Knocking one's own product
- Thread starter bbhero
- Start date
- Status
It's a tricky marketing landscape to navigate, but some of it is actual product quality differences, whether it's cost of materials or care in production, or a combination of both.
The one I find most interesting is the "middle" product placement, and the "premium" product (maybe "penultimate" is a better word), when they are solely related to consumer psychology and no significant quality difference.
The "middle" strategy is where you offer a low priced product, knowing that some consumers will always reject that one and choose the next higher tier, which is a high profit example (almost no difference in reality, but "placed" higher, sometimes by under-qualifying the lowest priced one. The low priced example carries less profit, but you are not trying to sell that one; it's just there on the shelf to sell the next higher tier.
By way of a non-oil example (because sometimes that helps see how it works with oil) let's say you have two audio amplifiers, each capable of 50 watts output at 0.05% THD. The lower priced unit will be specified at 0.1% THD, the next one at 0.05% THD. Neither is a lie, but there is a perceived difference that consumers pay more for. This is widely used, and it doesn't take much to see how one might do the same with oil.
Then there is the penultimate product, which is not really different from the middle tier (or maybe one higher) but is packaged nicer and is specified highest (tighter) even though it's not really any different. A certain percentage of consumers will always buy that tier, no matter what.
Another non-oil example comes from an anecdote, shopping with a friend for, of all things, underwear and socks, for a job we were going to do together out of town. I (the cheapskate) was driving, so we went to my store first, a discount department store. Checked out some brands and prices, and then without buying, we went to a specialty "work wear" store in the same mall, my buddy's choice of retailer.
Same brand, same exact item (it was the underwear, the socks were different) but at a higher price. I suggested going back to the original store and buying some. He refused, insisted on buying the higher priced items, because his consumer psychology just couldn't accept the cheaper priced items were the same. I'll leave it to the reader of this to guess what I did.
Anyway, from the above, you have four neat product grades, with two actual quality differences. A brand can expand or tighten the product lines as they see fit; it does cost more to have more tiers in the chain, so usually only well established companies can run four or more tiers of basically the same product. If the company is actually a quality manufacturer, even the least expensive tier is probably perfectly adequate for most applications, while there is still room for an actual premium tier for specific, heavy duty etc products.
It also explains why a value-priced marketed reseller (let's use Wal-Mart) still carries higher priced (and higher profit) items, say a store-brand jar of pickles alongside the national brand item, or why there are fifteen blenders from three brands in the kitchen isle.
The one I find most interesting is the "middle" product placement, and the "premium" product (maybe "penultimate" is a better word), when they are solely related to consumer psychology and no significant quality difference.
The "middle" strategy is where you offer a low priced product, knowing that some consumers will always reject that one and choose the next higher tier, which is a high profit example (almost no difference in reality, but "placed" higher, sometimes by under-qualifying the lowest priced one. The low priced example carries less profit, but you are not trying to sell that one; it's just there on the shelf to sell the next higher tier.
By way of a non-oil example (because sometimes that helps see how it works with oil) let's say you have two audio amplifiers, each capable of 50 watts output at 0.05% THD. The lower priced unit will be specified at 0.1% THD, the next one at 0.05% THD. Neither is a lie, but there is a perceived difference that consumers pay more for. This is widely used, and it doesn't take much to see how one might do the same with oil.
Then there is the penultimate product, which is not really different from the middle tier (or maybe one higher) but is packaged nicer and is specified highest (tighter) even though it's not really any different. A certain percentage of consumers will always buy that tier, no matter what.
Another non-oil example comes from an anecdote, shopping with a friend for, of all things, underwear and socks, for a job we were going to do together out of town. I (the cheapskate) was driving, so we went to my store first, a discount department store. Checked out some brands and prices, and then without buying, we went to a specialty "work wear" store in the same mall, my buddy's choice of retailer.
Same brand, same exact item (it was the underwear, the socks were different) but at a higher price. I suggested going back to the original store and buying some. He refused, insisted on buying the higher priced items, because his consumer psychology just couldn't accept the cheaper priced items were the same. I'll leave it to the reader of this to guess what I did.
Anyway, from the above, you have four neat product grades, with two actual quality differences. A brand can expand or tighten the product lines as they see fit; it does cost more to have more tiers in the chain, so usually only well established companies can run four or more tiers of basically the same product. If the company is actually a quality manufacturer, even the least expensive tier is probably perfectly adequate for most applications, while there is still room for an actual premium tier for specific, heavy duty etc products.
It also explains why a value-priced marketed reseller (let's use Wal-Mart) still carries higher priced (and higher profit) items, say a store-brand jar of pickles alongside the national brand item, or why there are fifteen blenders from three brands in the kitchen isle.
RE: Good, Better, Best
We were taught in school the actual legal meanings of those words, as used in advertising and product literature.
"Good" isn't really used, although it's implied. It's too ordinary to be actually used in marketing, but it's implied by marketing.
"Better" means "Best". "Best" means "Good".
The rationale behind that?
"Better" refers to a premium product, higher performance than the average available examples from the competitors and yourself.
"Best" refers to what the competition and yourself makes that is suitable for the task; in essence they are all "Best". It's a lower tier than "Better" although consumers correlate that to a premium product, which it isn't.
In practice, there is a lot of marketing with the word "Best" and little with "Better", so that almost everything is referred to as "Best". These nuances are deliberately used because consumers correlate almost the opposite in their own minds when digesting advertising and marketing.
EG:
Originally Posted By: bbhero
Trailer park= good
Cracker jack house= better
Custom built home= best
It just seems to be far too big of a gap they portray better their "good" and "best" oils. That's what I find a bit funny, odd and kind over done.
Not calling you out, just illustrating the practice; you are not alone in seeing things that way, and marketers know it.
We were taught in school the actual legal meanings of those words, as used in advertising and product literature.
"Good" isn't really used, although it's implied. It's too ordinary to be actually used in marketing, but it's implied by marketing.
"Better" means "Best". "Best" means "Good".
The rationale behind that?
"Better" refers to a premium product, higher performance than the average available examples from the competitors and yourself.
"Best" refers to what the competition and yourself makes that is suitable for the task; in essence they are all "Best". It's a lower tier than "Better" although consumers correlate that to a premium product, which it isn't.
In practice, there is a lot of marketing with the word "Best" and little with "Better", so that almost everything is referred to as "Best". These nuances are deliberately used because consumers correlate almost the opposite in their own minds when digesting advertising and marketing.
EG:
Originally Posted By: bbhero
Trailer park= good
Cracker jack house= better
Custom built home= best
It just seems to be far too big of a gap they portray better their "good" and "best" oils. That's what I find a bit funny, odd and kind over done.
Not calling you out, just illustrating the practice; you are not alone in seeing things that way, and marketers know it.
It is a little strange.
"Don't worry folks. We also have an inferior product that will do less to protect your engine."
I bet I could make 300,000 miles using any of those oils properly.
Of course, my horsepower will be left completely unprotected. Guess is should sleep with a shotgun next to the hood of my car to make sure my horsepower isn't harmed?
"Don't worry folks. We also have an inferior product that will do less to protect your engine."
I bet I could make 300,000 miles using any of those oils properly.
Of course, my horsepower will be left completely unprotected. Guess is should sleep with a shotgun next to the hood of my car to make sure my horsepower isn't harmed?
It is an interesting marketing strategy for sure. Let's what it does for sales. On the Advanced full synthetic (looks like they did away with the Synpower), it says right on the front of the label "50% more wear protection than our conventional).
Looks like Valvoline is trying really promote their synthetic offerings.
Looks like Valvoline is trying really promote their synthetic offerings.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
