TMCnet News
CRAAN Campaign - How Not to Promote Consumer Awareness [opinion](AllAfrica Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) THE serial advertisements about two breweries published in some dailies in the last four weeks, no doubt, played up the fact that two companies in that sector are struggling to be market leader. Interestingly, what appeared like war among the two brewery giants as reflected in the advertisements is being engineered by a non-governmental outlet by the name, Consumer Rights Advocacy Network of Nigeria (CRANN). Indeed, CRANN claimed the propriety of the ads as it felt that the print commercials would draw the attention of the public to the implication of the quest to be the market leader to the consumers. It however seems it was advocating for one of the companies, especially critically looking at the content of the published adverts, in place of the consumers it claimed it was out to protect. The series of adverts tend to say that a brewery company in Ogba is about being pushed out of the market through what it termed an unfair means because the other from Surulere was inducing the distributors. It is a known fact that organisations in the bid to outwit each other deploy different marketing strategies. In Nigeria, the stake has been so diversified as it moved from just personalities endorsing a product to having celebrities as brand ambassadors and branded stores and outlets. It is expected that the brand ambassadors do not use competitor's products neither do branded stores and outlets sell or even display competitors' items. This is usually the case when there is an agreement. Therefore that a company has been inducing distributors to only market or sell its product is not a new strategy and not peculiar in this case as CRANN alleged accusing a competitor of using strategies such as "demarketing" and "pirate marketing" to dislodge another competitior. Apart from the usage of wrong terminologies, the CRANN campaign was not about the quality of choice but availability of choice in the open market. It therefore means the company, which felt shortchanged, is not making its product available probably because it has not deployed superior marketing strategy compared to its distributors. When an organization brands a location, especially a store, it, no doubt, has created a territorial ambassador. And just like it would be absurd to see a brand ambassador openly use another competitor's brands, it would naturally look ironical if a branded outlet does not proudly display the product in which it is branded. In the electronic sector, many shops are branded by one of the players and in almost all these shops, it is usually a brand of an electronic that is offered to the consumers. Also, in the fast moving consumer goods segment of the economy, the players often brand the shops of distributors and sometimes such distributors only sell and market the different products manufactured by such company. The products of competitors will not be found in such warehouses or outlets. Two terms that were used in CRANN argument were demarketing and pirate marketing. A look at the definitions of these words could also provide better insight. The BusinessDictionary.com defined de-marketing as efforts aimed at discouraging the demand for a product which (1) a firm cannot supply in large-enough quantities, or (2) does not want to supply in a certain region where the high costs of distribution or promotion allow only a too little profit margin. It further stated that common demarketing strategies include higher prices, scaled-down advertising, and product redesign. Also, Urbandictionary.com defined pirate marketing as a term describing used for "marketing strategy" of spammers who "advertise" or plug their products and services by using people's email addresses to send out bulk mail messages to all the contacts they have hijacked, pretending the email was written by the person whose identity they have hacked into. It also stated that, "this is done to suggest a person has tried and tested the product and to spread bogus word of mouth virally. This is entirely fraudulent and can potentially hurt a person's reputation, but thankfully this method is used by individuals and groups who are just as stupid as the people they are trying to scam." From the definitions provided above, it is obvious that the brewery being alleged to be carrying out unethical acts in its marketing gimmick by CRANN and described by it as unethical has not done anything close to that if findings done over the weekend and opinions collated are anything to go by. What is playing out among the two breweries easily brings to mind the theme and title of Kola Oyeyemi's book, Kill or Get Killed, launched in Lagos recently. The scenario at hand no doubt further expatiated the fact that marketers in the bid to outsmart one another careless if the competitor is totally pushed out of the market and goes into extinction. It is also a known fact that many brands introduce a product extension all in the efforts to ensure that a competitor is put on its toes or challenged, does not dominate the market and have a chunk of the market share. Therefore, is it in order not to get killed that the Surulere brewery is gradually edging out its competitor through strategic marketing of wanting to have a complete domination of the market or is it the other way round with this new campaign by CRANN? The CEO of Noah's Ark, Mr. Lanre Adisa, felt the terms of agreement and the level of branding done are issues that could determine if it is ethical or not to tell a distributor or trader not to trade in a competitor's product. " If I had a shop and was selling a particular product, you come to me to brand my shop, and tell me that I will not sell a competitive brand, for instance, I sell paracetamol and you tell me that I will only sell your own brand of paracetamol because you felt you have done me a favour of branding my shop. And there are different levels of branding, if all you did was just put your signage in front, and you say you have branded, depending on who is involved, but it might not hold water with me. "But if I was into soft drink and you gave your own pillars for my business and you tell me not to sell a competitive brand, I think that is okay by me. But if I have been selling so many things before and you just come to put a sign in front of my shop and you say do not sell anything else; that would be unfair in terms of business. "But if it was the brand that built the entire thing and gave it to me for business and have a contract and it is part of the terms of the contract, then that is not unethical. "Also, if you built a kiosk and you gave it to me, and you give me a condition that this kiosk branded by my brand must only sell my brand, if that is okay by me as a trader in question, then I signed the agreement, then there is nothing unethical there, that is my believe." Also speaking on the issue, a lecturer in the Department of Mass Communication, University of Lagos, Akoka, Mr. Charles Chinedu Onwunali, felt that it is a business arrangement when a brand enters into an agreement with a distributor or trader after branding its shop to market its product alone. According to him, there is nothing unethical about such arrangement. "If A and B entered into an arrangement, both of them have the obligation to fulfill the arrangement to the later. If you know that the arrangement will not favour you or of no good interest to you, you will not enter into it. "If I say I want you to be the distributor for my product or products alone, and a distributor or trader accepts that my product is enough to make profit for him as a business, without carrying other products along, then it is a decision. And if you renege on it, then you are now breaking contract entered into, especially if put into writing. Then one of the parties can sue for remedy, as the parties are bound by the terms of the contract. On if a competitor of the brand kicked against the arrangement, especially if it is arguing that such agreement is a denial of the market and the consumer having a choice, Onwunali maintained that does not hold water. "It is not a denial, it is an agreement entered into that can be discontinued. So it is a purely business arrangement," he stated. Copyright The Guardian. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). |