December 30, 2008
Secret Shopping Takes On a New Meaning
By Bernice Hurst, Managing
Partner, Fine Food Network
Not long ago, Tesco was
asked to use plain vans when delivering to wealthy customers reluctant
to be seen buying from such a low-priced supermarket. Soon, it may be more
expensive Ocado that can’t be visible in certain neighborhoods. Customers
with money to spend are now apparently shy about flaunting it.
Lisa Armstrong, writing
in The Times in the U.K., maintains that conspicuous spending is
being replaced by surreptitious spending among the few still willing and
able to splash out on fancy labels. While conceding that there are fewer
big spenders roaming the aisles, Ms. Armstrong also believes that "anyone
hoping that the nation has undergone a Damascene conversion and will henceforth
be donning hair shirts, planting mung beans and singing Lord We Have Sinned
may be in for a long wait."
Her theory, instead,
is that shoppers are simply being more discreet. According to Ms. Armstrong,
sales of high priced bottles of wine, classic jewelry, premium-priced small
cars and even garter belts and stockings, "are proving remarkably
robust"."
Referring to personal
style consultant, Annabel Hodin, she insists that "the mere fact that
this species is not extinct is a sign of sorts" while re-defining
customers as "Furtive Shoppers" who make many of their purchases
online in order to avoid being seen.
Amongst those benefiting
from this alleged trend are Matches, an "upmarket mini-chain of fashion
boutiques," and jeweler, Asprey. Shoppers are apparently making their
decisions online but sending "assistants" to collect the goods
so that they aren’t seen.
Retailers have not been
slow to understand and are doing what they can to help. Netaporter.com
has switched to a "discreet brown parcel service instead of the lavish
wrapping that was one of its hallmarks" while other well-known stores
are offering the option of non-branded bags.
Which might raise a few
eyebrows as we wonder if shoppers are truly economizing or simply sneaking
famous label purchases into downscale or unlabeled bags. This could become
a new witch hunt!
Discussion questions:
What do you think of the opportunity around targeting the "covert"
luxury shopper? Should high-end retailers be looking to help their customers
avoid the perception of ostentatious consumption? If so, in what ways?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
During the 80s recession I placed an ad campaign in the Wall Street Journal for a client. As part of the WSJ’s presentation, they shared the case history of an upscale vendor that enjoyed significant success during the recession by advertising exclusively in their publication. It was a classic jukebox restorer and retailer, which had a two-year bidness backlog. When approached about the secret of their success, the jukebox restorer replied, “People with money will always have money.”
A parallel today, of course, is my beloved Yankees spending like drunken sailors to buy pitchers and hitters to fill the overpriced seats in their new stadium. It’s a bidness model that works for them, and I’ll fly a Yankees flag outside my California home for the entire season even though it violates the CC&Rs.
Thus, I must not be British, stiff-upper-lipping by specifying grocery deliveries in plain-colored vans to my drafty estate adorned with multiple Jaguars. As we all know, the peasants pay strict attention to the dining habits of the wealthy and would be disappointed if they (the wealthy) didn’t cut back on their grocery purchases. The service entrance has eyes, after all. I hear UPS is considering a “discreet brown parcel service” of their own. No, wait. They already do that.
Overall, the Times piece feels like another example of our endless fascination with mega-rich consumers–the same ones who can afford to shop for luxury items during the recession but choose to tone down their purchasing power. What does this covert consumer feel they’re hiding? Their wealth is probably a well known fact, given they can afford personal shoppers and assistants, as well as the sending of cars to merchants to retrieve their goods. And among their friends and colleagues, do they really feel they can get by unnoticed while wearing the latest Dior or Hermes?
I find little wrong with continuing to buy upscale, if you can afford it–you’ve earned it (in some way or fashion) so spend it as you choose. The problem is that the vast majority of consumers can’t afford to shop upscale. And their current financial problems were made worse by having accumulated thousands of dollars in credit card debt while trying to prove that they too share in the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.
