A story in Marketing Daily last week suggests that affluent consumers (HH income of $100K+, in this case) also shop at Walmart. (Click here to read the story.)
Implications: I enjoy any report that reminds us of the danger behind over-generalizing an audience or consumer group. People who are broke still find ways to splurge if the priority is strong enough. And people who are rich still like to save money.
I think consumers are becoming much more compartmentalized in their thinking. We’re trying to save money at a club or discount store when it comes to undifferentiated sweat socks or laundry detergent or other products that are available almost anywhere. That way, we’ll have some money when it is time to make a purchase of distinction, whether that is a nice restaurant, a jewelry or other gift to mark a very special occasion, or a suit that we can preserve for particularly important business meetings.
The popular term for all of this is channel-jumping (shopping at a variety of supermarkets, discount stores, club outlets, dollar stores, department and big box stores… to get he best deal on products that might be available in a variety of locations and store types). And it leads me to this question: If they’re available everywhere, are brands the new generics?
Seriously, is a same-sized jug of Tide laundry detergent worth more from one store than another? Why? What value is being added by the more expensive store, in terms of service or convenience to the shopper? If there is no answer to that question, there is no distinction for the store and no reason for the customer to pay more.
Clipping coupons, jumping channels, opting for store label goods rather than brand-name items. These are not the behaviors only of low-income consumers. They are the conditional behaviors of the wealthy, which allows money to be saved for a later purchase of greater distinction and priority.
Mike Anderson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment