Lately, it seems as though my education has been most useful in teaching me how to think, rather than what to think about. If my major was more geared towards strict memorization of a topic to be successful, such as knowing the name and function of specific body parts for a biology major, or a number of formulas for physics/engineering majors, I might not have to make that claim. But business, being the way it is, is taught better in theory. Very rarely would it be useful to run through examples and say “this is exactly what you need to memorize” or “this is exactly what you need to do”. Never the less, what I have began to take from my education is a process and way to apply knowledge, a way to look at a problem or situation, and solve. The classic liberal arts education, while in some ways seemingly useless to my professional life has proved invaluable in simply the way I look at the world and analyze what is actually going on, politically, personally, societally, and so on. Appreciation and understanding of sociology, an appreciation for philosophy and history, have built my critical thinking skills and frankly my patience when presented with a problem. Which leads me to what I have found the greatest take-away from the consumer insights course (and thus the project), is the general thought process of gaining insights that we followed. Starting with segmentation, expanding to experiences, planning and retrieving insights, evaluating the insights, and then using the entire process for something useful has proved to be a way I never thought of solving or looking at problems before. Seeing how each step in the process logically follows another, and why it is actually important to do it this way will be my biggest takeaway from this course. Starting with a product idea first and then testing each step to see if it will be successful may cause you to ask the wrong questions, interpret the answers in a particular light, and miss some of the subtleties that are there if you truly look. I am also a person that firmly believes the “why” is more important than the “what” or the “how”, and so this process may have seemed tenuous, time consuming, and unimportant without experiencing the process firsthand. Likewise, the self analysis section, actually writing and presenting concerns and learnings from each step was a nice change; it provided a way to analyze what to do going forward more critically and how to improve in the future.
Ways to gain insights from the selected focus group would be my next most important takeaway from the project; mainly, how difficult this process can be, and ways to improve the process. For our own group, we created a survey and asked respondents to select some items from a number of collages. While it makes sense to always make it as easy and comfortable as possible for respondents to take a survey or anything else, we missed something along the way. We developed each at separate times, and thus some respondents were given the survey and collage at different times (thus were likely to respond to the first, but not the second item given to them). Likewise, simply putting our survey on surveymonkey, instead of in a word document was boneheaded. Seeing some of the troubles other groups have had in gaining their insights, it made me realize how crucial it is to plan everything meticulously, and stay away from doing anything on the fly. I can’t really explain why this was not apparent and glaringly obvious to me before, but going through a few hassles has made it abundantly clear. Our group even chose a segment we had immediate and personal access to, was large in size, and well connected with, yet still had our troubles.
I feel as though the group environment really spurs on the learning process in this project. Because of the scope of the project, it is incredibly unlikely anyone would be conducting research of this magnitude on consumer insights or much of anything without a decent number of coworkers. Furthermore, having different insights from a diverse group actually helps the way that you interpret the information (even just balancing male and female perspectives, especially when dealing with couples, as our segment did). Luckily I was in a motivated group who was easy to get along with, and we all could compromise if need be. When picking segments Courtney had suggested Tweens, which would have been an interesting segment undoubtedly, but researching and getting into a tween’s mindset would have drove me insane, so we nixed it. Each presentation phase brought somewhat of a sense of accomplishment, so I feel segmenting it as it was, and having the status reports added some importance at each step.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Leading by Example
My place of employment has one of the most unique, dynamic, and successful company/work cultures of anywhere on earth. We have been fortunate enough to remain successful in a dismal economy, grow and maintain market share over our (lower priced) competitors, and are trending towards sustained profitability very soon. We sell a product that did not exist 5 years ago, to a market that did not exist 15 years ago, where almost every ounce of market demand for our products is self created. The company treats employees to unlimited vacation time, yearly lake parties, frequent catered lunches (more on this later), quarterly companywide meetings held at Alamo Drafthouse, two always stocked (and free) breakrooms/kitchens, and a monstrously sized game room with everything from a pingpong table to an Xbox 360 with the full Rock Band set up. Ask our CEO what the most remarkable thing about our company is, and without blinking an eye, Brett will tell you it’s the people. Beyond building an amazing product and impeccable business model, he has grown and hand selected a team of highly motivated, highly intelligent “Rock Stars” (as the company calls them) to run all the pieces. Without hiring only the best, and only those who you want to grab a beer after work with, all of these company perks would go to waste. Privileges could be abused, productivity would suffer, and the business would languish.
Yet he had a vision, an idea for how things should be done, and how people should be treated. Brett felt firmly that if employees were treated exactly how he wished to be treated, they would be more productive, more enthusiastic, and more dedicated to the company than any place that did not. So rather than waiting on others, he created the company and the culture, and just as importantly, surrounded himself with others who acted similarly, and shared the same values.
In essence, this is exactly what Seth Godin’s recent book Tribes details and explains in so many words and ways: people crave leaders, and the world rewards those who have a vision, act upon it, and incorporate others. Although the book is incredibly short (I finished it before the wheels touched the ground on a flight from Austin to Minneapolis), and meanders into Thomas Freidmanesque territory in execution (useless, ill contrived metaphors and repetition plague both authors writing style, such as the notoriously awful idea of “a unicorn in a balloon factory” that Godin is so fond of in Tribes), it demonstrates the main thesis with a number of examples, in and out of the business realm.
The beauty of this idea is not simply what has been preached forever (if you want something done right, do it yourself), but rather incorporating others to help amplify your idea, and the ease (thanks to the internet and telecom) you can reach others today. Power in numbers. Take initiative. Others will respect a genuine idea. All simple ideas, but much like a premise of the book, the ideas grouped together can create fantastic results.
So as a call to action, Brett purchased a copy of Tribes for anyone who wished to read it. He called together a few lunch meetings (with the catered food mentioned before), and had a roundtable discussion of the book and its implications. Any time that someone has taken the initiative to lead a group, or an idea, and execute on it while incorporating others, we call it “tribesing it”. This has led to a number of informational sessions, with a moniker of “community college” where specialists in any field will share their knowledge with anyone willing to listen, ranging from web analytics and search engine optimization, to the basics of professional photography and travels to Southeast Asia.
Furthermore, it has sparked a bit of initiative for individuals to step outside of their normal roles, and “self manage” so to speak. If something needs to be done, organizational structure be damned, someone should step up to the plate and head the effort. We work in a truly unique culture where this sort of thing is not only accepted, but promoted, so I can see a certain assumption of risk in less progressive organizations in doing this. Tribes slightly addresses this, but the “just do it” answer seems too simple for the complexity a highly political situation can bring.
The extended title, “Tribes: We Need You to Lead Us” basically says it all. Develop an idea, lead by example, and others will follow. Very “Field of Dreams” of you, Seth.
Yet he had a vision, an idea for how things should be done, and how people should be treated. Brett felt firmly that if employees were treated exactly how he wished to be treated, they would be more productive, more enthusiastic, and more dedicated to the company than any place that did not. So rather than waiting on others, he created the company and the culture, and just as importantly, surrounded himself with others who acted similarly, and shared the same values.
In essence, this is exactly what Seth Godin’s recent book Tribes details and explains in so many words and ways: people crave leaders, and the world rewards those who have a vision, act upon it, and incorporate others. Although the book is incredibly short (I finished it before the wheels touched the ground on a flight from Austin to Minneapolis), and meanders into Thomas Freidmanesque territory in execution (useless, ill contrived metaphors and repetition plague both authors writing style, such as the notoriously awful idea of “a unicorn in a balloon factory” that Godin is so fond of in Tribes), it demonstrates the main thesis with a number of examples, in and out of the business realm.
The beauty of this idea is not simply what has been preached forever (if you want something done right, do it yourself), but rather incorporating others to help amplify your idea, and the ease (thanks to the internet and telecom) you can reach others today. Power in numbers. Take initiative. Others will respect a genuine idea. All simple ideas, but much like a premise of the book, the ideas grouped together can create fantastic results.
So as a call to action, Brett purchased a copy of Tribes for anyone who wished to read it. He called together a few lunch meetings (with the catered food mentioned before), and had a roundtable discussion of the book and its implications. Any time that someone has taken the initiative to lead a group, or an idea, and execute on it while incorporating others, we call it “tribesing it”. This has led to a number of informational sessions, with a moniker of “community college” where specialists in any field will share their knowledge with anyone willing to listen, ranging from web analytics and search engine optimization, to the basics of professional photography and travels to Southeast Asia.
Furthermore, it has sparked a bit of initiative for individuals to step outside of their normal roles, and “self manage” so to speak. If something needs to be done, organizational structure be damned, someone should step up to the plate and head the effort. We work in a truly unique culture where this sort of thing is not only accepted, but promoted, so I can see a certain assumption of risk in less progressive organizations in doing this. Tribes slightly addresses this, but the “just do it” answer seems too simple for the complexity a highly political situation can bring.
