« If Marketers Shift to Customer-Centric Focus Will They Gain Greater ROI? | Main | Blog Bits - Week of July 25th »

Emerilware: An entirely anecdotal demonstration of why market researchers need to analyze CGM.

A few months ago I moved into a new place and decided to get a proper set of cookware. Venturing over to the trusty local Linens ‘N Things, where I had already spent a ridiculous amount of money, I examined my options. I knew I wanted stainless steel, and that they pots/pans should be of a fairly high grade and thick. Thus was roughly the extent of my knowledge.

Being a good American consumer, and a food snob, I knew the two most famous brands are All-Clad and Calphalon, which I found and started studying when I arrived at the store. But then, right next to the All-Clad, I saw something called Emerilware, which looked almost exactly the same, was made by All-Clad, but was less than half the price for an equivalent set. The boxes were read, the hand-outs perused, but I couldn’t tell the difference, so I bought the Emerilware with the thought that either I: a. made the right decision, and I’d save myself a trip back, or b. I made the wrong decision, and would have to come back, but that was the same outcome as buying nothing.

When I returned home, turned to the beloved interweb to find out if I’d made the right decision. The first thing I come across is this, a posting on the highly popular conservative politically blog Instapundit (clearly deviating a bit from his usual topics), and one of the top links in Google for my search terms. As it happens, in late 2003, Glenn Reynolds, the author of Instapundit fell victim to the same confusion I did. So he asked the public, and the public spoke. The Emerilware, it was revealed, only had a thick bottom, but was not three-ply up the sides, which would lead to poorer head conduction and potential warping, particularly on a gas stove.

If I had known this at the time, I probably would have bought the original All-Clad line, but decided that since I had an electric stove (which would heat only the bottom of the pan), and didn’t really feel like returning anything, that I’d stick with the Emerilware.

End result, I made a $200 purchase, and not a $500 one. Nothing massive on an individual scale, but clearly I wasn’t the only one confused, and I can guarantee I wasn’t the only one that would buy the far less expensive option if given products they thought were comparable.

So what’s the lesson? From a marketing perspective, All-Clad is cannibalizing their sales through insufficient product differentiation. They need to improve the packaging and marketing such that people are able to distinguish their product lines, without dissuading consumers from buying the less expensive line if they’re not otherwise going to convert them. The self-serving (or rather, company serving) lesson, however, is that the post on Instapundit was written on in late December, 2003. I went shopping in the second quarter of 2005. Nothing had changed in more than a year, which suggests to me All-Clad isn’t looking at CGM, and their lapse is costing them money.

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on July 28, 2005 at 06:07 PM | Email this post Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cdcdc53ef00d83462932769e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Emerilware: An entirely anecdotal demonstration of why market researchers need to analyze CGM.:

Comments

It's possible. That's exactly the concern to which I was alluding when I wrote that All-Clad would have to be careful not to dissuade people from buying Emerilware if they're not potential customers for their more expensive line.

More specifically though, I think they can do that, and still capture the low-end customer, simply because Emerilware, while not as good as All-Clad's premier products, *is* better than T-Fal, Faberware, etc. The company should be able to demonstrate that without cannibalizing its own sales.

Posted by: Jeff Feldman | Jul 29, 2005 2:52:46 PM

But do you think they're losing more customers who would potentially buy their higher-end products than gaining new customers who would have otherwise bought T-Fal, Faberware or some other low-end cookware?

I'm thinking that perhaps they do want to make Emerilware seem almost as good as their high-end lines because the people who really know cookware would buy the high-end stuff anyways, while those who don't know would have more likely bought some lower-end cookware.

(I'm only interested in this topic because I got married in the past year and had to do some research on cookware. We ended up buying Calphalon from amazon.com--they have some great deals on Calphalon stuff if you buy open stock.) :)

Posted by: Peter Kim | Jul 29, 2005 12:33:45 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.