This week saw Unilever announce the launch of new Organic Delight shampoos and conditioners under its Timotei brand, staking the company’s claim for the new products as the first mass-market

This week saw Unilever announce the launch of new Organic Delight shampoos and conditioners under its Timotei brand, staking the company’s claim for the new products as the first mass-market 100% organic haircare range.

With all-organic ingredients, Ecocert approval, a 95% biodegradable formula and 100% recyclable packaging, the new range will add a hefty dose of support to the brand’s ‘natural’ positioning. While it’s very unlikely that Timotei’s Organic Delight products will draw the UK’s most environmentally-active consumers away from smaller, specialist brands like Organic Surge, Lovea Bio or Green People, they offer a potentially punchy point of difference around which to grow and build new growth.

We were delighted to comment on the new launch in this week’s The Grocer. Rebecca Cook spoke of its relevance and appropriateness to the brand, adding that it was likely to be considered an attractive addition for existing users.

To see the full article, click here.

I have battled for a long time with my desire to shop at Waitrose or Ocado and my wallet’s desire to shop at Asda.  Yes, Waitrose is on the whole a nicer experience. If I shop with Ocado I get to know who is going to deliver my shopping, the licence plate of the van he will arrive in and what fruit his van will be dressed in and he takes my shopping into the kitchen for me –  while my Asda delivery man deposits my shopping at my front door with hardly a syllable uttered.

However, with Ocado, I have to spend about 10% extra on an average shop for the privilege of knowing ‘Barry’s’ name prior to arrival. While this is wonderful service, it simply isn’t something on which I place enough importance in my shopping experience.  With three hungry children, value is more important.

So I was interested to hear about Publix – an up-and-coming American supermarket that promises both service and value. Interestingly, Publix’s mantra is that, being so close to the consumer, they know not only what their customers want now, but also what they’ll want next.

I want my service companies to meet my needs…but I am delighted when they anticipate them.  Service improvements such as I’ve described by Ocado are nice, but they don’t change my opinion – as they really don’t meet any needs I have.

Sony’s release of its Apple (iOS) compatible Music Unlimited streaming service, intended to challenge Spotify’s iPhone app, is a natural and welcome step in line with changing customer music needs and behaviours (http://www.thevalueengineers.com/2012/01/26/spotify-the-low-key-music-revolutionary/). Streaming is the future for all forms of digital entertainment, and music is leading the charge.

But I think Sony is missing a trick here. They offer two subscription packages: $3.99/month for listening to pre-determined channels (radio-style?) and $9.99 for access to Sony’s music library consisting of 15 million songs. Spotify’s catalogue has long surpassed 15 million, but more importantly, there is no clear incentive for any one customer group to switch to Music Unlimited.

As I have argued before, Spotify’s finest trick was to get people hooked in the first place by offering free music access. Here at The Value Engineers, we see time and again that consumers do not appreciate the value of technological innovation until they’ve tried it themselves. There are high barriers to adoption in place, and only a truly motivating and appealing incentive will push people to give new technology a go – and therefore fully experience the benefits that innovation offers.

Sony is not offering any such incentive. There is no free service to get customers to buy in, so Music Unlimited will struggle to convert iTunes/CD people to streaming. And for those of us who are with Spotify – well, there are no clear benefits to switching. And switching is a pain in itself.

One thing’s for sure: the Battle of Streaming has only just begun.

Sony's Music Unlimited

One of the themes to which we return again and again in our work with clients is that in today’s world, easy access to previously unparalleled levels of information means that, in many cases, businesses end up asking the same sorts of questions of the same sorts of consumers – and getting the same sorts of answers. It’s a recipe for the generic: for blanding, not branding.

So I was interested to come across an article in Intelligent Life recently, arguing that the internet is now in danger of damaging that curious blend of fortunate accident and wisdom that we call ‘serendipity’.

From Fleming’s serendipitous discovery of penicillin when he noticed how mould in his petri dish had killed off the bacteria through to the vulcanised rubber used in tyres, microwaves, Scotchgard and even Coca-Cola, many of the world’s most important innovations have come about through the combination of accident, luck and – most importantly – the ability of their creators to recognise the potential in their mishaps and misdirections. It’s that ability to recognise and apply the learnings from one sphere to another that characterises serendipity, and that is in danger of being stifled by the internet, argues author Ian Lewis.

According to Lewis, the massive amount of content  now available on the internet – and the concomitant rise of brands that can organise and present that content to us in an easily digestible format – is leading us to spend less and less time stumbling onto new sites, pathways and information that can sow the seeds of new innovations. As he puts it:

“The internet has become so good at meeting our desires that we spend less time discovering new ones. To update the Rolling Stones, you can always get what you want. But you may not get what you need.”

It’s a worrying thought for those of us who want to see brands that are genuinely different in the marketplace, and not a slow creep back to brands as just owners’ marks. Marketers have been accused of many evils over the past decades, but I believe they’re still a critical component in driving forward innovation in products and services, and in ensuring that businesses deliver more than simply what the consumer knows to ask for at that moment in time. Time and time again, I find myself returning to that hoary old quote attributed to Henry Ford:

“If I’d asked people what they’d wanted, they’d have asked for a faster horse.”

It’s our job as marketers to hear, interpret and move beyond our consumers’ words in research: to find the insight and apply it. Anything that helps us turn insights into innovation is a bonus – and that most definitely includes serendipity.

So here’s your challenge for the day: the next time you go onto the internet to look for something specific, spend five minutes looking at some of the less relevant results. Go to a site you’d never normally visit (but don’t pick one that’s going to get you into trouble with your IT department!) and spring off from there.  You never know what you might find…

A litter of hungry pigs pushing and shoving, trying to get fed, seems an unlikely source of inspiration for one of the most important innovations in modern retailing, but according to Willaim Sitwell, author of ‘A history of food in 100 recipes’, it gave Clarence Saunders an idea.

In 1916, Clarence was on a train travelling from Indiana, when the train slowed down at one point while passing a pig farm. From his window, Clarence saw a large number of piglets gathering round their mother sow, all trying to get fed. It made him think of a strong similarity with the grocery stores he knew. In busy times there were never enough clerks, so that people would crowd around the counter trying to get served. He thought that there must be a better way of doing things – and had an idea.

Within a few months, Clarence Saunders opened his first store: a store with no counter and no staff to take orders. Instead, customers served themselves from the shelves and paid on the way out. Self -service had been born and was an immediate success. Fast forward seven years and there were 1,268 stores in his chain, which he had named Piggly Wiggly in honour of his source of inspiration.

(Unfortunately not long afterwards disaster struck and a combination of financial mismanagement and poor stock trading saw him go bankrupt. Clarence lost everything, including a house complete with pig-pink rendering)