Untitled

[post4school]

Jamal Grant

[post4school]

Fair and Lovely vs. Dark is Beautifu

The case Fair and Lovely vs. Dark is Beautiful is one that leaves me as sad as it does conflicted. In the case, the Unilever-owned brand Fair and Lovely was the heavy market leader in the Indian skin and facial care retail market, with the majority of its market leadership stemming from their skin-whitening cream. While this may seem innocuous on its surface, the popularity of skin whitening creams in India—as well as in many, many other countries across the globe—has stemmed from long, contentious histories including colonialism, discrimination, and social hierarchies that defined beauty in people, particularly women, as fair-skinned. Whatever the true rationale behind the demand for the skin-lightening creams, the fact remained—these products had extremely high-demand.

So, then, wherein lies the exact problem? For me, this case hits relatively close to home. As a first-generation American born to Trinidad immigrants, I learned pretty quickly as a through my Black American and Trinidadian roots, that many issues and social hierarchies tied to skin color would heavily influence, if not outright define, the social experiences of many in my community. Within my family alone existed a wide spectrum of skin tones, which we were consistently and quickly made aware of in the wider world that seemed to see, differentiate, and assign value to those meaningless differences. For me, these experiences have led me down deep journeys exploring complexion, race and many other factors influencing the definitions of beauty that seem to be so commonly held. Observing—and sometimes being—the victim of these ideologies, my personal stance is clear: Companies have a responsibility to not traffic in branding, advertising or dealings of any sort that perpetuate or exploit the social divisions of society or contribute to the dehumanization of any group. Strongly-worded, I know, but where I find myself conflicted is in building quite as firm a stance from the company’s perspective. What’s a company to do if what the consumer desires is rooted in a reality reasonably deemed problematic? Does it stop selling the product? Although conflicted, my answer is no, they should not stop selling the product. Unless there is social or legislative pressures to stop other businesses from supplanting an organization’s place in the sale of these products, then a moral stance by the company does no real good outside of righteous martyrdom. I believe that what the company can do though, is make conscious decisions to neither perpetuate or exploit the ideologies that are harmful to people. Companies can choose to sell products that, say, whitens skin in this example, but also build advertising and products that build the confidence and self-love of their consumers without making people desire other than themselves.  Companies have influence, and they don’t always need to be responsive, but can even help set the trends that become engrained in a society. When it comes to business decisions, sometimes the bottom line gets in the way of morality, but in many cases, I think there are moral and humane ways to both make a profit and treat people like people.

[post4school]

Jamal’s 4 Assessments using Roger’s Five Factors

I've always wondered what factors make innovations, irrespective of their quality as a product, successful or not. For instance, the early 2000s invention of the Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) seemed to be timely and effective for the needs of busy professionals, yet it never quite caught on. Years later, devices such as tablets and smart phones that provide some similar—although certainly more advanced—functionality have boomed in the marketplace. Roger’s five factors provide an interesting framework to assess the diffusion of new innovations in the marketplace. Below I will evaluate four interesting innovations through this framework.

Sliced Peanut Butter

Relative Advantage - sliced peanut butter seemed to provide some advantage as it pertained to convenience for users that hoped to use peanut butter on bread. However, that relative advantage was minimal when peanut butter was needed for other foods for which a sliced form of peanut butter would be less desirable.

Compatibility - sliced peanut butter seems like it would be of moderate compatibility as its form would be ideal for some applications and cumbersome for others.

Complexity - Although less complex for some applications, I would argue that complexity was raised with sliced peanut butter when individual would need to save unused peanut butter or use it on a shape that was not in the form of a slice.

Trialability - trialability would be quite high for this product as individuals can purchase it with minimal personal investment.

Observability - this product would be high in observability.

Collapsible Wheel

Relative Advantage - the ability to fold up a wheel provides a high relative advantage for people who travel often by bike, but are limited in storage space.

Compatibility - given that collapsible wheels do not need to be collapsed, this product would seem quite compatible with the experience of would-be customers

Complexity - complexity could be high for this product as people may find it unintuitive relative to current wheels.

