Whats hot at the moment on the global areana.
Communication, smartphones, instant news, technology, apps, travel, medical developments, poverty, wealth, living for today, real estate, stock market, political change, consumer unrest, consumer choice, consumer knowledge, global warming, religious fanatics, civil wars, travelling to other parts of the universe Mars, noise and more noise..........etc
The list goes on.
Consumers now have instant access to knowledge at the touch of a button and they are a restless bunch to sell a product or service to. In many instances they will try and if not satisfied go to social media and tell the world.
Cosmetics, if you read the ingredients, you would never put them on your skin. It has made companies forturnes and why. Marketing. Creating the illusion that something in a jar or bottle will make you the person look a treat, younger, more beautiful, wrinkles will disappear and your life will be surrounded with beautiful people
This worked for Helena Rubinstein, Estee Lauder, Mary Kay, Elizabeth Arden, Yves Saint Laurent, Calvin Klein
Their products had a brand, a person, an image......and then the marketing package. They made fortunes. Their time was different to today.
Now the market place has changed, every person with a short window span of public identity puts out a range of cosmetics. This has made the consumer wary and tired of the story. Those with the dollars now have cosmetic surgery. Wrinkles gone. Young people are now savvy, they have information, they want to travel, live for the moment. Eat well , exercise, and get rid of baggage. Personally I do not think they give a monkeys about top end cosmetics.
The OBJ link to the market has an issue. Who is the market.
I am just not sure how a consumer products company which is basically a distributor in association with Jeff is going to bridge this marketing chasm.
How does a company ABC which is massive distributor of a massive range of consumer products become a brand name for something personal like a face cream. If you think of Proctor & Gamble the immediate product range is Gillette, Olay, Oral B, Pantene, Duracell, MR Clean, Vicks, Tampax.
These are mass use consumer products.
They are not the Helena Rubinsteins etc of the cosmetics industry. The brand, the personal identity, the image.
My question is ...how is OBJ's technology going to be linked into the P&G marketing. How do you get the association between the benefits and the perceived payoff to the consumer. The customer is not buying Proctor & Gamble, they are not buying OBJ.....they were buying an image maker. P&G along with OBJ are not image makers. One is a massive distributor of consumer products the other has a technology concept that has yet to find a market.
You cannot get rid of the chemicals in the formulation because they make the cream the lotion what it is in a bottle or jar.
Introduction of a physical element into a product and its applications is like trying to change a universal approach to the use of consumer product usage. It is a high risk massive marketing switch.
If P&G is turning over billions with the existing low cost formulations, my question is, why change.
I think this is the issue that P&G are have, how does this technology actually fit into our range and how do we market it. They have a lot a stake, a cock up and millions of dollars are lost. That is possibly why they are test marketing in specialised market segments, this way no major damage is done. If the market research is overwhelmingly positive then they know there is a way forward.
I do not think now, that this point has been reached.
My opinion only.
Expand
(20min delay)