Group items tagged

Great article Lina!! I am sure that this is a strategy commonly used by retailers, but it is NOT one that should be used by JCP. This company is already in a lot of hot water and financial trouble as it is, it would be a safer bet to play it safe than to have their tactics exposed and eliminate the already shrinking customer-base that J.C. Penny has.

Of course, keep in mind, price anchoring has been standard practice in business for a long time. Not only do we see this in the retail industry, but also in other industries like healthcare, higher education, and auto sales. This is just the nature of capitalism; it;s a political economy that aims to maximize profits at minimal cost. The reasoning behind price anchoring is that original prices are the starting point for negotiations. Although this perspective is a useful tool for businesses trying to make an easy profit off of customers who think they're saving money, it is nonetheless insulting to those customers who have little to no leverage or agency to negotiate prices. The average consumer does not realize that this type of pricing occurs because most hold tight to the belief that businesses always have their best interest at heart; little do they know that businesses are interested in one thing and one thing only- the bottom line. So, although price anchoring may not be a GOOD strategy (because it not only insults the customer by taking advantage of them, but also strips them of their ability to make informed decisions) it is a strategy that works for all intended purposes. The reason it works is because everybody would like to hear that they have saved money. I see this anytime I go shopping with my mom; if there is a sale she's sure to be there because, to her at least, "any sale is a good sale."

It will be very interesting to see if this pricing strategy is successful. If Everlane can promote to and convince consumers ad to HOW their bags are affordable i.e. cutting out the middle men. Consumers must believe that they are getting the same quality compared to $1000 bags. Not offering discounts is one of the major keys to getting this to work. I do love a good deal but if a bag was already significantly priced lower plus discounts I would begin to question the brand. Im convinced but will consumers be?

I think the best part about this article is when it states, "Everlane's big challenge will be convincing shoppers that they're getting a good deal by purchasing bags that would retail between $1,000 and $1,500 for a fraction of the price." They are right by saying that consumers have no idea how much retailers mark up a simple t-shirt let alone a purse/handbag. Many women show "status" by carrying high-end handbags by Louis Vuitton, Marc Jacobs, Coach, etc. Like the article said, these handbags can run upwards $1000 to $1500! Interested to see how their handbags will sell, I really like them!

The idea is really great, but I do worry about how they are going to advertise this to consumers to convince them of this great idea as well. If they can devise a plan to convince the consumers, then I think Everlane could be very successful. Though I am a huge fan of discounts, even if a $1000 bag were 50% off, I'd still be paying more than the $400 bag from Everlane. That being said, if they can convince consumers that the quality is still there, then I do think this pricing strategy could work.

This is a really interesting pricing strategy for a brand that is interested in conveying quality. The brands that come with status are known for quality but women are also attracted to the altruistic aspects that women get from carrying a name brand bag with a designer name on it. I think that if this strategy is to be successful then they need to build their name in the market by growing their popularity and quality through consumer testing and testimony. They need to get their bags to have that status before they can expect to be in the same market as the other designer brands.

I have seen the same pricing strategy before. A Dutch firm called Suitsupply sells high quality suits (also produced in Italy or Portugal btw) for medium prices (between $300 and 700$), even including in-store tailoring. They just started about 10 years ago but are now expanding all over the world. I visited their Chicago penthouse store last month and it looks really great. They also achieve those low prices by cutting out the middleman of the supply chain. The thing is that they rely almost only on mouth-to-mouth marketing and endorsements such as one of the WSJ that ranked a standard Suitsupply suit even above a $2000 Armani suit. What I want to say with this is that both Everlane and Suitsupply might have found a new way of price marketing that propells them in front of many of their competitors.

I think Megan has a good point, if the brand doesn't have a status then why would people believe or want to buy it? When a brand has a status it gives it an association with quality, high cost, and etc. The status and association is what I think draws consumers in to purchase the various brands that are of the designer level. The brand needs to establish itself as a brand of quality a before they can expect consumers to believe they are offering them a deal on this bag that is comparable to the quality of a designer, well known brand.