Trialability - this product would have low trial ability given that someone would need to purchase it to try it out over an extended period of time

Observability - this product use would be easy to observe, but perhaps hard to comprehend the added benefit if an individual themselves we're not using it with regularity.

Stave Jigsaw

Relative Advantage - for consumers who love puzzles, this product seems like it would add tremendous advantage for this consumer base.  

Compatibility -  these complex puzzles would have high compatibility given that people already use puzzles

Complexity - the puzzles are extremely complex which may deter some customers, but may also be the driving differentiator for other customers.

Trialability - the trialability of these are not high as they take time to build and would require a purchase in order to use.

Observability - the observerability of the experience of building these puzzles might be kind of low given the amount of time it takes to build one, which could deter would-be buyers

Polytrack

Relative Advantage - this product offers a clear relative advantage and seems to have the potential to replace the existing product that stands in its place

Compatibility - Polytrack will certainly be compatible given that it is a direct substitute for its predecessor

Complexity - there seems to be no added complexity to using Polytrack

Trialability – trialability seems to quite difficult given that large quantitities woudlneed ot be purchased in order to be used.

Observability - observing the benefits of the Polytrack on the health of the horses would be quote high.

After evaluating all of these products, I believe that Polytrack would be the innovation with the highest diffusion given its clear relative advantage and compatibility, minimal complexity and high observability by potential customers. When thinking about these five factors, I believe that looking at relative advantage and trialability will be huge keys in evaluating and rebranding our Brandling lab company Peloton, who has seen tremendous financial challenges in recent months for reasons that, with some rebranding, Peloton may be able to overcome.

#MITSloan2022SBrandingB

[post4school]

Singapore Airlines sets Themselves Apart

“Some people say give the customers what they want, but that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do.”

“If I'd ask customers what they wanted, they would've told me a faster horse.”

The above quotes are attributed to the legendary entrepreneurs Steve Jobs and Henry Ford, respectively. These quotes, often thrown around at the latest venture fund, startup accelerator or MIT pitch competition, are often associated with the development of a new, innovative technology. While not traditionally thought of in relation to a low margin, minimally innovative industry like air travel, Singapore Airlines embodied this forward-looking approach tin their customer service while combining it with a robust feedback mechanism in a way that gave them a competitive advantage over their counterparts. As stated in the reading, “[Singapore Airlines] was not a transportation company it was a unique travel experience”. How’d they do this?

Worker investment and development

Singapore Airlines seemed to master thinking through both the functional and interpersonal skills that made for and strong human experience for customers on their flights. They invested in four months of training for flight attendants that included language classes, posture, pouring drinks without spilling and even confidence/charisma assessments. Keeping the customer first, they helped develop workers, surrounding the attendants with an air of prestige and pride in their work. Talent management and employee development are critical components of any successful experience and Singapore Airline’s did these things tremendously well.

Customer In-flight Experience 

Singapore Airlines was a first-mover in creating customer experiences that went beyond that of other Airlines. They  provided all flyers, business class or economy, free foods and drinks, variety in meal selection, adjustability of their head rests fro amore comfortable experience, and free headsets amongst many other things. These experiences led to each and every customers (not just the high-paying ones) feel like valued travelers. Singapore Airlines’ investment in a quality customer experience helped them make impact in beyond bare utility and into a feeling of luxury. 

Customer Feedback

Singapore Airlines prioritized measuring satisfaction for its customers to ensure constant improvement. They kept metrics like the “compliment to complaint” ratio, used tools such as the Service Performance Survey (SPS), and ensured that they went above and beyond to rectify and poor experiences that passengers had with the airline. 

With all of this, Singapore Airlines succesfully broke away from the monotony that characterized the way people, governments and airlines saw the role of air travel and air travel companies. They moved flying from a transaction to an experience while balancing an innovative,  forward-looking vision with the voice of the customer to set themselves apart from their peers. 

