What Makes a Brand Vulnerable?

I read, with growing contempt, a passage about the reasons that customers abandon a brand to which they have been loyal for years in favor of an “upstart” brand.  It was an extremely superficial and narrow-minded swipe that largely seemed to exonerate the brand for the very behavior that caused customers to abandon it.

The rationale for “customer abandonment” was that customers had no loyalty, they were unwilling to pay a higher price, the were unwilling to undertake additional difficulty to obtain and service the product, they were unwilling to compromise on their needs and accept a product that was functionally inferior to what competitors were offering, or in some other way to sacrifice their own welfare to support a brand that failed to serve their needs.

For each point in the brief list of reasons, I couldn’t help wondering why a brand should expect customers to remain loyal to the brand’s interests while the brand pointedly ignores the customer’s interests. After all, the only reason a person purchases a product is because they have a need to fulfill – and the only reason they purchase a given brand is that it is better than all the other options.  When another firm offers a better proposal, customers take it – and I don’t believe that should be seen as a failing of a customer, but as a failing of the brand to serve the needs of the customer.

The foremost complaint, as might be expected, is cost: customers abandon a favored brand for a lower-cost alternative.   But that begs the question: why does their favored brand cost more?   Is it because the brand is exploitative and charges an unreasonable markup?  Is it because the brand is inefficient and must charge more to cover its higher costs?   Is it because the brand includes unwanted features and services?   All of this is possible – but when a competing brand is able to sustain a lower price and customers who try it do not return, it becomes not only possible, but probable, that their previously favored brand is doing something wrong.

Another leading complaint is customization: customers abandon a favored brand for one that better suits their individual needs. Again, it begs the question: why does their favored brand fail to suit their needs?   Is it because they believe customers will accept a less suitable product for a lower price?   Is it because they believe that customers don’t really want the features and qualities the competitor offers?   Is it because they are unwilling to change their own product or processes when the needs of the market have changed?   When customers abandon, these are all possible causes.

Five or six other qualities were listed (some of them were redundant, others seem entirely frivolous) – but in each case the question is essentially the same: the firm is not delivering a solution of acceptable quality for an acceptable price, and customers who begrudgingly accepted it for lack of a better alternative abandon when that better alternative appears in the market.

So while I didn’t take much from the article itself, I did come away with a reinforced belief that a firm exists to serve its customers, and in order to attract and retain customers, a firm must serve its customers better than its competitors.   Nothing else matters, and nothing else should matter.

To suggest that customers accept a compromise when a better alternative is available is not only unreasonable, but also quite irrational.   And to cling to the belief that the brand is doing everything right and that something is wrong with the customers who abandon it leads to a suicidal level of complacency.