I think that the current crisis should stop the “forcing to consume” attitude which naturally create more waste than richness. We have the opportunity to “falsely” embrace environmental issues while still forcing our public to buy.
Earlier this year the European Court of Justice ruled that member states cannot ban BOGOF promotions. That was said to Belgium, but later in the UK the Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs began to put pressure on stores to target food waste: they ask supermarket heads to offer half-price discounts on perishable foods instead of BOGOF deals.
Now, in appearance there’s no difference between “Buy One Get One Free” and “Buy One Pay Half”. The money transit between shops and customers is the same.
On the other hand, the two options are very different.
Besides the fact that the customer perception of the first one is highly more positive, that one put the client into a buying loop that tends to provoke a double-buy (or the buy of larger-packages) for almost everything possible. Which means, obviously, more turnover for the shop.
So, it’s not so easy to force distribution channels avoid such promotions: you’re simply telling them to cut revenue.
But people are smarter, and even more now they have less value in their pockets.
So, why not:
- make the BOGOF mechanism work with multiple accounts (one consumer pays, another consumer gets the second item)?
- limit these type of promotions to “organic”, “natural”, “environmental friendly” products?
- enlarge the BOGOF to set of products (you buy a toothpaste and get either a tuna can or a pack of cereals or …)?
Marketing has to evolve, give solutions to social problems and embrace the new trends.
Smarter people need smarter shops, who need smarter companies.
I’m not talking about environment, that’s only an excuse.
I’m only trying to suggest an even better way to do business selling a lot of stuff to people.