PC: https://innovationminder.com/new-blog/2017/5/7/dont-ask-your-customers

[post4school]

A step-by-step guide to Smart Nudging

The two readings, “A step-by-step guide to smart Business Experiments” and “A Practitioner’s guide to Nudging”, I found tremendously interesting learning about the ways that companies (or campaigns) try to get people and consumers to make particular decisions. The nudging article referenced an example of using “low voter turnout” phrasing as a mechanism to get potential voters to show up on election day and that perhaps emphasizing high voter turnout may have ultimately been more effective at accomplishing that intended goal. To me, this felt counterintuitive initially, but that isn’t saying much given the example I am about to share.

        In 2016, a group of friends and I endeavored to start a STEM non-profit for students in the city of Boston. In order to recruit students, we went to various locations where we thought we could locate both parents and students together. These included parent teacher nights, Boys and Girls clubs, and Youth groups at local churches. However, when asked by one of the parents at a local church what the cost of our nonprofit was, I proudly proclaimed “Nothing. The program is free”. When the program pitch ended, the youth pastor took me aside and told me that I should always charge for my program. I told him that we had raised enough funding and that we would not need to charge, but he quickly told me about the importance of what I now would describe as an externally-imposed, mindless, discouraging nudge (a mouthful!). He mentioned that in his many years running programming for the church, he found that hosting sessions with even just the most minimal entrance fee attached yielded much higher attendance than the same exact programming when he offered them for free. His conclusion was that adding a small price tag “nudges” or encourages people to take advantage of an opportunity. Although initially unintuitive to me, I found this to be game changing in how I recruited new students to our program.

        Along with feeling deep appreciation for this new nugget of knowledge, I also recognized why I did not realize this lesson before. Simply put, as referenced in the article “A step-by-step guide to smart Business Experiments”, I did not have either a control group nor a feedback mechanism to learn about what worked and what didn't work with my intended audience. These two articles, although simple in many ways, represent deep concepts that I think are critical to both branding and iterative of learning.

[post4school]

Corona should shoot for #1 through off-premise sales

As the #2 imported beer in the United States, Corona has been very successful in building significant brand awareness, market presence and, ultimately, market share. However, their goal is not simply to rest at #2, but to overtake the market leader, Heineken, for the top spot. Heineken has a long track record of excellence and despite some turbulence has maintained the top spot after some rebranding efforts. Corona sees itself at a crossroads as they consider three main options: (1) a new region-specific branding approach, (2) increasing off-premise sales, or (3) rebrand themselves in response to Heineken’s branding upgrade attempts.

To thoroughly explore these options, we must first understand the current brand identities and their respective needs, if any, to change. Heineken has long been seen as the the top beer brand and has enjoyed a collective understanding of their high quality beer offerings. In recent years though, sales have dwindled, which called into question what their advertising strategy was: after shuffling through several marketing agencies, they have been reached the conclusion that their brand was seen as haughty and arrogant. Slogans like Just being the best is enough” fell out of favor with the young consumer demographic of imported beers. On the other end Corona’s “Fun, Sun, beach” mantra, indicating youth and relax caution, as highlighted in their advertisements of beaches with minimal other stimuli, brought Corona into second place in a competitive beer market. The success of Corona gaveling risen in the ranks among beers and growing market share lends itself to the argument that they should not pursue option 3, which would be to rebrand. This indicates that Heineken was in great need of a brand revamp, while Corona has been making posting strides in the market. 

With respect to option #1, which entails treating a regional branding strategy, I do not think that Corona should pursue. In the case, a marketing executive made the case that: “people don’t drink beer, they drink marketing”. What this tells us is that brand, not taste or quality, is the prevailing purchasing criterion of beer buyers. What this means is that ensuring consistent brand identity is cortical to success, whereas experimenting with too many brand is rotors in various regions, may create an amorphous or confusing idea of Corona. I would recommend staying away from this option. This leaves us with option #2, which is to increase off-premise sales. With 60% of beer sales being off-premise in 1997, Corona will stands better chance at becoming the #1 beer importer if it focuses on  capturing this large off-premise segment of the market.