Loyalty: Pierced by the Next Transaction

Why our research designations of "Loyal" consumers seem to ring true when we talk to consumers in a focus group, yet do not seem to be excellent predictions of the very next transaction that consumer makes. It could be that, as the clothes make the man, the ATTIRE makes the fan.

DESIRE:  Marketers desperately, and understandably, wish they could assign some portion of their consumers to Loyal Customers, and so count on them forevermore.  We researchers ask a question or two, and assigns the recent users according to their behavior, attitude, or both.  A quick dust-off of our hands and we think we’re set.

DISAPPOINTMENT:  But then, the next transaction comes along, and our tragic Marketer is pierced to the heart.  A hefty portion of the so-called Loyalists, in fact, turned to another brand.  Was our measurement-analysis mis-guided?  Are consumers oblivious to their own attitudes?  What’s wrong? 

ATTIRE:  I’d suggest:  nothing’s wrong.  We’re learning what we need to know, if we look at the information properly.  I suggest we think of loyalty less as a moral condition of virtue, like being married or, let’s see... being a fan of a football team.  You’ll notice, no Marketer complains about the consumer when the shoe’s on the other foot, and the consumer tries a new brand entrant or line extension that we’re touting. Rather than think of “loyalty” in terms of morality, think in terms of ATTIRE:  Awareness, Trigger, Task, imagery, Risk, Exploration.  My reference to fashion is quite deliberate.  We all sense that our fashion choices are closely aligned with our own sense of identify, and yet we consider ourselves very free to alter, explore and re-combine articles of clothing.  Let’s see how this sense of freedom-within-structure might apply to categories like consumer packaged goods, durable goods and electronics.  

AWARENESS:  Brand awareness is a well-recognized first step to piercing loyalty.  

TRIGGER:  Many categories actively promote, and researchers in those categories know that some consumers are more alert to those offers than others.  Yet I don’t often see predictive models segregating trigger-sensitive consumers from those who are not, when trying to predict loyalty versus new product adoption.  (Modelers working with purchase-behavior data seem more alert to this than survey researchers crafting "strategic segmentation" questionnaires.)

TASK:  Also known as “usage occasion.”  The beauty of distinguishing a new entrant from a well-established brand by defining it “for” a somewhat different task is that the loyal user of the established brand can try the newcomer without feeling dis-loyal.  “I haven’t replaced by trusty spray-cleaner, this new item is made explicitly for environmental surfaces.”  I once found myself buying a particular brand of car that NEITHER my wife or I much liked, because we perceived it as being “right” for our teenager -- who wouldn’t be driving for two years, yet!  I still “felt loyal” to “my” car brand.

IMAGERY:  Researchers often set their models to examine intensity on a scale for a message (attribute, benefit or claim).  But less often is the imagery slice considered -- how many brands are considered equivalent?  Is there one leader on that message?  The more the consumer slices a given image among multiple brands, the more likely that loyalty can be pierced by a new dominance on a given message. (See other articles on Imagery Slice in this website.) 

RISK:  The consumer who perceives more risk in adopting a product or service that fails to perform as expected, the more loyal.  What we often view, analytically, as “inertia” may more accurately be defined as a higher sense of risk.  

EXPLORATION:  We often find consumers who pride themselves on being opinion leaders in a given category.  However, I haven’t seen many modelers work this perception into their calculations.  Those opinion leaders are very likely to self-describe as “loyal” to the established brand even as they try a new product.  In their eyes, the new product is, quite literally, “on trial.”  Until they decide it passes the test, those consumers won’t change their overall attitude scores on the established brand they “love.”

Let's consider the IMPLICATIONS:  Where this all comes to bear is in purchase models and other modeling of consumer behavior.  Researchers are often trying to understand which messages (attributes, benefits or claims) might bolster loyalty, or pierce it.  The relationships can be quite disappointing between a stack of messages on the one hand predicting on the other a key measure like overall purchase pattern or attitudinal/behavioral loyalty.  Before deciding that communicating your tested messages doesn’t matter whatsoever, consider sub-dividing your sample into subgroups reflecting the key ATTIRE considerations.  

You may find that the messages appealing to risk-averse + single-task consumers are quite different from those open to exploration + being bombarded with frequent trigger-offers.  In your first analysis of the overall sample, the conflicts between the impact of these messages can make each message’ impact seem weak and diffused, but in an ATTIRE-driven context, the impactful messages will emerge more clearly.  The ATtIrE consumers react to price-value messages from competitors, while the AtTiRe consumers react only if the competitor positions itself for a different usage occasion/task. 

So, before you despair of the disloyalty of a flitting consumer, consider your consumer’s ATTIRE.  Sometimes, the clothes do make the fan.