What Your Marketing Says About Your Product

An observation: companies that provide consumer goods can be considered in the context of a few "classes" according to the value of their products and the way in which they market them - and it's possible to assess, without knowing anything at all about the product itself, the level of quality you can expect by the methods used to market it.

First-class companies that make first-class products barely need to market at all. Their products offer an excellent product at an excellent price, and they can be very successful without spending very much on advertising because they get repeat business and word-of-mouth from highly satisfied customers. Very few such companies exist, or perhaps that they don't come to mind readily because they don't have a strong media presence - but if you think about the brands you've owned for long periods of time, and for which you don't see much advertising, you can probably identify at least a handful.

Second-class companies that make second-class products that aren't at all bad, but have some deficiency in their value - either price or quality - that require a bit of extra effort to get customers to buy. I'd estimate that the majority of "good" companies are second-class, and sometimes by design: only one can be the very best, the rest are inferior by comparison, and generally require the customer to make acceptable compromises.

The communication of price and quality show the ways in which a company is second-rate: if the claim is to be "better than the leading brand" they offer a worse price but better quality, and "cheaper than the leading brand" is a better price but worse quality. Most customers have to accept this, and are willing to do so - any my sense is that "best" is highly subjective: each customer will decide for himself which company best suits his own needs, desires, and budget.

Companies that make second-class products market aggressively, but generally market honestly. They're very straightforward about the qualities they think the customer will prefer their product, and may communicate, if only by omission, those qualities in which they don't measure up.

Third-class companies that make second-class products that are not competitive in terms of quality and price. It's not merely a trade-off of one for the other, but a product that cannot be demonstrated to be the "best" at anything. It's on this level that companies begin to market by using details that are utterly unrelated to the price or benefit of the product.

Marketing of third-class products involve something other than their objective value to the consumer, and generally turn to psychologically needs that are not directly related to the use of the product: using their product will grant you social esteem or sex appeal, or five you the self-satisfaction of being mindful of the environment. It also tends to be dismissive of the benefits that most customers seek to obtain by purchasing better products of the same kind.

Many, though not necessarily all, "prestige" brands fall into the category of third-class products. Some are expensive because they are well-made, but others are expensive simply to give owners a sense of exclusivity, a non-functional "benefit" that is the hallmark of a third-class product.

A fourth-class company makes a product that people simply would not seek to buy on their own, and would likely not buy even if they heard it was available. Companies stoop to deceptive advertising and below-the-belt sales tactics to get the customer to make a purchase, even though they know it's a bad deal.

A good example of this class of product would be a company that uses a door-to-door sales force or telemarketers, though the practice of door-to-door sales is (thankfully) virtually extinct and telemarketing has been functionally illegalized. Another might be companies that rely on people to sell to their friends and acquaintances, which is also become rare. Companies that offer a "free" vacation or seminar are likely seeking to sell fourth-class products.

Arguably, there might be said to be a fifth-class product that can't be sold at all, but is forced upon a person who has no interest in purchasing it. Government services would fall into this category, as would any product that a person is compelled by law to purchase. I'm not sure that promotion of such a product could be classified as "marketing" at all - but then, the tactics used to sell fourth-class products might be so low as to be beneath consideration as well.

My sense is that a savvy consumer will recognize the marketing tactics and form an opinion of the product, without even considering the product itself, according to the way in which it is marketed. "Don't buy anything over the phone" is common wisdom, though in some cases it may be spread to suggest that withholding sales will discourage the tactic, it does recognize that goods that aren't sold in stores are not good enough to be sold in stores.

Could a company create a better impression of the quality of its products by using different marketing tactics? Possibly, but I don't have the sense it would be sustainable: companies gravitate toward sales tactics that work best to move their merchandise, and away from those that don't. If the seller of a third-rate product attempted to cut off their advertising in order to be perceived as being first-rate, chances are their sales would plummet and they would earn little success.

Could a company create a worse impression of the quality of its products by using a different marketing tactic? My sense is this is more common, though I tend to doubt it is intentional. A second-class product could use fourth-class selling tactics, but it would likely damage their reputation with consumers who prefer second-class products, which would be an unwise decision.

I also expect that a company would need to adjust its tactics over time, if it let the quality of its product slip, or when competitors enter the market with better products. The position of a first-class company is probably very difficult to defend, and it may be an easier choice to cede leadership to someone else and seek to compete on a lower level. On the other hand, a third-class company might undergo a significant effort to improve the quality of the products, and rise to the second-class.