If you thought pricing was a sleepy part of your brand-business strategy, time to wake up. Pricing strategy is front-and-center in today’s marketing. Pricing strategy is incredibly, economically impactful. Pricing strategy changes the way customers perceive brand value.

Continuous price hikes, reference pricing, price indifference point are altering customer-perceived trust and value. Add dynamic pricing to this list.

Dynamic pricing, according to its proponents, smooths out demand, which tends to generate more profit. Dynamic pricing helps with margins which are an obsession with brand-businesses. With dynamic pricing, brand-businesses can generate demand during slow periods while easing demand during busy periods.

In March 2024, Wendy’s announced a dynamic pricing scheme. After some commentary on TiK Tok, Wendy’s became the target of an extraordinary backlash. Wendy’s recanted, backtracking on its proposed “demand” pricing. However, dynamic pricing is already embedded in fast food menu boards. We may not notice this, but price changes are subtly affecting our purchases. And, interest in dynamic pricing grows as already in-place technology, as well as AI capabilities, make the ability to strategically shift pricing seamlessly on menu boards, apps and electronic “tags” on grocery items ubiquitous.

With brand-businesses continuously raising prices, dynamic pricing is now a hot topic of consumer interest generating lots of observations in the business press, newspapers and the Senate floor.

Dynamic pricing has been around for a long time. Before Uber’s “surge” pricing, airlines were – and still are – heavy users of dynamic pricing. As are gas stations, utilities and commuter trains and buses. 

Off-Peak and Peak prices vary. If you are planning a trip and book a flight in advance of your start date, you pay a lower price than the person who makes the reservation the day before the flight. If you take a Metro North train from Greenwich CT, to New York City at 10 AM, your ticket price will be lower than if you traveled at rush hour.

Utilities urge customers to do their laundry at night to save money. Utilities also suggest using cold water rather than hot water. At certain restaurants, the price of an item served at lunch and also served at dinner will vary as the lunch price will be lower than the dinner price.

Happy Hour is a form of dynamic pricing as are the Early Bird specials that seniors and families with kids prefer. Taco Bell runs a Happier Hour.

There are many people who believe that dynamic pricing is good for businesses and good for the customer. In an interview on CBC Radio One, a Wharton professor described how dynamic pricing benefits both customers and the brand-business. He said, 

“I think in dynamic pricing … is good for everybody. In theory, dynamic pricing can be good for every firm in every industry.

“As a customer, it’s actually good for you. Think about it. … When firms do dynamic pricing then they have the flexibility to lower the price, too, right? So, it’s not just the raising the price. Which means that for the people who are willing to pay higher prices, they probably get charged at high prices with different services. And, for the people who are not willing to pay a high price, you get access to the goods. I think that ultimately it’s good for everybody and it’s good for the society. 

And, I think that it just takes some getting used to. If you look into the airline industry, for instance, after deregulation, before there was deregulation, the price was fixed. There was a constant, right. But after that, of course, people were very unhappy about the fact that prices vary over time. But, over time, they learned that in fact it was good for them. Simply because if you’re vigilant, if you pay attention to prices, then you can actually get some really low-price tickets.

“(We see dynamic pricing in the) … service industry … definitely, I mean, fast food restaurants …. And, in the grocery stores with electronic price tags …. I cannot see any industry where you cannot do it. In fact, if you look at a car business, when you buy a new car, it has been dynamic pricing for a long time. It’s just that we don’t talk to each other about car purchases and how much price we are paying, right? So, I think that (dynamic pricing) will come to a lot of different places where we would not expect.”

Those economists and marketers in favor of dynamic pricing believe that with fast food, dynamic pricing is an aid to operating at lower costs. Dynamic pricing also provides a competitive advantage because, in general, the store is charging lower prices on average compared to what is currently charged. 

How is this possible? 

At off-peak times, the restaurant must still pay crew members and cover fixed costs. To be profitable, a restaurant must figure out how to recoup those sunk costs.  One way is to raise prices during peak times. The basic principle of dynamic pricing is that offering lower prices during slow hours allows a restaurant to attract more customers. From the restaurant’s standpoint, prices are, on the average, lower even when charging higher prime-time prices because the total restaurant average price is now based on attracting more lower-priced customers.  This is called “smoothing out demand.”

Of course, as Wendy’s learned, and as other marketers should be aware, customers do not care about your pricing strategy.  Customers do not care about smoothing out your demand over the course of a day. Nor do customers care about your sunk costs or your profit. Customers are concerned about affordability, transparency and fairness at any time of day.

Economists also view “costs” as not just money, but money, time and effort. This perspective is very different from customers’ perceptions. Customers faced with a menu board of variable price x time offerings are not thinking about the “costs” of time and effort, such as waiting or navigating a menu board.  However, money, time and effort do mentally affect how customers perceive value, even though customers may not notice at the time. At that moment of purchase, customers only see higher prices at the times when they are most desirous for or able to satisfy their hunger. Consequently, when waiting for a peak-time meal, the frustrated customer probably feels that there should be a discount for the waiting time not a price premium. Furthermore, if the wait-time is long and the meal is just OK, the costs relative to the experience are higher, eroding the customer’s perceived value of the brand.

