Tesco and their virtual stores - thoughts from Marco Monfils

Virtual shopping experience 2.0

http://goo.gl/lcRnd

Marco Monfils looks at Tesco and their virtual stores. 

If you seek to remain relevant to consumers, there can be little debate on the importance of innovation and innovative thinking. Likewise, few are prepared to argue with the emergence of the web as THE medium of choice to reach out and influence an entire new generation of consumers.

Following this logic, and putting 1 + 1 together, how cool would it be to switch from offline to online shopping for our daily and weekly household shopping?

No need to park, shop and carry the stuff home, no wasted time in supermarket aisles, quality time gained to spend elsewhere, whether that be work, pleasure or the pure luxury of not having to do anything (a rare treat in these ever busy times). The formulae sounds simple enough, add a consumer trend on top of an established consumer habit and make it happen, and why would it not work? It makes complete sense, and I don’t need no marketing or business know-how to figure this out☺

So, to keep the innovation principle simple, if we combine supermarkets + web = online shopping, this must be a winner right?

Not really. So, let’s have a closer look at the flaws of this simplistic approach to innovation in business with a practical analysis about the pros and cons of online shopping:

http://goo.gl/lcRnd  

"The Logo strikes back" - Return of the Marketing Machine | Consumer Goods Club - global business networking

A brand name is typically composed of a few carefully selected words. A slogan can communicate up to a complete sentence of concise communication. And a logo (a picture) is worth a thousand words. So if all is true, it would suggest a logo is the most powerful of all marketing communication devices. But does it have the power to drive the brand (on its own)? To explore this further, I recently posted the following question to my professional business network, which raised some serious marketing eyebrows, and delivered over 30 quality replies by interested contributors.

The question as follows: “I have a strange question. Do you know of any brand or company or movement that has succeeded, only because of its logo? (This does not infer the brand, company or movement had no other credentials such as talent, or whatever, but rather the logo was THE dominant communication device with consumers).”

Here are a couple of the more interesting and representative contributions for your consideration:

“For a brand or movement to have succeeded primarily because of its logo would mean that people display the logo merely because they like the logo, rather than the idea behind the logo. As I reflected on your question I realized that seems to me effectively impossible. The reason is: a REAL brand (word/image) is only a symbol for something else. The symbol may tap into a meaning that is even stronger than the creator of the logo. So, the image of Che (Guevara) taps into deep meaning and a form of self-expression for the people that display it, but it was based on a very powerful reality to begin with. There was no brand or company behind the famous circular "Peace sign", yet it is a symbol for a big idea.