The Other Side of Brand Loyalty

- Nimal C Namboodiripad

Management practitioners of late have been asking the question whether the concept of brand

loyalty is dead and buried? If you look at the way consumers keep switching brands the question

seems highly relevant. But what this article looks at is the likely cause behind the observed effect.

Experts may say that the consumers have changed, they are more aware and are now more willing

to try out new products and brands. That they also have the choice of a huge set of brands who lure

them into their traps by parading a number schemes and offers that feel irresistible. But is it really

right to blame only the consumers for their lack of loyalty? Or is it the lack of brand loyalty among

the brand guardians themselves that is undermining the customer’s loyalty?

First of all, these days people change jobs periodically and regularly. Nobody stays in the same

company from the start till the end of their career. What this means is that many a time the people

in charge of the brand no longer have long term goals. They want to increase the sale of the product

in the short term, achieve their targets, make their incentives and push off. And brand building be

damned.

The person who loses out in this race is the customer. The brand custodians don’t have the time or

inclination to understand the customers and concentrate on building relationships. We will discuss

just one scenario where the constant change of guard adversely affects the brand - that of quality

management. In certain circles there seems to be some confusion as to what exactly quality entails.

It is clear that when building a brand in a so called product – marketing – consumer sense it has to

be defined as the expected quality as perceived by the consumer. Which is different from absolute

quality as we know it. And which creates problems of its own.

Now, let us say that a company has come up with a product that has certain features which gives the

consumer certain benefits. Like a Van Heusen shirt made of India Linen. A person buys it for Rs.2000

and goes home and uses it. Now he likes the cut, the thickness of the material, the fastness of the

colour, the fact that it doesn’t shrink when washed and also looks good just ironed even without

starch. With this he is happy and feels that the shirt is worth it. He is so satisfied with the product

that he goes back in a few month’s time and asks for a similar shirt in a different colour. This is

where branding comes in. The brand should be able to provide a shirt that is exactly the same except

for the colour, at the same rate or at least a rate that is comparable.

If Madura Garments is not able to do so, it is the brand custodians that are at fault, because they

have gone against all the aspects of brand building. The difference may be as infinitesimal as a new

kind of button. But in the eyes of the consumer the brand is not delivering on what it has promised.

A particular quality at a particular price range. Now why did the brand marketers change the

product? They may have felt that they are providing more quality at the same price. Or as in another

hypothetical example that I will cite because of the results of some quirky market study.

Let us assume that there are a number of people who buy Nescafe Sunrise it because they like the

taste, which is much closer to pure coffee taste than Bru Instant. Then the new brand custodian in

the company does a marketing research and finds that people generally like the Bru taste better and

they change the formulation to make it taste more Bru than coffee. What this produces is a

disconnect among existing customers for whom it is no longer their brand as they don’t like the

taste, and is not sure why they should buy a duplicate Bru when the original is available. You may

provide people with an 80:20 Coffee : Chicory product at the rate of a 60:40 one, but if the customer

is happy with the taste of a 60:40 one why should you change? Once the product is finalised the

features of the product as well as the benefits that the brand will give has to be communicated as it

is as well as internalised by the marketer. When this doesn’t happen the customer switches brand –

and is it the fault of the customer or that of the person in charge of the brand?

What the above examples prove is that the people behind the brand have to understand what the

brand stands for and what the customer wants from the brand. Fortunately customers are not all

fools and they don’t expect a Rolls Royce at the price of a Maruti Swift. They have their own budget

and they know what kind of product they are likely to get at that price. The job of the brand

custodian is to understand that expectation and cater to it. If he doesn’t, then the problems start.

This is true not only for corporate but also not for profit organisations. A Rotary member for

example should understand what the brand stands for and what the common public expects from it.

Ultimately what we have to understand is that a brand is built not only on its product quality or even

its advertising but also the behaviour of the employees and even the customers of the firm. And

when it comes to the service sector there is no differentiation between the producer and the

product and hence it is all the more imperative that the custodians are careful about their behaviour

and the image they project. And the causes and people they help.

(This article was published in the Newsletter of Rotary, Coimbatore North)