That was very risky of ANF to not consider pricing strategies when their competitors such as Hollister were lowering prices to counter the recession. I guess ANF can thank their international customers for rescuing them out of the company's decline!

At one point, A&F was a very 'trendy' and desirable clothesline to have. Unfortunately though, trends come and they go, often quicker than the last in this day and age. Not reconsidering their pricing strategies (especially with the lower quality and value merchandise) was a massive missed opportunity for them and thus very damaging for the company. Not only did they not account for the recession, but general interest in their apparel as well. As a trend begins to die out, consumers won't be willing to pay the traditionally higher prices for the product(s).

I know I personally like to get any of my shopping done early that I can merely to avoid the holiday traffic and craziness that happens. At the same time, I always tend to end up with coupons or even small gift cards when I do shopping that are only valid within that 'prime' holiday shopping season. So, I think those type of programs really work because I always end up coming back to use them even though I had intentions of not shopping during that time. I also think it is interesting to look at retailers offering holiday type sales earlier and earlier in the year. I wonder what the limit will be as each retailer tries to trump the other. I also really like the extended return policy. That is EXTREMELY useful and could definitely be part of a deciding factor for me on who I shop with given that I could get similar products at each place.

I think for stores and shoppers can benefit from this model. Stores can increase their revenue but shoppers can shop early and have a way to afford a better holiday. It also encourages shoppers to come into the store more frequently and earlier in the season. It will be interesting to see if other stores adopt this model. I surprised Walmart does not have this as an option for some of their larger items.

Like Krista I wonder what the limit will be.. just keeps getting pushed back further and further. I know at J.Crew we just started implementing "holiday return policy". More than anything I think that offering such a guarantee offers a level of comfort to the customer. It makes them feel more confident about the purchase and more likely to buy it. I like the aspect of honoring online prices with store prices - very important.

I agree with Lina comment. The extended return policy is a ploy to get consumers in the store, make a purchase and know they have time to return it if they desire. Comfort, ease, and satisfaction for and of the customer will drive business.

I can't stand the thought of shopping really early for Christmas. Some of the things this article talked about really shocked me. The part about Walmart rolling out it's holiday shopping in August is not something I would find appealing. I think that takes the Christmas spirit out of Christmas completely. It's always a tradition with my mom to shop in November and December when it is acceptable to think about Christmas! I completely get the idea of budgeting, buying a few gifts here and there, but starting shopping in August? Not for me.

I wonder if this trend will ever change. JCP thought we were smart enough to know the difference but apparently we weren't. It seems that JCP was a little before its time by thinking in this way. Our subconscious feeds off of impulse buys because its instant gratification. Hopefully I can resist next time I'm out running errands.

All five reasons are so true and I have probably had at least one impulse buy for every reason, but I think the biggest reason for those impulse buys are because of those discounts and sales. Who doesn't love to save money? Now that I have read this though, I am going to try to be more cautious the next time I'm out shopping (hopefully there aren't too many good sales going on).

I thought this was really interesting especially because it came from psychology today. However, number two was not what I expected. I am usually accustomed to people brining up buyers remorse, rarely do they ever say they never regretted it. Maybe that is just with more expensive purchases and not on sale items? All of these articles on pricing have made me more aware of how stores are manipulating me into buying, and I must say most times it works!

Yes, I agree with Sarah. I also bought a lot of those products, which I will never use again, but I think that behavior is not as unconscious as the article may want us to believe. Most of the time I am pretty aware of the fact that I am buying stuff because I perceive it as a good deal, even though I also know I won't make too much use of it.

This article was really great -- I impulse buy for all five reasons and a place I impulse buy from ALL the time Groupon. I agree with Angelo I buy products and sometimes when I am buying them the thought crosses my mind if I will ever use it again does not matter. I usually buy things because I think it is a good deal because lets face it we love to buy things -- especially when they are discounted or on sale!