Look at the situation from the customer’s perspective. If you only have thirty minutes to grab a lunch meal, you are only thinking about that thirty minutes and your lunch meal. Marketers are insensitive if they think that customers say to themselves, “Gee, I don’t mind the higher price because at the end of my day, I can enjoy Happy Hour.” Marketers are misguided if they believe customers are more flexible with lunch or dinner times just because societal trends highlight multiple meals a day at odd hours along with grazing. Most people have a specified lunch time. Even your doctor’s office gives employees an hour mid-day for lunch and the phone message tells you so. 

At the point of purchase, a customer’s mindset is also not focused on the brand’s loyalty program. In fact, the Wendy’s situation shows how shallow are people’s connections to loyalty programs. Brands may see loyalty programs as dynamic “personalized” pricing, but probably customers do not. Customers see their points as rewards for regular, frequent usage. Customers are still going to be miffed at higher prices at peak times because those loyalty points will only stretch so far to cover the increased cost of the meal or snack.

Another issue to contemplate. Dynamic pricing makes sense to marketers. But, restaurants are food deliverers – food that you want when you are hungry. Hunger is a universal need. Customers do not care about dynamic pricing from the standpoint of “smoothing out” demand when they are hungry. Nor do customers see the price differences between off-peak and peak as fair when they are hungry.

When it comes to dynamic pricing and food, a professor at Guelph University in Canada commented on the Wendy’s issue, the potential problems with dynamic pricing, grocery stores and food.

“Well, the reality is with a rideshare we can decide to go with a taxi. We can decide to go with someone, something else. With food, we cannot defer a purchase. We can’t decide not to fly there for a holiday because it’s too expensive. We can’t defer a purchase, so we’re much more sensitive to food price increases.

“So, I think the fact that we can’t defer food purchases, the fact that we are currently in an affordability crisis, the fact that grocers are already receiving negative perceptions, makes dynamic pricing beyond what we’re doing already, a dangerous thing to do. I can’t see the grocers seeing this as a smart initiative.”

It is possible that customers may respond poorly to dynamic food pricing. But, the more important issue is that marketers view dynamic pricing from manufacturer’s perspectives. This is sad since a prime role of the marketer is to be the voice of the customer.

When customers think about dynamic pricing they tend to perceive unfairness, opaqueness and “scam” writ bold. The blowback on dynamic pricing is not a customer flaw. Many in the communications industry see marketers’ poor framing of dynamic pricing. Right now, customers do not see the benefits. What customers do see are brand-businesses thinking about making more money at the customer’s expense. This was certainly the case with Wendy’s.

Sure, it is great to secure a lower airfare, but, it means I need to make decisions months in advance.  Sure, I like the idea of a lower-priced meal, but, that means I have to eat dinner at 4:30 or 5:30 PM. My kids’ after school activities do not finish until then or later.

And, with prices for everything already rising into the stratosphere, any additional price hikes – whatever you wish to call these, are seen as gouging. At Wendy’s, the peak-time price seemed exorbitant while the lower price at off-peak seemed to be the normal price. Wendy’s could have communicated that the peak meal-time price was the great normal price and the off-peak time was a great brand at an even more affordable price. But that did not happen.

It is possible that food needs different terminology and communications if dynamic pricing is to be employed. On the other hand, until prices settle down, customers are going to be extra sensitive when it comes to higher prices. 

Lately, there has been a lot of hand-wringing over the sales of EVs. EVs are not generating as much interest as expected. US automotive giants, except for Tesla, have backtracked on their EV plans, even going so far as to say that hybrids may in their futures, just like Toyota. Mercedes is pulling back, too. This is sad because late last year…Mercedes pledged to build 2500 charging stations in the US.

The Atlantic described the plight of EVs, 

“Without the enormous sales they’d anticipated, carmakers have walked back hasty electrification proclamations and grown cagey about the inevitability of EVs. In December, GM CEO Mary Barra hedged on its goal of selling only EVs by 2035, saying that although the company still plans to meet that target, ‘we’re going to be responsive to where the customer is at.’ In the face of disappointing EV-truck enthusiasm, GM said it would build plug-in-hybrid versions of its top trucks, something the company had dismissed just over a year ago as a half-measure that would ‘dilute’ its mission to electrify. In December, Ford halved the 2024 production goal for its electric F-150 truck. The unease isn’t limited to the big car companies in Detroit. Mercedes pushed back its goal of 50 percent “electrified” sales, which includes hybrids, from 2025 to 2030.”

There are probably many reasons for this situation. Everyone involved in EV analysis has an opinion. For example, an online Harvard Business Review article blames the “technology-adoption life cycle.” This construct, first discussed by Everett Rogers in 1962, focuses on five different technology-adoption segments: innovators; early adopters; early majority; late majority and laggards. According to Mr. Rogers, the “gap” between early adopters and early majority is more like a chasm. This is because early majority people are not interested in being change-makers. Early majority people are more “pragmatic,” looking for improved existing pioneering products.

The online HBR author states that automakers, policymakers and others did not understand that early adopters want and need different things than early majority people. The author says assumptions about the future of EVs could be different if only automakers recognize, “…the differences between what early adopter and early majority individuals want.” 

The writer’s research indicates that early majority individuals want “cars that have been tested by others” and cars “that make my life easier” and environmentally good, along with “ease of charging.” Take this to R&D!

