Читать книгу Location-Based Marketing - Gérard Cliquet - Страница 17

The second way of presenting the dilemma refers to the presumed opposition between, on the one hand, standardization (in other words, total standardization) and on the other hand, adaptation, which involves taking into account the local environment. This apparent conflict is frequent, particularly in the definition of retail and service outlet network strategies. The elements at the heart of the strategy are commonly distinguished from the elements at the periphery, which can be described as secondary (Kaufmann and Eroglu 1998). The elements at the heart of the strategy must never be adapted, as they are essential for brand recognition at any time and in any place by real and potential customers. On the other hand, it must be possible to adapt the peripheral elements when necessary in order to satisfy customers as much as possible regarding their tastes, consumption habits and even traditions. This problem is especially specific to the marketing of franchise networks, even if it is found in many sectors from the moment that activities are relocated or spatially distributed (Cox and Mason 2007). Indeed, while chains tend to want to simplify their offers, including geographically in order to benefit from better productivity and therefore lower costs, their customers increasingly want product customization. The idea of mass-customization then emerged as necessary (Pine 1993; Piller and Müller 2004). Indeed, in franchising, the brand is, with the know-how, one of the two fundamental concepts in the very definition of the network’s activities.

Let us take a concrete and very significant example of this problem, the bakery chain under the Great Harvest brand (Streed and Cliquet 2007). The first bakery was opened in 1976 in Great Falls, Montana (United States), the second in Kalispell, also in Montana. But the objective was not to distribute exactly the same type of bakeries everywhere. Freedom has been left to the franchises to manage their bakery (the “front office” in front of the customers) as they see fit, knowing that the “back office”, the making of bread in particular, is maintained by the chain. In fact, the founders, Pete and Laura Wakeman, created the first “freedom franchise”, which they define as follows:

We provide an alternative with some of the advantages of a traditional franchise and some of the fun of a “let’s-do-it-all-ourselves” start-up. Our philosophy is simple: let’s create unique neighborhood bakery cafes that are a reflection of the Great Harvest brand and the bakery cafe owner. We are no cookie cutter franchise. We are a freedom-based, healthy franchise that encourages excellence and individuality (not to mention a spirit of fun and generosity).²

There are now more than 200 Great Harvest franchises in the United States (including Hawaii and Alaska). And every franchised bakery must be the bakery in the city: we immediately see the importance of localization and the need for highly targeted spatial marketing.

But often, the franchisee’s freedom is more restricted and the peripheral components of the franchise are more limited, thus reducing the possibilities of adaptation. However, even large chains such as McDonald’s have realized that excessive standardization can lead to rapid consumer fatigue as consumers become increasingly eager to personalize the service and the products that go with it. The orientation towards “glocalization”, a process already mentioned above, is now effective at McDonald's (Crawford 2015), including in their desire to attract so-called “ethnic” customers: we understand the importance of spatial marketing based on geodemographics, GIS (Geographic Information System) and micromarketing in order to identify these targets and define an appropriate advertising strategy (Puzakova et al. 2015).