Let  me guess. If you are an office-goer, you have spent the lunch hour and a few more minutes discussing "Kaun Banega Crorepati". And if you are a homemaker, you are waiting for your spouse to arrive to exchange views, till it is 9 PM. And what has all this excitement done to the TV progammes? Rival channels are rescheduling in whole scale to escape a prime time face-off with Big B, and finding their own version to pay unbelievable amounts for remembering your name. But what has it done to Star Plus, the original peddler? Seems, the advertisers are lining up to pay ten times of what they were paying, just a few days back. But that is the price for getting a larger share of your mind!

This paper attempts to highlight how the winner of the battle for a share of mind eventually wins the marketing war, irrespective of anything else. Similarly, the services, products and technologies that ignore this basic gospel would eventually lose out, irrespective of obvious superiority.

To give a focus to the entire discussion we will concentrate only on Building Materials. More specifically, we will be discussing the class of cost effective and environment friendly (CEEF) products and technologies, also called, Sustainable Building Technologies (SBTs).

SBTs – Some facts
SBTs are somewhat erroneously referred to as the "emerging trends". But many of the products like Concrete Blocks, Ferrocement Channels, Flyash Bricks, etc. are not recent development. Yet, they are called "emerging", mainly because the construction practices are very conservative (an understatement!), and these products have remained in the fringes and have not yet managed to "emerge" as the mainstream products.

Before we examine this deeply, let me quote some facts to put in place the "features" of some these products. According to an extensive study conducted in Andhra Pradesh by a team of experts from ODA (now DFID, British High Commission), SBTs were found to be more cost effective than the conventional products. In addition, they were found to be less energy intensive.

Note that "product features" are very different from the "perceived benefits to the customers".

Perception – The Mind Game
Brick and cement, each sell about Rs. 18,000 crore worth every year, in India. Logically speaking SBTs, that are supplementary and complementary products in the same market, with superior features, should have a comparable market size. But the numbers indicate otherwise. As Tweedledee said in Through the Looking Glass, "If it was so, it might be; if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic".

The power of market and marketing is becoming increasingly apparent to even the "product driven" organisations which in the past believed, that "better products sell more". But as Al Ries and Jack Trout said, "Marketing is a battle of perceptions, not products". To quote the gurus more extensively, "Many people think marketing is a battle of products… They analyze the situation to make sure that truth is on their side. Then they sail confidently into the marketing arena, secure in the knowledge that they have the best product and that ultimately the best product will win… It’s an illusion. There is no objective reality. There are no facts. There are no best products. All that exists in the world of marketing are perceptions in the minds of the customer of prospect. The perception is the reality. Everything else is an illusion." (From The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing)

Let us probe how SBTs are losing ground in this battle of mind.

Some Unfavourable Perceptions
HOLTEC Consulting has been working with various SBTs for the last five years. The common thread, running across various assignments, has been regarding the formulation and implementation of strategies to create a sustainable market for SBTs. During the workshops, field visits, and individual interactions the consultants have come across some strong biases against SBTs, that need to be battled before a sustainable market can be created.

Please note that the settings for most of these interactions have been rural and semi-urban, all over India. Due to historical and practical reasons little effort has been put in towards the market creation of SBTs in the urban areas. Most importantly, the land prices in urban areas are so high that the relative cost advantage of SBTs are quite negligible. Furthermore, the builders, who dominate this market charge a hefty premium over the cost, and would not like to take chances with "emerging" products, as they are not so sure about the reaction of their potential customers. Also, most of the government organisations like CPWD, state PWDs and Regional Development Authorities have not put these products in their approved list, making it impossible to get SBTs included in the specifications, or in the constructions.

Perception #1: SBTs are for the poor
Building one’s own house is one of greatest ambitions in India, especially since one needs to invest an equivalent income of 5 years or more. The aspiration is that the "Dream House", probably the only one in a life time, should be as close to the best house seen in the city or the neighbourhood. SBTs have mostly been used in the government-aided houses for economically weaker section of the society, giving it an image of "cheaper material for poor". Therefore, even after being aware of the benefits, no one would like to give an impression that the owner could not afford a house made of "better" material.