I also agree with the sales aspect being one of the biggest reason for impulse purchases. In two different jobs I have worked we had What we called PWPs (purchase with purchase). Once a customer made I purchase I was able to offer them another item at a discounted price. I would always say, "with your purchase today you qualify to get -said item- for 50% (or other discount) off!" Granted, this sale usually went on for three months or so, but using the word 'today' tended to convince customers they needed this item. So e customers would think out loud and reason why they should go ahead and buy it which was always interesting for me to listen to. As a sales person, I would remind them that the sale wouldn't last for long and it was a great deal so they could get it now and not have to come back hoping the sale was still going or that supplies were still available. Most of them never would have bought the item had they seen it on the shelf, but hearing the discount associated with their purchase today they felt obligated to buy, and almost always did.

Target is my downfall for impulse buying! I always stop by the dollar bin section (especially when it is 50-70% off) then I feel like I need everything! Which is terrible because I can personally go to almost half the things I've purchased in my home that I have not used. The other day at Michaels, I witnessed a lady purchasing some scrapbook paper and after having to wait for a few customers ahead of her, she purchased a small piece of Hershey chocolate sitting in a bin for 59 cents. I couldn't help but think about the marketing and item placement that Michaels thinks about in their store layout because they would not have sold that extra item had it not been convenient and inexpensive. The placement of small items helps create more sales - especially by the cash registers - as children and people of all ages may want things they didn't think about when initially going into the store. This was a really interesting article!!!

I found this article really relevant to my own life. I almost always buy the brand name product, especially with medications. My brother has just started to buy the Equate or Up&Up versions of Ibuprofen because he looked at the back of the bottle and found both products are made exactly the same. I completely agree with the point Megan pointed out about how we are "conditioned" to buy name brand products. My whole life, my family has always purchased brand name everything - from peanut butter, to toilet paper, to milk - because we perceived better quality with the higher price and brand name to back it up. I do agree with this to an extent that some items are made better or are of higher quality. I have been raised on these products and trust them, but I am definitely going to re-examine some of my product purchases in the future so I can save money but not trade down on quality and effectiveness.

I agree with Megan's statement: "It brings to light that consumers need to consider the price quality perception and recognize that they are paying much more for exactly the same product." As a consumer we typically go for name brands but what we need to realize that some products -- like medication are the same. I agree that "brand names" mean a lot to people and sometimes I don't get why. I usually go for a generic brand especially when the ingredients are the same as the brand name - it just depends on the product and a consumers willingness to stray from what they know. It would be interesting to do a blind fold experiment on many brand name products versus off brand products and see what consumers prefer.

I'm not a sucker! Always buy generic.

It often depends on what I'm buying, but if I can get the generic, knowing it works the same, I will buy that product over the brand name. For this example specifically, it is often a mind game with patients, just like the article said. If you have the attitude that you are going to get better by taking Advil instead of Ibuprofen, then you probably will get better. On the other hand, if you have the attitude that you are not get better by taking Ibuprofen, then chances are you may not because people get it in their head that they will not get better with the certain medication even though it is the same thing. Seems pretty crazy, but it's true. So I can see where people are more apt to buy the brand name products due to that perception they have of that product.

I totally agree with what Sarah said about it depending on what I'm buying. If I'm just getting ibuprofen, I will almost always get the generic brand from target or cvs. However, if I'm getting really any other sickness medications, I will get the brand name. Somehow it's always been in my head, like the article states, that those brands are better and will be more effective. I also think, for our generation, it depends on what we've grown up with. My parents normally buy brand name medicines (other than Advil), and I know my grandma will always get the brand names, no exceptions. It's interesting to see how people feel about this kind of thing.

