Pricing in the Dog Days of August

It seems that not many people wanted to spend the weekend in Philadelphia during August. Hotels that might be full during the week were sparsely populated on the weekends. But, Marriott was not taking this situation lying down.

The Philadelphia Marriott came up with an innovative pricing strategy. Any guest who booked a two-night stay starting any Friday during August into mid-September had to pay only the price of the highest outside temperature for the Saturday night rate. So, the guest paid regular prices on Friday night and the heavily discounted rate, based on the day’s high temperature, for Saturday night. A clever approach to discounting.

This is one of several approaches companies have used to get through periodic, or seasonal slow demand times. Companies have used the components of a price in order to bring customers to its products during slow times. For example:

* A construction company changed its list price much as did the Philadelphia Marriott. It priced its services very aggressively for the months of January and February so its customers would move work forward that would normally be done in the spring or summer.

* Other companies change the definition of their product to reach a new, lower, price point. Companies who sell fractional ownerships of private jets offer discounts up to 25% for flying on off-peak days.

* Other companies make direct payments to customers. We can see this approach with the current Orbitz program called Price Assurance. Orbitz refunds customers the differences in fare if a customer purchases an airline ticket and then sees the price of the ticket fall before he leaves on his trip.

* Some sellers throw in a free, or heavily discounted, product from a third party. For example, as the housing market became more difficult, some sellers offered to outfit a media room or pay closing costs for their buyers.

We believe that a company facing a tough pricing environment can gain a lot by studying what other companies have done when facing the same circumstances. We have many of these examples on our web site. (See Improve/Pricing on StrategyStreet.com.)

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid...Oh, Never Mind

The 2010 American Customer Satisfaction Index E-Business Report is out. The report is the product of the research firm ForeSee Results. The research firm uses data provided by the University of Michigan. Analysts argue that the report should sound an alarm for Google and Facebook, two of the web’s most popular sites. Apparently, the companies are not doing as good a job as they have in the past with privacy policies and ease of use of their web sites. The report’s scores are set so that a score under 70 is considered poor. Facebook gets a rating of 64, despite the fact that it is the largest and fastest growing social networking service in the U.S. Google gets a rating of 80. This rating is down from 86 a year ago. What are we to make of this?
Not much.

If you went out today and purchased an automobile that had the styling, operating capabilities and characteristics of an automobile from 1960, you would be severely disappointed. You would compare that car to today’s car and find the older car sorely lacking. How, then, did anyone sell a car in 1960? They sold cars in 1960 because they didn’t have the automobiles of 2010 to compete with those cars. The relevant comparison is not an absolute measure. It is only a relative measure. We have to view Facebook and Google against their competition, not against an absolute standard. (See “Video #70: Overview of Products and Services Part 2: What to Expect” on StrategyStreet.com.)

When you look at these two companies against their closest competitors, they come out rather well. Facebook’s “dismal” 64 rating compares with its nearest rival, MySpace, with its rating of 63. Google’s “falling” rating of 80 compares with Microsoft’s Bing at 77 and Yahoo at 76. The sky is not falling. (See the Perspective, “How Customers Buy” on StrategyStreet.com.)

In any competitive market, the standard is not absolute performance, but relative performance. If a company’s relative performance begins to fall, it will lose market share and you can expect falling quality rankings to account for much of the market share loss. An absolute standard is meaningless. Perfection of performance has a cost well beyond what the vast majority of customers would be willing to pay.

Reliability in the Purchase Decision

In our StrategyStreet analytical framework, a customer subjects a potential supplier to two levels of elimination: invitation and evaluation. With “invitation”, the customer decides who he will spend any time considering in the purchase decision. In “evaluation”, the customer eliminates potential suppliers on its most important purchasing criteria. Then, the customer analyzes the remaining potential suppliers in detail in order to make his final choice. At both levels, the customer is looking to eliminate suppliers, not to choose one. (See the Perspective, “The Tallest Dwarf” on StrategyStreet.com.) In the final analysis, most buying decisions are the result of the elimination of all other competitors, rather than the positive choice of one of them.

McKinsey & Company used a construct similar to our approach of “invitation” and “evaluation” when looking on consumer decisions in the mobile phone market. It considered three stages of the customer buying decision: initial consideration, active evaluation, and moment of purchase. McKinsey, then, looked at how consumers made their choices at each stage in mature markets and in developing markets. What we see in the McKinsey statistics is the paramount importance of Reliability in getting to serious consideration, even in a relatively fast-growing market like mobile phones. (See “Audio Tip #95: The Customer Buying Hierarchy” on StrategyStreet.com.) The three most important criteria in the initial consideration in a mature market were advertising, previous usage and word-of-mouth. Previous usage and word-of-mouth are indications of Reliability concerns. Advertising can be either Reliability or Convenience. It is Reliability when the consumer looks to advertising as a sign that someone is a serious, reliable competitor. It is Convenience when the purpose of the advertising is to let the consumer know that the company can provide the product. In a developing market, the top three criteria are the same in a somewhat different order. (See “Audio Tip #70: Several Rounds in Evaluation Failures” on StrategyStreet.com.)

The mobile phone market is fast-growing. Differences in Function are important differentiators among competitors in this market, more so than in very difficult, hostile markets. But if the company can not convince a customer that it is a reliable supplier, it will never get the chance to demonstrate its superior Functions.

Reliability is important in every market, even in one with very fast growth.

Reliability in High-End Cars

Several years ago, BMW ran into a problem with its technologically advanced automobiles. It found that some customers were reluctant to buy their cars because the customers were concerned about the cost of maintaining products with such high technology. But BMW believed in its product and felt that the customer should believe equally. So, for more than the last ten years, BMW has offered free maintenance with its new cars. For four years, or 50,000 miles, a BMW customer will not pay for maintenance except for gas and tires. BMW continues to gain share and profitability in the North American market. (See “Audio Tip #160: How Do We Segment Customers by Emotional Needs?” on StrategyStreet.com.) Competitors have noticed.

Now, competition is beginning to offer free maintenance of its own. As always, the devil is in the details of “free maintenance.” The “Gold Standard” BMW covers everything but gas and tires. Competition offers “free” maintenance, but their version of free maintenance does not match BMW’s. Volvo’s “Safe + Secure Coverage Plan” covers five years or 60,000 miles, and includes oil and filter changes and replacement of brake pads and rotors and windshield wipers. Cadillac’s “Premium Care Maintenance” doesn’t cover brakes and is limited to scheduled oil changes, tire rotations, replacement of engine and cabin air filters and a multi-point vehicle inspection.

Other competitors cover what BMW covers, but charges for it. Audi sells a maintenance plan separately with the list price of about $790. Mercedes Benz offers prepaid service packages.

All of these competitors to BMW fall short of the mark. If you were a customer deciding on an automobile to buy, and you cared about the Reliability of the vehicle during the time you owned it, who would you trust more? On the one hand, you have the company that promises true “free maintenance.” On the other hand, you have competitors who qualify, or charge for, their promise of “free maintenance.” If you want to compete with the standard, you have to be at least as good as the standard. BMW still leads the pack in Reliability when it comes to “free maintenance.” (See “Video #14: Definition of Reliability” on StrategyStreet.com.)

The Decline of an Industry Leader

In a tough, highly competitive market place, the avoidance of Failure and a company’s reputation for Reliability are critical to long term success. (See “Video #14: Definition of Reliability” on StrategyStreet.com.) Dell is an example.

For years, Dell was the paragon for the personal computer industry. It had good computers with a build-to-order business model that took in cash before the company had to pay suppliers. Its low-cost business model involved maintenance of low inventories and tight control of its suppliers. Then the wheels came off.

From 2003 to 2007, Dell shipped a number of its mainline personal computers with serious flaws. The facts have come out recently in court documents in a suit filed by a customer against Dell claiming that these faulty computers cost the customer a good deal of money. It seems this customer was not alone.

Dell’s problems showed up because a supplier shipped it bad capacitors. An Asian company, Nichicon, produced bad capacitors, which Dell included in its motherboards on nearly 12 million computers shipped to customers from May 2003 to July 2005. A study of these computers suggested that these capacitors would cause problems in Dell computers 97% of the time, if the computer were used over a three year period.

Dell did not handle this situation well. It placed cost control ahead of customer welfare. (See the Perspective, “Cutting the Right Cost” on StrategyStreet.com.) In some cases, it replaced bad motherboards with other bad motherboards. In other cases, customer service and sales employees went out of their way to conceal these problems. Dell told some of its customers that the customers were at fault for the failing computers because they had over taxed the machines. Nor did Dell recall the faulty computers. Instead, it left it up to the customer to make a complaint before it took action. In the meantime, customers suffered the costs of losing information when their computers failed to function properly. Dell failed its customers and ravaged its Reliability reputation.

Dell is no longer the paragon of the personal computer industry. That mantle now rests on the shoulders of HP and, perhaps, Acer. Dell’s market share has fallen off. In a tough marketplace, the Failure of an incumbent supplier is the cause of most market share shifts in the industry. If an incumbent Fails the customer by refusing to do something that other people can and will do, it will lose market share. Another critical aspect of a company operating in a very tough market is Reliability. The customer has to trust that the company’s products will work, and if they do not work, they will be fixed promptly. Dell at one time had a good Reliability reputation. It gained share on the back of that good reputation. The company has badly frayed that reputation and its failures have caused its loss of market share. (See “Audio Tip #36: The Importance of Customer Retention in Hostility” on StrategyStreet.com.) These failures account, in part, for the share gained of Hewlett Packard.

The Importance of Consistency in the Approach to Pricing

A company has to send a consistent pricing message if it wants its customers to get its message. An example is Asda. Asda is the U.K. arm of Wal-Mart stores. Asda has always advertised itself as the home of “every day low prices.” It strayed from this message during the recession.

As the recession took hold, Asda followed its major competitors in offering promotional pricing, such as temporary price deals and two-for-one specials. (See the Perspective, “The Grasshopper and the Ant” on StrategyStreet.com.)

This approach worked during the recession. The company gained market share. However, as the recession ended, the company lost all of the market share it had gained with its promotional pricing. It then found that its customers were confused about what its pricing tactic really was. The company has re-established its theme of “every day low pricing.” In order to emphasize that theme, it has launched a price guarantee program which guarantees the consumer that its prices will be the lowest among its competitors, whether there is a promotion or not. The program invites the customers to check receipts online, and to obtain a rebate if a competitor is offering a better deal. (See the Perspective, “How Price Kills Profits” on StrategyStreet.com.)

It will take a while for consumers to have confidence in this renewed emphasis on every day low prices.

Pricing in Easy Industries

Here is an example where relatively small differences in price, in normally easy industries, have a big effect in the market.

PepsiCo owns Lifewater. Over the last year, Lifewater’s sales have risen by 85%, while overall sales of bottled water have fallen by 5%. Coca-Cola owns a Lifewater competitor named Vitaminwater. During the same period, Vitaminwater saw its market share shrink.

PepsiCo has been paying more attention to Lifewater. It redesigned its bottle and introduced a no-calorie version of the drink. It also changed its advertising emphasis.

But pricing has certainly played a role in the marketplace. As the recession began to take hold, PepsiCo shaved four cents off the price of Lifewater (see “Audio Tip #106: How do we Predict Competitor Responses to our Price Moves?”), dropping it to an average of $1.18. Vitaminwater chose the opposite approach. It raised its prices by 4%. This produced a 7% swing in price difference between Vitaminwater and Lifewater. This price change meant Lifewater appealed better to both consumers and the channel of distribution. Lifewater used the lower price to increase its retail presence, especially with Target stores. This created greater Convenience for the Lifewater consumer. Overall, Lifewater’s market share increased by 1.6 share points to 3.8%. (See “Audio Tip #45: The Components of Positive Volatility” on StrategyStreet.com.) Vitaminwater’s share dropped from 14% to 11.4%. (See “Audio Tip #46: The Components of Negative Volatility” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Pricing and price differences are never irrelevant. Customers are loath to pay higher prices for products that otherwise seem Functionally comparable.