Perception#2: Only if the government pays for it
This is another fallout of the government intervention. Many villagers have the first hand experience of cost-effective houses made of SBT. These houses have been built under different government sponsored schemes like the Indira Awas, Yojna. However, while investing ones own money for housing, the villagers appear somewhat sullen, and what is left unsaid but conveyed is, "If government is not paying for my house, why should I use the material they promote?"! So, depending upon the money available one would rather make a conventional kutcha or pucca house. In an extreme case we found that an individual who had a subsidised pucca house made of SBT products, was using conventional products for expansion of a part of the house.

Perception#3: "Emerging" but unproved product
One of the largest selling SBTs are the concrete blocks. The largest application of concrete blocks when privately bought, is for boundary walls. It seems one could take risk with the boundary walls but not with the actual building. So, any experimentation or cost saving is allowed only that far. The construction practices are the slowest to change. It is more so at the individual level, where all the products that are not time-tested over generations are suspect, and are generally avoided.

Perception#4: Not suitable for us 
While visiting the hot and arid tribal belt of Orissa we found that the locals preferred conventional mud houses to the pucca houses built by the government. The SBTs, quite thoughtlessly promoted in that area, were bad insulators, when compared to mud houses. While, all the SBTs were getting a bad publicity, some of them (viz. rap-trap brick masonry or filler slabs) are proven insulators. It seemed an indifferent "big brother" was trying to push products unmindful of market sentiments.

Perception#5: Are they cost effective?
Another good example of disregarding market sentiments came to light when we interacted with a Building Centre, that was trying to promote concrete blocks. Their success rate was abysmal. On visiting the Building Centre, we found its own buildings were made of laterite rock. The reason was not difficult to find. Laterite rocks were abundantly available in the area, and were much more cost-effective than the concrete blocks. Obviously, there weren’t enough fools around.

Perception #6: Unsafe
Surprisingly, many in the backward regions feel terribly uncomfortable staying in pucca houses made of SBTs, after staying in the mud houses for generations. Many ladies of the household feared that the roof would collapse, and crush the entire household. So, while they had subsidised pucca houses, they used then as storage spaces, and stayed in traditional mud houses. While the similarity with Chief Vitalstatistix (the Asterix comics character) was striking, it was a grave issue for any serious marketer.

Perception #7: Unmindful of local sentiment
Most of the SBTs have been designed and developed centrally, and have not been adapted to the local needs. For example, we met an individual who was keen to use RCC planks and joists for his house. But as per the "Vaastu Shastra" (the traditional Indian architecture) he wanted 15 feet long planks. The local supplier had the approved design and mould for only up to 12 feet long planks, and was not sure whether it was possible to make them 15 feet long. Many such missed opportunities can be attributed to lack of adequate knowledge transfer and decentralisation.

Quite clearly, the marketers of SBTs have not accepted the adage "customer is the king". And the results show.

But not the Last Words
There is an urgent need to formulate a cogent strategy to fight for a positive image and association for SBTs. Fortunately, there is a gradual acceptance of the superiority of the "invisible hands of the market" over the visible hands of a government or a centralised perpetrator. The key ingredients for success in the market, i.e. product quality, quality of service, and flexibility and innovation would come much faster due to pressure from market forces, rather than just from stand-alone training and capacity building programmes. The success of some of the dedicated entrepreneurs leaves us in no doubt about the potential of SBTs, and the approach one must take. q

The author is an executive with 
HOLTEC Consulting Pvt. Ltd.
Email : ray@holtecnet.com

Non-renewable energy -    petrol, diesel, minerals, coat, etc.
Renewable energy      -    wood, etc.
Waste                       -    rice husk, etc.

*  The conventional practices under each system has been shown in bold
*  For basic data of energy calculation, refer "Home and family" table 1. Building Material and
   Technology Promotion Council, October 1994.
*  For basic data of cost, refer standard schedule for rates, 1995-96 Panchayati Raj Engineering
   Department, Andhra Pradesh.

Source : ODA Vidyalayam Report, 1996