How Airport TSA Rules Affect Brand Loyalty

Posted on November 18, 2007
Filed Under Economy, Travel | Leave a Comment

For those who may not have attempted airline travel recently, this has to do with the ever-changing rules foisted on travelers by the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). Specifically the requirements regarding personal care items that may not be included in carry-on luggage.

As of this writing you can’t bring aboard any liquids, gels or aerosols in containers larger than 3 oz. Furthermore, all these type items must be inside a single 1 qt. Ziploc bag. They cleverly call this the 3-1-1 rule.

airpost security Now as a frequent traveler, I learned years ago to never check luggage, so along with millions of others, I’m affected by these security rules. That means having to find replacements for most toiletries. Some items you can pour into smaller containers, but that doesn’t really work so good for things like toothpaste, deodorant, or shaving foam.

So after perusing the travel-sized products section in the local stores, I found some that were acceptable substitutes, even though not my brand in all cases.

One of the really annoying things, (besides having to jack with doing this in the first place), is that the small sizes have to be replaced often, and the relative cost is ridiculous compared to larger economy sizes.

One day while re-stocking my supply of these travel-sized items, I was thinking how I’d actually come to like the new brand of deodorant I’d been forced to try, so decided to look for a larger size that was still under the 3 oz. limit.

Eureka! I found a 2.25oz. version useable at home and for travel, doing away with the need to buy any more of the little 0.5oz. sizes I’d been using. Interestingly, the reason I’d gone for the travel sized alternative in the first place was because the smallest size my brand came in was 3.25oz. making it a non-starter.

And that’s how it happened. I ended up changing from a brand I’d used for longer than I can remember, to another, solely because the TSA effectively forced me to find an alternative product. In the end, I liked that product enough to switch completely.

Because I find it hard to imagine I’m a unique case, I’ve got to wonder how often this happens, and what’s the effect on the bottom line for these companies. I know that one of the biggest challenges facing any brand is building loyalty, and millions of dollars are spent doing it.

Based on my observation of the relatively few products available in travel sizes, it seems like a mostly untapped entre’ for some astute companies to lure people to their brand, and away from their competitors.

I don’t know that I’m especially brand loyal, but do tend to stay with things that work for me, as long as they remain competitively priced, and I can find them. My guess is that predominantly, most folks are the same way.

Think about it for a minute. When was the last time you changed to a different brand, and what caused you to do it? More often than not for me, it’s lack of availability. If I can’t find what I want, or the store I’m at quit stocking it, I’m forced to find a replacement.

Now if it’s something I’m really attached to, I may try and find it elsewhere, but usually I’ll just be lazy, follow the path of least resistance, and find a substitute. As an interesting aside, if I find the thing at another store, I may actually change where I shop.

I’m virtually certain, the marketing arms of major companies know this, so I’ve got to assume that most of the players have simply missed this opportunity as a fairly cheap way of building their brand. By paying attention to what customers need, a handful are doing a great job of exploiting it for themselves.

I wonder if the others will catch on.

Buzz Up Digg Mixx Twitter

Email Print