO - don't see how these are really connected.
Rob S
Apple: right
Waitrose: wrong
Apple have always been dedicated to bucking the trend, with a powerful vision of why they existing that they are committed to maintaining.
Waitrose have made a big mistake in entering the price-reduction 'war' - it will invariably lead to long-term customer dissatisfaction, decreased profits and worst of all, loss of identity in their up-to-now loyal followers.
But now they've opened this Pandora's box, their only recourse is to stealthily return to their former focus on quality (& therefore price) via the backdoor.
But friends and enemies alike will be watching them for every false move.
Uncertain times ahead for Waitrose.
In pre industrial age craftsmen were commissioned to build a cupboard, a stool, well, what-ever - and took pride in making their 'product' well. Well made products would generate more 'sales'
Enter the industrialization and division of labour - and realize where we are today! Management is industrialized, production certainly is - even financing the entire operation is industrialized!
With ever increasing speed businesses are 'dividing labour' - now by subcontracting the operation to the Far East (and once Africa has been 'potty-trained' they will provide the next step of dividing labour).
The key to it all is: how to make a buck!
No one really cares about the stool, the cupboard - not really! You care about 'the buck' and about how to maximize your profits on the short term!
Apple, personified by Steve Jobs, is not a saint in this 'Hell' - but I'd like to believe that he is not 'just a professional manager', but some one who really cares about the cupboard!
I'd like to believe that the moment we start caring again - caring about not the buck, but the product - start to accepting that customer (in the anonymous plural sense) is not King - that will be the moment when our "derailment" from 70 odd years of marketing frenzy and "management" division of labour will come to an end. It will be the end to business schools churning out endless cadres of well-trained MBA's able to do nothing more than "divide labour" and a fresh start to building businesses on great products!
Apple: right
Waitrose: wrong
Apple have always been dedicated to bucking the trend, with a powerful vision of why they existing that they are committed to maintaining.
Waitrose have made a big mistake in entering the price-reduction 'war' - it will invariably lead to long-term customer dissatisfaction, decreased profits and worst of all, loss of identity in their up-to-now loyal followers.
But now they've opened this Pandora's box, their only recourse is to stealthily return to their former focus on quality (& therefore price) via the backdoor.
But friends and enemies alike will be watching them for every false move.
Uncertain times ahead for Waitrose.
Ah yes but Apple has diversified - it was mainly computers then it went into "Sony Walkman" area - then it went into the Mobile phone area - now it has ventured into hand held reading devices.
But it has a lot of dedicated followers (and yes I am one) and now a lot of new followers.
But Apple is an innovator whereas Waitrose is a market trader, albeit a fancy one !
The reason Apple and Waitrose have been successful is precisely because they are expensive.
If Apple held sales every week, sold their stuff in comet / curries / ebuyer / amazon / wherever people would just percieve them as being in the same bracket as dell and acer PCs only more expensive and they would be forever in price wars with them and likely lose.
The fact they don't means they're differentiated - people feel like when they buy an apple product they're getting something of a higher quality. As long as apple can deliver on that quality, a certain bracket of people will happily pay that extra money for that percieved quality.
It's the exact same mindest / bracket of people who shopped at waitrose.
which is why an ad campaign that pitches them against tescos is commercial suicide for them. If people see they can compete with tescos the implications are:
* the products cost the same to buy in and waitrose just marked up more and were fleecing people all along
* the products arent that high quality in the first place
* the producst arent that special and not worth the extra price.
ultimately, when they realise this approach is a bad idea and try and backtrack they'll find it even harder cause people will resent paying more for the same product... assuming it is the same product, as they may have had to reduce quality now they're chgarging less for it.
Hi Robert,
I guess business schools teach what is already known and practised in the market place. So what they do is turn out large numbers of very bright graduates every year to work at large corporations.
However, a small percentage who like to think outside of the box, go on to set up very innovative firms. Lastminute.com springs to mind.
As for me. I have a very untrained mind!
What made you think of starting a discussion on this topic, Robert?
Kind regards,
Richard
I declare an interest: I did my MBA 6 years ago, on the back of a 15 year career at director level.
A good business school and student will understand that theory/technique is easier to learn than put into practice.
Reading about technique will only get you so far and not produce results without the right behaviours and attitude. Academic understanding can and does underpin a huge amount of effective business practice, but cannot simply be copied. Nor can it be immediately dismissed.
For example, while Apple disproves some established thinking - it is a great exemplar of disruptive thinking and other business models which help determine strategy focus.
Waitrose strategy shows it has learnt to process and operations manage to offer competitive value that does not undo its core brand values.
