Claiming fidelity went from being an inescapable and determining goal to a fleeting and subtle utopia in the marketing plans of companies.
Obviously not all have accepted it and still fly the flag of the fight to retain the client in a kind of ecstasy that prevents him from seeing around him and making the most natural and spontaneous human expression: browsing and testing.
The Judeo-Christian Bible seems to be one of the oldest written references to this behavior, in Genesis they describe how curiosity led Eve to disobey the order of God (who offered her all the other fruits of paradise) to consume the one that it was forbidden. If this history is studied from the marketing perspective, it is possible to make several observations, for example: God (the supplier) offered Adam and Eve (clients) various products and services (in paradise) with the only condition of not accessing to the proposals of the snake (competitor). But there is no better product or service than one that refuses or is difficult to acquire.
It is also a common practice, especially in mass consumption companies, to prevent their personnel from acquiring the products of the competition, this is done, according to them, to generate commitment to the organization and - it can be assumed - to model the consortium of their products before the potential market or remaining asset. In a few words, the result is an obligatory fidelity, something like locking the couple inside the room so that, not having contact with the world, they only satisfy their need for affection and communication with the one who keeps them captive.
Loyalty to products or services does not exist, neither to the brand nor to the supplier, such thinking is utopian. There may be expressions of preference of singular meaning, but, in the absence of the product or service, it will not take long to find a substitute, which, as usually happens, is criticized, compared and even belittled in the first change, but at the end ends up being accepted.
For example, in the 1990s Pepsi dominated the Venezuelan soft drinks market, Coca Cola barely participated in it, when the Cisneros (an economic group that had a contract with the leading drink) left Pepsi and flooded the market with Coca Cola was not without expressions of dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction and rejection, but gradually the market got used to the "new" cola, even humming the catchy music from its commercial unconsciously. But in the civic strike of 2002, both Pepsi and Coca Cola stopped being on the shelves and in the absence of the two rival queues, the widely consumed alternative was the Kola Real or KR, who, still suffering an increase in its prices, sold important way.
After the process, Coca Cola again tapped the market, but in 2006, due to a brief conflict with the distribution fleet, the public increased its consumption of Pepsi without the slightest sign of disgust. The same has happened with other products and services, brands, meeting points and everything that may enjoy preference at some point, for example, the National Telephone Company of Venezuela (CANTV), enjoyed for many years a loyalty bound by Having a monopoly on telecommunications, but when the defunct company Telcel (national version) appeared on the cellular market, it exceeded Movilnet by the CANTV subsidiary. The same happened with residential telephony, clients literally made long lines to request CANTV this service, they had no option, it was the only company that offered it, and this one,exposing the lack of terminals and accessibility problems, it neglected a large part of the demand, but when new operators appeared that overcame the limitations of the competition by offering wireless fixed telephony systems, they soon had a significant demand, forcing CANTV to offer similar products and services.
It is simple, as long as there is a substitute it is difficult to enjoy full fidelity and 100% preference, and if it is not possessed, in the absence of alternatives, one cannot speak of fidelity.
The 21st century customer lacks the limitations of three-quarters of the previous century. He is less dependent, more aggressive, more demanding and, above all, he likes quick and satisfactory responses.
If you had to find a simple way to explain the behavior of the customer of this century, it would be enough to say that it is like that diner who, not finding the dish he wants in a restaurant, instead of settling for the menu of the day, gets up and try somewhere else.
Companies that have not understood or do not understand this behavior are doomed to failure, they must understand that it is no longer about seeking loyalty or preference for tradition or custom, they must strive to generate a sufficiently marked and easily overcome differentiation (by themselves) that allows them to keep the customer in a constant admiration for variety, taste and satisfaction, and even making the consumption of competing brands a tool that strengthens and drives them.
Obviously there will be no shortage of those who want to maintain the traditional and linear scheme of the past and strive to leave everything as it has always been, in fact, they will not be short of supporting customers, however, customers are a “perishable resource” they do not last forever In addition, their needs and expectations vary with the time and the historical moment, therefore, those who resist exploring new strategies will enjoy acceptance as long as the client exists.
Finally, in relation to the companies that force their personnel to consume their products, it is prudent to point out that, from any point of view, their opportunities for growth and innovation are being limited and limited: what better critic, creative or promoter than that employee? that when consuming a competitive product, it is able to find the missing, differentiating or determining elements that make what it offers or produces the best option. It is worth reflecting on.