The extended title, “Tribes: We Need You to Lead Us” basically says it all. Develop an idea, lead by example, and others will follow. Very “Field of Dreams” of you, Seth.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Concerns on this outline/essay: There are certain points where I feel it would start to sound too sales like, too much of an evangelical piece about the benefits of WOM, rather than a description of WOM and its practices. Essentially, WOM = Consumer Insights; the collection, broadcast, and amplification of consumer insights. Since my topic basically is a method to harness insights, I am not sure if I am spending enough time actually speaking about how it relates to insights, or if that will be necessary. Basically, how blunt should I be in pointing out the topics discussed, with their relation to the course? (soliciting for product recommendations is gaining insights, UGC is integral to decision making, etc).
Outline:
Across all societies and cultures the need for community and belonging is one of the basest of human needs. Only usurped in importance by physiological needs, and the need for safety (according to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs), it then makes sense that humans are naturally drawn to conversation, influenced by conversation, and hold conversation in high esteem. Conversation about goods, products and services, or Word of Mouth (WOM), has been one of the oldest and most influential forms of marketing. The recent explosion of word of mouth marketing has begun to change the marketing landscape, as well as radically altering the consumer shopping experience; all while still in its infant stages.
Tracing its roots back to ancient bazaars (and presumably further), word of mouth was a reliable way for consumers to interact with one another, and spread information: which products were the most reliable, where were the best prices, which vendor had the freshest fish, which vendors may use shady business tactics, etc. Even as influential as it is, WOM has fallen in and out of favor as a marketing tactic, with most 20th century marketing efforts focusing on rigorous control of information about a firm’s products, and even more strict control over a brand’s image. Frequently, companies wanted a one way conversation, with everything related to image, lifestyle, product features, and product benefits flowing directly from the firm to the target market, and the conversations stopping there. Recently, due to the growth of the internet and eCommerce, firms have begun to harness the power of WOM and amplify its effects to their benefit, online and offline.
This study will attempt to provide a holistic view on the current state of word of mouth marketing, such as how word of mouth is harvested and displayed, the costs and benefits of WOM to consumers and firms alike, the effects WOM is having on the current marketing landscape, the ethics involved while using WOM tactics, and where this branch of marketing will go in the future.
1) Avenues of presenting WOM and UGC
a) UGC/ Ratings and Reviews/Ask and Answer/ Stories – list of all companies that use these ugc tactics to their advantage. Power of Amazon. Prevalence of these features on IR 500.
b) Blogs – blogs have recently exploded, with corporations pushing blogs, and highlighting personal blogs that represent their interests. Blogs can also prove an “organic” form of UGC/WOM.
c) User Communities – Less tangible than R&R/A&A, but still incorporates WOM to a high level.
d) WOM is being used on and offline – collection is typically online, however the buzz created is being displayed in stores, and used to influence consumer’s opinions and reassure them of product quality.
2) Benefits of WOM
A) Costs – WOM is incredibly cost effective. Guerrilla marketing and viral marketing spreads at an incredible rate, and costs literally nothing to create. Further more, programs such as R&R, A&A are incredibly cheap from a marketing standpoint and incredibly influential (Bazaarvoice slidedeck stats).
B) Relieving the paradox of choice – With sometimes hundreds of possible choices for any given product category, UGC can dramatically reduce the number of options to select (based on sorting by best rated, and reading reviews). Further more, “top rated” products are typically displayed on most category pages, and retailers are finding ways to highlight products the community at large finds positive. Add BV stats.
C) Authenticity – Consumers crave authenticity. Those who try to fake authentic WOM usually end up failing, but those who display WOM in unadulterated fashion benefit from a sense of being “reliable, trustworthy, truthful”. Negative reviews, while unpleasant, can add to this sense of authenticity. Furthermore, negative reviews can add authenticity to a product by displaying both sides of the view, something sorely lacking in most traditional advertising, and something that the consumer values and trusts.
D) Brand engagement – WOM allows users to connect with the brand on a very personal brand, becoming an advocate for it. Most reviews are positive, so allowing customers to voice their opinions bring them closer to the brand.
3) Cons of WOM
A) Measurement – WO M is incredibly difficult to track its effectiveness. It is easy to trace pieces of content (blog posts, reviews, etc) but not easy to track DIRECT impact, both in online and offline channels, so retailers and mfg alike have a hard time justifying.
B) Lack of control – WOM is unpredictable. Although most reviews are positive, a brand can never predict what exactly the results will look like, so WOM is considered a bit unpredictable, and radical compared to traditional marketing methods. Furthermore, most brands keep a conscious effort to control all parts of their image. Although companies know that the conversations are already happening, many are weary of amplifying the effects of negative conversations.
4) Effects of WOM in marketing
A) Changing the 4 P’s – Insights from WOM are changing the 4 P’s…especially the promotion aspect. Some companies can spend almost nothing (top 100 beers in America survey), and be incredibly successful without budgets spent on traditional promotion. Shift towards promotion and amplification of WOM strategies to grow brand, enhance brand, solidify value, etc.
B) WOM validated by mass media – look at pizza hut commercials where they try and replicate WOM for pizza hut pastas. Companies recognize the voice of the consumer being incredibly influential on ALL OTHER consumers, and try to harness that power (but also place limitations, when unsure of WOM successes for their brand).
C) Increased Sales/ customer retention/ company benefits - http://bazaarvoice.com/industryStats.html
5) Ethics in WOM
A) Do not mislead customers to believe acting is true WOM – this will dilute the power of WOM in general, and cause others to reject WOM as viable at all.
B) Keep results factual – Don’t delete reviews simply because of being negative. Remain true to the findings and intent of WOM collection, amplify if it will sell
6) Future of WOM
A) Increased dependence - online and offline consumers will DEPEND on WOM to guide decisions in a wasteland of products. Furthermore, companies are finding new ways to incorporate the word of mouth they gather into traditional marketing ventures, and are finding ways to analyze the responses to improve their standing in the market.
B) Increased consumer input – consumers already play a giant role in what makes up a product, soon they will begin to be solicited for ideas to improve their products/lifestyles. While this seems obvious, a large customer base and influential and willing consumers may provide some serious solutions. (Staples new product ideas).
7) Conclusion
A) WOM and UGC are impacting various areas of business, online and offline, thr
B) What I learned:
I: The eagerness of consumers – consumers crave community and discussion, and are willing to engage in anything that they are passionate about. This provides raw, unadulterated content for marketers to analyze and promote, to influence other consumers, and possibly modify their own products or marketing efforts.
II: Shift in Ideology – Rather than pushing the conversations people are having on a daily basis to the wayside, companies are embracing these conversations as a centerpiece to their marketing strategies.
Outline:
Across all societies and cultures the need for community and belonging is one of the basest of human needs. Only usurped in importance by physiological needs, and the need for safety (according to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs), it then makes sense that humans are naturally drawn to conversation, influenced by conversation, and hold conversation in high esteem. Conversation about goods, products and services, or Word of Mouth (WOM), has been one of the oldest and most influential forms of marketing. The recent explosion of word of mouth marketing has begun to change the marketing landscape, as well as radically altering the consumer shopping experience; all while still in its infant stages.
Tracing its roots back to ancient bazaars (and presumably further), word of mouth was a reliable way for consumers to interact with one another, and spread information: which products were the most reliable, where were the best prices, which vendor had the freshest fish, which vendors may use shady business tactics, etc. Even as influential as it is, WOM has fallen in and out of favor as a marketing tactic, with most 20th century marketing efforts focusing on rigorous control of information about a firm’s products, and even more strict control over a brand’s image. Frequently, companies wanted a one way conversation, with everything related to image, lifestyle, product features, and product benefits flowing directly from the firm to the target market, and the conversations stopping there. Recently, due to the growth of the internet and eCommerce, firms have begun to harness the power of WOM and amplify its effects to their benefit, online and offline.
This study will attempt to provide a holistic view on the current state of word of mouth marketing, such as how word of mouth is harvested and displayed, the costs and benefits of WOM to consumers and firms alike, the effects WOM is having on the current marketing landscape, the ethics involved while using WOM tactics, and where this branch of marketing will go in the future.
1) Avenues of presenting WOM and UGC
a) UGC/ Ratings and Reviews/Ask and Answer/ Stories – list of all companies that use these ugc tactics to their advantage. Power of Amazon. Prevalence of these features on IR 500.
b) Blogs – blogs have recently exploded, with corporations pushing blogs, and highlighting personal blogs that represent their interests. Blogs can also prove an “organic” form of UGC/WOM.
c) User Communities – Less tangible than R&R/A&A, but still incorporates WOM to a high level.
d) WOM is being used on and offline – collection is typically online, however the buzz created is being displayed in stores, and used to influence consumer’s opinions and reassure them of product quality.
2) Benefits of WOM
A) Costs – WOM is incredibly cost effective. Guerrilla marketing and viral marketing spreads at an incredible rate, and costs literally nothing to create. Further more, programs such as R&R, A&A are incredibly cheap from a marketing standpoint and incredibly influential (Bazaarvoice slidedeck stats).
B) Relieving the paradox of choice – With sometimes hundreds of possible choices for any given product category, UGC can dramatically reduce the number of options to select (based on sorting by best rated, and reading reviews). Further more, “top rated” products are typically displayed on most category pages, and retailers are finding ways to highlight products the community at large finds positive. Add BV stats.
