First of all, with that jingle still ringing in their ears for a long time, consumers might become accustomed to the new prices, and expectations might shift- this is dangerous as the promotion is only for a limited time and because the $5 deal not even exist in all Subway franchises. Disappointment seems predetermined. Just as with any kind of sales promotion, a 5$ foot long is motivating and exciting the first time, and perhaps the second time. But eventually customers come to expect it, so companies must cut prices further to create excitement and drive sales.
The second danger is that it the campaign has nothing to do with promoting the Points-of-Difference of the brand and is destined to prompt a competitive reaction. In weakness there is strength for the competitor. One does not have to be a clairvoyant to predict that in no time somebody would come along and destroy the bold campaign, simply by negating the promoted advantage. And surprise, surprise: Quizno as well as Sheetz's now offer the $4 footlong.
And third, as with any kind of this sales promotion, the brand may weaken because brand-building programs were cut. That will force the Subway manager to implement more short-term programs, continuing the vicious cycle and sending the brand into a dangerous downward spiral. But even in these times, Subway marketing must balance building short-term numbers with building a long-term brand.
Subway could clearly profit from maintaining consistency in its messages in order to break the clutter with its “eat fresh” message. As market leader, it still has the pioneering advantage, and rather than engaging in price shouting matches, message consistency and a promotion of the sandwich category could be more beneficial.
The toughest sub competitor Domino which has waged war against subway itself (“Domino beats Subway 2:1 in national taste tests”) could even serve as an additional frame of reference : After the recent food scandal, the freshness value has once again become a serious matter of public concern. If Subway should have followed the No.1 branding rule to keep consistency. Even when times are difficult, it could now allocate the millions wasted on the $5 foot long campaign to really build on its selling proposition in a meaningful manner. It could further offer consumers a more abstract, emotional benefit related to how good and healthy the consumers will feel as a result of eating subway subs. “Eat fresh” is also linked to the fact that subway regulars have traditionally ordered their sandwiches in highly personalized ways. (“one 6 inch, sesame roll turkey sandwich, with extra olives and just a little honey mustard on top”). A trip to Subway can promise self-expression and self-indulgence in an otherwise unfulfilling recession day. Both are examples of how to embellish the brand positioning to changes in the time.
This laddering up from a tangible feature to a functional benefit to an emotional consumer benefit could provide a means of powerfully sustaining Subway’s position. If these points of differences were sustained and consistently highlighted in communication, the brand equity could rise to an extent where customers would not choose to go to Subway only because a footlong sandwich costs $5 instead of $6 for a limited period of time- loyal consumers would even be blind to it. In contrast, Subway needs to stay (at least slightly) higher priced than its competitors to highlight the perceived quality value. With the bold 5$-footlong campaign, Subway has weakened itself. And because it is less protected by a set of powerful, unique perceptions that define it, the brand made itself more vulnerable to direct attacks in the long run.
Francesco Wesel
Integrated Marketing Communication
www.francescowesel.com
No comments:
Post a Comment