[Double Jeopardy law] Lower market-share brands suffer from both low purchases, and low loyalty
![[Double Jeopardy law] Lower market-share brands suffer from both low purchases, and low loyalty](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bluesofy/__sized__/pic/topics/9c592e342f2a4e36be14f9b72d783216-fit_width_resize_q20-30x0.gif)
![[Double Jeopardy law] Lower market-share brands suffer from both low purchases, and low loyalty](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bluesofy/pic/topics/9c592e342f2a4e36be14f9b72d783216.gif)
In the 1960s, sociologist William McPhee coined the notion of "double jeopardy", to describe people's sympathy and tendencies toward certain behaviors.
Its application to marketing is due to the statistician Andrew Ehrenberg who made the "double jeopardy" concept an empirical law according to which brands with lower market shares suffer from both low purchases and low brand loyalty.
In other words, less popular brands not only have fewer buyers, but also have fewer loyal customers compared to the dominant popular brands in the market. According to the concept of "double jeopardy", a dominant brand therefore has the highest percentage of purchase and a greater consumer loyalty to its brand. What is for the popular brand a double advantage, has a negative consequence for less popular brands: it is difficult for them to retain their customers and increase their sales because it is not easy to convince buyers that the quality of a product less sold, is of better quality than a brand recognized by all.
Example
Interpretation
Comment
article ?
Ego is the enemy of successful marketing. Objectivity is what’s needed. When people become successful, they tend to become less ...
No matter what your product is, you are ultimately in the education business. Your customers need to be constantly educated about the many advantages of doing business with you, trained to use your products more effectively, and taught how to make never-ending improvement in their lives.
In strength there is weakness. Wherever the leader is strong, there is an opportunity for a would-be No. 2 to turn the tables [...] If [the company] wants to establish a firm foothold on the second rung of the ladder, [it] should study the firm above. Where is it strong? And how does [the company] turn that strength into a weakness?
[The challenger] must discover the essence of the leader and then present the prospect with the opposite. (In other words, it shouldn’t try to be better, but try instead to be different.)
[...] The long-term effects are often the exact opposite of the short-term effects. Does a sale increase a company’s business or decrease it? Obviously, in the short term, a sale (discount) increases business. But there’s more and more evidence to show that Sales decrease business in the long term by educating customers not to buy at “regular” prices.
Aside from the fact that you can buy something for less, what does a sale say to a prospect? It says that [the company's] regular prices are too high. After the sale is over, customers tend to avoid a store with a “on sale” reputation.
(...) the key is to get the whole story into the headline but leave out just enough that people will want to click.