Jose Carillo's Forum

POUR OUT YOUR MIND IN ENGLISH

This page welcomes well-thought-out and well-considered postings in English about any subject under the sun. Postings that will be entertained are original essays, short stories, and verses in the English language written by the forum member himself or herself.

The maximum allowable posting is 1,200 words in 12 points in the standard 8 ½” x 11” typeset format; longer but worthwhile postings will be cut or condensed by the moderator to fit the maximum space allocation.

The objective of this page is to promote and encourage the felicitous use of English in expressing ideas, thoughts, and feelings. By posting material on this page, the member expressly agrees to have it critiqued by fellow members of Jose Carillo’s English Forum. Members making critiques, on the other hand, are enjoined to make their critiques constructive, thoughtful, and helpful.

Click here to go to the board (requires registration to post)

Five reasons why people don’t buy
By Renzphotography

As the Philippine national election date draws closer, allow me to discuss the five reasons why people don’t buy:

(1) No Trust
(2) No Need
(3) No Help
(4) No Hurry
(5) No Money

(1) No Trust

This is perhaps the biggest hurdle to anyone who is trying to sell something critical, something life-changing, something very expensive, or something very radical on a personal level.  

Trust wouldn’t be a big issue if it were just a matter of purchasing a ballpoint pen, a plastic bracelet, or any unessential item below 20 Philippine pesos at today’s prevailing exchange rate. The obvious explanation here is that anybody could spare the small amount, and that losing these items an hour after purchase wouldn’t matter much to anyone particularly if the items are easily available. 

Also, trust wouldn’t be a big issue if we were transacting through a machine. We would assume that machines are impartial and reliable; in contrast, humans are prone to bias and might deliver goods and services in varying degrees of reliability and consistency.

As decision makers, people are more cautious if the purchase involves things that would directly affect what they value. People, regardless of personality type, generally are cautious if the decision involves a great amount of money, if it would risk their life/career/source of income, if it could alter their relationship with their loved ones, if it would affect their status in society, or if it would involve the possibility of reducing their liability or accountability. 

If we really think about it, the situations above are traceable to the five emotions that drive our decisions (e.g., love, fear of loss, prestige, greed, and guilt) as discussed in my previous posts in this Forum. 

At this point, let us now examine how companies and other entities develop trust and how this helps in their endeavors through time.

In old societies, the importance of dealing with people and institutions that could be relied upon was as critical as losing money to thieves and not having any chance of getting it back. Even in today’s society where there are laws designed to protect consumers, I don’t suppose people would hire lawyers and attend several court hearings to bring to justice the vendor or manufacturer of, say, one defective piece of ball point pen worth 12 Philippine pesos. It would be simply ridiculous, and unless the transaction is in the thousands of pesos for a large volume purchase order, the time and money to be spent in the legal proceedings would not be commensurate to the amount that could possibly be recovered from the supplier or manufacturer

This is why people are afraid of losing money unnecessarily through unscrupulous traders or manufacturers. The trust and reliability of a trader, service provider, or manufacturer give the consumer peace of mind and spares him or her from the hassles of dealing with product defects and inconsistent service.

This is why a good name is worth more than a ton of gold, as the saying goes. In Latin countries, in fact, the title of “Don” was given to individuals who were known for being straightforward and honest in their dealings with others. Unfortunately, the title was abused and so liberally used—to the point that even the heads of organized crime were accorded this title.

In most Western countries, there were companies that took the matter of a good name to a point that they used the names of the founders themselves as their company name or trade name. This became a very common practice among financial institutions (JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns, Dun and Bradstreet, Barings, etc.) as well as among fashion and cosmetics companies (Donna Karan, Giorgio Armani, Lacoste, JCPenny, Sara Lee, etc.). Indeed, this phenomenon is the subject of much study, with the business academe often referring to it as Brand Management. You would also be surprised to see trade books on the topic when you visit the nearest bookstore chain in your area.

Let us now talk about brand management: 

Brand Management is the study of how organizations could develop and sustain a strong brand. The benefits and advantages of a strong brand are, of course, the following:

(1) A strong brand helps promote the organization’s current and future products or service offerings;
(2) It could help the organization attract the best and brightest talents in the market or industry;
(3) It provides a sense of stability and continuity among employees;
(4) It provides leverage when dealing with creditors;
(5) It provides leverage when dealing with suppliers and other business partners; and
(6) It provides some degree of political influence.

Allow me to focus on just the first advantage of having a strong brand: A strong brand helps in promoting the organization's current and future product and/or service offerings.