To piggyback off Megan, I also find this very interesting because about three weeks ago, something very similar happened with my friends and I in Chicago. We spent the entire day downtown and spent our money on the train ride, taxis, food, and a Ferris Wheel ride instead of purchasing items on Michigan Ave. I think all of us would agree that going to Navy Pier, touring Trump Tower, riding the Ferris Wheel, taking pictures at the bean, etc. made that "overall experience" more than buying "stuff." Also, I think DIY projects are becoming more and more popular. For example, before coming to school, I went into a little boutique close to home and found a few things I liked, but instead of buying them there, I purchased the supplies needed to make them myself. Though they did not look exactly like they had in the store, they were much less expensive and more special to me. So overall, I think people are starting to craft and do more DIY projects instead of buying items at a store.

This was very interesting to read about because it is so true. There are a ton of people, my friends included, that prefer to online shop than buy things in a store. I am more of an in-store shopper; however, I do shop online occasionally. The most interesting part of the article to me was about whether or not our generation was becoming more or less "material-focused." While we do tend to be buying more online, I think this generation is just as material, if not more, than any other. Because we have the option to buy online, it gives us easier access to purchasing items: not only can we buy in-store, but we can also buy online. This, in my opinion, give us the a greater chance of materiality.

I think the topic that this article is centered around is really easy for our generation to relate to, especially for me. I can't tell you how many times I go to H&M, Nordstrom, or any other retail store just to "check out what they have." I would say there's an even 50/50 chance that I will walk out with something or not. I think the most true idea in Peterson's article is "almost anything they [millennials] want can be found and bought online, when and where they want it." I think this is so true of this generation because if we can't find something we want online, that item that we wanted is pretty much scrapped because we cannot look at it from our own homes. Making everything as most convenient as possible for consumers, in my opinion, is the the primary goals for retail stores and this article definitely discusses that aspect.

I agree with Megan and Sarah. Last semester in Prof King's class we discussed JCPenny's plan to become more of an "experience" for shoppers. I am not quite sure if JCPenny was able to execute this plan, but it seems as though it would work for millennials. Even the History of US Retailing predicts that "specialty operations that bring selection and a high- quality customer service and shopping experience" will survive and prosper. Megan and Sarah went for the enjoyment of friends and the city. That is exactly what our generation and millennials want. What we want is an experience, to be a part of something. I think that if retailers understand how to do this then they will have more customers. On top of this, the article says that the millennials are becoming more "frugal" therefore retailers need to make more of an effort to prove that a store is worth a millennial's money. Just a quick thought - don't know if any clothing companies do this or not (probably) but if an online store let a customer create a lookalike avatar - same height, weight, ect. Now the online shopper can dress themselves on the computer (kind of creepy to think about but hey! An experience nonetheless). I think ideas like that which add an experience would spark millennials' interest.

The article is totally right! I worked for a year at a gas station next to my studies and we had these 'puy 9 coffees, get the 10th for free' cards, which we wanted to hand out to all taxi drivers, to make them visit our gas station frequently. Every second driver refused to take a card, when I offered them, because of the huge amount of other loyalty cards in its wallet (as Raphael already pointed out). Furthermore, I saw that we also have those cards for drinks at the HRC Store and I never took one, because I simply consider the drinks as too expensive to buy a dozen of them, just to get one for free!

This is a great article! It's very similar to a costco card or a sam's club membership. The only way a loyalty card like this would work is if the company had prices that beat juggernauts such as walmart or target. Most people on campus do have costco cards, so whether it's the Costco food or the ability to buy literally almost anything at the store, Costco seems to have found the solution.

This fits quite well in McDonald's global strategy as they do things like that in almost every country. In the Netherlnds for example, they sell the McKroket (http://www.mcdonalds.nl/sites/default/files/produits/477x355_0005_mckroket.png) and in Germany something like a "Bratwurst Burger" (Sausage Burger) ( http://www.burgerbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/McD_Germany_Nurnburger.jpg ). Trying to adapt to local tastes might also have a downside, though, as people from that country might be disappointed by the McDonald's copy of a dish they are very proud of (e.g. it worked well in the Netherlands but didn't in Germany).