And, so, herein lies the source of the EV-ownership obstacles. 

It is popular to say that marketers should focus on customer wants. Therefore, ask people what they want. Please note, though: asking people what they want is a colossal waste of money, time and effort. People are not good at expressing what they want. 

Asking people what they want is not as powerful as asking people what problems they have. Asking people what they want delivers generic information. Remember the words of Henry Ford: “If I asked people what they wanted, they would have said a better horse.”  Instead, ask people what problems they have getting what they want. People know how to complain. Let people do what they know how to do.

Ask people to complain … to discuss problems… concerns… worries… ask people to kvetch about a specific product or service and you learn that people are not speculating or imagining. They are talking about real problems from actual experience. 

And, the good news is humans love to complain. We are great at complaining. We are engineered to avoid painful, problematic situations. Humans are pain-avoidance mammals. Ask people to complain and you will receive all sorts of usable ideas. Give customers an opportunity to do what they love to do. Often the insightful, competitive edge will come from addressing or solving a problem, rather than just satisfying a want.

If only the automakers and policy makers thought to ask about problems, the forecasting about the immediate future of EVs would look a lot different. Stellantis, the Italian owner of Jeep, Ram and Dodge, just pledged to go ‘all in” with EVs contrary to GM and Ford. However, CEO Carlos Tavares told the press that Stellantis has figured out what US customers want. The reporting in The Wall Street Journal seems to indicate that Mr. Tavares’ optimism is based on manufacturing and cost cutting not solving customer problems.

Problem detection is the best way to identify what bothers individuals. Problem-solution is the best way to develop relevant differentiated brand-business promises. Problem Detection derives from psychological evidence that avoidance of pain – a problem – is a stronger motivator than the attainment of pleasure. Economic literature indicate that people tend to be risk-averse. We tend to pay more to avoid an unpleasant consequence than to attain a pleasant one.

A Problem Detection study begins with extensive problem lists generated by asking customers to complain. Then, respondents are asked to rate the problems on importance and frequency of occurring. The resulting data are analyzed into four groups: 

1. Problems that are very important and occur frequently; 
2. Problems that are very important but happen only occasionally; 
3. Problems that are not important but happen frequently; and 
4. Problems that are neither important nor frequently occurring.

Ask people to tell you their concerns, their problems, their worries. Then, figure out how to solve the most frequently occurring, most important problems.  Problems in this first category should be high priority.

Why are US EV sales stalling? Because the US automakers are not solving potential customers’ problems. The US automakers seem to be guided by a belief that potential EV buyers want the “cool thing” or the “improved cool thing” rather than the real thing, when it comes to EVs.

Perhaps automotive companies are reluctant to conduct their own problem detection studies.  Not to worry. Automakers can check in with J.D. Power. J.D. Power’s last survey of EVs (J.D. Power calls these cars BEVs – battery-operated EVs) point to insights into problematic issues. J.D. Power lists the following:

• Public charging isn’t just bad; it’s getting worse.
• Mass market BEVs deliver higher quality than premium BEVs: quality and reliability problems plague upscale BEVs. Probably due to the numerous installed software and other “premium” attributes.
• First-time BEV owners are less satisfied than BEV veterans: First-timers have high expectations based on the constant hype about the vehicles. First-timers are very concerned about range and the multiple issues with charging. First time owners are much more willing to consider a hybrid vehicle rather than an all-electric vehicle next time they purchase a car.
• The competitive landscape has altered: there are more hybrid options. Tesla is not the only competitor.

Or, you can Google numerous lists of detailed problems with EVs:

Batteries

There is a profusion of battery problems. Battery fires, battery disposal, toxic waste and lithium, which is also an environmental issue. In fact, a lithium “farm” scheduled by National Grid (the electric company) for the tiny Hamlet of Raquette Lake, NY, was cancelled due to residential environmental pushback and concern for the pristine Adirondack Park. Ironically, the EV, which is supposed to be the environmental answer for driving, has serious battery-building and battery-disposal environmental problems. 

More battery problems focus on how the vehicles’ climate controls affect driving range. And, recently, owners in the Northeast and upper Midwest had problems when temperatures sank to new lows: EV batteries do not like and do not function well in the extreme cold. Cold also affects chargers. Residents in Chicago, IL noted issues with chargers as the temperatures dropped.

Range Anxiety

“Anxiety” issues are problematic. Just like your Pixel phone, a battery’s power declines with age. But, low battery anxiety issues are in a sea of other important, frequently occurring problems, including software glitches and factory delays. Range anxiety happens because of problems with batteries and charging. Automotive companies continue to blame customers when it comes to anxiety problems. Automotive companies are not tuned in to the actual source of anxiety: the EVs unsolved mileage problems and charging problems. These unsolved problems are the responsibility of the manufacturer, not the driver.

Not only are there long lines at charging stations, there is extreme complexity as not all vehicles can use the same charger. According to MENAFN, “There are about 30 companies controlling the 61,789 EV charging networks in the US. Each company has its own app. As a result, drivers could end up navigating multiple apps before they’re able to charge their owned or rented EV.” Frustration of this magnitude will lead to range anxiety.

