Skip to main content

The Computer is in The Shop Edition of the Cause Marketing Blog

Faithful Readers:

My main computer is in the shop and I’m scrambling a little more than usual.

I saw a news item today from the Associated Press that showed that store brands are showing a meaningful and bottom-line important uptick in sales.

Key sentence…

"Kroger said 27 percent of its sales in its most recent quarter came from its
own brands and fueled most of the company’s overall grocery volume growth for
the year — a trend it expects to continue."
So in honor of my computer I’m going to repost something on cause marketing and private label brands that originally appeared on November 11, 2008.

In the declining economy, people in the UK, the US and elsewhere are buying more ‘house brands.’Of course they are, you say. What could make more sense than to get the same-quality or nearly the same quality for a meaningful savings?

I don’t have a handy chart to demonstrate, but this is what always happens in bad economic times. When the economy dips, sales of cheaper house brands and generics take off. And when the economy recovers consumers go back to the major brands.

For the foreseeable future, price is going to be major driver for the consumer.

Imagine this scenario: a shopper faces two cans of cream of mushroom soup,
the store brand and the dominant brand in the US, Campbell’s. The store brand
has respectable quality and is 26 percent cheaper per ounce.

In a face off like that, Campbell’s market share would erode very seriously
sans their incredible market shelf space and decades-old Labels for Education program, in my view.

Now if the store brand started a well thought-of cause marketing campaign
of its own, all bets are off.

However, I’ve never seen a store brand in the States undertake transactional cause marketing, even though their margins for house brands are generally better than what they make selling the national brands.

I encourage the big national retailers to try cause marketing with their house brands. Because now, in the sour economy, is the perfect time for the bold stroke. Of course, you’d want to test the concept, the approach and the cause with a limited number of markets and a select group of products.

Get that cause marketing campaign right, and when the economy improves, not
all consumers will go back to the national brands.I’d bet on it.

Needless to say, and forgive the commercial interruption, if you need help getting the campaign right, Alden Keene is here for you.

Comments

Paul Jones said…
A News Item in the May 20, 2009 Los Angeles Times says that the big grocery retailer Albertsons is set to dramatically cut prices in an effort to draw customers back from discounters Wal-Mart and Target. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lower-prices20-2009may20,0,7219379.story?track=rss]

But the Albertsons brand doesn't now and never has stood for discounting per se, although that is what Albertsons parent, Supervalu, is all about.

I've got a better idea: Albertsons should start cause marketing their house brands.

Popular posts from this blog

Cause Marketing: The All Packaging Edition

One way to activate a cause marketing campaign when the sponsor sells a physical product is on the packaging. I started my career in cause marketing on the charity side and I can tell you that back in the day we were thrilled to get a logo on pack of a consumer packaged good (CPG) or even just a mention. Since then, there’s been a welcome evolution of what sponsors are willing and able to do with their packaging in order to activate their cause sponsorships. That said, even today some sponsors don’t seem to have gotten the memo that when it comes to explaining your cause campaign, more really is more, even on something as small as a can or bottle. The savviest sponsors realize that their only guaranteed means of reaching actual customers with a cause marketing message is by putting it on packaging. And the reach and frequency of the media on packaging for certain high-volume CPG items is almost certainly greater than radio, print or outdoor advertising, and, in many cases, TV. More to

Why Even Absurd Cause-Related Marketing Has its Place

Buy a Bikini, Help Cure Cancer New York City (small-d) fashion designer Shoshonna Lonstein Gruss may have one of the more absurd cause-related marketing campaigns I’ve come across lately. When you buy the bikini or girls one-piece swimsuit at Bergdorf-Goodman in New York shown at the left all sales “proceeds” benefit Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center . Look past the weak ‘ proceeds ’ language, which I always decry, and think for a moment about the incongruities of the sales of swimsuits benefiting the legendary Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Cancer has nothing to do swimming or swimsuits or summering in The Hamptons for that matter. And it’s not clear from her website why Shoshanna, the comely lass who once adorned the arm of comedian Jerry Seinfeld, has chosen the esteemed cancer center to bestow her gifts, although a web search shows that she’s supported its events for years. Lesser critics would say that the ridiculousness of it all is a sign that cause-related marketing is

A Clever Cause Marketing Campaign from Snickers and Feeding America

Back in August I bought this cause-marketed Snickers bar during my fourth trip of the day to Home Depot. (Is it even possible to do home repairs and take care of all your needs with just one trip to Home Depot / Lowes ?) Here’s how it works: Snickers is donating the cost of 2.5 million meals to Feeding America, the nation’s leading hunger-relief charity. On the inside of the wrapper is a code. Text that code to 45495… or enter it at snickers.com… and Snickers will donate the cost of one meal to Feeding America, up to one million additional meals. The Feeding America website says that each dollar you donate provides seven meals. So Snickers donation might be something like $500,000. But I like that Snickers quantified its donations in terms of meals made available, rather than dollars. That’s much more concrete. It doesn’t hurt that 3.5 million is a much bigger number than $500,000. I also like the way they structured the donation. By guaranteeing 2.5 million meals, the risk of a poor