Lena har varit medlem i klubben i flera år och var president för två år sedan. Hon har bidragit enormt till klubbens popularitet, goda anda och vårdade varumärke. Senast på dagens lunch hade hon med sig flera gäster och hon har via sitt kontaktnät sett till att ge klubben många nya yngre medlemmar. Styrelsen beslöt under Oscar Nyströmers presidentskap 2011-2012 att belöna vår medlem Lena Linn med PHF, Paul Harris Fellow. Lena Linn har gjort enastående insatser i att föryngra vår klubb, rekryterat flera nya medlemmar till klubben och också spridit kännedom om både Stockholm-Sergel och Rotary i stort. Lena har också betytt mycket i vårt arbete med att stärka vår unika Sergelanda genom att tydliggöra vår klubbs varumärke. Stockholm-Sergel har ett väldigt gott rykte och ses som ett föredöme för andra klubbar. Hennes förmåga att skapa god stämning i klubben var också en del av utmärkelsen. Lena är en av de kvinnliga pionjärmedlemmarna i Stockholm-Sergel som med stor kraft fick bevisa att även kvinnor med råge kunde axla Rotarys värdegrund och göra vår klubb till den förening den är i dag.Paul Harris Fellow, efter grundaren av Rotary, är ett belöningstecken till medlemmar som gjort stora insatser för Rotary. Utmärkelsen består av ett minnesdiplom och en stor pin för kavajslaget.
Sunniva är nu hotellchef på Rica Hotel Kungsgatan.
In a recently published Swedish study, it was observed that customer satisfaction was a widely varying matter in different countries. Finding the explanation would be a rather interesting study in itself. Customer satisfaction should be of highest interest anywhere for anyone doing business. Its integration comes natural, provided you realise that the creation of value should be top priority in product development, marketing and sales. The reason is that value is, by definition, decided by the buyer. Consequently, any organizational activity on value creation also has to include the customer; all his/her needs, wants and pleasures, regardless of being rational or irrational, conscious or subconscious. A solution is that the organization is told not to focus on products, but rather on business transactions. Which is where the interests of seller and buyer meet. The one is wanting to sell his priced offer, and the other wanting to change his money for something more valuable. This apparently leads to an equation, the Transaction Equation. If the seller/supplier adds something costly to the offer, the value of the buyer’s interpretation of it has to increase. This model shows the factors we work with since 25 years:
I Sverigestudien som genomförts av Skandia, Volvo IT och Preera kommer kundtillfredsställelse först på 47:e plats i listan över viktiga värden på våra arbetsplatser. Förvisso både alarmerande och tänkvärt. Hur gör man kundtillfredsställelsen självklar? Att integrera den i affärsmodellen och organisationens själva existensberättigande. Transaktionsekvationen integrerar köparens värdering i utvecklingen av företagets erbjudande till marknaden. Självklart genomförs ingen affär förrän köparen anser att dess värde är minst lika högt som priset. Annars behåller man ju hellre sina pengar. Det självklara syns när alla på arbetsplatsen inser att man inte utvecklar och marknadsför produkter, utan affärstransaktioner. Först när kundens värdering av erbjudandet har blivit en självklar, integrerad del av produktbeskrivningen så är den kommersiell. Detta är transaktionsekvationen. Säljarens åtgärder för att skapa ett prisvärt erbjudande vägs mot köparens värdering av det utifrån sina krav, önskemål och (kanske omedvetna) förväntningar. När den modellen har blivit grunden för produktutveckling, marknadsföring och försäljning blir även kundtillfredsställelsen självklar. Läs mer.
From historic reasons selling has since the advent of marketing been regarded as an integrated part of it. This has more to do with the origins of marketing, as an upgraded version of selling, rather than a discipline in itself. With the development of marketing theory, however, it has become obvious that the basic nature of the disciplines tell them apart; marketing is aimed at creating value in brands and products, whereas selling uses this to perform transactions. Marketing may increase the value of a product by raising its price, creating a social awareness of quality or prestige. Selling, dealing with one buyer at a time, is deprived of this opportunity, and is referred to lower the price to increase the prospect of a transaction. These basic differences are strong reasons for organizing marketing and sales in different departments, making conflicts between staff more inclined towards marketing and those with their heart in sales less difficult. Read further in my General Theory of Marketing.