I think this article is really interesting because consumers do see McDonald's trying to expand into certain niches with their stores. Most McDonald's around the world have the same products, but the stores in Spain for example featured the McIberica which is similar to the McBaguette, but with a Spanish twist. I think that it is really interesting how the McBaguette is seriously taking off and am wondering if it will be featured at McDonald's in the US

I found this article especially interesting because I studied abroad in France last semester and I have actually tried this sandwich. I can attest to the fact that French people eat baguettes daily and you can literally see people walking down the street gnawing on a huge baguette so I can see how the McDonald's Baguette sandwich would be insulting to local bakeries. On the other hand I can see what Koffmann is saying when he says that the McDonald's sandwich seems fresher just because at local bakeries they make a bunch of sandwiches then set them out on display all day and if you go to get a sandwich later in the afternoon chances are it is not going to be extremely fresh. Which is also strange to think about...McDonald's having fresh food. I think this is a great move for McDonald's because it gives them a chance to delve into other cultures.

McDonald's innovation has always been astonishing not only to myself, but to the industry as a whole. It's quite interesting to take notice of its place as the clear industry leader, as other companies in its genre seemingly put as much effort into adapting to the market McDonalds has shaped to keep up with the titan as they have into development of innovative product campaigns to differentiate themselves. The introduction of the McBaguette is a clear example of this dynamic company's ability to mould themselves to cater to specific demographics in dramatically different cultural groups. Yet it still leads me to ask.. How did McDonalds become such an iconic brand in a way that Burger King, Wendy's and others did not?

I've been to a few international McDonalds locations, and I think what McDonalds is introducing with the "local" spin is important for the company. They need to stay fresh and appeal to French palettes. I believe the intriguing part of international McDonalds locations is the spin on our favorite, American items. I'm a shareholder in McDonalds and from a profitability standpoint, it's important to expand the French market if it's the second leader behind the United States. I wish they offered the item here - it looks good! I have an idea Prof. King - Retailing field trip to France! We need to try this!

McDonald's always seems to amaze me, I think it is very important to realize that any business that enters a global market needs to cater to that cultures needs and wants and McDonald's had done just that. I have been to a couple international McDonald's locations in the UK and Spain. What really stood out to me was the menu in Spain -- they offered beer and more chicken options! Although the McBaguette isn't a traditional baguette it seems that McDonald's as always caters to what the customers want.

I agree with Petro's thoughts that JCPenney needs to listen to the customers. Apple is a different "breed" in a way because we as consumers don't know what we want in technology until we see it - I would have never been able to think I wanted a device such as the iPod or iPad until it was introduced. Now, I can't envision my life without them! JCPenney's "suburban house-wife consumers" need practical and versatile items. JCPenney's St. John's Bay brand was a $1 billion brand and they need to capitalize on their strengths - not completely take it out. They need to insert new and exciting items such as Joe Fresh but keep the elements that make their company successful...and carefully change "the right 20%." Have you all shopped the new brands at JCPenney and/or did you like the older/familiar brands we know and associate with the company?

I agree with Kara, JCPenny does need to listen to what the customers want -- not what they think the customers want. There was a great point made in the article that they had gotten rid of St.Johns Bay apparel line, which is a line some of their customers were loyal and kept coming back to JCP. This article is a great example as Prof King said "the right 20% change." Unfortunately, in recent years JCP has seemed to change the wrong 20% rather than the right 20% which is why they were doing so poorly. I do not think that Ron Johnson took into account that JCP is a completely different industry over Apple. I think when changing a brand a lot of factors come in to play and as stated in the article to target toward current customers and/or new ones is a decision the company has to make.

