Supporting Local - the one where it costs us more

We're encouraged to support Kiwi made, and to be proud of our Kiwiness. But this week, and added to a story of last year, it seems that we might just be paying through the nose for some of that faith.

Both the examples below, Air New Zealand, and Adidas New Zealand are both under some scrutiny for their pricing models.

I'm probably being a curmudgeon on this, and this is just the natural order of things, by and large no corporate does anything for altruistic purpose. Why give your money away for no reward.

Air NZ claim that "of course your tickets that buy in NZ on NZ's Airline cost more" because "They spend millions on advertising" and that of course has "Downstream" benefits. So basically we pay more to support our local Air Line so they can spend more on adverts, oh and of course they support Rugby - They are a 'global partner' of the All Blacks.

Adidas claimed that "of course the replica jersey costs more in NZ" because "we spend millions in sponsorship of rugby in New Zealand" Which is just like saying compulsory donation from you, benefit to us!

I'd not be surprised if, for example, Fisher and Paykel run a similar model for Netball sponsorship, it's not altruism that'd make them sponsor a sport.

The model where the price is slightly higher, the profits slightly higher, and as a result the company can show a generous largess in supporting a sports team, which should generate more sales which generates more profits, you see where this is going.

With the advent of the interwebtubes it becomes more obvious, and both the examples below are as a result of being able to by online, in real time, for the same goods, or service, and get a different experience. I'm sure they didn't think it through really. Afterall your marketing spend is a local issue, but with a global reach. People shouldn't be disloyal and shop elsewhere but at home, should they?

I don't object to sponsorships, profits, profit margins, sales, or globalisation, but I do object to being treated as a bit of a dumbass by the talking head PR people about these things. They'd sell a lot fewer jerseys though if it came with a tag that said "for every jersey you buy we will recover the cost of sponsorship for your team by $10.00. Never happen. Nor would Air NZ get away with a advertising Surcharge on their tickets of 5% to aid their global marketing initiatives.

#justsaying

Kiwis pay top dollar on Air NZ

Air New Zealand has been left scrambling to explain why Kiwis are charged hundreds - even thousands - of dollars more than British passengers for the same flights.

A customer based in Britain who books online a return economy-class flight from London to Auckland will pay much less than a New Zealand-based traveller who books the same journey in reverse on Air New Zealand's website at the same time.

The price disparity can vary wildly, but a standard round-trip between Auckland and Heathrow via Los Angeles will set a New Zealand-based passenger back $500 more for an economy seat, $1500 more for a SkyCouch upgrade, $2100 more for a premium economy seat and $3000 in business class.

Air New Zealand public affairs manager Tracy Smeaton explained Air New Zealand spent $100 million on promoting the country to foreign tourists - an investment that benefited New Zealanders downstream

Adidas All Black Jersey (Augsut 2011)

Adidas has refused to cut the price of All Blacks jerseys despite a threat from the country's largest retailer to pull the tops from shelves.

An All Blacks replica jersey, manufactured by adidas, is available for $220 in New Zealand retail stores, but listed for sale at $US79.99 ($NZ92.68) on the website worldrugbyshop.com.

Mr Huggett said rugby fans knew they were supporting New Zealand rugby when they bought a replica All Blacks jersey.

Adidas New Zealand manager David Huggett said "We invest millions of dollars in Kiwi rugby from grassroots through to the All Blacks, including a major investment in the state-of-the-art All Black jersey."

People being able to buy jerseys for a cheaper price online was no different to being able to buy cosmetics or other consumer products more cheaply from offshore retailers, he said.

Related articles

• Kiwis pay top dollar on Air NZ (nzherald.co.nz)


• AIG wants logo on All Black jersey, says journalist (radionz.co.nz)

Corporately hijacked

The whole fiasco surrounding the "Abstain" campaign that blew up and blew over the last week, which followed on the from the bizarre pricing of the replica All Black Jersey fiasco, which followed on from the "running of the sheep" idea.

These brought disbelief and stunned mutterings from the masses. This wasn't like the red socks campaign of the America's cup. This was a corporate who came up with an idea and then told us, or begged us, exhorted us to join in and be part of their idea.

It's not that we don't buy into things, but these were rubbish of the first order.

Adidas. They claim on one hand to contribute millions in the coffers of NZ rugby. How do they do this? Well they sell merchandise and from the sale of the merchandise they then can sponsor sport. Chicken and Egg stuff. The thing is to be told that we have to pay more for the replica shirt so that they can sponsor NZ sport kind of sticks in the craw.

What did Adidas do? Well they blustered a bit and then did nothing. They told us how much largesse they have with their sponsorship and that we were free to chose to buy overseas or be loyal and buy local.  We couldn't have cake and eat it. Well Adidas did eat ir in terms of brand damage. They didn't change the shirt pricing, or wholesale price (they might have under anon-disclosure agreement of course, but it's doubtful). So all the clowns that wouldn't pay the $220 that Rebel Sports et al were charging would happily pay the $170 that the shirt price dropped to in protest. Overlooked was the fact that this was $50 of profit that Rebel was dropping, not Adidas. Win for Adidas.

The Abstinence effort. As a parody it might have worked. Telecom are not known for their parody advertising. They are a laughing stock, but they are not a comedic advertiser. The problem was that this wasn't a red-socks campaign, the nation didn't buy into it, Telecom thought it would be great to get the nation to buy into an idea. Bad Idea.

For Telecom in particular this was summed up by Richard Boock in the Sunday Star times this week in his article "Bog off corporate carpetbaggers" wherein he says "Maybe it's just that kiwi rugby fans are fed up at being ambushed by faceless corporations? That they're happy to support the All Blacks but draw a line in being claimed by a brand"... yes indeed we're all individuals.