An effectively branded product is characterized by its metavalue (which includes the brand value), but only the limited population aware of the product/brand well enough is able to embrace its metavalue. Not all of them value the product/brand alike; and only those valuing it the highest in this moment buy it in this very moment. It would be assumed that this population, the audience, takes the form of a normal distribution. Consequently the price-demand curve would take the shape of the integral of this normal distribution. But, as the (meta-) value of the product/brand also is a function of its price (i.e. status value), a continuous price-demand curve is only hypothetical. A discussion about the dynamics of the price/value/demand relations of branded products can be found as an appendix to my General Theory of Marketing.
General Theory of Marketing.
The core of evolutionary marketing is value, being the factor deciding the buyer's (customer's) buying decision. And the buyer's valuing is a consequence of a complex of conscious and subconscious processes best explained and analyzed by evolutionary psychology. My marketing theory is founded on this notion of value and the different aspects of it. Any theory of branded products (as this is) has to offer an analysis from every angle of how the buyers' subjective valuing affect transactions. Consequently, my Transaction Equation is the pivotal model, and the Dynamics of the Evaluating Audience is a very specific concept demonstrating changes of value as a consequence of changes of price and communication – unique of evolutionary marketing. Learn more from my General Theory of Marketing.
For 30 years I have developed, worked with, and employed a practical concept of marketing in my consultancy. I did not know that others were on the same track, until I came across Spent by Geoffrey Miller a couple of years ago, and The Consuming Instinct by Gad Saad more recently. Apparently, the same idea has dawned to us simultaneously in different parts of the World unknown to each other. The Americans developed the idea in academic environments, whereas I did it in the practice of my consultancy, writing books about it, lecturing and teaching. Consequently, it was rather recently, when I realized that this marketing theory of the future would be called evolutionary marketing. The difference between our parallel efforts is that the professors have had better resources to verify their ideas and theories, whereas I have been more inclined to develop a system of practical models for people active in business. Read it and discover the useful and practical models you can use in everyday marketing.
When deciding on a flexible or fixed price for electricity or bank loan interests you are often in a difficult situation of choice. Which one is to be preferred? Putting this situation in relation to the principle of the transaction equation, I realized this. The flexible, demand dependent, price is the price of a commodity. The fixed price may rather be seen as that of a branded product, as the offer contains a component of reliability – no surprises here. On the buyer’s side this would be regarded with trust and comfort. By the addition of this positive aspect to the product, the supplier would be able to ask a higher price over time. This potential for a metavalue clearly indicates a branded product. I will appreciate your comments – does the difference in the offers mean the fundamental difference between non-branded and branded products? Do visit my General Theory of Marketing for a comprehensive discussion.
If not, click here. I love to discuss and exchange ideas. What do you think about what you read – I am anxious to share your reactions and reflections. Either comment on the spot or mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you!
All brands exist in the human mind only. More or less different for all of us and our situations. The same brand will be different in the mind of the strategically responsible manager, his employees, and their customers. The strategic brand points out the direction, the employees’ view of the brand guides their actions, and the buyers’ brand is the one that has the capacity to add value to products in the marketplace. In conventional marketing literature these three brand as-pects are called “profile”, “identity” and “image” respectively. I suggest that they remain brands, and are designated consequently: strategic brand, internal brand and effective brand. Which one is the most important? The effective brand decides the company’s assets in consumer value. The strategic brand is the plan, but without staff and employees “living the brand” neither product development and marketing nor servicing and customer relations will remain management’s wet dreams only. The three brands will rarely coincide, a small difference implies dynamics, but too big a difference means problems. Read more on the Meta Management Model on brand development.
