From Marketing Behavior Class: Current Events Assignment

Source Article:

Miller, S. (2008, January). “The Middle of Nowhere.” Brandweek, 49(1), 18-20.

Article Summary: As consumers spend more time researching products prior to purchasing, companies that neither stand out as particularly high end or low end are being missed by consumers. Using the consumer electronics industry as an example, Miller explains that high-tech, high-price, or as cheap as you can get it are the three most marketable positions because Americans consumers are all about image: flaunting your wealth or flaunting your thrift.

Remarks: I found it interesting that the article prefaced with a story on buying a high definition television, citing the example of the Samsung buyer paying as much as the neighbor with three Vizio LCDs – mostly because I opted for the thrift-friendly Vizio recently myself and have not a single regret (granted, I was using one of those old built-in-VCR clunkers that was slowly losing colors on one side of the screen and required that I squint to view the cable guide). I supposed this puts me in a “flaunt your thrift” category.
Overall, I don’t think the idea of middle-of-the road companies suffering is a new one. Look at the branding of Enterprise rental car versus Avis, which actually uses that it is NOT the first in the market so they are trying harder. I also liked the references to the book Trading Up which I might purchase in that I agree with the theory that the shift has a lot to do with newer luxury items being lower in price in general, and, therefore, more affordable to most households. Still, the fact that Vizio, at its bargain basement price has the highest market share at 13% shows that there are plenty of people in my category.

My organization, the Junior Chamber, which is in desperate need of an image upgrade often struggles with this concept. There are those who believe that our product (membership) is for anyone and keep the costs low to be accessible to anyone. At the same time, the cash flow suffers and products and services get cut because we do not have the resources to reinvest and provide more services. The opposition believes that by pricing our product (membership) so low that we allow a perception of lack of quality from the consumers – especially the coveted young professional market, which likes to show value in itself by having value. Both sides have great arguments, so I try to look for innovative and efficient ways to provide more “bang for their buck” at little or no cost.

Unfortunately, this makes us plop right in the middle as more expensive than free and cheaper than even collegiate fraternity dues that college students seem to be able to afford. So what message does that give about our services? Often: none. Our brand and image are squeezed somewhere in the middle.