C) Authenticity – Consumers crave authenticity. Those who try to fake authentic WOM usually end up failing, but those who display WOM in unadulterated fashion benefit from a sense of being “reliable, trustworthy, truthful”. Negative reviews, while unpleasant, can add to this sense of authenticity. Furthermore, negative reviews can add authenticity to a product by displaying both sides of the view, something sorely lacking in most traditional advertising, and something that the consumer values and trusts.
D) Brand engagement – WOM allows users to connect with the brand on a very personal brand, becoming an advocate for it. Most reviews are positive, so allowing customers to voice their opinions bring them closer to the brand.
3) Cons of WOM
A) Measurement – WO M is incredibly difficult to track its effectiveness. It is easy to trace pieces of content (blog posts, reviews, etc) but not easy to track DIRECT impact, both in online and offline channels, so retailers and mfg alike have a hard time justifying.
B) Lack of control – WOM is unpredictable. Although most reviews are positive, a brand can never predict what exactly the results will look like, so WOM is considered a bit unpredictable, and radical compared to traditional marketing methods. Furthermore, most brands keep a conscious effort to control all parts of their image. Although companies know that the conversations are already happening, many are weary of amplifying the effects of negative conversations.
4) Effects of WOM in marketing
A) Changing the 4 P’s – Insights from WOM are changing the 4 P’s…especially the promotion aspect. Some companies can spend almost nothing (top 100 beers in America survey), and be incredibly successful without budgets spent on traditional promotion. Shift towards promotion and amplification of WOM strategies to grow brand, enhance brand, solidify value, etc.
B) WOM validated by mass media – look at pizza hut commercials where they try and replicate WOM for pizza hut pastas. Companies recognize the voice of the consumer being incredibly influential on ALL OTHER consumers, and try to harness that power (but also place limitations, when unsure of WOM successes for their brand).
C) Increased Sales/ customer retention/ company benefits - http://bazaarvoice.com/industryStats.html
5) Ethics in WOM
A) Do not mislead customers to believe acting is true WOM – this will dilute the power of WOM in general, and cause others to reject WOM as viable at all.
B) Keep results factual – Don’t delete reviews simply because of being negative. Remain true to the findings and intent of WOM collection, amplify if it will sell
6) Future of WOM
A) Increased dependence - online and offline consumers will DEPEND on WOM to guide decisions in a wasteland of products. Furthermore, companies are finding new ways to incorporate the word of mouth they gather into traditional marketing ventures, and are finding ways to analyze the responses to improve their standing in the market.
B) Increased consumer input – consumers already play a giant role in what makes up a product, soon they will begin to be solicited for ideas to improve their products/lifestyles. While this seems obvious, a large customer base and influential and willing consumers may provide some serious solutions. (Staples new product ideas).
7) Conclusion
A) WOM and UGC are impacting various areas of business, online and offline, thr
B) What I learned:
I: The eagerness of consumers – consumers crave community and discussion, and are willing to engage in anything that they are passionate about. This provides raw, unadulterated content for marketers to analyze and promote, to influence other consumers, and possibly modify their own products or marketing efforts.
II: Shift in Ideology – Rather than pushing the conversations people are having on a daily basis to the wayside, companies are embracing these conversations as a centerpiece to their marketing strategies.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
A Tale of Two Politicians
In this post, I plan on merging two things that really shouldn’t be merged, politics and business, or for that matter, politics and just about anything. I am, by nature, a cynic, so discussing politics with most anyone seems to boil down to a few fairly fatalistic points, and those who don’t understand that about me, or my style of argumentation, can become frustrated. If my audience falls into this group, I apologize in advance.
After seeing the segment on Frank Luntz on The Persuaders, it seemed as though marketing and politics had reached a nearly perfect point of unison. If, as Luntz contests, the correct wording makes all the difference, and simply rephrasing the issue can change (modify) the way your constituents think, feel, and act about an issue, the way I view modern politics may be drastically changed. The idea that a politician, with the right market research, can position anything to masses in the most favorable possible light, is a bit frightening. Not that this is an entirely new concept, or even something that isn’t already prevalent in many other fields (namely sales, where the importance of framing something “correctly” can make all the difference), but it can be frightening to contemplate the possibilities. Calling the privacy violations/travesties of the Patriot Act “information sharing” or raising taxes as “adding value to America” would certainly be more pleasing to the ears and minds, but is essentially nothing more than keeping a population lax and copacetic. Yet for politicians, it is adding value where that level of experience was not previously, one of, if not the most basic functions of marketing; modifying our experiences to sell more ideas, simply by a careful selection of words.
Which brings me to a tale of two politicians, whose level of success certainly varied, but their constituent experience was certainly one of the driving forces in their campaigns, and in many ways, their destinies. Granted, every campaign greatly depends on enthusiastic campaigners, but both movements seemed to have an unheard of level of support in modern politics.
Our tragic hero would be the infamously radical one man island, Dr. Ron Paul. I am fairly hesitant to disclose around mixed company that I was once highly involved in his campaign (MANY of his supporters are those I would consider mentally unsound, and I’ve taken efforts to dissociate myself from them), helping coordinate his rally on campus, participating in the Austin Tea Party rally, campaigning in Iowa just before the caucus, and donating to the campaign. From an insider’s view, it was the grassroots movement that could. The experience was built around an uncompromising man, who had no problem ruffling feathers and standing up for what he believed was right, even if he was the only person to do so (or occasionally joined by a very similar Dennis Kucinich). The idea seemed beautiful and simple, a firm dedication to the most American and revered of documents, the Constitution, will ail most of society’s ills, and the rest will follow into place. And it attracted a few million of the nation’s most ravenous supporters, fundraising an incredibly amount of money, in a small amount of time, from an even smaller group of people. Yet the position was simply…off. From a pragmatists point of view, while the constituent experience for the Ron Paul’s campaign worked very effectively, there were very few “passive” Paul supporters, his message (and certainly the way it was presented) turned off a large number of potential supporters. Not to say his stance would have won over everyone if positioned correctly (it was far too radical for that), but it seemed the campaigners could care less about attracting voters, and more about pushing their beliefs. Having rolled my eyes countless times after hearing campaigners, or even Dr. Paul himself in public situations, refer to taxation as “legal theft”, or proposing a return to the Gold Standard, it really brought to light the idea that “one man’s garbage is another man’s treasure”. The constituent (customer) experience was brilliant conceived, and captivating, but only to a very shallow, and niche market, settling the campaign as nothing more than the brilliant grassroots movement that could.
On the other side of the fence, now President Barack Obama crafted a brilliant campaign around….essentially what people wanted to hear. That is not to say the campaign was not genuine, or that the ideas were fabricated in any way, but it is not hard to imagine the words “hope” and “change” being isolated by a man like Frank Luntz as keys to the campaign. So much so, that the user experience became “Hope” and “Change” in a time when every politician, democrat, republican, or other, was trying to distance themselves from Bush and doing so by contrasting how things would change, or be different. So much so, that Barack began to receive a projection of “hope” and “change”. College students and minorities, two typically underrepresented voting groups, came out in full force. There were many reasons for this, but encapsulating two ideals, making a group of seemingly disenfranchised voters believe their vote could actually encapsulate “hope” and “change”, is certainly one of the reasons.
“Hope” and “Change” are not issues, but rather ideas with very individual connotations. For America, in 2007 and 2008, a politician could do no better than to self brand themselves behind these ideas, regardless of party, platform, or values. Both Barack Obama, and Ron Paul rallied supporters behind these cries, but different segments and in different numbers altogether. Where Ron Paul preached for the “revolution” (something that worked very effectively, for the radicals) Barack preached for “change”. As an ex Paul supporter, with this insight, I truly wonder if the campaign ever wanted it to be viable, or simply ruffle as many supporters as possible, and network the diehards for further battles. The defining slogans and campaign experience would lean toward the latter. As a student of marketing, I can say with certainty the experience created around hope and change was strong enough to aid our current President into office, and will certainly play its roll in defining his legacy.
After seeing the segment on Frank Luntz on The Persuaders, it seemed as though marketing and politics had reached a nearly perfect point of unison. If, as Luntz contests, the correct wording makes all the difference, and simply rephrasing the issue can change (modify) the way your constituents think, feel, and act about an issue, the way I view modern politics may be drastically changed. The idea that a politician, with the right market research, can position anything to masses in the most favorable possible light, is a bit frightening. Not that this is an entirely new concept, or even something that isn’t already prevalent in many other fields (namely sales, where the importance of framing something “correctly” can make all the difference), but it can be frightening to contemplate the possibilities. Calling the privacy violations/travesties of the Patriot Act “information sharing” or raising taxes as “adding value to America” would certainly be more pleasing to the ears and minds, but is essentially nothing more than keeping a population lax and copacetic. Yet for politicians, it is adding value where that level of experience was not previously, one of, if not the most basic functions of marketing; modifying our experiences to sell more ideas, simply by a careful selection of words.