Well put ladies. As Kara mentioned, Apple is a one of a kind company... for now at least. Until specialized firms like Apple can successfully replicate the ability to predict market demand, it is unnecessary to take such risks, as JCPenny did with the removal of core brands, to boost sales. Although it is encouraged for firms to think outside the box in todays modern world, in order to grasp the attention of consumers along side multiple other stimulants, it is essential that firms do so in a cautious manner. This is a perfect example of the importance of "the right 20% change". Although it is unfortunate that JCPenny had to endure this experience, it has developed a significant message/ take away for the rest of the industry to learn from. It will take a lot for JCP to revitalize its image with lost customers, but I feel their history of strong customer service and attractive product lines will encourage benefit of the doubt in consumers minds. It is great that they are trying to reach new consumer markets, but JCP must not forget about those who got them to where they are today. They need to nourish previous relationships, while continuing to cultivate seeds within the upcoming consumers(younger families, young adults) to stretch their loyalty to JCP into the future.

I think all four of you nailed it! The last sentence of that article states "this will involve a lot of listening," and that is exactly what JCP needs to do. They need to listen to their most important voice, the consumer -- what do they want, not "what JCP thinks the consumer should want." Overall, as we have learned, you must start with the customer and build from there--this is what JCP needs to do to start moving in the right direction.

This was an interesting article that clearly showed that marketing plans are not one size fits all. What works for one company may not work for another, and JCP is an excellent example of a company that needed to do more research on their customers before implementing a plan. I was very surprised how little they did to look into what the customers were looking for. The troubles JCP is now experience is a warning to other companies to take a closer look at the consumer when creating new marketing strategies.

Wow--I didn't know the millenials were 7% larger than the baby-boomer generation, but I would agree with Lina on this one in that how they described the millenials is pretty spot on. Even going as far as the car companies predicting the types of vehicles we will buy in the future, I do think they are overall pretty accurate in these predictions.

Making it easier on us will make it easier on the companies. I still wonder how companies can implement this in the retail industries. Turbo tax was a good example but I am curious as to how you can make it easier in retail because retail stores may offer same types of clothing but completely different prices, quality, styles. Can't really think of anything off the top of my head, but may be a good discussion question.

Interesting article! As I was reading it, I was thinking to myself about what I would want more, engagement or simplicity--and I do have to agree with them that simplicity would make things easier. In the last paragraph, the author states, "don't you think it's time to stop overwhelming consumers with marketing information and cut through the clutter?" I do think some marketing information is beneficial, but as a consumer, it would be nice to "cut through the clutter" and have things stated or marketed more simply.

I think simplicity comes into play especially with the way we view advertisements. If a company conveys a message simply and concisely with out me having to really pay attention or sort through more information I think I am more likely to buy it. Also simple images have more of a design appeal and I think our generation is more focused on aesthetics and the way things look and feel- and simplicity plays a large role in that.

I agree with Lina this is a tactic that would be hard to apply with clothing retailers, but it would be useful for electronic and appliance retailers. I was just on the Best Buy website, and for each product there was a whole page of information about its capabilities and features. They gave the option to compare products which helped to "cut the clutter". This was similar to Turbo Tax; there were options to choose four different products for a side by side comparison that gave a breakdown of the difference for the features and capabilities in just a few words. Best Buy is utilizing this simplistic tactic, and I personally love it!

I think the appeal of Topshop will be the foreign quality in the United States. People will be attracted to the fashion quality and allure of the brand. I think being unique in the market will be attractive to US consumers.

I agree with Megan. I think the brand itself will appeal to customers, not just the layout of the store. I think the store layout is very unique from the pictures on the slideshow. It looks like an upscale version of H&M and Forever 21, which definitely appeals to me. I like all the different rooms and the vibrancy of the colors used. I think it screams "cool" and not at all boring, which some stores can be.

I agree with Paige, I love the idea of the various boutiques throughout the store. This new layout will allow shoppers to not only shop, but have a unique experience doing so. I feel like it will become an attraction rather than just a store, similar to what Ikea stores have become for shoppers.