Posts filed under 'marketing'
Why context matters more than ever
J Walker Smith and David Bersoff write:
We’ve just had a piece published in Admap where we argue that the challenge of context is the biggest challenge facing marketing – and until it’s addressed, everything else is a waste of time. Research at Columbia University illustrates why. In a web-based experiment respondents were asked to listen to and rate unknown songs by unknown bands, then given the opportunity to download as many as they liked. One group of respondents made download choices independently. The other group of respondents made download choices after first being told, in different ways, choices made by previous respondents. The influence of others turned out to be far more important than the individual’s own opinions.
The implications? As the Columbia team noted in their summary, most studies “view the individual as the relevant unit of analysis”. But “when individual decisions are subject to social influence, markets do not simply aggregate pre-existing individual preferences”. In other words, when context is missing, the research results are wrong. Both marketing, and marketing research, will have to change to keep up.
Fragmenting technologies, and fragmented markets, have disaggregated the audience for marketing, and the mass market has splintered. But we’re still using models that were developed when mass media was dominant. Now that people are ever more deeply embedded in narrowly drawn networks of information and influences, contextual reference points play a bigger role in moulding choices. People are surrounding themselves with input they have chosen. The result: people get more of exactly what they want, but are closed off to other ideas.
What this changes for marketers is that they must actively manage both ads and the context for ads, and managing context becomes a primary consideration, not a secondary one. In turn, this calls for an attribution-based marketing model, not to displace persuasion, but to nest it in the bigger picture, like Russian dolls inside one another. Attribution works by shifting how people think of themselves, rather than how people think of brands.
Attribution-based marketing aims to make people attend to alternative aspects of themselves. When people see themselves in new ways, they adopt new reference points for calibrating their opinions, and then behave in ways consistent with their new sense of self. Persuasion must still get the brand message right; attribution sets the context within which a brand message can succeed. The implication for research is that it needs to understand its users’ reference points as well as their opinions. It doesn’t do this well at the moment. It’s a big challenge, and also a huge opportunity.
Add comment 21 July 2010
The limits to ethical business
Eloise Keightley writes:
Consumers may claim they want ethical brands – but what do they really mean? American evidence suggests that a desire to be ethical does not necessarily correlate with a propensity to buy ethical: Brandweek has reported a survey that found that even among consumers who called themselves “environmentally conscious”, more than half could not name a single green brand. A study at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management found that while people were likely to buy energy efficient light bulbs from the shops, they tended to opt for less efficient traditional bulbs when shopping online – and this attitude extends to white goods, electronics and domestic cleaning products. There is a classic disconnect here between stated attitudes and actual knowledge or behaviour.
This is partly because of the nebulous way in which “ethicalness” is measured, from the consumer’s point of view. For instance, whilst a vague sense of altruism may drive consumers to make choices they deem ethical, it’s unlikely that the majority fully understand what ethical trademarks denote. There is a recognition that Fair Trade, for example, equates with some sort of ethical standard but consumers often cannot define what that standard is. Consumers also find it hard to distinguish between ethical trademarks and can confuse their policies.
In any case, ethical innovation has historically proven to have a limited shelf life – due as much to legislative progress as shifting consumer values. Only a few years ago, cosmetic brands in particular were falling over themselves to tell consumers that their products were developed without the need for animal testing. These days, few brands bother. Lack of animal testing has become a hygiene factor (mainly due to changes in legislation) and consumers have established new, less standardised and more subjective ethical benchmarks for brands to respond to.
It’s unfortunate that the value of ethical trademarks deflate the more ubiquitous they become. If McDonalds can win awards for its free range eggs, consumers may well wonder about the rigour of free range certification and imagine that ‘free range’ is a tiered or varied notion. Bad press also dilutes the currency of ethical initiatives: the BBC has accused Live Aid of misappropriating the money it raised and there has been a rise in well-publicised literature that calls into question the very nature of humanitarian aid. We have no commonly understood, credible metric for ethics.
Some pioneers of ethical retail have argued that it is not enough to use ethical standards as a USP. American Apparel CEO Dov Charney, whose business is synonymous with the anti-sweatshop movement, has remarked: “If you want to sell something, ethical or otherwise, appeal to people’s self-interest.” In other words, brands need to marry sound ethical values with products that are inherently desirable if they are to last.
The picture at the top of the post is from Green Mountain Coffee, and is used with thanks.
1 comment 12 May 2010
What you don’t want for Christmas
Oliver Wright writes:
One of my seasonal ‘jokes’ goes that you can tell when Christmas is approaching by the adverts on TV. Thus, like many others I suppose, I am thrust from my usual lethargy into a mild panic, making hurried calls to my siblings and parents, enquiring what they might want for Christmas, with the implicit fear that the shops might somehow run out of appropriate gifts.