It may be no surprise, but it is more serious than you realise. You can make jokes about it, but it is still a fact of life. Ask Charles Darwin or the multitude of modern scientists who stand on his shoulders. Status, or social identity as I prefer it, is the difference you make. Being dissatisfied with Maslow’s need hierarchy, I got the idea of finding a more realistic model for human behaviour some twenty years ago. Inspired by Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene (1976), I placed mating at the top, true to the biological conviction that the meaning of life is the transportation of genes from your parents to your offspring. Research proves that a good social identity makes you attractive on the mating market. It may be won in a number of ways: conspicuous consumption (Porsche, Rolex, etc.), trained and well-groomed physics, intelligence and interests (Ph.D., opera, etc.), a successful business career, or just being the centre of social life. Also Darwin admirer Sigmund Freud has a say here. Pleasure in the model has a strong affinity to his term libido. Consequently, this powerful instinct for social identity is a key factor to address in all marketing efforts, B2B or B2C. The secret is just that social identity (or status, if you want) is sexy for real, not only as a joke, as most people prefer it. Evolutionary psychology proves it a reality of great importance for marketing in theory and practice. Learn more from my theory of marketing.
By definition, the (potential) buyer decides to buy when he finds the value of the offer to be equal or higher than the price asked. This apparently is the making of an equation. But the seller sells more than the tangible product, and the byer buys more. We have to be realistic. For the buyer it is impossible to separate all different inputs forming his picture of the product offered. It all adds up to a “total entity” consisting of physical features, place of purchase, brand reputation, service offer, personnel behaviour, and price – the product! All what the buyer, in reality, values as components of the product - his valuation an exponent of evolutionary psychology, EP. In the light of this logic, the long-standing 4P model must be obsolete to anyone focused on consumer behaviour. Opposite to the complete picture of what creates the buyer’s perceived value, is the corresponding compilation of what the supplier bases his price on. Now the transaction definitely takes the shape of an equation. This can be illustrated with two boxes. One representing the total product (including price) offered, containing everything that the supplier uses to make it worth the buyer’s money, from nuts and bolts to brand value (as the customers judge it!). The other representing the total value of, as buyers (may) see it, from nutrition to bragging. This is the principle of the transaction equation. Not only a theoretical principle, but also a comprehensive marketing tool. But remember to use it as an equation, putting the right thing on the correct side. You can get some ideas for the practical use from the chapter about it in my General Theory of Marketing.
It is a well-known fact that price itself is a trigger of value. Exposing oneself with expensive clothes, watches, cars, etc., offers a valuable addition to anyone’s social identity, consequently increases the buyer’s readiness to pay a higher price. The snag is, however, that the value of price is not linear to its character. Starting from the centre, the mainstream price level does not make any contribution to the social identity (status) of most individuals, but a moderate rise to the premium price level means an evident addition. Moving further to the luxury level apparently has the desired effect in some circles, but means, in general, an obvious risk of being regarded as ostentatious, which, again, reduces the level of social identity value. A slight reduction of the price to the smart buy level may on the other hand indicate the intelligent, calculated choice of something less expensive to a sensible quality. Further reduction to the bottom level, basic, would however be negative to the social identity, merely exposing a lack of money as well as taste. General Theory of Marketing.
Marketing has become one of the most important disciplines in business, but its underpinnings are still dubious. All development has mostly been concentrated to its surface, and I think that some attention to its foundations would sort out some discrepancies in these superimposed concepts. These embarrassingly simple points may add some reality to everyday marketing activities. 1) The transaction is the objective of all business. 2) The transaction is always accomplished when the buyer considers the value of the offer higher than the price asked for it (if not, he doesn’t buy). 3) As communication is central to marketing, brands are required to make it work. 4) Consequently, marketing can only be performed with branded products. 5) Value and brands exist in the human mind only – and in business they count only in the mind of the (potential) buyer. 6) This is why a theory of marketing demands a profound and up-to-date knowledge of human perception and behavioural science. If you want to study my reasoning in detail, download my General Theory of Marketing.
- ► 2016 (14)
- ► 2015 (21)
- ► 2014 (21)
- ► maj (3)
- ► mars (3)
- ► februari (6)
- Carl Eric Linn
- Nyfiken. Ifrågasätter gärna, försöker tänka självständigt och se sammanhang, "lateral thinker". "Kreatör" enligt DISC personlighetstest. Skriver mycket, bl a fem böcker. Läser, går gärna på Operan. Umgås gärna med djur. Håller mig i fysisk form genom att rida och gå på gym. Har fått utmärkelser för design, reklam och marknadsföringsbok. Lyckligt gift med Lena och har barn och barnbarn i tidigare äktenskap. Är medlem i Automobilhistoriska Klubben, Föreningen för Fjällbacka och Beridna Högvakten.