Which brings me to a tale of two politicians, whose level of success certainly varied, but their constituent experience was certainly one of the driving forces in their campaigns, and in many ways, their destinies. Granted, every campaign greatly depends on enthusiastic campaigners, but both movements seemed to have an unheard of level of support in modern politics.
Our tragic hero would be the infamously radical one man island, Dr. Ron Paul. I am fairly hesitant to disclose around mixed company that I was once highly involved in his campaign (MANY of his supporters are those I would consider mentally unsound, and I’ve taken efforts to dissociate myself from them), helping coordinate his rally on campus, participating in the Austin Tea Party rally, campaigning in Iowa just before the caucus, and donating to the campaign. From an insider’s view, it was the grassroots movement that could. The experience was built around an uncompromising man, who had no problem ruffling feathers and standing up for what he believed was right, even if he was the only person to do so (or occasionally joined by a very similar Dennis Kucinich). The idea seemed beautiful and simple, a firm dedication to the most American and revered of documents, the Constitution, will ail most of society’s ills, and the rest will follow into place. And it attracted a few million of the nation’s most ravenous supporters, fundraising an incredibly amount of money, in a small amount of time, from an even smaller group of people. Yet the position was simply…off. From a pragmatists point of view, while the constituent experience for the Ron Paul’s campaign worked very effectively, there were very few “passive” Paul supporters, his message (and certainly the way it was presented) turned off a large number of potential supporters. Not to say his stance would have won over everyone if positioned correctly (it was far too radical for that), but it seemed the campaigners could care less about attracting voters, and more about pushing their beliefs. Having rolled my eyes countless times after hearing campaigners, or even Dr. Paul himself in public situations, refer to taxation as “legal theft”, or proposing a return to the Gold Standard, it really brought to light the idea that “one man’s garbage is another man’s treasure”. The constituent (customer) experience was brilliant conceived, and captivating, but only to a very shallow, and niche market, settling the campaign as nothing more than the brilliant grassroots movement that could.
On the other side of the fence, now President Barack Obama crafted a brilliant campaign around….essentially what people wanted to hear. That is not to say the campaign was not genuine, or that the ideas were fabricated in any way, but it is not hard to imagine the words “hope” and “change” being isolated by a man like Frank Luntz as keys to the campaign. So much so, that the user experience became “Hope” and “Change” in a time when every politician, democrat, republican, or other, was trying to distance themselves from Bush and doing so by contrasting how things would change, or be different. So much so, that Barack began to receive a projection of “hope” and “change”. College students and minorities, two typically underrepresented voting groups, came out in full force. There were many reasons for this, but encapsulating two ideals, making a group of seemingly disenfranchised voters believe their vote could actually encapsulate “hope” and “change”, is certainly one of the reasons.
“Hope” and “Change” are not issues, but rather ideas with very individual connotations. For America, in 2007 and 2008, a politician could do no better than to self brand themselves behind these ideas, regardless of party, platform, or values. Both Barack Obama, and Ron Paul rallied supporters behind these cries, but different segments and in different numbers altogether. Where Ron Paul preached for the “revolution” (something that worked very effectively, for the radicals) Barack preached for “change”. As an ex Paul supporter, with this insight, I truly wonder if the campaign ever wanted it to be viable, or simply ruffle as many supporters as possible, and network the diehards for further battles. The defining slogans and campaign experience would lean toward the latter. As a student of marketing, I can say with certainty the experience created around hope and change was strong enough to aid our current President into office, and will certainly play its roll in defining his legacy.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Authenticity Above All
Maybe I am just getting older, or maybe I am actually learning/observing, but it seems as though marketing has taken some pretty drastic changes during my lifetime. From the increasing (and many times seamless) product placement, to defining exactly what irrational attributes are enticing to buyers, to messaging on an unbelievably personal level; it seems there is a growing need for marketers to be more subtle, rather than more upfront, to grab our attention in this world of advertising overkill. The recurring theme, determining why some efforts are massive successes, and others tremendous failures, lies in authenticity. Much like defining or trying to imitate “cool” (which many times, is something authentic in it’s truest state), people can very easily sniff out who is trying too hard, imitating something (poorly), or simply out of place.
This seems to be where the “magic” of marketing comes into play. Success comes either from integrating seamlessly with what is authentic to the consumers (take the Absolut Hunk example), or not hiding any of your motives, but still creating an authentically worthwhile product (BMW’s films). Failure would come from straying from these principles, and merely feigning authenticity (see the Pontiac commercial posed as 2 hour made for TV Movie). The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry….
Similar to Malcolm Gladwell’s piece in Blink, Dr. Rapaille (and his 3-stage technique) is intent on finding out the underlying, possibly subconscious reasons consumers’ act the way they do, and gives very limited credence to what respondents actually say. I’m sure most of his study subjects would agree, irrational is a much kinder adjective than ignorant. Starting by asking test subjects to actually espouse what they think and feel (Dr. Rapaille believes it is important to appeal to their egos and logic), the next phase is an attempt to confuse the subjects, followed finally by exercises geared towards bringing out what the underlying, frequently undiscovered factors are in decision making. These results, what he would call the reptilian code, are what attracts us to a given product or service, like bees to pollen. According to Dr. Rapaille, it is no surprise the Hummer enjoyed such great success (before environmental and monetary concerns destroyed it and SUVs in general), as the reptilian code for buying SUVs would lead us to the largest, most powerful and frightening vehicle on the road.
The Song Airlines experiment was like watching a train wreck as it was happening. I have always been under the impression that business travel is a major income for all airlines, from the Southwest Airlines of the world to the American Airlines and Uniteds. Choosing an ideal customer base and segment that did not fit that is fine, but a marketing strategy that would do nothing but isolate a major profit maker? And the authenticity? It seemed as though the marketing team honestly bought into the entire premise and were willing to back it 100% of the way, however anytime someone makes efforts to be different, simply for the sake of being different, it seems to backfire hard. The green people and the storefront lounge seemed undeniably odd (and unsuccessful). I do have to give Song credit for encompassing the Song lifestyle in all parts of the brand, however, from the company culture, to the consistent display of the lifestyle in advertisement and onboard. JetBlue has managed to incorporate a fun and unique lifestyle, and unique travel experience, while also appealing to a larger market, and frankly seeming more authentic and less gimmicky than the now defunct Song.
This seems to be where the “magic” of marketing comes into play. Success comes either from integrating seamlessly with what is authentic to the consumers (take the Absolut Hunk example), or not hiding any of your motives, but still creating an authentically worthwhile product (BMW’s films). Failure would come from straying from these principles, and merely feigning authenticity (see the Pontiac commercial posed as 2 hour made for TV Movie). The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry….
Similar to Malcolm Gladwell’s piece in Blink, Dr. Rapaille (and his 3-stage technique) is intent on finding out the underlying, possibly subconscious reasons consumers’ act the way they do, and gives very limited credence to what respondents actually say. I’m sure most of his study subjects would agree, irrational is a much kinder adjective than ignorant. Starting by asking test subjects to actually espouse what they think and feel (Dr. Rapaille believes it is important to appeal to their egos and logic), the next phase is an attempt to confuse the subjects, followed finally by exercises geared towards bringing out what the underlying, frequently undiscovered factors are in decision making. These results, what he would call the reptilian code, are what attracts us to a given product or service, like bees to pollen. According to Dr. Rapaille, it is no surprise the Hummer enjoyed such great success (before environmental and monetary concerns destroyed it and SUVs in general), as the reptilian code for buying SUVs would lead us to the largest, most powerful and frightening vehicle on the road.
The Song Airlines experiment was like watching a train wreck as it was happening. I have always been under the impression that business travel is a major income for all airlines, from the Southwest Airlines of the world to the American Airlines and Uniteds. Choosing an ideal customer base and segment that did not fit that is fine, but a marketing strategy that would do nothing but isolate a major profit maker? And the authenticity? It seemed as though the marketing team honestly bought into the entire premise and were willing to back it 100% of the way, however anytime someone makes efforts to be different, simply for the sake of being different, it seems to backfire hard. The green people and the storefront lounge seemed undeniably odd (and unsuccessful). I do have to give Song credit for encompassing the Song lifestyle in all parts of the brand, however, from the company culture, to the consistent display of the lifestyle in advertisement and onboard. JetBlue has managed to incorporate a fun and unique lifestyle, and unique travel experience, while also appealing to a larger market, and frankly seeming more authentic and less gimmicky than the now defunct Song.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Malcolm Gladwell Brought Out the Snob in Me
Always the pessimist, this chapter in Blink kept giving me the feeling that no one really knows what is going on. Consumers are not sophisticated enough to describe why they actually enjoy anything at all, and furthermore, become even more unpredictable when asked to describe almost anything about a product or service. Marketers go to extravagant and expensive measures to hedge their bets, conducting huge trials and experiments, only to see their “sure thing” turn out to be a total flop. Those with expertise or success in a particular field can pick a diamond out of the rough, but many times have to go through herculean efforts to get it to the masses. So there is the vicious circle; consumers don’t know what’s good for them, marketers think they have obtained this knowledge only to find they were running down the wrong rabbit hole, and those who know what is going on can only sit back and laugh at how absurd it has become.
