And never better said, because for the first time in this blog, I am going to talk about the radio.
But before getting started with the topic at hand, a brief introduction.
For this article I am going to rely on two of the ideas that I try to convey in this blog most frequently:
Our mission as Senegal Phone Number List professionals is to accompany our audience throughout the entire purchase decision process: knowledge, consideration, action and loyalty .
The obsession with short-term sales brings short-term benefits and long-term problems, because strategy is abandoned and the company loses its way, the brand is diluted, etc.
Therefore, starting from this approach, I am so surprised by some strategies that I see in the market. Strategies that don’t make much sense from the end customer’s perspective.
In this case I am talking about the role of radio within the Securitas Direct strategy .
As a user I experience it as a real harassment. Listen to the radio at the time you listen to it, they broadcast at least 2 radio spots of yours. And this for months and months.
I understand that if Securitas Direct does this, it must be profitable for them in terms of recruitment. In the brief research I have done, I have only found one article from 2018, which talks about Securitas Direct being the most active advertiser on Spanish radio in February of that year.
But is it equally profitable strategically? What consequences does this have for the brand?
Consequences of an aggressive marketing strategy
What happens to a brand if it is continually crushing its audience? What if, as in this case, it is always on the same channel?
1. The product tends to become a commodity
When you talk non-stop to the same audience about a product, it tends to lose its value. The novelty effect, the attractiveness of the product and the potential need for it, are gradually reduced. Your audience ends up getting tired of the brand.
Our future client is losing interest. You have heard the same arguments n times and you already know them. Still he has not hired the alarm.
In the case of Securitas Direct this effect is reflected even in their radio spots. I don’t exactly remember the phrase, but it goes something like this: “for the price it has, it’s worth it.”
This type of argument is aimed at breaking down the price barrier. You will compare the great benefits, with the price and in this way it seems less. It becomes a totally reasonable purchase. We want the audience to think: “For everything they give me, I pay little.”
From this point of view it makes sense, but what if your product has been discrediting for this audience? The advantages are beginning to not be such, and therefore the perception of value also falls.
2. The effectiveness of the campaigns decreases
When you have spent months and months, with an intensive presence on the same channel (and I imagine the same channels), you simply run out of audience to impact.
There comes a time when you have already impacted the vast majority, and you are left without a new audience.
Logically, the results should be affected (I say should, because I do not know the data of the Securitas Direct campaigns). Everyone who was going to buy has already done so, and convincing the rest is going to be very difficult. If after x hits he has not converted, he will not do it.
This leads to an increase in direct fundraising costs. The problem with radio is that the attribution is complicated. An important part of the conversions will end up entering through the generic telephone and through the web. And of course, this makes it difficult to make decisions about these campaigns. How much of these conversions are due to radio? You can do tests to estimate them, but a priori it is a complicated calculation.
3. The brand loses its value
The above argument brings me to the mark. What effect does this strategy have on clients and non-clients who are impacted multiple times?
As with the product, the brand is negatively affected by this intensity of impacts. Sales pitches and offers eat up the brand little by little until it loses its original attributes.
At first it can have a positive effect on clients already: “I already have it, so my house is“ safe ”with the alarm”. But after this effect, each impact causes the product or service to lose value. The exceptional is normalized (this idea reinforces the first point of the article).
This is the case for satisfied customers, but what about those who are not? Does it help them to change their opinion or does the excess of impacts reinforce their opinion? Could this aggressive strategy result in the loss of unsatisfied customers?
These questions should be answered with data, but I get the feeling that a percentage of them end up being discharged.
For non-customers who after x impacts still do not contract the alarm, this loss of value of the product and the brand will take them further and further from the purchase and therefore, it will be more difficult for them to end up hiring it.
Once the negative effects have been explained, we go with the recommendations.
What could Securitas Direct do to improve this situation?
Among other possible ones, I can think of the following:
Change media mix : reduce the weight of radio in your strategy and combine it with other media.
Change radio strategy : if you have been betting on radio for so long , I understand that they must have it measured. But I would try new chains, time slots, and frequency.
Brand strategy : define a strategy that allows them to DE Phone Number recover the value of the brand attributes that they have been losing over time. I think they have enough arguments in terms of new functionalities and innovations, which would allow them to position themselves as a service of higher perceived value than the current one.
Customer service : reinforce this strategy with communication, product, customer service and communication channels that amplify the effects of the brand strategy.