What matters in it all, whether or not you have a qualification, is attitude.
Attitude causes you to have an outlook of possibility (ie "there sounds like there might be something in this worth exploring and trying") or an outlook of limitation (" well that's only a theory from intellectuals, I bet it won't work in the real world so I am not going to try, or I might try it once to prove I was right").
Research and development in any field gets disrespected and abused too much and needs as much as ever, in the current climate, to be seen not as a cost but as an investment. Like all investment it carries risk.
Good businesses will be able to assess and manage those risks applying the right attitude and degree of open outlook.
Apple is clearly right...but not sure there is a comparison to be made here ?..Waitrose probably needs to expand their shopper franchise ..This offer may just be on KVIs...and may just be a rare one off tactical promotion...If this is a tactical price promotion,the premium brand image of Waitrose should not be adversely affected.
Good question.
Your question begs a question in response: why do they have to be wrong?
Your question suggests there's only one right way to do it, which given the comments by Steve Jobs that you quote, is itself open to question.
Seems to me that there are so many different ways of doing things that there is no way to answer your question.
Both businesses have chosen to follow a particular path.
Apple has been successful with their strategy, if money is the measure of success.
How will Waitrose measure its success?
I think what Waitrose are doing is fairly obvious. They are still pushing the quality aspect by stocking niche brands and products, yet at the same time are demonstrating that the products they do stock that are available elsewhere (e.g. Pampers, Ariel etc.) are the same cost as their competitors.
Sounds like good plan to me.
Apple do it in two ways - simple from a limited product range offering and simple from a customer use perspective.
Waitrose? Interesting, but if they want to grow I can see the point that it is hard to get a full share of our shopping basket if they are expensive on items I can buy in the exact form elsewhere. Unfortunately I don't live near a Waitrose so short of relying on Ocado if I do pass a store and call in for some shopping why would I buy my Heinz beans there if I know they are cheaper when I next got to Tesco. If they are matched, however, I don't need Tesco that week, and over time any thought that they are overpriced on staples will go.
It provides a framework within which to analyse business events and processes. The problem is that it tends to be contextually/environmentally driven.
So after 30 years of growth MBA's have acquired a certain set of characteristics. Think how they might have been different if the leading business schools had been in Japan or Zimbabwe. How do you cope with a deflationary consensus driven environment or a hyper inflationary one. The tools and frameworks we'd use would be quite different.
DO
Business School theory is only knowledge, thus it is a guideline and not law. It is how one applies that knowledge which is important, and that comes at the next level wisdom (data-information-knowledge-wisdom).
Therefore adapting the knowledge one learned to their defined situation or strategy, and applying it to the real world, has a lot to do with reality.
Applying knowledge is not a one fit for all process, meaning that those who apply the knowledge differently will seem to be deviating from the common rule (being an anomaly). There are many such companies.
I do not see any contradiction - both are maximising value and optimising sales. To treat text book quips too literally is to miss the bigger picture. Positioning is fundamentally about differentiation on value and experience.
MW
Ouch, Robert! Not all Business Schools are based in ivory towers. The Commonwealth Business School does not have a swish campus: we send Faculty out to our clients (typically companies or other organisations) to deliver action learning, or on-the-job learning.
We believe that a Business School should transfer leadership/management knowledge in the context of the work of the organisation in the work place, not in the classroom. And that knowledge needs to be transferred by successful managers not by academics that have had little or no practical experience of managing.
It is a pity that other Schools do not adopt the same approach. Perhaps it is because such an approach needs very careful management to work!
Well, on the other hand I abandoned the idea of going to Waitrose because they are too expensive. In a small store I may have many reasons to go there... in a supermarket I'm heartless... it's all about price - even Tescos are getting greedy with wine prices these days and clearly people are looking around... perhaps by announcing they're going head to head, they might get a boatload of customers like me giving them a go that no other kind of marketing could achieve?
Peter
I think Waitrose is making a mistake and the analogy with M&S is a good one. As Churchill said “Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”
Ben
I feel confused by Waitrose's move into the cheap and cheerful. It is in tune with the John Lewis tagline "Never knowingly undersold" which can mean nothing. I don't think price is the reason people shop at Waitrose. Reducing prices may cause some to stop shopping there though if the experience and quality are diluted.
Lynne
The fundamental premis of Apple is to challenge the status quo and to think differently, so we should not be too surprised to see things we don't find in the text books yet, to find updates on text books or complete new textbooks on the shelves resulting from what the likes of Apple present us with. Markets and Business evolve and so does our knowledge eventually...