As to how merchants can target covert shoppers, I don’t see much opportunity here. I’m all for giving the customer what they want. But I’m certainly no fan of shipping items in discreet brown parcels or sending shoppers out the door of luxury establishments with non-branded bags. Merchants have invested heavily in their brands and should protect them. And the truly rich should feel just fine toting those bags. It’s likely that the consumers who should hide these luxury purchases are the ones who can least afford them.
In my own little corner of England, people shop–and use/re-use bags–from all over the place. So you can see customers in Tesco carrying Waitrose bags and vice versa. It seems, anecdotally, that they shop whenever and wherever it suits them to buy whatever they want and need. Also, on a recent afternoon spent in Heathrow’s Terminal 5 which is packed with only the most expensive stores, I literally saw one person in one of them buying something. Most of the others were deserted in spite of the huge number of travelers; sales assistants were standing around staring out their windows, presumably willing people to come in. Which they did not, not even to browse. Totally unscientific observation of course but nonetheless interesting, at least to me.
In England, the rich may want to play down their consumption but I don’t see any indication that that’s true in America.
There may also be some people who don’t want the name of exclusive stores on the vans that deliver products to them because they don’t want to advertise to potential thieves that they have just received an expensive product. Promoting the name of the store is important to the retailers. Consumers may have a variety of reasons for not wanting to promote the name of the store. This will work itself out. The bigger issue is how important are consumer wishes to the retailers?
Wow! Is our society truly becoming even more obsessed with symbols, and judging of others based on them? This just makes me feel irate.
I have spent the better part of the last two years trying to move my 19 year old son away from thinking that the incessant quest for symbols and labels is NOT a defining element of “who you are” but merely the marketing industry over hyping the phenomenon of conspicuous consumption.
Now, as a marketing industry, are we doing the same thing again?
I think we need to allow consumers to consume as they want to and stop being so judgmental. I want a bag that says “mind your own business” to carry to the farmer’s market on Saturday, and to the mall on Sunday when I shop for a great price on a really well-made designer coat that I can use for the next ten years.
The bottom line is that we are here for our customers. If my customer wants an Omega wrist watch and a pair of Tiffany diamond earrings delivered in a 1970 Pinto, I’m going to do it because that is what my customer wants. We are not here to judge spending behavior, only to profit from it.
The data shows that virtually all shoppers are trading down in their consumption. Even the most luxury-oriented shoppers are buying less and/or buying less expensive.
Certainly there is a small group of covert shoppers hiding their luxuries. However, we’d be surprised if that group was more than a tiny percentage of the population. Targeting them is targeting a tiny fad and not something we’d advocate for most categories.
The larger opportunity is to target luxury-oriented shoppers with the pampering they want in a 2009-friendly way: greener products that are also luxurious, more energy efficient luxury items, healthier gourmet food. All examples of ways to target those that can still spend–and make them feel good about it. Luxury shopping will be back and those retailers that invest in keeping their luxury shoppers in today’s socially acceptable ways will be best positioned to win as the economy strengthens.
The problem here is in the UK Tesco isn’t considered a low-priced supermarket. Asda is. Lidl is. Aldi is. Morrisons is. Iceland is.
Tesco is considered mid-range to higher end, as is Sainsbury’s. Waitrose, high-end. Marks & Spencer, high-end.
Makes me think the delivery van story is more urban myth than real.
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
During the 80s recession I placed an ad campaign in the Wall Street Journal for a client. As part of the WSJ’s presentation, they shared the case history of an upscale vendor that enjoyed significant success during the recession by advertising exclusively in their publication. It was a classic jukebox restorer and retailer, which had a two-year bidness backlog. When approached about the secret of their success, the jukebox restorer replied, “People with money will always have money.”
A parallel today, of course, is my beloved Yankees spending like drunken sailors to buy pitchers and hitters to fill the overpriced seats in their new stadium. It’s a bidness model that works for them, and I’ll fly a Yankees flag outside my California home for the entire season even though it violates the CC&Rs.
Thus, I must not be British, stiff-upper-lipping by specifying grocery deliveries in plain-colored vans to my drafty estate adorned with multiple Jaguars. As we all know, the peasants pay strict attention to the dining habits of the wealthy and would be disappointed if they (the wealthy) didn’t cut back on their grocery purchases. The service entrance has eyes, after all. I hear UPS is considering a “discreet brown parcel service” of their own. No, wait. They already do that.