In spite of our recessionary times, the high street in London has done surprisingly well for itself compared to 2008 when the onset of the recession dampened the Christmas (spending) spirit. November sales are up only 1.8% on last year nationally, but in the capital sales are up 13.3%.
Even if we are short of cash, we certainly shouldn’t be short of ideas: most of the major newspaper websites have a glut of buying guides, telling us what we could buy, and for whom. But for every article about ideal presents, one often finds a dissenting contributor in the comments sections, outlining the merits of a presentless Christmas. Capitalising on these frugal sentiments, The Green Thing has created a cunning spoof of the Amazon.co.uk website, delightfully titled Amazero.com, encouraging us to buy their single product – nothing (it’s priceless, of course). With a slightly more traditional approach, Adbusters sponsored ‘Buy Nothing Day‘ on the 26th of November this year.
Both of the above campaigns make the claim that Christmas – or more simply, buying lots of stuff – is bad for the environment, and detracts from the true spirit of the season. However, if you’re more inclined to think that Christmas is a waste of money altogether, then Joel Waldfogel’s book ‘Scroogenomics: Why you Shouldn’t Buy Presents for The Holidays’ may contain some more compelling arguments. Based on US surveys, he suggests that people would generally be willing to spend 20% less on the gifts that they received were they to buy them for themselves. This difference – in economic jargon, the deadweight loss – is worth $13bn a year in the US. He continues:
There’s every reason to believe the deadweight loss is as big elsewhere. That would get you to $25 billion a year around the world in value destroyed through gift giving.
Waldfogel isn’t against gift giving – just bad gift giving. Tim Harford has some useful recommendations based on Waldfogel’s arguments: spend modest amounts (hence reducing the likelihood of a large deadweight loss), or increase the sentimental value of your gift – invest time or creativity into making something personal. In other words, give it value to which you can’t attach a price.
In a neat twist, Waldfogel’s book is out for Christmas. But before you buy it, make sure the recipient wants to read it first.
The Image above is taken from the Amazero.com website, and is used with thanks.
Add comment 18 December 2009
Boosterism
Sophie Stringer writes:
Stepping through Waterloo Station on my way to work the other day a sprightly looking girl in luminous green leggings and a white t-shirt passed me a sample for Bassetts ‘Soft and Chewy’ – as seen in the picture.
These energisers, the packaging tells me, are ‘delicious citrus flavour pastilles with B vitamins and CoQ10’. The packaging looks pretty feminine (and the sample pack – as someone pointed out – bears an unfortunate resemblance to a packet of condoms), and the pastilles themselves are in a blister pack, Strepsils-style. The instructions are to pop one a day, or up to three if you’re in need of an extra boost. There’s theory as well as method: the associated leaflet advises that ‘avoiding the slump’ is ‘not about a quick fix, it’s all about maintenance’.
Bassetts already makes a range of chewy vitamins for different ages, and for ‘all the family’. But this is the first time I’ve seen a specific product for adults, and also the first time I’ve seen fortification for energy promoted with a vitamin product. The inclusion of Coenzyme Q10 is also a novelty.
So why launch this now? The product certainly responds to our burgeoning desire for peak performance, along with concerns about the health effects of pick-me-ups like cola or coffee. It also speaks to the resurgence of time-pressured consumers in the wake of the financial crisis. It’s not enough any longer for supplements just to be good for us; they need to work hard and be focused about the needs they are addressing, it seems. But at the same time, there’s some pleasure to be had in the eating, unlike the yeasty smelling vitamin C tablets of yesteryear.
They are probably better for you than mopping up the spare biscuits as you leave a meeting, but I’m a bit suspicious about the proposition: things which sound quite similar to confectionery promising an energy boost might be treading close to a sugar rush, and Bassetts’ efforts to dissuade us of this – with box and blister pack – make them feel oddly medical. And Bassetts can’t help but evoke Trebor Bassett, and as it happens the Bassetts’ parent company, like Trebor Bassett, is part of the Cadbury group.
Will it take off? The trends are on its side, but it may take time to persuade consumers of the value of this particular solution. The jury’s still out.
Add comment 15 October 2009
Hiding out in the coffee wars
Alex Steer writes:
Starbucks hasn’t had it easy, at least for the past decade. But whether being attacked by Naomi Klein for alleged anti-competitiveness in No Logo in 2001, or more literally attacked by demonstrators during a rally in London in January, Starbucks has always toughed it out. Until the recession, that is.
In late 2008, McDonald’s set up a giant billboard outside Starbucks HQ in its home town of Seattle. Proclaiming that ‘Four Bucks Is Dumb’, it advertised McDonald’s new line of (less expensive) espresso coffees. It was a well-timed campaign, and to judge from its share price, Starbucks spent three months in shock.