Desi
I never went to business school, but I do like it when someone has the courage to go against the grain and to make something of it.
I think social media has a part to play by encouraging barriers to come down, blurring boundaries, and so the culture of people and businesses are being influenced to change and make new changes too.
I like what Apple do, and hats off to Waitrose for trying something different.
I think it's interesting that Steve Jobs recognises that Apple is the exception in the diversification example - as you say we need to see what happens with Waitrose before we claim that bucking the theory has worked for them.
Having read your blog comment it makes me wonder, but in essence they are right. But from an SME perspective we don't have the luxury of pots of cash like Apple and perhaps Waitrose are looking to get some more of that online market.
I know that what you are saying. Do these actions affect brand values and how does changing them (Waitrose) affect loyal customers?
As a business expert would you say that changing the goal post is good thing (Waitrose) or should traditional prevail in all business development (Apple)?
Andrew K
I 100% agree with you. Waitrose sales ahve been incredibly consistent throughout the last two years, whereas Tesco have to keep reducing their prices in their extremely competitive market place to maintain their market share. Why make it hard on yourself!
Sue
I disagree with your argument. Apple products aren't as good as the most of the media make out - the Mac OS is a variant of Unix based on what Jobs did at NeXT. Their iPhone and iPad are merely evolutionary developments of their iPod - look at the BOM and the market price.
As to Waitrose matching Tescos on a thousand products - that is only a thousand products. Best to compare Tesco premium to Waitrose standard on price. Last time I went round both over a few days I bought beer at Waitrose( £3 for two bottles of Bath Ale) and didn't at Tesco's (bottled beer more expensive). I should declare that over 20 years ago I used to work for Tesco's.
So I buy into Waitrose marketing and keep a keen eye when I do the shopping (I'm well aware of loss leaders), and steer clear of Apple (can buy better for less money elsewhere).
As someone indicated above, John Lewis already use the 'never knowingly undersold' policy. Of course, they do it in a clever way, by selecting their product lines carefully and avoiding the 'rock bottom price' brands and items that they can't compete on.
Isn't stable mate Waitrose doing the same, but even more selectively i.e. they don't pitch against the whole market, just one store, and they don't pitch every product line - just the one's their confident on winning e.g. Bath Ales.
If you haven't already done so try ordering your supermarket shopping online. I actually find it cheaper as it gets rid of 'impulse buying'.
Sorry, not defensive of business schools here, only talking about utilisation of available information. Thus I will rephrase.
When one learns maths, you are not always taught how to use maths in the real world. The same is with Business Schools and nearly all other types of education. English is an ambiguous language, where the information can be interpreted differently. This difference in interpretation, of available information, and its utilisation is what makes companies like Apple different. Apple is exploiting openly available existing technology, just like all other companies, but utilising it better.
I too don't believe a comparison can be made between these two brands. Apple can rely on the innovative quality, longevity and style of their products to maintain their price point and not enter into a price led marketing strategy.
Waitrose however operate in a very different world where necessity and the frequency of purchase demand that they are not ignorant to the 'economic climate' and the voice of the customer. This is not the first time they have put out a value message, they did a similar campaign two years ago. Reductions on KVI's rewards customer loyalty and could potentially increase basket spend rather than decrease it.
Although an interesting discussion is taking place I think we digress from the original question that started all of this.
Apple is not wrong in going against the stream or not following the textbooks; Apple gives room for thought to create new textbooks and regardless what title one holds, we all stand to learn from this and add to our experience. Apple is not alone here by the way, there are more examples where practice is ahead of theory.
That said I have not read any comment so far that I have to disagree with!
I support the idea that if you are responsible for the well being of employees it helps your decision making if you have a structure to start from that is generally accepted. MBA courses provide these, but in the end the choice one makes remain with the individual and that requires a lot more then just theory, regardless if you are a manager or a leader...
Sorry - don't get whatthe fuss is about.
Waitrose move makes sense to me. Price matching 1000 items is probably a small percentage of their catalogue. According to http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/07/amazon-groceries-ocado-flotation occado carries 20000 products. So, to price match on say 5% of portfolio may not cost that much but as we dive into a period of austerity, a move to knock the edge off the perception of being expensive sounds reasonable. I would expect any business school curriculum to be able to accommodate such logic. Characterizing this as Business school vs. Logic seems like a red herring (which I hear they don't sell in Tescos but can be still found at a reassuringly expensive price on the Waitrose deli counter ;-)
@Richard
"a move to knock the edge off the perception of being expensive "
Think that's the problem, it's not just the edge that will be knocked off - who hears it's only 1000 products? - the perception will be more: trying to out-Tesco Teco, out-Asda Asda, becoming just the same as the rest.