Of course that is all a grossly pessimistic view of the case brought forth by Malcolm Gladwell. Sure, consumers are irrational, and many times moronic, but there is so much to consume it is nearly impossible to be fluent in everything all the time. Experts in a subject matter really do have a keen knack for dissecting it into a million components and variables, which is incredibly helpful, but what is good is not always popular, and what is popular is not always good. Marketers don’t always study the wrong variable and confuse correlation with causation in testing environments, and have poor hunches frequently.
One thing I found incredibly revealing was the idea of risk, and particularly how tolerant people are to it, and the measures they will take to avoid it. When reading about the record exec who could tell in 5-10 seconds whether or not a record/artist has the “it” factor, my jaw was dropped nearly to the floor. As a self described music junkie, I can barely formulate valid opinions on a band or CD before 2-3 listens of the entire album. 5-10 seconds??? After reading through the rest of the article, about the Herman Miller chair, about the CBS sitcoms, about the food it all began to make perfect sense: determining consumers aversion to risk with their purchases, and a company’s aversion to risk in what they put to market, can make all of the difference. The idea of an “acquired taste” comes to mind, and as a food/music/movies/entertainment snob, I can profess that those who have a low tolerance for risk are truly missing out. When designing a new product, creating product improvements, or trying to modify your market, it seems as though understanding exactly where your target market’s comfort zone lies, and how willing they are to try something new, is essential. Although it seems they were asking the wrong market, for Kenna the record company concluded his genre ambiguous/blending style was too risky for their consumers. For Herman Miller, although the aesthetics of the chair seemed to be too risky for most to tolerate, the company had very little aversion to risk, and powered on.
In my own life, I have considered opening a gourmet catering company, geared at college students living in upscale apartments, where I would deliver the meals to the door. Understanding a college student’s palate and comfort zone would be key. Do college kids consume hoards of pizza and fast food simply because it is inexpensive and easy, or is it actually better suited to a college student’s palate. Would my target market be willing to try a smoked pork loin with a Guinness and peach BBQ Sauce, or a baked chicken with apricot, orange, and pecan stuffing? I know there is a market for the service, I know the product passes the expert’s analysis, but would it be too risky for the market?
What was also startling was how, in spite of research saying the opposite, companies release products that have every indication of failing, and end up succeeding as the environment changes. Herman Miller famously went forward with a chair that by every marketing research study’s indication, would fail miserably, but became a best selling item. CBS went forward with All in the Family, even though Archie Bunker was ahead of his time during the market testing. If possible, it seems as though testing the correct market on an experimental product could make all the difference. If there would be a way to isolate innovators and early adopters in related industries or products, and test their feelings, it may provide better insights into what the market will respond like months from now, rather than today’s sentiments. Seeing who the talk of the town is during SXSW music festival may yield some interesting results in what bands will be popular this summer.
Of course that is all a grossly pessimistic view of the case brought forth by Malcolm Gladwell. Sure, consumers are irrational, and many times moronic, but there is so much to consume it is nearly impossible to be fluent in everything all the time. Experts in a subject matter really do have a keen knack for dissecting it into a million components and variables, which is incredibly helpful, but what is good is not always popular, and what is popular is not always good. Marketers don’t always study the wrong variable and confuse correlation with causation in testing environments, and have poor hunches frequently.
One thing I found incredibly revealing was the idea of risk, and particularly how tolerant people are to it, and the measures they will take to avoid it. When reading about the record exec who could tell in 5-10 seconds whether or not a record/artist has the “it” factor, my jaw was dropped nearly to the floor. As a self described music junkie, I can barely formulate valid opinions on a band or CD before 2-3 listens of the entire album. 5-10 seconds??? After reading through the rest of the article, about the Herman Miller chair, about the CBS sitcoms, about the food it all began to make perfect sense: determining consumers aversion to risk with their purchases, and a company’s aversion to risk in what they put to market, can make all of the difference. The idea of an “acquired taste” comes to mind, and as a food/music/movies/entertainment snob, I can profess that those who have a low tolerance for risk are truly missing out. When designing a new product, creating product improvements, or trying to modify your market, it seems as though understanding exactly where your target market’s comfort zone lies, and how willing they are to try something new, is essential. Although it seems they were asking the wrong market, for Kenna the record company concluded his genre ambiguous/blending style was too risky for their consumers. For Herman Miller, although the aesthetics of the chair seemed to be too risky for most to tolerate, the company had very little aversion to risk, and powered on.
In my own life, I have considered opening a gourmet catering company, geared at college students living in upscale apartments, where I would deliver the meals to the door. Understanding a college student’s palate and comfort zone would be key. Do college kids consume hoards of pizza and fast food simply because it is inexpensive and easy, or is it actually better suited to a college student’s palate. Would my target market be willing to try a smoked pork loin with a Guinness and peach BBQ Sauce, or a baked chicken with apricot, orange, and pecan stuffing? I know there is a market for the service, I know the product passes the expert’s analysis, but would it be too risky for the market?
What was also startling was how, in spite of research saying the opposite, companies release products that have every indication of failing, and end up succeeding as the environment changes. Herman Miller famously went forward with a chair that by every marketing research study’s indication, would fail miserably, but became a best selling item. CBS went forward with All in the Family, even though Archie Bunker was ahead of his time during the market testing. If possible, it seems as though testing the correct market on an experimental product could make all the difference. If there would be a way to isolate innovators and early adopters in related industries or products, and test their feelings, it may provide better insights into what the market will respond like months from now, rather than today’s sentiments. Seeing who the talk of the town is during SXSW music festival may yield some interesting results in what bands will be popular this summer.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Word is Spreading...
Maybe as a byproduct of my age, maybe as a byproduct of my personality, maybe as a byproduct of my upbringing, I have always had a fascination with change. I love analyzing the way things have changed in the past, and being involved in things that are changing currently. What has fallen out of public favor, why this occurred, and seeing these things perpetuate themselves is always interesting.
One way that I see marketing changing currently, and potentially drastically changing in the future, is through harnessing unadulterated consumer insights, and creating discussions between consumers…basically the field of Word of Mouth Marketing. As a concept, business has harnessed Word of Mouth (WOM) for centuries, falling in and out of favor as other forms of marketing have become increasingly elaborate. From discussions on which vendors had the best products, fairest prices, shadiest business tactics at bazaars and markets centuries ago, to online iterations in almost any form imaginable, the exchange of customer opinions and experiences has been a strong force in the what and how people choose to buy. As internet marketing continues to grow in size and importance, it seems only inevitable before courses are taught on the subject, books are already being written, and WOM will certainly play a role in these discussions. Analyzing what developments have been made, what is currently happening, and what could potentially lie ahead for a fledgling (but promising) industry and form of marketing, would be ideal research for me.
Currently, I work for one of, if not THE largest force spreading WOM and its benefits in the business landscape today. Our founder is on the Word of Mouth Marketing Association board; we publish a highly respected blog geared more towards selling WOM services and best practices; our CMO also runs a respected marketing blog, and I have even seen whitepapers and articles written by executives at our company when researching the industry on Google scholar. My largest concern, is that although the subject is gaining popularity and buzz, this research may be a bit close to home so to speak, and variety outside of what I have already heard espoused on a daily basis will be hard to find.
While this concern is in some ways substantial, it also provides a challenge that could benefit my current career path. Delving into the reasons why WOM is working, the components of WOM’s effectiveness if you will, especially from an academic perspective, is something we seldom do. This may be because trade journals are much more relevant (and easily quotable) when selling than academic journals, but the different perspective may reveal something those in the industry easily overlook. Take the study done by McCombs professor Bin Gu in February 2008 showing that positive word of mouth is both a precursor and outcome of increased sales. That is to say large quantities of reviews produce sales, and sales increase the number reviews and positive impressions about that product, service, feature, etc. Published around the same time as a product we designed to “cross the chasm” (of review volume so it was high enough to have positive effects) was released, this article is fuel to the fire for both the entire industry, and said product. Diving deeper into factors such as authenticity in marketing/advertising, consumer trust, new applications for WOM to influence, and new verticals opening themselves to the idea daily, this project could provide a fairly holistic view of WOM marketing from various levels.
One way that I see marketing changing currently, and potentially drastically changing in the future, is through harnessing unadulterated consumer insights, and creating discussions between consumers…basically the field of Word of Mouth Marketing. As a concept, business has harnessed Word of Mouth (WOM) for centuries, falling in and out of favor as other forms of marketing have become increasingly elaborate. From discussions on which vendors had the best products, fairest prices, shadiest business tactics at bazaars and markets centuries ago, to online iterations in almost any form imaginable, the exchange of customer opinions and experiences has been a strong force in the what and how people choose to buy. As internet marketing continues to grow in size and importance, it seems only inevitable before courses are taught on the subject, books are already being written, and WOM will certainly play a role in these discussions. Analyzing what developments have been made, what is currently happening, and what could potentially lie ahead for a fledgling (but promising) industry and form of marketing, would be ideal research for me.
