Companies invest in brands so they can lead markets and have a better chance of extracting more money from consumers - this may be making people buy KP Nuts every week, rather than similar own brands, or by being able to charge a premium for a product or service.
Agreed, although I don't like that term "extracting". Makes it sound like a form of torture.
With The Times, you can buy it never, occasionally or all the time. You can consume a print product (sold through an intermediary like a newsagent or direct) or you can get some of a digital product free (a couple of articles or a podcast) direct from them. There's a variety of price points for sold products, but they'd like to get you on a subscription, because lots of people get used to it as a utility and don't end up unsubscribing.
OK.
If they do get bored of it, the effort to unsubscribe etc, will at least gain them a few more months of you paying.
Don't you think it's rather dishonest to take money from people for something they don't actually want?
If you're buying a paper and get bored, the money dries up straight away.
True, but it can work both ways. For instance you might get Telegraph readers who get bored of their regular paper and one day decide to switch to the Times instead. Casual purchases must make up a significant proportion of their income.
If a customer remains happy, likes getting the product etc, then they'll continue subscribing.
Indeed.
Brands aren't just the product. If they were I'd probably be more happy with my own brand nuts rather than KP.
A lot of people are. I mostly buy own-brand products because they're cheaper than the branded alternative. When you're on a low income your priorities can be rather different.
Brands imbue value to a product. Paying loads of money for a Rolex isn't just about having a good watch, it's about being a Rolex owner too. "Oh, we shop at Waitrose" is more than just "I like Waitrose products".
Yes, it means you're a terrible snob!
Generating subscribers to The Times is about encouragement.
The first lot of subscribers are partly value customers. I get the product anyway, subscribing and getting a package makes it cheaper for me.
As I mentioned earlier, this contradicts something you said further down the article.[*] Can you clarify whether you're actually a Times subscriber or not please?
The second lot are people who get the digital product because it works for them and their life. Both these groups are the easy ones, you don't really need to sell to them - you just communicate the value.
Indeed.
The third lot are occasionals. I get the Sunday Times, sometimes the Daily, I look at articles people link to, I get annoyed that the paywall sometimes boots me out for reaching the max number of articles.
[*]This bit.
The fourth group are people who know what The Times is, are generally positive towards what it does, look at articles online/maybe listen to a podcast.
You can't look at Times articles online if you don't subscribe - the whole paper's behind a paywall. (It's not like some others where there's a quota of free articles.)
The job for group three is pushing them over the subscription edge, the job with group four is turning them into group three and moving them down the funnel.
That makes sense - they want to get casual buyers and turn them into subscribers. I still don't see how launching a radio station is going to make much difference though - the paper itself contains frequent ads encouraging readers to take out subscriptions. It might make a little bit of difference, because customers will hear the ads on the radio as well as reading them in the paper. But I think News UK is massively over-estimating the effect the station will have.
The more you know about the product, the more you feel positive towards the brand, the more it talks to you as an individual, the more likely you are to consume more Times products and then the more likely you are to subscribe.
OK.
Done well, the radio station will help Times-ify more people in group three and four. It may also even attract some new people into group 4 too.
I'm not entirely sure what "Times"-ification is.
[section on phone networks deleted]
It'll be the same for The Times. All their marketing, sponsorship, ads, events, podcasts and now the radio, are about helping to acquire customers and turn them into recurring revenue. Then the output - print, digital, events podcasts and now the radio - will be about keeping you closer to the brand to stop churn - ie unsubscribing.
Indeed. I suppose you can argue that if Times readers have got a radio station to listen to as well as a paper to read, they're less likely to switch to another paper.
But that's still more about keeping existing customers than attracting new ones.
[section on Waitrose deleted]
Will it work? Who knows. Not all marketing is successful. The strategy though is pretty standard.
After all that, we appear to be in agreement! You don't know if it'll work and neither do I.