Karin H
I take issue with the idea that either is wrong. Like all business what it's really about is sense and respond - what does your market want from you? Apple's tapping a market that market wants products that "just work" and are stylish. the iPod has massively strengthened Mac sales, as has the iPad. The idea that it's always good to diversify might be thought of as flying in the face of the idea that you need clarity in projecting brand values. Apple is an example of the latter and its success is based on brand power. But it's not always the dominant consideration. Arguably for a holding enterprise like GE, Hyundai, and the industrial behemoths of Japan into everything from ship building to consumer electronics, diversification is a successful strategy, However if you think about it, each business unit is very focussed and market responsive with strongly projected brands and brand values.
Waitrose? Sense and respond I would have thought: what's the big rising customer sentiment in today's economy?? Prudent cash outflow. So why not respond to that and offer people a spectrum of value. Want an expensive red herring and french bubbly for the mob on Saturday night? no problem. Want baked beans for the kids for Thursday night's scratch dinner so you can get back to the conference calls? no problem either. They're not trying to pull in a new market (attract "trailer trash" who normally shop at Lidl), they're responding to the things there customers think/worry about, they're sensing and responding to what's happening in their customer base.
So the answer isn't "both wrong", it's "both right"
The Waitrose comments are relevant - I also do not see why they try to out-Asda Asda. A mystery.
I 100% agree with you. Waitrose sales ahve been incredibly consistent throughout the last two years, whereas Tesco have to keep reducing their prices in their extremely competitive market place to maintain their market share. Why make it hard on yourself!
Now of course what Steve Jobs doesn't mention that the obsolescence he builds into his product range by deliberately under delivering on what could be built means that the 30 grows considerably over a short period of time...
And Waitrose - I think they are defending the Waitrose shopper (my wife) against their conscience (me) that she is overpaying and should go elsewhere - the price match has been used as a defence even though we tend to buy 80% Waitrose own brands which are not covered anyway!
In my defence the cost differential is not significant enough to fund a divorce (and in hers there are plenty of other reasons why this is not a deal breaker!)
In a recession, people are much more aware of the signals their shopping/buying choices send out. Waitrose are trying to give their customers permission to continue shopping there. Whether that's been handled well or not is a different matter...
And the relevance is?
I don't think what Waitrose is doing is silly.
There are two sorts of products that supermarkets like Waitrose need to offer - their own products - by this I mean anythign with their own brand, or anything that they can offer exclusively, and then branded products.
When offering branded products such as 'Cadburys Dairy Milk' there is no room here for 'added value' or for a 'premium offering' - its a universal product that customers have perfect knowledge of - there's no room to say that the Cadbury's chocolate at Waitrose is better than the one at Tescos.
in today's economy, a supermarket liek Waitrose has no choice but to compete sensibly on these kinds of products. On the other hand, where they can still make their mark and lead the way is on their own products and through the quality of everything they either put their name too or sell exclusively... you'll notice they are not matching Tesco's prices on everything, only on the strategical products which people have no reason to pay more for.
I think it's perfectly sensible, and in no way counter to common sense.
I don't think what Waitrose is doing is silly.
There are two sorts of products that supermarkets like Waitrose need to offer - their own products - by this I mean anythign with their own brand, or anything that they can offer exclusively, and then branded products.
When offering branded products such as 'Cadburys Dairy Milk' there is no room here for 'added value' or for a 'premium offering' - its a universal product that customers have perfect knowledge of - there's no room to say that the Cadbury's chocolate at Waitrose is better than the one at Tescos.
in today's economy, a supermarket liek Waitrose has no choice but to compete sensibly on these kinds of products. On the other hand, where they can still make their mark and lead the way is on their own products and through the quality of everything they either put their name too or sell exclusively... you'll notice they are not matching Tesco's prices on everything, only on the strategical products which people have no reason to pay more for.
I think it's perfectly sensible, and in no way counter to common sense.
And the relevance is?
The Waitrose comments are relevant - I also do not see why they try to out-Asda Asda. A mystery.
As someone indicated above, John Lewis already use the 'never knowingly undersold' policy. Of course, they do it in a clever way, by selecting their product lines carefully and avoiding the 'rock bottom price' brands and items that they can't compete on.
Isn't stable mate Waitrose doing the same, but even more selectively i.e. they don't pitch against the whole market, just one store, and they don't pitch every product line - just the one's their confident on winning e.g. Bath Ales.