Currently, I work for one of, if not THE largest force spreading WOM and its benefits in the business landscape today. Our founder is on the Word of Mouth Marketing Association board; we publish a highly respected blog geared more towards selling WOM services and best practices; our CMO also runs a respected marketing blog, and I have even seen whitepapers and articles written by executives at our company when researching the industry on Google scholar. My largest concern, is that although the subject is gaining popularity and buzz, this research may be a bit close to home so to speak, and variety outside of what I have already heard espoused on a daily basis will be hard to find.
While this concern is in some ways substantial, it also provides a challenge that could benefit my current career path. Delving into the reasons why WOM is working, the components of WOM’s effectiveness if you will, especially from an academic perspective, is something we seldom do. This may be because trade journals are much more relevant (and easily quotable) when selling than academic journals, but the different perspective may reveal something those in the industry easily overlook. Take the study done by McCombs professor Bin Gu in February 2008 showing that positive word of mouth is both a precursor and outcome of increased sales. That is to say large quantities of reviews produce sales, and sales increase the number reviews and positive impressions about that product, service, feature, etc. Published around the same time as a product we designed to “cross the chasm” (of review volume so it was high enough to have positive effects) was released, this article is fuel to the fire for both the entire industry, and said product. Diving deeper into factors such as authenticity in marketing/advertising, consumer trust, new applications for WOM to influence, and new verticals opening themselves to the idea daily, this project could provide a fairly holistic view of WOM marketing from various levels.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
I Swear It's Like Going to Disneyland
Marketing is much like magic. When done correctly, it blends the lines between reality and fantasy. When done poorly, it invites one to scream out the “secret” to others, dismiss the magician entirely, and proclaim the act a sham. The thing about magic (and marketing) is, sometimes you just want to believe. To steal liberally from what I believe to be the best movie of the past 20 years, The Prestige, “Now you're looking for the secret. But you won’t find it because of course, you're not really looking. You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled.” This, my friends, is exactly what the “customer experience” is all about, and harnessing this power, to the fullest extent, and connecting with the correct segment, can be described as nothing short of magic.
12 pages long and containing the unbelievable story of two women who seemingly built an empire out of nothing, and defied conventional logic, the article “True Colors” just didn’t connect with me. My notes while reading the article should have lent themselves to a piece about changing generations, and how a clever, if not inspiring tag line, simply means nothing to those of my generation. How, authenticity, and the spread of social marketing would mean the demise of this style of marketing and advertising, where a character could evoke feelings strong enough to make someone brand loyal, or even a first time customer. How the pioneers were both amazing, and quaint, the right women for the time, but maybe nothing so revolutionary today.
Instead, after reading the articles in “The New Grocery Experience”, I cast my cynicism to the side in favor of the gleeful exuberance that is truly the shopping “experience”, or magic, if you will, of entering a Central Market (or Whole Foods). Let me explain: I am an unabashed food nerd. I make better food than 95% of the restaurants I eat at, regardless of price. My dream job is opening a wine bar where I serve what I want, when I want, playing a random mix of my MP3 player as background music. I LOVE FOOD. It is my one true passion in life.
The “Central Market” experience has become so ingrained in my foodie DNA that anytime I am having a special meal, cooking for a date, or simply feel like treating myself, I swing by a Central Market. The shopping experience in its entirety is worth the extra prices: the abundance of quality, the sheer abundance, the leisurely pace I take; it all even seems to get my creative juices flowing. I have never, in the 30-40 times I have been in a Central Market, left the store with exactly what I planned on getting, with only what was on my list, or sometimes, even in the ballpark of what I had envisioned going in. That is half of the fun. I frequently tell my guests, whoever it is, that the meal sitting before them, and simply the luxury of shopping at Central Market, is inspiring to me. I want to be successful enough at whatever I do, so the special occasion can be a common occurrence. That will be an effective measure of my success, the day I do my basic weekly grocery shopping at a Central Market, is the day I have arrived. This all may sound a bit extreme, to the point of parody, but I assure you, that only goes to speak about how crazy I am about food, and how truly sincere I am when I say Central Market is my favorite store on earth.
Furthermore, this is one place where I willingly give in to the marketing powers that be, rather than fight them. I typically have the strong will to enter a store, whatever store, pick up the one thing that I want that is on special, and leave. I almost pride myself in the ability to sense a “trap”, and avert it. Central Market gets the best of me every time. They frequently sell boneless skinless fresh chicken breasts for $1.99 a pound, or high quality steaks for anywhere between $6-$10 a pound, prices that are comparable with what you may find elsewhere, but unmatched in quality. I wander in, convinced I will pick up what I need (the steak, or the chicken, or the fish, or the bread), and simply leave. This is where the experience of simply being at a Central Market grabs hold, and prevents me from ever leaving with a basket less than $40. I feel “compelled” to meander slowly through the aisles, and pick up a little of this or that, or some crazy vinegar or oil I cannot find anywhere else, and pick up extra meat on sale, simply because it is a scarce resource, and a loaf of some of the most amazing bread anywhere, and some pesto…and on and on and on until the too good to be true sale that brought me in, is only 5-10% of my total bill. Oddly, I never feel cheated, duped, or remorseful of my purchases. Instead, I leave with my hefty bill and small bag of groceries, absolutely giddy to cook them all.
This is certainly what I would consider part of the “magic” category. It defies all odds, all logic, and yet magically repeats itself, over and over again. The entire process, the entire experience, and not merely the finest ingredients imaginable, makes all this magic possible.
12 pages long and containing the unbelievable story of two women who seemingly built an empire out of nothing, and defied conventional logic, the article “True Colors” just didn’t connect with me. My notes while reading the article should have lent themselves to a piece about changing generations, and how a clever, if not inspiring tag line, simply means nothing to those of my generation. How, authenticity, and the spread of social marketing would mean the demise of this style of marketing and advertising, where a character could evoke feelings strong enough to make someone brand loyal, or even a first time customer. How the pioneers were both amazing, and quaint, the right women for the time, but maybe nothing so revolutionary today.
Instead, after reading the articles in “The New Grocery Experience”, I cast my cynicism to the side in favor of the gleeful exuberance that is truly the shopping “experience”, or magic, if you will, of entering a Central Market (or Whole Foods). Let me explain: I am an unabashed food nerd. I make better food than 95% of the restaurants I eat at, regardless of price. My dream job is opening a wine bar where I serve what I want, when I want, playing a random mix of my MP3 player as background music. I LOVE FOOD. It is my one true passion in life.
The “Central Market” experience has become so ingrained in my foodie DNA that anytime I am having a special meal, cooking for a date, or simply feel like treating myself, I swing by a Central Market. The shopping experience in its entirety is worth the extra prices: the abundance of quality, the sheer abundance, the leisurely pace I take; it all even seems to get my creative juices flowing. I have never, in the 30-40 times I have been in a Central Market, left the store with exactly what I planned on getting, with only what was on my list, or sometimes, even in the ballpark of what I had envisioned going in. That is half of the fun. I frequently tell my guests, whoever it is, that the meal sitting before them, and simply the luxury of shopping at Central Market, is inspiring to me. I want to be successful enough at whatever I do, so the special occasion can be a common occurrence. That will be an effective measure of my success, the day I do my basic weekly grocery shopping at a Central Market, is the day I have arrived. This all may sound a bit extreme, to the point of parody, but I assure you, that only goes to speak about how crazy I am about food, and how truly sincere I am when I say Central Market is my favorite store on earth.
Furthermore, this is one place where I willingly give in to the marketing powers that be, rather than fight them. I typically have the strong will to enter a store, whatever store, pick up the one thing that I want that is on special, and leave. I almost pride myself in the ability to sense a “trap”, and avert it. Central Market gets the best of me every time. They frequently sell boneless skinless fresh chicken breasts for $1.99 a pound, or high quality steaks for anywhere between $6-$10 a pound, prices that are comparable with what you may find elsewhere, but unmatched in quality. I wander in, convinced I will pick up what I need (the steak, or the chicken, or the fish, or the bread), and simply leave. This is where the experience of simply being at a Central Market grabs hold, and prevents me from ever leaving with a basket less than $40. I feel “compelled” to meander slowly through the aisles, and pick up a little of this or that, or some crazy vinegar or oil I cannot find anywhere else, and pick up extra meat on sale, simply because it is a scarce resource, and a loaf of some of the most amazing bread anywhere, and some pesto…and on and on and on until the too good to be true sale that brought me in, is only 5-10% of my total bill. Oddly, I never feel cheated, duped, or remorseful of my purchases. Instead, I leave with my hefty bill and small bag of groceries, absolutely giddy to cook them all.