When we buy a pound of common table salt in a thin plastic bag at the nearest wet market, price is perhaps the only thing we would consider. However, if we run a restaurant or a food manufacturing firm and the business consumes common table salt in large quantities, we obviously evaluate the supplier for other attributes other than price. We would ask ourselves if the supplier is reliable. Could the supplier consistently meet our regular requirements? Perhaps the ability to deliver the goods for free would also become a consideration.

The point here is this: If the product is so generic and undifferentiated that low price is the only factor to consider, then we could shift from one supplier to another at will. However, as the need becomes more complex, we begin to consider additional factors in selecting the supplier and in making the purchase. 

In the example above, the product is just common table salt, and the complexity of the purchase decision began when the required volume became large and the demand became regular. Now, think of what we would consider as relevant factors if we evaluate a the purchase of a more complicated product like a car or a desktop computer.

When we evaluate a product, we normally consider things beyond the obvious benefits of the product itself. Depending on how well buyers are aware of their needs, they will normally scrutinize the product based on their particular requirements. Now, assuming that we are now standing before a store shelf with several products that meet our requirements at comparable prices, how do we decide which of the products to buy?

Here is where brand management comes to fore. We will need to recall and refer to the premise I raised in this Forum many posts ago—that purchase decisions as well as other major decisions are driven by human emotions. This time around, allow me to emphasize that brand management was developed precisely to help organizations capitalize on this. 

Brands become strong through a solid track record of success and reliability that often takes years to develop. In the past, what used to raise “brand equity” or the intangible value of the brand—if ever so slowly—was word of mouth or actual positive experience with the product or service, or both. However, in the past few decades, a more deliberate approach was taken by companies in order to create a higher level of brand awareness.

Organizations have achieved brand awareness through the concerted efforts of advertising agencies, public relations firms, and media practitioners. Today, brands are normally associated with images of community service, sensitivity to minorities, commitment to quality, and even dedication to the environment. Associating with popular sports and competitions is also a good way to promote goodwill to the brand. 

To my mind, however, the best way to promote a brand is to remind people of the good times they have shared with the product through the years. As far as brand management is concerned, nothing beats a strong emotional attachment to a brand. Among Philippine companies, we could easily identify San Miguel Corporation, ABS-CBN, and PLDT as having achieved strong brand equity using the techniques mentioned above.

A company with a strong brand enjoys the residual benefit of having a strong mental recall each time a consumer is in need of a product or service to satisfy his needs. In fact, even if the consumer does not need a product yet, he could be induced to try something new simply because the product carries the trusted brand that has never failed to deliver satisfaction in the past. That is how important a strong brand is. 

I have just shown how trust is essential in decision-making in today’s modern world and how brands could be associated with good emotions to make them trusted. However, we must remember that although these principles were developed principally for business, these are the very same elements at work in Philippine politics today.

Beware of Political Brands

I would say to begin with that being the emotional people that we are, Filipinos should know better than to trust political candidates on the basis of their family name. 

In other countries, political branding is synonymous to the political party. In the United States, you are either Republican or Democrat. In the United Kingdom, there is a choice between being Labor, Conservative, Sinn Fein, or whatnot. In the Philippines, however, considering the ease at which politicians jump from one political party to another, the political platform of the party largely becomes irrelevant. 

It all boils down to the personalities behind the campaign, much like in the movie industry where the presence of a superstar could spell success in the box office. Unfortunately, many Filipinos think that good governance runs in the bloodline, so a scion of a political clan is looked upon to be just as good as some of his relatives. In this country, therefore, the political family name is to local politics what strong brands are in the corporate world.

In the coming national elections, though, it would be advisable to think beyond the emotion that we have attached to the “political brand,” and to look at the track record of the candidate instead. In this way, perhaps we could elect better public servants.

How do we develop trust?

After the discussion above on brand management, the question that is now begging to be asked is this: How do we develop trust to help us in our undertakings? 

The key concept behind the techniques on developing trust revolves around the word “association.” When we meet the target individual for the first time, we need to associate ourselves with things that will draw that feeling of trust.

Indeed, as the saying goes, the first impression lasts, but precisely what are the things we need to associate ourselves with in order to create that lasting impression of our trustworthiness?

Here are five techniques for developing trust:

(a) Act the part
(b) Sell the brand
(c) Plain Folks
(d) Bank on the reputation of the person who referred you
(e) Develop a solid track record over time

(a) Act the part

The way we look and present ourselves is critical. On top of the normal personal hygiene, we have to look like someone trustworthy. What this trustworthy look should be may depend on the overall approach; at any rate, we will discuss this further when we take up  the other techniques for developing trust. 

The important thing to achieve here is to look like someone the target audience can relate to—someone the target audience could associate with its personal concept of what a trustworthy person should look like. This may sound stereotypical, but this is how the human mind works—visual cues (the image we project) could either raise or drop mental barriers. The last thing you want to do is to inadvertently associate yourself with a negative image.

(b) Sell the brand

If we were engaged in selling goods or providing services, we could easily focus on the brand. If the brand is well-known, then half of the work involved in selling is already done.

But what if the company or the brand is new or not yet known in the market? In such situations, sales people would normally work on raising the level of awareness on the brand. They could identify other popular products that use the same brand. They could identify successful products or projects of the company or brand in other parts of the world. They could also explain how the company evolved and highlight its successful ventures.

Here the salesman is banking on associating the product, brand, or company with success. Nothing sells like success and the inherent desire of people—many of whom are prestige-driven types—to take part in that success. Indeed, as the saying goes, the winner takes it all.

(c) Plain Folks

Now, allow me to reintroduce a style originally used for oration, “plain folks.” This is a style that illustrates to the target audience that the speaker is just like them. This is a powerful message because people generally think that the reason they don’t get goods and services in the desired manner is that the brand, company, or seller does not understand them. With plain folks, however, the communicator is telling the audience subliminally that "Yes, I used to be like you, and yes, I understand you.” This way, because the target audience is made to realize that he and the speaker are alike, association is greatly developed on a personal level.

Salesmen use the plain folks technique when they try to connect with the target audience or individual on a personal level. Usually, what can usually do the job of connecting through plain folks are such topics as these—which place they were from, where they studied, which parts of the world they have been to, which social group they belong to, which company they work or had worked for, or even something as superficial as where they were or what they were doing when a major event occurred.


In particular, I remember how sales agents from newly established multinational outfits in the country would use plain folks to attract people. They would stress how the founders of the company used to be ordinary people themselves until—through some stroke of genius or hard work—they ultimately became successful. This way, the members of the target audience could visualize themselves as no different from the founders and learn to associate themselves intimately with the brand.

More importantly, we should all be aware that politicians on the campaign trail use plain folks as their most common vote-getting technique. When we hear lines like “I used to be poor,” “I used to sleep on the streets,” “My family didn’t have enough money for food as I grew up,” and so on, we should remember that these are merely emotional appeals. Even if there is truth in the speaker’s statement, we should be aware that using plain folks is just a diversion. It merely takes the target audience’s attention away from the more important issues. 

Personally, I would be skeptical when listening to a person who puts too much emphasis on plain folks. To my mind, these people simply lack the substance to be elected to public office.
 
(d) Bank on the reputation of the person who referred you

When a salesperson relies on the reputation of another entity, he or she is actually using a technique similar to “selling the brand.” The salesperson depends on the pre-established positive relationship between the person who referred him and the target individual. As in “selling the brand,” though, half the job of selling is already done when this technique works out.  

This is the reason behind brand endorsements by celebrities. This is also the reason why some inexperienced candidates get elected simply because they were endorsed by a popular senior politician. 

This technique is very potent because a personal level of trust—even in the case of celebrities and fans—is immediately established, unlike in “selling the brand” where the trust is between a consumer and an inanimate business entity. It is so potent that some people abuse this technique by “name-dropping.” Of course, in “name-dropping,” a scheming person could simply drop the name of an influential person and get things done his way. 

(e) Develop a solid track record over time

The most potent but also the most time-consuming—and potentially the most difficult—approach for establishing trust is to establish a solid track record over the years. This entails consistency in the delivery of goods or services to the consumer and the establishment of a long-term relationship that could take years to develop. This is also the most reliable way to establish trust, for achieving trust this way almost automatically leads to brand loyalty. 

This explains why despite the presence of countless low-priced competitors, some overpriced quality products remain in high demand. Indeed, the manufacturer or supplier can easily justify the high price it charges with the consistent high quality of its products or services. In fact, many consumers who try cheaper alternatives often go back to their old trusted brand, becoming even more loyal to it due to the failures of the cheaper alternatives. The conclusion to be made here is obvious—you pay more to get satisfaction and not the headaches that arise from product or service failure.

Arguably, this is why people do not venture into buying untested alternatives despite the obvious benefits. Irrationally perhaps, this is also why some people tolerate corrupt candidates and not try other untested but virtuous candidates. The corrupt candidate may cost the society much more in terms of misused resources, but it is possible that people perceive his or her consistency and predictability as a good trade-off for the uncertainty in electing an untested candidate.

To my mind, though, if something’s broken, then it needs to be fixed.

Click to read comments or post a comment

View the complete list of postings in this section

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2010 by Aperture Web Development. All rights reserved.

Page best viewed with:

Mozilla FirefoxGoogle Chrome

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!

Page last modified: 26 March, 2010, 11:25 p.m.