I 100% agree with you. Waitrose sales ahve been incredibly consistent throughout the last two years, whereas Tesco have to keep reducing their prices in their extremely competitive market place to maintain their market share. Why make it hard on yourself!
Sue
I think it's interesting that Steve Jobs recognises that Apple is the exception in the diversification example - as you say we need to see what happens with Waitrose before we claim that bucking the theory has worked for them.
Well, on the other hand I abandoned the idea of going to Waitrose because they are too expensive. In a small store I may have many reasons to go there... in a supermarket I'm heartless... it's all about price - even Tescos are getting greedy with wine prices these days and clearly people are looking around... perhaps by announcing they're going head to head, they might get a boatload of customers like me giving them a go that no other kind of marketing could achieve?
Peter
Business School theory is only knowledge, thus it is a guideline and not law. It is how one applies that knowledge which is important, and that comes at the next level wisdom (data-information-knowledge-wisdom).
Therefore adapting the knowledge one learned to their defined situation or strategy, and applying it to the real world, has a lot to do with reality.
Applying knowledge is not a one fit for all process, meaning that those who apply the knowledge differently will seem to be deviating from the common rule (being an anomaly). There are many such companies.
Good question.
Your question begs a question in response: why do they have to be wrong?
Your question suggests there's only one right way to do it, which given the comments by Steve Jobs that you quote, is itself open to question.
Seems to me that there are so many different ways of doing things that there is no way to answer your question.
Both businesses have chosen to follow a particular path.
Apple has been successful with their strategy, if money is the measure of success.
How will Waitrose measure its success?
Hi Robert,
I guess business schools teach what is already known and practised in the market place. So what they do is turn out large numbers of very bright graduates every year to work at large corporations.
However, a small percentage who like to think outside of the box, go on to set up very innovative firms. Lastminute.com springs to mind.
As for me. I have a very untrained mind!
What made you think of starting a discussion on this topic, Robert?
Kind regards,
Richard
But Apple is an innovator whereas Waitrose is a market trader, albeit a fancy one !
In pre industrial age craftsmen were commissioned to build a cupboard, a stool, well, what-ever - and took pride in making their 'product' well. Well made products would generate more 'sales'
Enter the industrialization and division of labour - and realize where we are today! Management is industrialized, production certainly is - even financing the entire operation is industrialized!
With ever increasing speed businesses are 'dividing labour' - now by subcontracting the operation to the Far East (and once Africa has been 'potty-trained' they will provide the next step of dividing labour).
The key to it all is: how to make a buck!
No one really cares about the stool, the cupboard - not really! You care about 'the buck' and about how to maximize your profits on the short term!
Apple, personified by Steve Jobs, is not a saint in this 'Hell' - but I'd like to believe that he is not 'just a professional manager', but some one who really cares about the cupboard!
I'd like to believe that the moment we start caring again - caring about not the buck, but the product - start to accepting that customer (in the anonymous plural sense) is not King - that will be the moment when our "derailment" from 70 odd years of marketing frenzy and "management" division of labour will come to an end. It will be the end to business schools churning out endless cadres of well-trained MBA's able to do nothing more than "divide labour" and a fresh start to building businesses on great products!
IMHO - don't see how these are really connected.
Rob S
Apple has always been a unique brand and since the launch of iPod and the whole integration with iTune managed to generate serious cash that helped development of the latest range of products. When I first saw the Waitsose advert I was stunned and I expect it will sting them back.
Do you think Jerry that it is high quality or merely expensive?
Maybe there is a feeling abroad at Waitrose that changes in the circumstances for their customers brought about by budget changes may need to be addressed.
Perhaps someone in the know at watrose could share the thinking behind the campaign.
Agreed - personally i think that they are watering down their brand - a loss of confidence maybe.
The question is whether this benefits their bottom lione in both the short run and the long run. Certainly we are considering revisiting Waitrose as a result of a campaign which says
1) we do the nice stuff
2) we do the basics at a competitive price
I wouldn't normally visit Waitrose as I believe it is expensive full stop. When I think expensive I don't think good value for money I think expensive. If Waitrose want to increase their sales then the perception of their brand has to change from expensive, to excellent value for money.
Supermarkets need to sell more than thirty products to survive unlike Apple. A customer may well buy a premium bottle of wine or joint of meat from Waitrose but they don't want to feel they are being ripped off on the price of a box of cornflakes or a tin of baked beans if they buy them at the same time from the same shop.
This is probably where Waitrose is coming from but if nobody is sure about their message then they obviously need to sharpen up their act.
Post a Comment