This is certainly what I would consider part of the “magic” category. It defies all odds, all logic, and yet magically repeats itself, over and over again. The entire process, the entire experience, and not merely the finest ingredients imaginable, makes all this magic possible.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Knowledge Will Set You Free
I feel it necessary to start this blog post with an examination of my biases. I am, what I would call, a “moderate libertarian”. It is my political and philosophical persuasion, that I abide by what Barry Schwartz calls the “Conventional Western Wisdom”. Freedom and choice, inseparable in value, should be maximized, which will result in immeasurable happiness. Where some of my libertarian brethren take this almost to the point of anarchy, wishing to privatize things like the police, firemen, and schooling, I do not. I agree with Mr. Schwartz in that everyone should have “their own fishbowl” so to speak, which varies in scope and size based on an individual’s ability to choose.
There is an incredibly large degree of empowerment in choice. Choice provides people, whether they are buying a product, service, or even voting in an election, a sense of satisfaction that they made a choice, any choice, and can attribute a sense of value to that choice, because it was their own. In his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Robert Cialdini makes the claim that people actually have a stronger relationship with something, anything, once they actually make that choice, because of an internal desire to remain (and appear to others) consistent. There may still be, and frequently is, buyer’s remorse, but the connection to that brand, that product, that service, that politician, is stronger now that the decision and endorsement was made. I own, and take pride in my decisions, and like to stick with my decisions.
Think about the last time you received a gift, something marginally useful that you may not have actually purchased for yourself. Now think about another item, that is, again, marginally useful, but this time you purchased it for yourself. Which item do you find yourself trying to use more often? Even if that item requires a lot of extra effort? Which item would you be more likely to sell at a garage sale? If you are anything like my family and I, the gifted item is nearly disposable, while the purchased item gets its try every now and again. I come from a family of foodies, so one year I decided to give my mom a pasta machine for her birthday so we could make homemade pasta at home. It has been used literally once in almost 8 years, but has somehow made it through 4 different moves without being lost or sold at a garage sale. In an attempt to make handmade potato pasta called gnocchi, my dad purchased a potato ricer a few years ago. After a failed (and laborious attempt) to make a perfect batch of gnocchi, my dad has been trying to use the ricer in a number of different (and unintended) ways, all with little success. But he continues to try, for reasons until recently, I did not take the time to examine.
Where I find Mr. Schwartz is almost entirely correct with his “Paradox of Choice”, is with an uninformed or uneducated consumer. I know about as little as someone can know about household repairs, or how an automobile functions. Send me into a Home Depot or Autozone, even with a specific list of products, and I will freeze up given the choice of even just 3 different brands or options. To the uninformed consumer, much like his example of purchasing jeans, where he only knew of one style, or his example of patient autonomy, choice is certainly not a good thing. Choice means you can make a mistake, and choice means that there is always the possibility you have made the wrong choice, leaving you with a hefty sense of buyer’s remorse. I recently stood in front of the pain reliever section at CVS for about 10 minutes trying to decipher all of my options (time relase, extra strength, rapid release, PM, etc) before buying the generic, regular strength, Tylenol. I even went in, thinking I knew what I wanted, but ended up confused and “paralyzed” by the situation, not knowing the merits or downfalls of each option.
So how do we get the best of both worlds, a plethora of choice without the paradox of choice burdening every purchase? Make it as easy as possible to educate consumers and make them feel at ease with their purchase. Segmentation, in many ways, makes this possible. Certain price points message a perceived value on the customer’s end. Effective packaging and messaging can easily queue the customer into whether this product was meant for professionals, for children, for the elderly, for the tech savvy, for whoever. The internet has proven an unbelievable research tool for all forms of product research. One study even discovered “70% of online consumers said they use the Internet to research everyday grocery products” (Prospectiv, January 2008). Consumer ratings and reviews empower customers with the confidence the product will be functional, durable, and valuable (through the star ratings), and specific consumer insights on the product itself (the review material).
While there is certainly something to be said about the ills of too much choice (for example, the choice for Barry Schwartz to dress himself), I feel the effects were vastly over exaggerated in this twenty minute segment. Furthermore, it seemed Mr. Schwartz was not ashamed to also mention (or briefly push, rather) the idea of income redistribution, leaving one to wonder if the two ideas merely run parallel with one another, or if one is the byproduct of the other. I reveal the fact my biases certainly influence/cloud my judgment and opinions, I can only hope in its 304 pages, this is disclosed in “The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less”.
Edit:
Upon reflection of this topic, my post, and the podcast, I changed the title of the article to “Knowledge Will Set You Free”. While touching on the subject of politics, which along with food, movies, and music, I tend to weave into every discussion, I did not fully explain my planks for a better society; or why exactly, education, education on and about most everything, is so truly important. In order for my libertarian utopia to exist somewhere, even in my imagination, it MUST be filled with educated citizens. Citizens who understand that although an income tax does not exist in a libertarian utopia, the welfare of others is essential in maintaining a functioning society, so they give to charity out of both altruism and necessity, but not a legal sanction to do so. Citizens who understand that pollution and waste are exactly that, and do not partake. Citizens who understand the risks involved with drug use, even casual drug use, and do not partake in the hardest controlled substances, even though it would be legal to do so. Citizens who, because of a diverse and thorough education, are tolerant, if not accepting, of others lifestyle choices, cultures, abilities, etc, and simply do not have the power to legislate any discriminatory laws or practices into being. Maybe I am confusing education with a strong sense of morality here, but those I have regarded as having the highest sense of morality, always have impeccable and seamless logic to demonstrate their points, a sign of a highly educated (or at least highly intelligent) person.
So how does this starry-eyed political diatribe relate to consumer purchasing and decision making? Because the only way more choices can hamper a consumer; because the only way to suggest LESS options for the consumer, without actually asking the consumer, is a good thing, is if there is no faith that consumer can make an educated decision on their own. I actually find it rather insulting someone would insinuate I should have to make fewer choices, and always be fine with it. I have seen people standing in the wine isle with the “deer in the headlights” look, absolutely flabbergasted by the selection. A quick response: any good liquor store will have an expert on hand, to guide your decision, discover your wants, and suggest the best option for you. Paradox smashed, problem solved, and education delivered with minimal output! The internet contains a PLETHORA of information on nearly any subject, easily accessible, and enough to remove shopping paralysis. It is believed one of the key contributing factors to Amazon.com ‘s longtime success was their effective and widespread use of customer ratings and reviews. I can personally recall instances of starting a very basic, broad search, (cookware for example) and narrowing down to a few options, having no idea what I was looking for going in. It has been theorized Amazon is losing market share to others, especially as of late, because of the widespread use of reviews on competitor’s websites.
Knowledge will set you free my friends, knowledge will set you free…
There is an incredibly large degree of empowerment in choice. Choice provides people, whether they are buying a product, service, or even voting in an election, a sense of satisfaction that they made a choice, any choice, and can attribute a sense of value to that choice, because it was their own. In his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Robert Cialdini makes the claim that people actually have a stronger relationship with something, anything, once they actually make that choice, because of an internal desire to remain (and appear to others) consistent. There may still be, and frequently is, buyer’s remorse, but the connection to that brand, that product, that service, that politician, is stronger now that the decision and endorsement was made. I own, and take pride in my decisions, and like to stick with my decisions.
Think about the last time you received a gift, something marginally useful that you may not have actually purchased for yourself. Now think about another item, that is, again, marginally useful, but this time you purchased it for yourself. Which item do you find yourself trying to use more often? Even if that item requires a lot of extra effort? Which item would you be more likely to sell at a garage sale? If you are anything like my family and I, the gifted item is nearly disposable, while the purchased item gets its try every now and again. I come from a family of foodies, so one year I decided to give my mom a pasta machine for her birthday so we could make homemade pasta at home. It has been used literally once in almost 8 years, but has somehow made it through 4 different moves without being lost or sold at a garage sale. In an attempt to make handmade potato pasta called gnocchi, my dad purchased a potato ricer a few years ago. After a failed (and laborious attempt) to make a perfect batch of gnocchi, my dad has been trying to use the ricer in a number of different (and unintended) ways, all with little success. But he continues to try, for reasons until recently, I did not take the time to examine.
Where I find Mr. Schwartz is almost entirely correct with his “Paradox of Choice”, is with an uninformed or uneducated consumer. I know about as little as someone can know about household repairs, or how an automobile functions. Send me into a Home Depot or Autozone, even with a specific list of products, and I will freeze up given the choice of even just 3 different brands or options. To the uninformed consumer, much like his example of purchasing jeans, where he only knew of one style, or his example of patient autonomy, choice is certainly not a good thing. Choice means you can make a mistake, and choice means that there is always the possibility you have made the wrong choice, leaving you with a hefty sense of buyer’s remorse. I recently stood in front of the pain reliever section at CVS for about 10 minutes trying to decipher all of my options (time relase, extra strength, rapid release, PM, etc) before buying the generic, regular strength, Tylenol. I even went in, thinking I knew what I wanted, but ended up confused and “paralyzed” by the situation, not knowing the merits or downfalls of each option.
