Archive for the ‘Marketing’ Category

h1

It’s about branding, stupid. (In defence of Nurofen.)

July 25, 2017

This is a post I wrote a while ago about branding and ibuprofen. For some reason I didn’t post it. But having just written a post about migraines, and mentioned ibuprofen lysine, I thought this was appropriate, so I’m posting it now.

The press in the UK prominently featured a judicial ruling in Australia against Reckitt Benckiser (one example) – the UK-based manufacturer of Nurofen. Nurofen’s a brand name for ibuprofen – an anti-inflammatory drug generally known as a NSAID.

Generic ibuprofen is available in the UK for as little as 16p a pack of 200mg tablets (1p per tablet).

However branded Nurofen is more expensive. That’s known as “branding” by marketers. Branding is a normal way of trying to maintain a price premium in a commodity market. And Nurofen has (or had) a very good brand reputation in the UK – but if what you want is generic ibuprofen, you can buy that more cheaply.

But generic ibuprofen, the active ingredient in standard Nurofen, isn’t very soluble, so it takes a little while to work its way into the bloodstream. There is a compound of ibuprofen that will provide faster pain relief: ibuprofen lysine. It’s highly soluble and therefore enters the bloodstream very quickly. It’s marketed by Boots (for example) as Rapid Ibuprofen. Reckitt Benckiser markets it as Nurofen Express which is more expensive than the Boots’ version, but it’s the same stuff. It’s NOT the same as generic ibuprofen – it contains an equivalent dose, but it starts to work more quickly.

ibuprofenlysineSo what’s everyone getting upset about?

First, much of the press – including the Daily Mail linked to above – is confusing generic ibuprofen and ibuprofen lysine. Although they contain equivalent doses, they are different and you would normally expect there to be a price differential. If you don’t care how long the drugs take to work – for example you’re using this drug to reduce swelling and don’t need immediate relief, then buy the cheapest generic. If you have a migraine and want your pain relief as fast as possible then you can pay more for a faster acting version of the drug.

nurofen_migraine_pain_342mg_-_12_capletsBut beyond this, the marketing guys at Reckitt Benckiser have been creating different packages for Nurofen Express and branding it as Nurofen Migraine Pain, Nurofen Period Pain and other variants. The press is getting excited because these are all the same drug in different guises. It’s true that the packaging conveys the impression that the contents are formulated to specifically target different types of pain. However if you read the details and compare the packages to one another it’s clear that each of them contains the same dose of ibuprofen lysine.

So are they trying to fool the public? I don’t think so. Let me try to explain.

In my past I’ve done some work in retail marketing. Retail packaging is all designed to sell your product, so there are three things you design your packaging to do:

  1. Be more attractive to potential customers than the competition – target your market segment
  2. Occupy more shelf space than the competition
  3. Describe the product (complying with relevant legislation)

So by labelling a package “Migraine Pain”, for example, the vendor makes it more attractive to someone suffering with a migraine who’s looking for fast relief from the pain. If they’ve got an excruciating headache they’re unlikely to read the packaging, or the leaflet inside, to see if something generically labelled as “Ibuprofen Express” is actually useful for migraine pain. They’ll simply pick up the one with “Migraine” in big letters on the package. This means Nurofen Migraine Pain is likely to sell in greater quantities to migraine sufferers than Nurofen Express even though it’s the same stuff.

Secondly, if the vendor manufactures multiple packages each for a different market segment (migraine sufferers, period pain sufferers and tennis elbow sufferers, for example) and each of those packages occupies a slot on the retail shelf then they’re denying that space to their competition – so increasing their sales and reducing those of their competitors.

This is an entirely normal retail sales strategy and you see it everywhere. Remember there were different covers printed for the Harry Potter novels – one aimed at adults and a different one at children? Same strategy – segment the market, take up more retail space, increase sales volume.

Is this a problem for the customer?

I don’t think so. Be an informed customer. If you want to know what’s in the packet, read the blurb on the back before you make your buying decision. Buying Nurofen Migraine Pain rather than Ibuprofen Express is no different from buying your electricity without checking to see if there’s a better deal from another supplier, or complaining that the adult version of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is the same as the children’s version.

As a nation we’re getting a bit more savvy about knowing what we’re buying, both in retail and online, but we can still be influenced by imaginative marketing.

Read the packet!

h1

easyJet Plus card – is it worth it?

October 22, 2015

Short answer: probably not.

If you fly more than 5 round trips (10 sectors) a year on easyJet, AND you book the most expensive allocated seats then it may be worth considering it. Otherwise don’t bother.

How do I know?

Well, I won one.

Yes, I entered a Twitter competition and won a free easyJet Plus card in October 2014. I’ve been using it for a year. It’s now renewal time. My question is – is it worth paying for?

my easyJet Plus card

my easyJet Plus card

At the time I won one, the price was £149 to join and £139 to renew. However during the year they’ve changed the Speedy Boarding and Plus Card rules, and the price has gone up to £170 per year (£160 if you join on board – but of course if you do that you have at least one flight where you can’t use it). And there’s no discount for renewal.

So in the year since I got the card would I have saved money? I’ve flown 10 sectors in that year, but two were before the card arrived so I couldn’t use it. So 8 sectors. Even if I had chosen the most expensive allocated seat (£15.99) on each flight then the current annual fee for the card significantly exceeds the amount I would have saved.

Surely there are some benefits you don’t get if all you do is pay for seat allocation?

Yes, but only fast track security. Not all airports have one, and we’ve found on at least two occasions that it’s faster at Gatwick (our normal originating airport) to go through regular security rather than Fast Track.

Shame there isn’t a Fast Track arrivals – that would be worth paying for!

But the other benefits: Speedy Boarding, two carry on bags and dedicated bag drop are all available to those who just pay for seat allocation either upfront or in an exit row. Most of mine would have cost £10.99 rather than £15.99, so I’d have had to fly 16 sectors to make it worthwhile – that’s twice as many sectors as I actually flew.

So for me a paid for easyJet Plus card doesn’t work. At the old renewal price of £139 I’d probably just have done it, but at £170 it really doesn’t make economic sense. And since there’s no discount for renewal, if I decide next year that I will be flying enough to make it worthwhile, I’ll simply join again – I can save money by not being a member when I don’t fly – and there’s no penalty for leaving and joining again several months later before your next flight.

Thanks for the freebie easyJet, I really enjoyed it. And I will occasionally miss using the fast track security, but overall it’s just not worth paying for. Sorry.

h1

Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose

November 13, 2009

Or marketing’s just the same as it always was, despite the technology.

This post is prompted by a blog post from PRGeek (Jon Silk, @prgeek) from a social media conference today. He suggests in a recent tweet “Old media: Stick a celeb in an ad. New media: Stick a celeb on the web. Social media: Stick a celeb on Twitter.”.

My point is that although the techniques of marketing change as technology advances, the objective of marketing remains the same – it’s to attract an unfair share of your audience’s attention.

In the 17th century a row of shops would be competing for passing trade, but the one that paid someone to wear a sandwich board advertising their wares, or paid the town crier to shout about their goods, would be likely to attract more business. Technological advance has introduced print advertising, commercial radio, tv and cinema advertising, billboard advertising, the web and now a plethora of social media: The means change but the objective is the same.

Clearly the audience determines the tactics, so marketing single-dealer platforms to a universe of 45 significant investment banks requires a different set of techniques to marketing anti-virus software to both retail and corporate users (for example), but the objective remains the same. And it always will.

Originally posted on Finextra, on November 12th 2009