Why People Buy. Louis Cheskin

rare is the sales manager who studies the nature of the advertising or looks into the effectiveness of the package or point of sale material.

      Production men also are generally over-specialized. They, too, are immersed in production problems and often fail to see the company-and-consumer relationship as a whole or the marketing side.

      The automotive engineer is convinced that the car having the best engine will have the greatest sale. The average engineer can’t understand or believe that styling has more to do with selling a car than the engine. It makes no sense to him.

      The production manager of a candy manufacturing plant could not believe that the candy with the most expensive ingredients did not have the greatest consumer acceptance. Quality is an objective reality to a production man. Good is good for everybody. The best is the best for all, according to many production managers.

      Our highly industrialized, complex society must have specialists. Knowledge has become so wide and great that no one person can possibly know all or even the basic principles of more than one or two fields of knowledge. We must rely on specialists. However, we should always keep in mind the weaknesses or dangers inherent in specialization.

      Specialists generally look for their specialty. They are apt to overlook the real weakness, the true source of trouble, because they look with the eyes of the specialist. They find only what they look for because they unconsciously and naturally look for the thing in which they specialize.

      When I was a boy I heard the following story: A benevolent ruler of a city state was reaching the age of retirement. He was making plans to hand over the governing duties to one of his assistants. He could not decide which of two would be the better ruler. Both of them flattered him and catered to his wishes. But what would either one of them do if he were master? That was the question. So the wise old man sent the two young men out to do a research job. Each was given an assignment to make a journey to a well known distant city state to study its people. He wanted a report on the integrity, honesty, diligence and cooperative spirit of the residents of that city state.

      One young man brought back a report that this city state was full of rascals, gangsters, crooks and ne’er-do-wells.

      The other young man’s report disclosed that the citizens o£ that city state were good, honest, hard-working and cooperative.

      Each of them found the kind of people he was looking for. The one who looked for goodness found it. The other who searched for evil found it.

      All of us are apt to see things according to our own yardsticks. We generally find what we are looking for, and too often we fail to see anything that we are not looking for, no matter how vital it may be.

      To assure success, marketing men must guard against this danger. They must look at all the four sides of the marketing structure. They must examine all four walls that support the marketing roof. They must concentrate on all the sides that make profit possible.

      The Product

      The most important side of the marketing structure is the product. A product that is not as good as that of competition is not likely to be a great success, no matter how good everything else is.

      A strong promotion, a large advertising budget or an appealing package may make the first sale to the consumer. But for repeat sales, the product must be at least as good as that of competition.

      Better still, is having a product that is superior to that of competition. A superior product means superior in the eyes of consumers. It does not necessarily mean superior in terms of objective values or according to laboratory standards. The following examples show that actual value or cost and consumers’ concepts of value are not always the same.

      In a test with consumers of four kinds of candy, we found that the most costly candy did not have great consumer acceptance.

      Four types of imported silk yard goods were tested with consumers. The finest silk had low preference, about as low as the poorest quality. The second best, or the second highest in cost, had the highest consumer preference, regardless of price.

      Neckties ranging from $1.00 to $10.00 in value were offered as prizes. Each person was free to take any tie he wanted. The $5.00 ties had the greatest acceptance, the $7.50 ties were second highest in preference and the $2.50 ties were a close third. The $10.00 ties and the $1.00 ties were taken by very few.

      Six makes of suits were offered as prizes to men who participated in a test. The values of the suits were $45, $75, $95, $125, $175 and $225. The greatest number of choices were for the $125 suit. The $175 suit was a close second and the $95 one was third. The $75 suit and the $225 one had few takers. The $45 suit had no takers.

      These are a few of many examples illustrating that actual quality is not the same as consumer acceptance or the consumer’s idea of quality. This is true in all fields and with all products.

      Because objective standards are not always the same as consumers’ standards, a new product should be tested with consumers before it is put on the market. It should be made up in various experimental forms and reliable research people should be employed to test its acceptance with consumers.

      After you have ascertained that you have a product that meets consumers’ concepts of quality, you have to investigate the second side of the marketing structure, the package.

      The Package

      For the present-day market, a product has to be packaged or styled or both. A food, a drug or a cosmetic needs a container. A machine has to be endowed with pleasing form and attractive color.

      Generally, people know little about the actual product. They habitually judge a book by its cover, a grocery product by its label, a drugstore product by its bottle and an automobile by the styling.

      Packaging is the second most important side or wall of a marketing structure. The package is second in importance only to the product itself. It represents the product. The package is a visual image of the product. It is the symbol. The consumer does not judge the product, he judges the package. The package tells the shopper whether the product is of high or low quality, whether it is the kind of a product he wants or does not want.

      A quarter of a century ago, the package was merely a physical container. It was a measuring and handling device. It was designed to protect the product. Under present marketing conditions, the package is a psychological factor. It is a marketing tool. It is a silent salesman.

      The package is no longer merely physical in character. It is no longer simple. In fact, the common, typical, present-day package is very complex. It has a brand-identifying image. It has a brand name. It has form and pattern or design. It has color. It has components such as instructions or recipes, premium offers and product illustrations, usually in the final, usable form. Any package that has these elements, not of the best, is not an effective marketing tool.

      The brand name can be the key to success or failure of a marketing program. A half a century ago, a car with the unpronounceable (at that time) name, Chevrolet, could become a success because any carriage that could move without a horse pulling it was automatically a success.

      Nowadays, there are many cars of equal quality in performance, fighting for the consumer’s dollar. A brand name, therefore, is of great importance. A name is a symbol. It may symbolize high quality or low quality. It may be a symbol of reliability or lack of it. It may be favorably associated with the product or unfavorably. It may motivate people to buy the product or a competitive product of equal quality or performance.

      Compare Thunderbird with Edsel. Both cars are made by Ford. The Thunderbird suggests action. It has appropriate symbolism. What does Edsel symbolize? It is the name of a gentleman. It is the name of the man who was the head of the company that manufactures the car. What kind of an image does it bring to your mind? What symbolism does it have? What association does it have with the character of the particular car? What does it mean? The name is no doubt one of the major reasons why the new 1958 Edsel was not a marketing success.

      Research shows that the brand-identifying image is a vital part of every effective package. It is the focal point. It is a