The tyranny of third party

AR
AR
Nov 5 · 3 min read

In this day and age of zero tolerance consumer, where years of loyalty can be washed away with one single bad experience, or worse, experience can go viral damaging the reputation, most of the brands have upped the ante when it comes to product or service delivery.

It is of course easier for most of the brands given that manufacturing/service delivery is under direct control of the company, but what about the brands that rely on third parties for the delivery of the product?

There are multiple products that need third parties for the product installation and product experience is drastically affected by the quality of the installation. For example, pipes, sanitaryware, automotive accessories, adhesives, Plastic tanks, certain electrical equipment, etc.

These brands also rely on intermediaries for their sales, much like pharma companies relying on doctors.

At the same time, intermediaries are the weakest link in the chain, given most of them are not professionally trained, not highly educated and not living by principles that the brands are.

This love-hate relationship is complex. The product delivery is highly dependent on the intermediaries, at the same time, so is sales. Is there a space for brands to find a balance, specially given that the brands take a hit for incorrect/inefficient product delivery?

Some brands have tried to overcome the problem using the unfortunate route of separating the two, and highlighting the product and belittling the intermediaries.

One such fateful attempt that comes to mind is Sintex Plastic tanks. Their idea was simple. If you don’t use Sintex, you’ll forever be stuck with plumber.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9Gfs3_L37k

While the response was lukewarm, this illustrates the difficulty of communicating in an environment of codependency.

The question here is this: How can brands detach from the product delivery without alienating the community that is responsible for the delivery?

No brand has successfully tried it so far. Some brands have accepted that it isn’t possible, hence have attempted to improve training and skills so as to improve the product delivery.

A few brands have been training plumbers to improve both product delivery and Goodwill with the plumber community. Another brand has tied up with government institute for training of the intermediaries.

But none of this prevents bad delivery.

For people working on lumpsum compensation, time is money. For some paying by the day, time is money. For someone working on multiple projects with simultaneous timeline, time is money. These factors often contribute to bad product delivery despite requisite skills. And there’s no disincentive for the intermediaries because by the time problems crop up, they’re a distant memory to the consumers.

The brands cannot possibly ensure the correct delivery, at the same time there’s no regulatory or legal framework holding the intermediaries responsible for bad installation/delivery.

In absence of any disincentive and the brands biting their lip and incentivising to ensure sales, brands are trapped in the third party tyranny.

Is it the time for the brands to ensure product delivery is adequate even at the cost of the ire of the people they’re dependant on, for sales?

Of many ways, they can do that by recommending the intermediaries themselves or by nudging consumer to ensure only skilled and train intermediaries get their hands on their product.

It maybe challenging but if we are to do justice to both brands and consumers, the brands will have to take a bold step. Else, as we have seen, it doesn’t take a lot for OYO, the next big disruption to become OYO, my last ruined vacation.

    AR

    Written by

    AR

    Advertising Man | Politically incorrect