"Moments of Truth" and White Lies

Ever since P&G "discovered" how important retail presence is aka "1st Moment of Truth (FMOT)" a few years ago, the rest of the world seems enraptured with "moments of truth" nomenclature.  It is almost as if the world of  "in-store" marketing did not exist until a giant light bulb illuminated the sky over Cincinnati.  But this has really come to a head recently..

A few years ago Google one-downed P&G by introducing the term "Zero Moment of Truth (ZMOT)", meaning you need to get all your ducks in a row on the internet and search, way before customers come to the store (or web site) to purchase.  Here is the link to learn about ZMOT:

http://www.zeromomentoftruth.com/ 

Then recently Joel Rubinson talked about minus one moment of truth ... oh my!

http://blog.joelrubinson.net/2011/07/what-is-missing-from-moments-of-truth-marketing/

And recently Campbell USA touted new research of theirs which says (and I quote from CPGMatters)

New research from the Campbell Soup Company proves instead that shoppers make 80% of their decisions to fill a specific food-consumption mission before they enter a supermarket. This is true for mainstream, center-store categories with recognizable brands such as soups and shelf-stable juices

I haven't seen this research, so obviously I can't knowledgeably comment beyond saying that I doubt very much 80% of "mainstream center-store categories" consumers decide before they go into the store what specific product(s) they will buy, and ACTUALLY buy it(them) ... just ... doesn't ... happen.

All of these discussions are of course relevant and interesting. But they get my dander up, because I consider them all little white lies.  They either don't address, don't admit, or skirt around the fact, that the product with the better in-store position (however that is defined at that moment at that buying point) is much more likely to be purchased than all the other products there. If your product, or your display, or your Shopper Marketing programme isn't there, or visible, all the prework you have done is USELESS.

It's as if marketers are baseball batters now and should be doing more research to see what the pitcher throws with a 3 and 1 count with 2 out situation.  Doesn't matter, if it means you take your eye off the ball. And marketers don't have their eye on the ball.  What marketers should be concentrating on is getting their in-store batting average above .500 ... that's right you've got a 50-50 chance of having your promotion executed properly.

Ponder that truth for a moment . 

The ground is beginning to shake ...

 Traditional marketing theory tells us that the purchase is the successful outcome of consumer-directed messages that create awareness which begets interest, desire, and action.

What happens when that is wrong?  What does marketing do when it STARTS with the purchase?

So wrote blogger Joel Rubinson a couple of months ago
http://blog.joelrubinson.net/2010/07/what-if-it-all-starts-with-the-purchase/

Joel is more than "just" a blogger on market research, of course. Beyond having his own market research consultancy, he is also Chief Research Officer for the ARF (Advertising Research Foundation).  With a "bent" for advertising if you will and his background in consumer research, his several posts on the sales impact of in-store conditions may be a further eye-opener for more traditional (i.e. advertising focused) marketers.  In this particular post he goes on to say

... based on shopper insights research I have conducted, I believe that, for grocery products, over half of first-time purchases are unplanned; in fact, the shopper might not even have been aware of the product before buying it.  In those cases, it all STARTS with the purchase and ENDS with awareness.  The purchase funnel is totally flipped.

The traditional ground really began to shake, of course, back in 2005 when P&G (usually North America's largest major media advertiser) was featured in a front page article in the Wall Street Journal about P&G's "First Moment of Truth" (shoppers making their buying decision in 3-7 seconds in the store) and the growing emphasis FMOT was playing on the marketing of its products.  While this isn't news for many people, for others to have P&G seemingly acknowledge that advertising wasn't the biggest factor in the consumer's final buying decision was a shocker. 

It's a slow process, but marketing mankind does evolve.

if you would like to see what we do visit our web site www.foreknowledge.ca