Manufacturers’ heavy focus on “range anxiety” being a customer problem belies the serious problems that potential EV owners have when it comes to owning an EV. Besides, the way manufacturers describe range anxiety makes it seem as if there is a psychological problem with the potential owner, not the vehicle. Manufacturers have spent years putting the blame on the potential owner. Owners and prospective owners have concerns about range that manufacturers must fix. Range anxiety is not a psychological issue. It is an unsolved manufacturer quality issue. Manufacturers do not make friends by publicly stating that their customers have to relax, resolve their unease, apprehensions and angst.

Charging

Charging is an issue. Not just the time it takes to recharge the car, but the availability of places to recharge. For example, last summer, many potential drivers were turned off when AVIS’ lower price Budget rental brand-business, offered only EVs at the Albany, NY (New York State’s Capital) airport. Drivers were fully aware that there were very few charger stations in the area and scarcity in upstate New York. And, At Budget Rent a Car, people actually walked away from the Albany, NY Budget counter last summer rather than accept an EV. 

The public is also aware of the malfunctions at charging stations. When Mercedes pledged to build a US charging station network, Mercedes said it was solving three huge EV problems: …  1) not finding a place to charge the car … 2) being stranded with a dead battery … and 3) “I’m fearful at charging stations in remote areas.” Mercedes solution will place its charging stations in secure… safe locations near luxury malls… not next to dumpsters.

in the US.

You can, as Wall Street Journal reporter Joanna Stern reports, install your own charging system at home. You might consider reading her story about the installation and the cost savings, post-installation investment.

Self-driving

Self-driving is a problem. Some of the press on self-driving is particularly frightening. But, the press reports reality. And, the reality is that potential customers believe self-driving needs lots of improvement before perceived as safe. 

With Tesla sales languishing, Elon Musk sees self-driving as a profit center. As reported in The Wall Street Journal, “U.S. drivers whose vehicles are capable of running FSD will get a one-month free trial in the coming days, Musk said in a post on X late Monday. The system, a $12,000 upgrade of Tesla’s Autopilot technology, includes features that can navigate cars through city streets.”

Pricing

The only truly affordable EV was the Chevy Bolt, a vehicle discontinued after repeated battery fires. One of the serious problems in the EV category is the fact that, aside from Tesla, no manufacturer has figured out how to be profitable creating mass market vehicles. 

Right now, US automakers are protected from China’s BYD’s Seagull. But, American auto executives are “kept up at night” by the prospect that Chinese automotive company, BYD, will somehow manage to make entry into the American car industry. BYD’s Seagull, a small, attractive, quality “EV for the Everyman” is priced at $6968. Right now, per Bloomberg Businessweek, tariffs and the government’s concern that Chinese vehicles will send data from connected vehicles back to China are fortifying the “no entry” to the US. However, if BYD builds a plant in Mexico, using the US-Mexico-Canada agreement, BYD could move vehicles into the US.

According to Sean McLain, a WSJ reporter, in the Tech News Briefing podcast from The Wall Steet Journal, the inability to create mass market vehicles is killing the smaller, EV startups like Lucid, Rivian and Fisker. Lordstown, Polestar and Nikola have already gone bust. 

Mass market vehicles require profitable, high volume manufacturing. Mr. McLain points out that EV startups all focus on creating a high-end luxury car in the $60,000 to $100,000 price range. Without the Chevy Bolt, there is little choice in the mass market EV category.  For example, Mr. McLain indicates that Lucid’s vehicle price starts at $60K but can be as high as $250K.

Additionally, Mr. McLain talks about the problems with Fisker’s Ocean crossover SUV. Fisker just recently indicated that it was probably headed for Chapter 11. The vehicle has a number of problems that must be addressed in order for a new generation of customers take up the EV mantle like the earliest adopters. 

A Texas online magazine wrote:

“According to a report by TechCrunch, Fisker (FSR) Ocean owners have reported a wide variety of problems and issues with the car, such as Ocean’s suddenly losing power and brakes, key fobs that lock them in or out of their cars and front hoods unlatching and flying up at high speeds. 

“In a customer complaint to Fisker, an Ocean owner complained that their SUV experienced a “battery system malfunction” that turned off the car while at a red light. Though the owner was able to restart the vehicle and drive away, the same error popped up again before it started to shake and shut off in the middle of the street which prompted a Fisker employee to state that the owner was ‘scared.’ 

“In another customer complaint, an Ocean owner complained of the same error popping up this time while driving on the infamous 405 freeway in Los Angeles. The owner reported that their car came to a stop on the left lane and partially blocked traffic. The owner got the car to drive again, but lost all confidence in the car; noting that they were “literally shivering” after the incident.

“’I COULD HAVE EASILY LOST MY LIFE,’ the customer wrote to Fisker.’”

Mr. McLain said that Fisker has two other serious problems that affect its viability as an EV competitor. Fisker’s vehicles arrive from a factory in Austria so first, there are long delays with vehicle arrivals. Second, because the Ocean is created overseas, the car does not qualify for the tax credits here in the US.

Which is another pricing problem. There is genuine confusion regarding tax credits. Most buyers find tax breaks perplexing when thinking about an EV purchase and the state and Federal qualifications for tax credits.

Stellantis believes its adaptable platform that can manufacture both gas-powered and EVs will be able to moderate price. However, European models are still priced at about US $25,000. 

