Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

Burberry after its Burning Ban

12/28/2019

14 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

Did you give or receive clothing this holiday season?  You may not know that if that sweater, jacket, or hat hadn’t been purchased, it might have been burned.  In an age of increased environmental consciousness and frequent corporate cutbacks how can companies tolerate such waste?  It has to do with building brands.
 
In 2017, the upscale British fashion label Burberry destroyed over $38 million worth of its own clothing, perfume, and accessories.   BBC News says that over a five-year period, the brand scrapped products worth a total of about $121 million.  Fortunately, Burberry announced last year that it would stop the ‘self-destructive’ behavior; although, it hasn’t said how it will handle the excess product.  Unfortunately, Burberry isn’t the only brand known for trashing its own inventory.
 
According to Vox, other participants in the practice include luxury labels like Louis Vuitton, Michael Kors, and Cartier.  However, even basic brands such as Eddie Bauer, Nike, and H & M, have been cited for incinerating unsold merchandise.
 
Why would any company destroy products it spent valuable time and resources making?  Motives may vary for such a seemingly inexplicable practice, , but the main reason seems to be that high-end fashion brands, especially, need to preserve perceptions of exclusivity.

Some manufacturers, e.g., makers of snack foods and soft drinks, would like as much of their products sold as widely as possible.  Certain other brands, however, seek to create an air of exclusivity in one of three main ways, either by not making the products available: 1) all the time, or 2) everywhere, or 3) for everyone.
 
For instance, although McDonald’s Shamrock Shake is available all over at a price that most people can afford, the ice cream is only sold for a limited number of weeks each year.  Notwithstanding ever-increasing ticket prices, Disney positions its theme parks as entertainment for a very wide range of people, year-round, but it maintains ‘the magic’ by limiting the number of locations to just a few around the entire world. 
 
Upscale fashion brands like Burberry, in contrast, place no real time restrictions on purchase of their products.  Likewise, although they’re not as ubiquitous as MacDonald’s restaurants, these fashion retailers tend to have a decent number of brick-and-mortar locations.  Burberry has about 50 stores in the continental U.S. in addition to its easily-available online storefront.
 
The main difference is that Burberry and similar luxury fashion brands aim for exclusivity by positioning their lines as prestige products sold at premium prices.  For instance, a search for “all bags” on Burberry’s website returns a low price of $490 for a “Grainy Leather Card Case with Detachable Strap” to a high price of $2,750 for a “Medium Quilted Monogram Lambskin TB Bag.”
 
Of course, price alone excludes most people, who can’t afford to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a handbag, from buying Burberry; however, other positioning of the products also adds to their exclusive appeal: They’re not the purses we see shoppers carrying into the average supermarket.
 
‘Mousingover’ specific products on its website, reveals images of the kinds of people Burberry envisions owning its bags: ultra- stylish, impeccably-attired, young, affluent, runway-model types.  That description probably doesn’t apply to most people reading this blog, nor does it apply to the person writing it, but Burberry doesn’t mind.


Picture
 
While MacDonald’s considers it a win if hundreds of millions of people eat its hamburgers, and Disney is delighted to have an even wider variety of people visit its theme parks, Burberry and other luxury labels don’t covet consumption of their products by the masses.  Their brands’ allure is based largely on limiting availability to the relatively few people who can afford their products and who live the more lavish lifestyles associated with their use.
 
If somehow ‘average people’ began buying Burberry’s bags, the brand’s true target market would be turned off.  Though its loyal customers may not articulate it, one reason they like Burberry is because very few people own the brand.  Burberry banks on feelings of exclusivity, allowing its users to assert, "I own something that not everyone else has."
 
That brings us back to the issue of over-supply and what companies like Burberry should do when they’ve made too many handbags, hats, etc.  In the past, Burberry has justified burning excess inventory, saying that it captured the energy from the burning, making the annihilation environmentally-friendly.
 
Unfortunately, though, “the energy that is recouped from burning clothing doesn’t come anywhere near the energy that was used to create the garment.”  In addition, burning garments that contain polyester, which comprises about 60 percent of the fiber market, means the release into the air of harmful CO2, as well as chemicals often present in clothes.
 
Other ways firms have attempted to destroy unwanted products have included shredding and landfilling.  Of course, these methods carry their own negative environmental impacts and fail to qualify as sustainable solutions.
 
Some may wonder why excess clothing can’t be recycled or donated.  Mixed fiber cloth, from which many woven clothes are now made, makes recycling especially challenging, as do buttons and zippers, whose removal is very labor-intensive.
 
Others may ask “Why can’t surplus clothing simply be donated or sold at a discount?”  For many companies, such product disposition ‘makes cents’ (pun intended), but not for high-end fashion labels.  These brands can afford to take a hit on their enormous markups, but as mentioned above, they can’t accept dilution of their brands’ images, which occurs if their products fall into the hands of the less-than-modish masses.
 
So, what can fix this problem that pits environmental stewardship against brand equity?  Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be a clear solution.  In a 2018 interview with Vox, Timo Rissanen, an associate dean at Parsons School of Design and a professor of fashion design and sustainability at the school’s Tishman Environment and Design Center, provided a thorough analysis of firms’ destruction of excess product, but in the end, the best solutions he offered were for consumers to avoid impulse-buying and to instead purchase secondhand products.
 
