Robin Hood Marketers

Analyze this:

H&S: 7.5 ml – Rs. 3; 100 ml – Rs. 69
Surf Excel: 20 g - Rs 2; 1000g - Rs. 150
Aquafina: 1000ml - Rs. 13; 750 ml - Rs 20

This pricing scheme beats all convention; after all it does not require a MBA degree to know that as the SKU size increases, the cost per unit decreases; essentially because the fixed costs are spread over a larger quantity. Mind you, these are exactly the same products in each case and apart from packaging, everything is same. The question then that comes up is do these bigger packages cost more than the product itself?

The only explanation is that the bigger package encapsulates the Robin Hood strategy that is increasingly becoming a norm in FMCG, minus the Samaritan motive. In a desperate attempt to increase the reach and to cater to CKP's bottom of the pyramid, marketers are deliberately pricing products with such an unjustifiable difference; ignoring the ethical need for being consistent towards the consumer. After all, a Rupee from a SEC A consumer is as good in the balance sheet as a Rupee from a class C consumer.

Some marketers might try to argue that huge advertising costs are being apportioned to only the bigger SKUs, which in turn increase their cost. This is a faulty premise from the start. It is only proper that advertising costs are divided brand-wise and not SKU-wise.
Does advertising not impact the sales of smaller SKUs?

Of course, marketers are free to price their products as deemed. Many indeed choose to exercise this option and get as much from the consumer as possible through rampant pricing. This is the marketer’s choice in a free market economy. However, a biased pricing scheme as above, with glaring and unjustifiable inconsistencies is akin to deliberate cheating. After all, one doesn’t pay only half for a movie that is only 1.5 hours long.