A problem-solution-focused approach is the most productive way to identify new development, product/service renovations and innovative marketing opportunities. Asking people to complain is more insightful than asking people what they want. Asking people to rate problems is more productive than asking people to rate benefits.

Asking people what they want will not provide R&D or marketing with productive information. Focus on problem-solution

This is not to say that problem-solution would have completely averted the sliding interest in EVs. However, problem-detection would have alerted the powers-that-be to the fact that there are many obstacles to EV ownership that have never been resolved to customers’ satisfaction, if resolved at all. 

In its deep-dive into GE, Bloomberg Businessweek quotes Larry Culp, GE CEO. In describing the new culture at GE Aerospace. Mr. Culp says, “… a problem-solving culture is far more effective operationally than a finger-pointing culture.” US automakers must take note. Pointing fingers at customers is never an appropriate approach. Focusing on profit alone does not make for a viable future either. Making sure that the products manufactured and delivered are quality products that solve customer problems is a much better way to achieve enduring profitable growth. 

Ever since Amazon purchased Whole Foods in 2017, observers, pundits, analysts, investors and the curious have wondered how Amazon would shake up the grocery business. At the time of the purchase, astute commentators opined that Amazon would treat Whole Foods as a laboratory for new grocery and retail ideas. These commentators were not wrong. Amazon has kept audiences busy with different brick-and-mortar versions of stores that combined the technology of Amazon with the behavioral psychology of retail. Up until now, Amazon-Whole Foods has not generated any innovative brick-and-mortar grocery-retail winners. 

For example, in 2016, pre-Amazon, Whole Foods tried smaller format stores, 365 by Whole Foods Market. Amazon pulled the plug on this concept after purchasing Whole Foods. To be fair, it was several years later that Whole Foods changed the purpose and promise of the 365 brand. But, the idea of an own brand store was not what customers wanted, since you could do better at Costco with Kirkland or your quirky Trader Joe’s. 

Soon after Amazon’s Whole Foods purchase, in a far-ranging interview with The Wall Street Journal, Jeff Wilke, then chief executive of worldwide consumer at Amazon, spoke about the benefits of having Whole Foods in the Amazon tent. Mr. Wilke said, “I hope we’re going to learn about how physical stores work. They (Whole Foods) know a lot about food, produce – supply chains at a very large national scale. We’re going to learn with them how we can efficiently – and in a very high-quality way – deliver groceries to our customers.” 

Since that interview, Amazon added a variety of brick-and-mortar stores to its retailing portfolio. Amazon created bookstores and self-service groceries in New York and Seattle respectively, There were Amazon 4-Star stores in New York (featuring products receiving 4-star ratings) and an Amazon Fresh grocery store in Woodland Hills, California. In 2021, there was press speculation that Amazon might even tackle the department store brick-and-mortar format.

In 2021, in the throes of Covid-19, according to an interview in Financial Times, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy indicated that Amazon was planning to “go big” in grocery. Current formats such as Amazon Fresh and Amazon Go had not been the game-changers that Amazon and observers expected.

Mr. Jassy stated that part of the problem with Amazon Fresh and Amazon Go was that many of the stores opened during the pandemic. But, at the time, some perceptive observers noted that Amazon did not yet truly understand grocery. For example, some said the focus on technological convenience, such as smart shopping carts and ‘just-walkout’ intelligence, led Amazon astray. As Financial Times pointed out, no one says they are going to the grocery store because of the smart shopping carts. Plus, there is a lot of person-to-person in a grocery store. People have questions about a lamb chop, a Cornish hen, a Dover sole or that cantaloupe melon that a smart cart cannot answer. Customers want conversations with the people behind the deli sandwich counter or the person in charge of the wine section.

Finally, now, Amazon’s-Whole Foods’ latest concept for shaking up grocery has a lot of potential that does not rely on a smart shopping cart or fast delivery. It is a concept that has longevity in France, but has not been (successfully?) attempted in the US. Amazon may be starting a new twist with convenience grocery.

Years ago, the French grocery brand-business Monoprix created a brand extension called Daily Monop. A Daily Monop store addressed the problems of: 

• What can I have for dinner that requires no work, is a French meal and is not American fast food? 
• Can I very quickly buy a French meal on my way home from work for two individuals with a glass of wine for each of us, a loaf of fresh bread, French cheese? 
• Can I find a French meal for one that I can pick up at the airport after my flight home arrives? 

Daily Monop offers a modern French meal offered in individual servings… including individual glasses of wine securely wrapped for carrying home. Daily Monop offers gracious, high quality pre-packaged meals fast. As Steve Ells, founder of Chipotle used to say about fast food: “There is nothing wrong with fast. It’s the food.” Daily Monop solves for that.

Daily Monop was enough of a successful format in the early 2000’s that even McDonald’s’ global CMO was intrigued with Daily Monop as a potential customer-perceived rival in McDonald’s competitive set. 

In the same vein, Amazon’s new idea – an Americanized version of Daily Monop – is urban-located, solving for quick-serve-trips, small footprint stores. Bloomberg indicates that these new stores will be called Whole Foods Daily Shop. “The Daily Shop will offer a similar but slimmer assortment of products ranging from fresh produce and frozen food to pre-packaged meals and Whole Foods’ 365 branded products. The locations will not have buffet bars or meat counters.” 