Those are valid recommendations for you and me, but unfortunately they don’t really address prevention of the problem, i.e., what companies can and should do.  I’m no fashion expert, and the following thoughts are admittedly undeveloped, but I’ll offer two possible ways to decrease the production of excess goods:
  1. Implement quick response processes:  Fashion lead-times are often three months or more, making it challenging to match supply and demand.  Spanish retailer Zara, however, has developed ultra-responsive production processes that allow it to move from product conception to consumer within a few weeks.  If more brands would ‘follow suit’ (pun again intended), it might help to close the gap between what’s made and what consumers want to buy.
  2. Use artificial intelligence:  Firms have employed data-based demand forecasting for decades, but even more accurate prediction is now possible through artificial intelligence in which machines learn from past experience and use algorithms to very accurately estimate future consumption.  Such technology holds great promise for synchronizing supply and demand. 
 
Burberry’s decision of over a year ago to stop burning its unsold clothes was certainly laudable and might be considered Mindful Marketing if the company were to implement some of the strategies mentioned above or take other consequential action.  However, in the absence of a clearly conceived and communicated plan for managing excess inventory, Burberry’s announcement now seems like “Simple-Minded Marketing.”


Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
14 Comments

Peloton's Psychological Problems

12/13/2019

5 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

“If my husband gave me a Peloton for Christmas, I’d give him divorce papers.”  Such raw emotion has typified reactions to the spin cycle maker’s “Gift that Gives Back” commercial.  People are permitted their opinions about the ad, and Peloton is entitled to explain its position, but a few principles from psychology might help both sides see how the cycle commercial could have avoided such a controversial turn.
 
Many reactions to the spot suggest that ‘no husband should surprise his wife with a piece of exercise equipment,’ regardless of her body-type.  That’s a valid point; however, before dismissing Peloton’s ad as complete incompetence, Abraham Maslow’s classic hierarchy of needs may remind us that there is often more than one reason for riding a stationary bike:
 
  • Physiological Needs:  Exercise doesn’t satisfy hunger or thirst; in fact, burning calories increases those needs.  Similarly, anyone ‘spinning’ isn’t resting; however, exercise can lead to better sleep.  That connection proves true for many, as it did recently for me:  After walking around New York City one day with family for hours, I enjoyed one of my best night’s sleep in months.
 
  • Safety Needs:  Exercise doesn’t immediately make us safe; however, cardiovascular fitness is an investment in long-term health, which connects to the second level of Maslow’s hierarchy.  Many viewers of Peloton’s ad have bemoaned that “Grace in Boston,” an already slim woman, even needs to exercise, but they’re missing the point that working out isn’t just about losing weight.  Thin people also reap health benefits from aerobic activity.
 
  • Social Needs:  In one tweet about the ad, a Peloton user mentioned that she appreciates the bonding that comes with working out with others.  People don’t need to be physically present to build relationships.  Social benefits can also accrue when interacting in the virtual realm, which apparently happens for at least some Peloton users.
 
  • Self-Esteem Needs:  All of us want to feel good about how we look and the kind of person we are.  Sticking to an exercise regimen can bolster both of those self-concepts.  Most viewers of Peloton’s ad don’t notice any physical change in Grace, but perhaps she experiences something intangible, like feeling more self-disciplined or self-confident.
 
  • Self-Actualization Needs:  There aren’t many products that can legitimately claim to help people reach their full potential in some significant area of life, but a piece of exercise equipment used seriously might produce such top-level benefits, partly like the way basic training transforms marines.  We don’t know exactly what Grace meant by the statement, “A year ago, I didn’t realize how much this would change me,” but if it wasn’t physical change, maybe a year of Pelton transformed her mentally or emotionally.
 
Picture
 
The five levels of Maslow’s hierarchy offer consumers useful lenses for processing the controversial commercial.  A psychological principle can also teach Peloton an important lesson, summed up in one sentence:  “Perception is reality.”
 
We perceive when a stimulus crosses our senses, we attend to it, and we make an interpretation, for example:  “The big dog bounding toward me looks dangerous.”  Sometimes our interpretations are correct; other times they’re wrong.  However, whether they’re accurate or not, our perceptions determine our reactions.
 
As thousands of social media posts have suggested, people perceived things to be true of Peloton’s ad that the company apparently didn’t intend, for instance:
  • that Grace was initially overweight
  • that she wanted to become even thinner
  • that her husband pressured her to use the bike
 
Peloton can argue that these interpretations are incorrect, but ultimately the court of public opinion rules based on objective judgment of cues in the ad, prevailing social norms, and the broader cultural context, because perception is reality.
 
Some may suggest it was Peloton’s plan to cause a controversy that would capture publicity.  If so, the company probably didn’t anticipate a 14% stock price decline in three days.  Consumers can use Maslow to better understand what the cycle maker likely intended, but more importantly, companies like Peloton can learn to more effectively pretest their ads so corporate perceptions better align with consumer reality and don’t spin into “Mindless Marketing.”


Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
5 Comments
    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly