For those of you with shorter memories it may seem hard to believe, but once upon a time the grocery market was dominated not by Tesco, but by the grandees of Stamford Street. It’s some time since J Sainsbury inhabited either Stamford Street, or the undisputed number one spot, and in that time we have seen massive change in both the power of the retailer and the passivity of the consumer.

Among the explanations for the Tesco take-over and Sainsbury’s slipping is the suggestion that one company had its eye firmly fixed on the shopper and what her priorities were, what she wanted and what her motivation for wanting it was, and the other company, er, didn’t.

The power transfer took place at a time of opportunity when the shopper expected more choice, indulged in more travel and so responded to things foreign (including the now seemingly forgotten concept of service), expected to have her wishes satisfied, and was thrilled to bits when they were anticipated.

Not dissimilar to today, one might suggest. But maybe it’s more different than we are prepared to admit. Today’s shopper certainly has high expectations, demands even, and is more capable of voting with her feet than ever before, in theory – in theory because she will only vote this way if it is geographically practical. Overall, she is probably quite passive and is more likely to register her upset by reducing her spend on certain items.

She also has a firmly held belief that she is entitled to access almost anything at anytime as part of her lifestyle demands, and, so far as supermarkets are concerned, at competitive prices. Does she want cheap or does she want value? The key is how she sees the difference and this, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs aside, changes according to product category.

Price or perception?

When she thinks flowers there is a point of view that says, just like our friends who used to be in Stamford Street, the industry may be a trifle slow to wake up to her changing motivation and to anticipate changes in her desires.

In the last decade the fresh flower market has gone stratospheric. Sales are predicted to exceed £1.8bn this year, distribution is virtually 100%, the supermarket sector has taken nearly 70% share of value, and year-on-year category growth has been (mostly) more than acceptable. Add in industry wisdom that there is still a long way to go before we reach the holy grail of 100% of supermarket customers buying even once a year and the future should look very rosy.

If that is the case then why is trade slowing down a touch in some, but not all, supermarkets?

Could it be the obsession with price is actually harming, not helping, the market? No argument that price competition is an important differentiator between brands, but it is not the only purchase determinant when it comes to flowers. In fact, price alone could even contradict the customer’s reason to purchase – think lust or apology.

If there is a different ‘driver’ between brand and fresh then this illustrates it. Ordinary brand has more difficulty in commanding a (semi) premium price point than fresh. Fresh, by definition, is limited life and so to ensure repeat purchase the consumer needs reassurance, value and an essence of ‘quality’ to buy into it. No accident then that so many major players promote fresh as their main marketing message. And, would you really want to buy ‘cheap’ meat anyway?

Price and perceived value are keys to engaging the customer even though price alone can be crucial to bringing new customers into the market. There is no disputing percentage extra offers generate success, but they tend to be mostly enjoyed with volume varieties such as tulips and chrysanthemums. Alone, they are not about expanding the market on a profitable long term basis.

For regular buyers, the extra value message may well appeal purely on their value, but will it drive up their spend, intrigue them or challenge them? Will it compensate for what they might see as the ‘sameness’ of the offer?

Pleasure principle

To continue to grow the market we must, as in all markets, refresh it and re-present it, so customers don’t go stale on us. The latest Flower Council of Holland research shows a growing band of customers who, having dipped their toe into the flower

market, are turning into loyal customers, registering frequency of purchase of up to 22 times a year – stimulation surely for the major retailers to reconsider the price focus and instead reflect more on ‘lifestyle’ and perceived value messages.

The effort of keeping the category stimulated and challenged with new varieties, and new floral mixes, with more intriguing and changing presentation in-store, and more motivating (and not just informative) communication will pay off when we convert a reasonable chunk of the 75% of the population who buy at least once a year into regular buyers. Price alone is unlikely to achieve this.

It’s maybe asking too much but perhaps the sector should take a leaf out of the 18th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s book and invoke the pleasure principle. The bottom line is that customers buy flowers for the pleasure they bring, one way or another, and for no other reason.

If we don’t focus more on how customers are changing, re-assess why they buy now and anticipate why they should continue to buy more, and more regularly, in the future then there is every chance the customer will grow bored. Bored with what she sees in-store, bored because the offer no longer satisfies her lifestyle expectation, bored because she does not have a fresh challenge communicated to her.

Flowers are about expression, and that expression must come through more powerfully in packaging, in product selection and in communication at the point of purchase. Challenge the customer and you may in the process challenge your own growth expectations.