The rise and fall of Tupperware and Avon
Dr. Arry Tanusondjaja, senior marketing scientist at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, marks the rise and fall of the once-popular Tupperware and Avon brands, which relied on local entrepreneurs, neighbourhood parties, and door-to-door sales.
When Tupperware filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September 2024, there was a lot of shock and disbelief that a brand that is so familiar could fall that far.
After all, this was a brand that grew through circles of neighbourhood parties all over the world, where brand enthusiasts share their excitement to their friends and families through show-and-tell product demonstrations. After nearly 90 years, the brand had to cease trading.
Perhaps not many people also remember the downfall of Avon that also grew their brand of cosmetics through door-to-door visits for much of their growth strategy since 1886. They also filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August 2024.
A parallel can be found in recent years, where some brands opt to divert their budget away from larger scale advertising into social media influencers who host their show-and-tell product demonstrations. The belief is that consumers will follow the purchase behaviours of those they trust – which will then eventually grow their brand.
There’s a romantic view within business circles that if their products are good, they would sell themselves, without needing much widespread marketing support and traditional distribution. The role of the brand is also often misunderstood to be something alluring and desirable, that it would compel buyers to chase the brand against any competitors. Some marketing professionals believe that some brands possess the superpower to command price and elicit deep affinity from their buyers.
This is the contrary to the discovery and the evidence presented in the ‘Laws of Growth’ framework, as introduced by the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute. Through decades of research across brands, product categories, and countries, we find the importance of having the brand being mentally and physically available for potential buyers. ‘Mental availability’ is the ease of retrieving the brand in mind at purchase occasions, whereas ‘physical availability’ is the ease of finding the brand in the shopping environment where we are ready to make a purchase.
Let’s consider if you require a plastic container or if you run out of a skincare product. If you wanted to purchase a Tupperware container, you would’ve needed to contact your contact person so they could order on your behalf. You probably have many unbranded Tupperware-dupes in your pantry that are far easier to find and buy. The same for an Avon skincare. As much as consumers respect the brand, when the need dictates, it’s probably far easier to drive to the nearest department store, where something as good could be purchased in a matter of minutes — or ordering items online, without having to rely on any intermediary.
Tupperware and Avon’s downfall is due to the reliance that buyers would be loyal to the brand — and despite the lack of physical availability, buyers would be willing to jump through hoops to stay loyal. It has less to do with having affinity, respect, or attitudinal loyalty to the brand.
From extensive research at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, we know that buyers are more likely to be polygamously loyal to the set of brands they purchase. If there are any readily available brands that are as good, buyers would happily purchase them instead. Because of this, it is then vitally important for businesses to continue advertising their brands and products as consumers do need constant nudging and reminding — after all, there are many more important things to remember other than thinking about brands all the time.
The advertising activities also need to be wide-reaching, as they should not just reach the selected circles, but anybody who would need the product category.
Growing mental availability is only half of the story — as businesses also need to consider growing their physical availability of their brands. This includes having products through channels where consumers expect to find the product categories.
Similar to brand repertoire, consumers also value the freedom of buying the brand through any available channels without being locked to attending neighbourhood parties or waiting for the next door-to-door visits.
The demise of Tupperware and Avon unfortunately serve as examples that even for brands that we know and admire, failure is a strong possibility when we neglect the brand’s physical availability and mental availability.
Keep up to date with the latest in media and marketing
Or better known as confirmation bias
Whenever we ask EBi about brands that grow without advertising (Aesop Carmen’s Muskie liquid death oatly and so on) we get told ‘it’s just luck! When then die wouldn’t it be ‘just bad luck’
EBi you’re at risk of looking silly with articles such as these
User ID not verified.
Sold avon and tupperware for over 50 years….and quality is there….but their marketing share expansion into produits belonging to other dimensions…i learned to be well off stay eith what you appreciate and spécialisé in what you believe….quality wins over quantity in all dimensions in all marketing and usé less non chemical produits to préserve natural human qualities.
User ID not verified.