Its new strategy, announced last week, suggests that the coffee giant still has the caffeine jitters. It has opened three new outlets in Seattle – without any Starbucks branding. 15th Ave. Coffee and Tea and its sisters look and feel like independents. The muted press release from Starbucks says that the unbranded stores offer ‘new opportunities for discovery, a high level of interaction and a deep connection to the local community’.
But these things – experience, interaction, community – are central to Starbucks’s brand. Hiding the brand suggests a company with an identity crisis. Perhaps Starbucks has been told that, in a recession, consumers retrench to the familiar and local. This may be true, but research from the US and elsewhere suggests that reports of a ‘bonfire of the brands’ are somewhat exaggerated.
The fuller story is that, for American consumers, price matters more. It’s no longer the poor relation to quality and convenience. But price isn’t everything. The brands that thrive in the downturn will be those that offer quality and experience at a fair price and give consumers what they want – for example, acting on the recessionary trend towards going out for breakfast, not dinner (good news for coffee houses).
So four bucks may not be bad – if they come with a little bit more of a bang. Starbucks needs to show its consumers that it understands this. But to build this trust, it needs to keep on being Starbucks.
The picture at the top is of Rob Brandt’s ‘Crushed Coffee Cup’ design, and is used with thanks.
1 comment 28 July 2009
Advertising or bust
Andrew Curry writes:
I’ve been watching quite a lot of ITV4 this month, because of its Tour de France coverage, which means I’ve seen a lot of the current ad for the VW Passat. It’s a curiosity for two reasons; first, it’s clearly been made, inexpensively, for the British market, rather than being a ‘Euro-ad’ with English voiceover, and second, because it has a clear ‘recession’ storyline. Man leaves large bank-type building with his work things in a cardboard box, which promptly sheds its contents onto the pavement, leading to a little cameo story along a closure-laden high street before (at last) he gets to his car, singing all the way (more than a nod to Morecambe and Wise) about the power of positive thinking.
There seems to be a sting in the tail; the cheery sheep, nodding along to the song through the bars of their truck are clearly on their way to the slaughterhouse. With the implication, of course, that our hero might also be on the way to the knacker’s yard.
Strongbow has also been having fun with the financial crash, and has buried a treat or two on the internet. You’ve probably caught their Henry V pastiche in which a Kenneth Branagh lookalike makes a rousing speech to the assembled tradesmen of England (gasfitters, dishfitters, etc). We recently came across a second version in which Henry’s gaze alights on a group of bankers – and he is lost for words. You can see here what happens next.
Add comment 23 July 2009
Avocados, ethics and supermarket histories
Alex Steer writes:
The avocado pear’s name is the product of selective memory. Our word for the South American vegetable comes originally from the Nahuatl word ahuacatl, which means ‘testicle’. This unfamiliar word was borrowed into Spanish, but mishearing and confusion with the easier-to-remember word for ‘advocate’ or ‘lawyer’, avocado, led to this being used for the pear. Avocado was borrowed into English in the late 17th century, and has stuck.
The avocado has in recent weeks found itself at the centre of a standoff between two supermarkets. Sainsbury’s and Marks and Spencer have launched TV adverts – commemorating their 140th and 125th anniversaries respectively – in which they each appear to take the credit for introducing the avocado to Britain. The avocado is now an advocate in supermarkets’ increasingly fierce battle for market share, but it is arguing the case for both sides.
There has been no shortage of ads harking back to the past recently – Sainsbury’s, M&S, Hovis, Persil – and no shortage of commentators noticing this. Most have identified that behind these campaigns lies a perceived yearning by consumers for the securities of nostalgia and tradition. Hovis’s strapline – ‘As good today as it’s always been’ – resonates with wary, recession-weary shoppers who are longing for a little sanity. Nostalgia brands are brands that have stayed the course; brands you can trust.
But Sainsbury’s and M&S are not just saying they are reliable retailers. They are saying they are responsible, ethical ones, and that they always were: employing women, helping the planet, doing their bit for the war effort. These campaigns are histories, written to appeal to the values and good citizenship modern consumers seek from brands.
The demand for corporate social responsibility is relatively new, and it’s hard for older brands not to look like they’re jumping on today’s bandwagon, compared to new brands who have built CSR into their blood and bone. By framing their histories in terms of modern values, retailers are telling consumers that, unlike the avocado, they were always advocates, representing quality and fairness. It remains to be seen if consumers will buy this, or conclude that it’s all a load of ahuacatls.
The picture at the top – a photograph of a painting – is borrowed, with thanks, from Betweenland on flickr.
