The challenger brand space had a rare collective voice last week, after The Grocer’s article highlighted unrest over some of WH Smith’s practices, particularly around marketing commitments and compliance.
As someone who has straddled both sides of the challenger brand buying/supplying fence, it was a fascinating, if somewhat depressing, exchange. However, from the supplier side, it wasn’t surprising.
In the circles I inhabit, at least, this was one of the great unspoken topics in our industry – something that surfaced repeatedly in WhatsApp groups and at meet-ups, but rarely in this manner. A single LinkedIn post proved a uniting factor, sparking a number of comments with shared experiences: the curtain was well and truly drawn back.
It was great to see it tackled head-on – if nothing else, it informs founders. It is also not isolated to a single retailer, so I hope it creates more strategic decisions in general.
The ‘pay to play’ model
Contrary to the opinions of some others, I don’t have an issue with ‘pay to play’ within certain areas of the market. For any challenger team, there are choices to be made and narratives to build, especially if a product is relatively ‘me too’. With its key travel locations, WH Smith can prove an attractive shop window.
If the reality is that certain retail models demand more supplier funding to create a wider RTM, then we need to accept it – or someone needs to disrupt it. Clearly, though, that is only if what is paid for is delivered; otherwise it’s wholly unacceptable.
However, the story also reflects a bigger issue.
It is a sad indictment of the ecosystem we have for challengers and startups that, despite it being a widely discussed subject, founders and teams will still push what little resources they have into this kind of route.
They do this as they’re desperate to get the validation investors and major players are asking for. That desperation breeds power imbalances, poor behaviour goes unchallenged, and brands feel unable to speak up.
If we ever needed an illustration of how ridiculously hard we collectively make it for progressive startups in our industry, and why we need better systems to support innovation, this is it.
There are ways this situation can be improved:
First, we need more entrepreneurial voices on the buying side. Startups and founders are central to the industry’s goals, yet key gatekeepers often lack first-hand experience.
Secondly, we need a ‘challenger tsar’ attached to the GCA. That’s not suggesting a code change, but a voice at the top table which isn’t constrained by the same commercial pressures or fears that a brand might face. That presence could help prevent this type of story from ever seeing the light of day again.
Andrew Allen, consultant and entrepreneur-in-residence at Bidfood
No comments yet