Overall, the Times piece feels like another example of our endless fascination with mega-rich consumers–the same ones who can afford to shop for luxury items during the recession but choose to tone down their purchasing power. What does this covert consumer feel they’re hiding? Their wealth is probably a well known fact, given they can afford personal shoppers and assistants, as well as the sending of cars to merchants to retrieve their goods. And among their friends and colleagues, do they really feel they can get by unnoticed while wearing the latest Dior or Hermes?
I find little wrong with continuing to buy upscale, if you can afford it–you’ve earned it (in some way or fashion) so spend it as you choose. The problem is that the vast majority of consumers can’t afford to shop upscale. And their current financial problems were made worse by having accumulated thousands of dollars in credit card debt while trying to prove that they too share in the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.
As to how merchants can target covert shoppers, I don’t see much opportunity here. I’m all for giving the customer what they want. But I’m certainly no fan of shipping items in discreet brown parcels or sending shoppers out the door of luxury establishments with non-branded bags. Merchants have invested heavily in their brands and should protect them. And the truly rich should feel just fine toting those bags. It’s likely that the consumers who should hide these luxury purchases are the ones who can least afford them.
In my own little corner of England, people shop–and use/re-use bags–from all over the place. So you can see customers in Tesco carrying Waitrose bags and vice versa. It seems, anecdotally, that they shop whenever and wherever it suits them to buy whatever they want and need. Also, on a recent afternoon spent in Heathrow’s Terminal 5 which is packed with only the most expensive stores, I literally saw one person in one of them buying something. Most of the others were deserted in spite of the huge number of travelers; sales assistants were standing around staring out their windows, presumably willing people to come in. Which they did not, not even to browse. Totally unscientific observation of course but nonetheless interesting, at least to me.
In England, the rich may want to play down their consumption but I don’t see any indication that that’s true in America.
There may also be some people who don’t want the name of exclusive stores on the vans that deliver products to them because they don’t want to advertise to potential thieves that they have just received an expensive product. Promoting the name of the store is important to the retailers. Consumers may have a variety of reasons for not wanting to promote the name of the store. This will work itself out. The bigger issue is how important are consumer wishes to the retailers?
Wow! Is our society truly becoming even more obsessed with symbols, and judging of others based on them? This just makes me feel irate.
I have spent the better part of the last two years trying to move my 19 year old son away from thinking that the incessant quest for symbols and labels is NOT a defining element of “who you are” but merely the marketing industry over hyping the phenomenon of conspicuous consumption.
Now, as a marketing industry, are we doing the same thing again?
I think we need to allow consumers to consume as they want to and stop being so judgmental. I want a bag that says “mind your own business” to carry to the farmer’s market on Saturday, and to the mall on Sunday when I shop for a great price on a really well-made designer coat that I can use for the next ten years.
The bottom line is that we are here for our customers. If my customer wants an Omega wrist watch and a pair of Tiffany diamond earrings delivered in a 1970 Pinto, I’m going to do it because that is what my customer wants. We are not here to judge spending behavior, only to profit from it.
The data shows that virtually all shoppers are trading down in their consumption. Even the most luxury-oriented shoppers are buying less and/or buying less expensive.
Certainly there is a small group of covert shoppers hiding their luxuries. However, we’d be surprised if that group was more than a tiny percentage of the population. Targeting them is targeting a tiny fad and not something we’d advocate for most categories.
The larger opportunity is to target luxury-oriented shoppers with the pampering they want in a 2009-friendly way: greener products that are also luxurious, more energy efficient luxury items, healthier gourmet food. All examples of ways to target those that can still spend–and make them feel good about it. Luxury shopping will be back and those retailers that invest in keeping their luxury shoppers in today’s socially acceptable ways will be best positioned to win as the economy strengthens.
The problem here is in the UK Tesco isn’t considered a low-priced supermarket. Asda is. Lidl is. Aldi is. Morrisons is. Iceland is.
Tesco is considered mid-range to higher end, as is Sainsbury’s. Waitrose, high-end. Marks & Spencer, high-end.
Makes me think the delivery van story is more urban myth than real.