Whole Foods Daily Shop will have cashiers, self-checkout and Amazon One, the brand-business’ palm print payment system. The fact there will be cashiers is a sign that Amazon possibly sees that too much technology can potentially be a detraction from grocery shopping, which has always had human contact as a plus.

Considering that Amazon has been the leader in delivering items fast and same day, it is ironic that the Whole Foods and Amazon executive responsible for growth and development told Bloomberg the following,” The introduction of home delivery has changed customers’ mentality. People want things fast.” This spokesperson indicated that she had been thinking about a Whole Foods smaller footprint, convenience store for well over a decade

Meal convenience has been an American staple since the 1950s when diets were surprised by TV dinners and Pillsbury cake mixes. To overcome the fear that convenience foods might be perceived as the a low quality, easy way out of traditional cooking and baking, Pillsbury let you know that “Nothing says lovin’ like something from the oven.” It helped that kids said, “Thank you, Mom” after the slogan. Brand-businesses have been solving for ways in which to make meals easier ever since. 

In the early 2000’s, a global appliance maker tested a meal convenience concept of an oven (cooker) that could be turned on from your mobile phone. This oven would solve the problem of making dinner when you are running late at the office or due to transporting children to-and-from afternoon activities. You could be at your desk or on bleachers at a baseball field and turn on your oven. In discussions with potential customers, it became apparent that this oven was a really irrelevant concept. Customers indicated that if they were running late, they would not be cooking at all; they would be having take-away meals.

Daily Monop was a solution; the oven was not.

The gist of meals these days is that people are not actually cooking. People tend to choose food assembly. Hence, Blue Apron. Or those grocery packaged salad kits (Dole or Fresh Express) with a salad base, crunchy toppings, possibly cheese and salad dressing.  People are looking to heat and chill food that is brought home or delivered home to be served. 

The New York Times recently reported on Wonder, a new concept by Marc Lore who managed Walmart’s online business for a while after Walmart bought his jet.com business. Wonder is Mr. Lore’s vision for redefining and recalibrating eating at home or in some of the Wonder locations. Again Mr. Lore’s vision reflects the insight of Mr. Ells: it is not about the speed of the meal preparation; it is about the quality of the food. Mr. Lore wants customers to feel that the meal they are eating is high-end restaurant quality.

People continue to look for solutions to their meal occasion problems – think needs-based occasion-driven segmentation. People purchase solutions for food occasions and food portions that change every day, solving for their daily needs. 

If you do not want to cook or follow the recipes or open pre-measured packets and packages of Blue Apron, you will be focused on take-away meals. This continues to be a growing market. 

The solution for mealtimes seems to be food that is ready for me when I want it, where I want it, so that the food meets my daily changing eating requirements. This appears to be what Amazon’s Whole Foods Daily Shop is hoping to address.

Whole Foods Daily Shop, like Daily Monop, is the store as lunch box, bento box, dinner box, food hamper. And, there is hyper-proximity: Whole Foods Daily Shop, like Daily Monop, will be local, focused and nearby; in other words, where you are or will be at this moment. 

Whole Foods Daily Shop will be close. Closeness evokes “personal.” Additionally, Whole Foods Daily Shop will provide two additional benefits: modularity and mobility.

Modularity means food in individual pieces. This is partitioned food; food for sharing; food for saving. Food for now; food for later. Tastes that build on one another. There is a reason a Kit Kat bar is scored for easy partitioning. 

Mobility means food that travels with me. This traveling food is always the right temperature; always the right fit for the moment. 

Whole Foods Daily Shop may be the concept that makes its mark in grocery. Food hamper, hyper-proximity, modularity and mobility: the benefits that make meal-occasion decisions easy. Amazon certainly has the scale and scope to make this concept a reality.

In 1957 there was a TV show called Who Do You Trust?. The host was Johnny Carson, pre-Tonight show icon. Who Do You Trust? was probably the last time that trust was considered comedic.

Trust is now a serious component of brand-business management. Trust it one of those elements that a brand-business needs in order to generate high quality revenue growth. For today’s brand-businesses, Trust is a Must.

For a while, X (formerly Twitter) was in the running to be our least trusted brand. After all, its Trust and Safety department was disbanded before it was decided to try to revive it again. Recent Congressional hearings might have changed X’s position. The least-trustworthy onus seems to have shifted to Meta.  Reports indicate that Meta knew of child safety and did nothing. Of course, this has not stopped Meta’s user longevity and growth.

However, in its continuing downward spiral into the trust dustbin, Boeing has probably reclaimed the “least trustworthy brand-business” mantle that it acquired in 2018 and 2019 with the crashes of two Boeing 737 Max planes. 

There are multiple issues in Boeing’s saga of sagging trustworthiness, such as hundreds of deaths – and near deaths – associated with Boeing products. A Bloomberg BusinessWeek report from January 2024 details the problems plaguing Boeing. These problems range from “… sourcing, assembly and quality control protocols.” There is also the shift from Boeing’s “engineering-first, pilot-focused, safety-centric” ethos to the financial-engineering-shenanigans focus that affected the brand-business and determined its move away from Renton, Washington (where its factories sit) to Chicago, Illinois. That was also several CEO’s ago.