1 comment 15 June 2009
Eight tips about segmentations
Sarah King writes:
At The Futures Company we do a lot of segmentation work, for organisations trying to get really new insight into their audiences – who they are, how they behave, their attitudes and values. Segmentation helps our clients to drive genuine customer orientation across their businesses, with a shared perception of customers resulting in far more relevant offers. We shared some of our current thinking on how to get the most out of any segmentation project at a breakfast briefing for clients earlier this week.
Here are some tips from the presentation:
- Understand what you’ve already got – companies have plenty of data already, and it’s almost always more cost-effective to build on this. Add it to our insight and it can give you a real head start.
- Make sure you know what business question you’re trying to answer with the segmentation.
- Plan how you’re going to implement the segmentation before you begin – make sure you have a clear view of the end from the starting line and design your segmentation accordingly.
- If it’s your first time or there is a lot of change in your category, consider whether you need some exploratory qualitative research to help you understand how people divide and what questions you need to ask in your survey
- Remember that the segmentation work sits inside the business, which needs to be engaged in the process – before, during and afterwards. Bear in mind that you will have to resource embedding it in the business – both socially and in your daily business processes. You might need to access budgets other than the Market Research one.
- Avoid “the big reveal”. Get senior sponsorship for your project and take people along with you as you go, rather than trying to surprise them with the brilliance of the insight at the end. Less dramatic, more productive!
- Keep the segmentation story as simple as you can, without compromising the quality of the insight or the data. It makes a big difference if people in the business can keep the segmentation in their heads.
- Choose names for the segments which show respect for your customers and don’t caricature them. As the segmentation gets used by the business, the names will end up framing the way you think about customers.
It’s also worth looking at the post about segmentation in the public sector, based on an IIPS event held in the spring.
The cartoon is by Jake Goretzki.
Add comment 9 June 2009
When saying sorry doesn’t work
Andrew Curry writes:
Suddenly, ‘sorry’ seems to be the easiest word, at least in London. Quite apart from politicians saying sorry, eventually, about their expenses, we’ve had Marks and Spencers saying sorry for charging more for bigger bras, and (as Andy Stubbings has mentioned here) the London Evening Standard saying sorry in an extensive poster campaign for, well, for pretty much everything.
It’s true that the Standard’s branding is discreet and it’s mostly done by typography, but it seems as if the paper is saying sorry for being complacent, predictable, negative, and out of touch among other things.
As ad campaigns go, it has the merit of getting them talked about (as this post demonstrates) although for this non-reader the Standard was always a smug evening paper which pandered to the prejudices of its core audience in the commuter belt.
Indeed the whole campaign, prompted by the arrival of new Russian owner and new editor, feels like they’ve done some focus groups with lapsed readers and slapped the findings straight on to the billboards. (Which saves the inconvenience of a debrief, I guess).
Will any of these work? I think the M&S apology will – it’s a simple issue with a simple remedy. I’m sceptical about the other two. In the face of their respective declining markets, both paper and politicians will find that saying sorry isn’t enough.
The picture at the top, published under a Creative Commons licence, was taken by renaissancechambers, whose photostream is here.
1 comment 14 May 2009
Old and unimproved
Andy Stubbings writes:
Pessimism is an often underrated emotion. In this dismal economic climate, brands like Schweppes (with their series of woodcut style print ads that send up British political figures) and even the Evening Standard (with their “Sorry” bus and tube advertising) have sought to capitalise on consumer discontent and, most probably, a simmering resentment towards our political and economic institutions (for a wonderfully vitriolic example of this anger, see Matt Taibbi’s ‘The Big Takeover’).
However, no mainstream brands appear to have done this as explicitly as Shredded Wheat in the US. The “Progress is Overrated” print ad above is part of a campaign by cereal manufacturer Post to publicise the simple, unchanged origins of their product. As you would expect, the long-copy form and type-setting feel of the print ad are wantonly old-fashioned, conveying “back-to-basics” message (although the slapstick tone of other campaign media feels at odds with this). What is especially interesting about the copy, however, is that it namechecks waste concerns, resource shortages and the impact of climate change as evidence that we have not progressed (though curiously no mention of the financial crisis. The people who buy Shredded Wheat are mainstream American consumers, many of them mums buying for their kids. The tone of the campaign (by Ogilvy & Mather in New York) implies that research has found this attitude reasonably prevalent in the target audience, which suggests that consumer discontent may be quite widespread.
While it may be difficult for established brands like Schweppes and Shredded Wheat to reinvent themselves as the Voice of Discontent, I think there is a substantial opportunity for less well-known brands to take this on, in the way that Mountain Dew reinvented itself as the ‘slacker’ brand in the midst of the corporate greed of the 1980s. With so many brands offering similar messages of solidarity and empathy with consumers at the moment, it might be that pessimism proves a smarter and more distinctive position.
The picture is borrowed, with thanks, from Noise Between Stations.
1 comment 13 May 2009