Bloomberg BusinessWeek stated, “Over the years, Boeing turned to leaders out of the mold of legendary General Electric Co. CEO Jack Welch, and the financial targets and metrics this crop of executives put in place tore away many of Boeing’s traditional practices. Current CEO, (Dave) Calhoun previously worked at GE, before spending half a decade at investment firm Blackstone Inc.” One industry leader told Bloomberg that Boeing “lost its DNA,” when the brand-business “…went to the mode of optimizing financially.” 

This recent macro loss of trust is because of the recent Alaska Airlines door blowout. And, because of revelations regarding safety lapses along with perhaps less than genuine mea culpas by those in executive positions. Also, reports indicate that however sincere the Board of Directors, there appears to be a disconnect between the boardroom and the manufacturing floor. Further, Boeing seemingly prefers the GE financial focus with no brand-business focus. 

But, there is more.

Two professors from Yale addressed Boeing’s trustworthiness in their article, How Boeing Can Restore Trust, (Fortune, January 2024). After pointing out the safety issues and the unsavory relationship with Boeing’s supplier Spirit AeroSystems, the authors focus on public trust. 

The authors believe that Boeing’s CEO will find it increasingly difficult to control the narrative while the FAA ramps up its investigation and oversight. Additionally, and this is key, Boeing will need to focus on “fortifying public trust” which will require a strategic shift away from the short-term financial interests of investors and analysts. Boeing will need to publicly shoulder accountability rather than “hiding behind bureaucratic processes of delegating bad news to subordinates.” (Boeing recently said it was overhauling its quality control processes.) Analysts indicate that Boeing must be very careful when focusing on financial engineering while “maintaining a public discussion around safety.”

Having the executive in charge of the 737 Max factory resign may be just shuffling the deck chairs. Creating a new position overseeing quality control at Boeing’s commercial airplanes unit reinforces the unfortunate surprise that this position did not already exist. Boeing is now saying that leadership changes (a reorganization) will contribute to Boeing’s “enhanced focus on ensuring that every airplane we deliver meets or exceeds all quality and safety requirements. Our customers demand, and deserve, nothing less.”

Boeing must start now to resuscitate trust.

Trust takes time to build but can disappear overnight. Trust cannot be bought. Trust must be earned.  Even though we live in an instant culture, trust cannot be earned instantly.  Trust accumulates; slowly, very slowly.  Trust is durable and it is also fragile.  Trust is lasting but when damaged, the bond can break quickly.  

There are actions that brand-businesses must take in order to restore, grow, nurture and maintain trust. Deloitte, the global services group, articulated four in a recent article on Trust. However, Deloitte’s four actions are more appropriate for managing trust that is already established. 

But, what does a brand-business such as Boeing do to regain, build and manage trust? Here are six actions for immediate implementation.

1. Demonstrate Don’t Remonstrate

Trust must be demonstrated, before it can be claimed. To deserve trust, demonstrate trust.  To be trusted, a brand-business must first be worthy of trust. 

Saying, “trust me” does not track today.  “Trust me” went out with Richard Nixon’s “Trust me, I’m not a crook” speech. Trust is the growing conviction that a brand will live up to expectations.  Do not over promise.  Promise what you can deliver; deliver what you promise.  Live up to expectations consistently.  Create a positive pattern of predictable behavior.

According to the Yale professors, Boeing could demonstrate trust by “changing governance and internal quality control processes.” Making these changes would demonstrate the importance of safety within the organization. Boeing should immediately fix its supply chain which includes Spirit AeroSystems. (NB: As of this writing, Boeing is “in talks” to re-purchase Spirit AeroSystems. However, Spirit AeroSystems’ quality control and internal quality mind-set are in serious disrepair. Boeing also appears to have a broken quality mind-set. The talk of buying back Spirit AeroSystems may exacerbate Boeing’s work on quality control and mindset.)

2. Lead The Debate, Do Not Hide From It

Do not stay silent as Boeing did in 2018 and 2019. Silence means agreement. But, do not be defensive. If Boeing wishes to be taken seriously, being defensive is the wrong approach. When you are silent or when you hide, it allows others to create the truths about you. It allows others to recast your profile.  It is not in your best interests to let outside trustbusters trample on your brand truths.

Trust leadership is more than just standing out.  Trust leadership requires speaking out.  A brand-business must speak up for itself if it wants to stand out as a beacon of trust. Apologizing is nice. But, too much apologizing tends to crush credibility.

Staying silent cedes control of events to the media, losing the leadership position. Silence puts brand-businesses in the position of having to reply, respond, react to the claims of others. Leaders must take the lead. With the proliferation of media channels all vying to capture our attention, it is imperative to take command and take a stand. The Yale professors already see a loss of the narrative to the media and the public and the government. Is the 737 Max brand a damaged brand? Yes. To rebuild trust, one thing is certain, silence is not an option. 

However, speaking without thinking is inadvisable as well. Quoted in The Wall Street Journal, CEO Calhoun responded to a question regarding Boeing’s financial engineering that spun off Spirit AeroSystems (outsourcing Boeing’s quality). Mr. Calhoun said, “Did it go too far? Yeah, it probably did. But, now it’s here-and-now. And, now, I’ve got to fix it.” Rather sobering statement when you think about the fact that fixing the problems are why Mr. Calhoun gets paid the big bucks. When Spirit AeroSystems’ pieces arrive at Boeing, there are quality problems that Boeing engineers allow to pass through the production line.

3. Openness Is An Opportunity

The Yale article quotes Justice Louis Brandeis who said, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Transparency is key. One trust study stated that, “without openness, trust is blind.”

Transparency requires truth.  But, do not confuse truth and trust.  Truth is a fact. Trust is a feeling.  Brand-businesses need both truth and trust in order to build trustworthiness.  People trust their eyes more than their ears.  So, to be worthy of trust, people need to see the truth, not just read about it. Relying on the facts is only part of the story. Restoring faith is the other part. Mr. Calhoun’s statements can be construed as amorphous. 

4. The CEO Must Be The CTO, Chief Trust Officer.

The CEO cannot delegate the leadership necessary for building trustworthiness. It is a CEO responsibility. The CEO is the Chief Trust Officer. Chief Trust Officer is a fundamental, ongoing, leadership responsibility. Trust building begins at the top.

The role of Chief Trust Officer is more than a title. CTO is an indispensable role. Trust building is a task of major cultural and financial significance inside and outside the organization. Studies show that increased trust is a critical factor leading to increased preference and loyalty, generating high quality revenue growth. CEO Calhoun’s reply, “Yeah. And now I have to fix it,” sends a message of a reluctance to take accountability for a problem caused by a predecessor.

5. Build Leadership, Credibility, Integrity and Responsibility

Leadership must be demonstrated, not merely claimed. The brand-business must be a thought leader. Is your brand-business perceived to be innovative? And, are you growing in size? 

Credibility means statements and actions are plausible. Be dependable. Be capable, competent and an expert. Provide superior complaint resolution. Be a trustworthy source of information. 

Integrity means having customers’ interests at heart. Refrain from taking unfair advantage. Be accountable for actions. Behave ethically. 

Responsibility provides competitive advantage. Demonstrate good global corporate citizenship. Corporate Social Responsibility is not a separate division within the organization. It is a way of doing business. Some companies are making it a core of their operations. Safety is a responsibility.

6. Create A Trust Agenda

Produce the right results by doing the right things in the right way.  In order to generate trustworthiness, every CEO must have a corporate strategic platform based on a Trust Agenda. Trust Agendas address issues such as: 

• How will we build trust across our geographies, our brands, our people, our shareholders, our franchisees, our partners, our suppliers and our local communities? 
• How do we embed trustworthiness into all functions of the organization?
• How will we build trust chains throughout all of our relationships, internal and external? 
• How will we manage for the long-term and the short-term? Brand-building and trust-building are long-term and ongoing.
• How will we integrate corporate responsibility into all of our decision-making? 
• Are we a positive corporate citizen? 
• How sustainable are our actions? A Trust Agenda will ensure that a sustainability opportunity is on the front burner. This means meeting the needs of customers, communities and businesses without compromising the needs of future generations. 

Having a Trust Agenda allows an organization to be a steady force for good while not standing still. But, the Trust Agenda must be implemented.

At the moment, Boeing is in a purgatory of its own making. Not only is its quality in question, Boeing is “responsible for some of the worst aircraft safety and design failures in recent aviation history,” according to Bloomberg. Boeing agreed to avoid prosecution and anted up $2.5 billion to the Department of Justice. And, now, Boeing is under investigation by the FAA, with congressional scrutiny as well as painful media coverage. A group of Alaska Airlines flight 1282 passengers are suing Boeing for $1 billion.

The FAA’s recent report (February 26, 2024), is terrifying. The report states that there is a disconnect between senior management and others at Boeing relative to safety. Fifty-three (53) recommendations are provided. According to The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, Boeing is “falling short” when it comes to human factors in engineering such as focusing on how pilots interact with the equipment and including pilot input in design or other high level decisions. The New York Times also wrote that the FAA panel responsible for the report found that Boeing’s response has been, “…inadequate and confusing in the way in which it has administered its safety culture.”

Mr. Calhoun’s response to the FAA panel’s report is bewildering. There is clearly a crisis at Boeing. That crisis is trouncing trust. The New York Times quotes Mr. Calhoun, “We will go slow; we will not rush the system, and we will take our time to do it right.” When doors are falling off and planes have crashed, it seems that slow and steady might not be the best strategy. 

Do not forget Boeing’s airline-buying customers, either. The Portland’s Oregonian wrote, “The CEOs of Alaska Airlines and United Airlines — the two U.S. carriers affected by the Max 9 grounding — expressed outrage and frustration with the company. Asking what Boeing intends to do about improving the quality of its manufacturing, CEO Calhoun said, “We caused the problem and we understand that. We understand why they are angry and we will work to earn their confidence.’”

Boeing has another constituency: defense. As aerospace management consultant and analyst Richard Aboulafia said on Bloomberg’s podcast Odd Lots, “There has been a shocking absence of talk about the safety of Boeing’s defense products.” Mr. Aboulafia wondered out loud on the podcast why the government or hedge funds or someone or some organization has not said something about defense safety.

Quality and safety come first. But, at the same time, Boeing needs to get on the trust train before it is too late. Building trust takes time. But, without trust, there will be no customer-perceived value. And, without customer-perceived value, there is no brand-business value. And, with no brand-business value, a sale of Boeing or its parts or a spin-off will probably not attract great sums of cash for those involved in the selling or spinning.