So how do we get the best of both worlds, a plethora of choice without the paradox of choice burdening every purchase? Make it as easy as possible to educate consumers and make them feel at ease with their purchase. Segmentation, in many ways, makes this possible. Certain price points message a perceived value on the customer’s end. Effective packaging and messaging can easily queue the customer into whether this product was meant for professionals, for children, for the elderly, for the tech savvy, for whoever. The internet has proven an unbelievable research tool for all forms of product research. One study even discovered “70% of online consumers said they use the Internet to research everyday grocery products” (Prospectiv, January 2008). Consumer ratings and reviews empower customers with the confidence the product will be functional, durable, and valuable (through the star ratings), and specific consumer insights on the product itself (the review material).
While there is certainly something to be said about the ills of too much choice (for example, the choice for Barry Schwartz to dress himself), I feel the effects were vastly over exaggerated in this twenty minute segment. Furthermore, it seemed Mr. Schwartz was not ashamed to also mention (or briefly push, rather) the idea of income redistribution, leaving one to wonder if the two ideas merely run parallel with one another, or if one is the byproduct of the other. I reveal the fact my biases certainly influence/cloud my judgment and opinions, I can only hope in its 304 pages, this is disclosed in “The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less”.
Edit:
Upon reflection of this topic, my post, and the podcast, I changed the title of the article to “Knowledge Will Set You Free”. While touching on the subject of politics, which along with food, movies, and music, I tend to weave into every discussion, I did not fully explain my planks for a better society; or why exactly, education, education on and about most everything, is so truly important. In order for my libertarian utopia to exist somewhere, even in my imagination, it MUST be filled with educated citizens. Citizens who understand that although an income tax does not exist in a libertarian utopia, the welfare of others is essential in maintaining a functioning society, so they give to charity out of both altruism and necessity, but not a legal sanction to do so. Citizens who understand that pollution and waste are exactly that, and do not partake. Citizens who understand the risks involved with drug use, even casual drug use, and do not partake in the hardest controlled substances, even though it would be legal to do so. Citizens who, because of a diverse and thorough education, are tolerant, if not accepting, of others lifestyle choices, cultures, abilities, etc, and simply do not have the power to legislate any discriminatory laws or practices into being. Maybe I am confusing education with a strong sense of morality here, but those I have regarded as having the highest sense of morality, always have impeccable and seamless logic to demonstrate their points, a sign of a highly educated (or at least highly intelligent) person.
So how does this starry-eyed political diatribe relate to consumer purchasing and decision making? Because the only way more choices can hamper a consumer; because the only way to suggest LESS options for the consumer, without actually asking the consumer, is a good thing, is if there is no faith that consumer can make an educated decision on their own. I actually find it rather insulting someone would insinuate I should have to make fewer choices, and always be fine with it. I have seen people standing in the wine isle with the “deer in the headlights” look, absolutely flabbergasted by the selection. A quick response: any good liquor store will have an expert on hand, to guide your decision, discover your wants, and suggest the best option for you. Paradox smashed, problem solved, and education delivered with minimal output! The internet contains a PLETHORA of information on nearly any subject, easily accessible, and enough to remove shopping paralysis. It is believed one of the key contributing factors to Amazon.com ‘s longtime success was their effective and widespread use of customer ratings and reviews. I can personally recall instances of starting a very basic, broad search, (cookware for example) and narrowing down to a few options, having no idea what I was looking for going in. It has been theorized Amazon is losing market share to others, especially as of late, because of the widespread use of reviews on competitor’s websites.
Knowledge will set you free my friends, knowledge will set you free…
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
What is This Generation All About? Me.
Generation Y. The Net Generation. Millenials. Call this generation what you wish, but the label of “The Me Generation” has always resonated the strongest with…me.
Please consider the following about me:
• I have never written a blog post before, for business or pleasure; but I love to write long winded diatribes, and frequently make such comments on the blogs I frequent.
• I have never had a Myspace account, and were it not for the free streaming music while at work and home, I would have no use for Myspace; yet I spend more time on Facebook than any other site on the internet.
• I work for the single largest force spreading and evangelizing the benefits of social commerce and word of mouth marketing on the planet (which I won’t post, for fear of setting off hundreds of Google Alerts); yet I have never written a product review on anything I have purchased, online or offline.
The common denominator? It’s all about independence. It’s all about me. My likes, my tastes, my wants. Without sounding (overly) narcissistic, I cannot claim this desire to be independent, is at all unique for those in my generation. This drive for independence may even be a byproduct of the lack of anything that is truly unique in our generation.
When is the last time you saw an article of clothing (or combinations of them) that was truly unique? It seems even the most hideous and obnoxious fashions have groups of followers. Completely customizable sneakers are about as unique as a build-a-bear.
How about the last time a band/song/album was like nothing you’ve ever heard before? If you are a music nerd like me, you understand everything has its roots somewhere. 30 some years before the Flaming Lips gained notoriety; the Beach Boys were making experimental pop albums. Without Neil Young, My Morning Jacket may never have existed.
When was the last time a movie or TV show was unique before a slew of imitators followed? So many elements of The Matrix were copied and mocked that a first time viewer may wonder what was ever so special about it to begin with. After only one episode of the Fox TV show “Lie to Me”, it has become readily apparent (almost to the point of being laughable) that the producers wanted to capture all of the successful elements of another Fox show, “House”, and simply repackage it as a detective show instead. This is not quite a knock on either show, but a spade deserves to be called a spade.
The funniest thing about all of this: The “Me Generation”, myself included, eats it all up. There have to be 7 different C.S.I. and C.S.I. knockoffs running on primetime TV by now, and I can pick and choose which (if any, or maybe all) that I like best. Like the podcast mentioned, there must be at least 300 different social networking options out there. I choose to use Facebook, but could just as easily be a Myspace user. Choice, beyond something highly valued, is an integral part of who I am, so flooding whatever market I am in with options, makes me a much happier customer.
What I find a bit frightening, is how a website written about my generation a decade ago, describes me as accurately as anything I could have written. The “Ten Themes of N-Gen Culture” is in my estimation, a comprehensive list of my defining personality traits. Interestingly enough, “Strong Independence” tops the list, and other “me” qualities, such as strong vocalization of opinions, the need for everything in the blink of an eye, patronization of small businesses, and openness in expression, make an appearance on the list as well. I sometimes have a hard time with labels, but the author did not miss a step when labeling me.
As far as the Podcast and Article Generation Y are concerned, consumer involvement in the brand, the experience, is integral to success. My job guarantees I would see this no other way, but what others are thinking, saying, and experiencing enhances my decision making process, and give ME a chance to make my opinions known. Driving a car built for customization, the Toyota Scion, could provide an excellent opportunity for Toyota to capture brand loyalists who would love to compare and contrast what features are on their Scion. The podcast nails it on the head though, when it claims that no one cares what Toyota has to say, but people are enthused by what real people think.
Please consider the following about me:
• I have never written a blog post before, for business or pleasure; but I love to write long winded diatribes, and frequently make such comments on the blogs I frequent.
• I have never had a Myspace account, and were it not for the free streaming music while at work and home, I would have no use for Myspace; yet I spend more time on Facebook than any other site on the internet.
• I work for the single largest force spreading and evangelizing the benefits of social commerce and word of mouth marketing on the planet (which I won’t post, for fear of setting off hundreds of Google Alerts); yet I have never written a product review on anything I have purchased, online or offline.
The common denominator? It’s all about independence. It’s all about me. My likes, my tastes, my wants. Without sounding (overly) narcissistic, I cannot claim this desire to be independent, is at all unique for those in my generation. This drive for independence may even be a byproduct of the lack of anything that is truly unique in our generation.
When is the last time you saw an article of clothing (or combinations of them) that was truly unique? It seems even the most hideous and obnoxious fashions have groups of followers. Completely customizable sneakers are about as unique as a build-a-bear.
How about the last time a band/song/album was like nothing you’ve ever heard before? If you are a music nerd like me, you understand everything has its roots somewhere. 30 some years before the Flaming Lips gained notoriety; the Beach Boys were making experimental pop albums. Without Neil Young, My Morning Jacket may never have existed.
When was the last time a movie or TV show was unique before a slew of imitators followed? So many elements of The Matrix were copied and mocked that a first time viewer may wonder what was ever so special about it to begin with. After only one episode of the Fox TV show “Lie to Me”, it has become readily apparent (almost to the point of being laughable) that the producers wanted to capture all of the successful elements of another Fox show, “House”, and simply repackage it as a detective show instead. This is not quite a knock on either show, but a spade deserves to be called a spade.
The funniest thing about all of this: The “Me Generation”, myself included, eats it all up. There have to be 7 different C.S.I. and C.S.I. knockoffs running on primetime TV by now, and I can pick and choose which (if any, or maybe all) that I like best. Like the podcast mentioned, there must be at least 300 different social networking options out there. I choose to use Facebook, but could just as easily be a Myspace user. Choice, beyond something highly valued, is an integral part of who I am, so flooding whatever market I am in with options, makes me a much happier customer.
What I find a bit frightening, is how a website written about my generation a decade ago, describes me as accurately as anything I could have written. The “Ten Themes of N-Gen Culture” is in my estimation, a comprehensive list of my defining personality traits. Interestingly enough, “Strong Independence” tops the list, and other “me” qualities, such as strong vocalization of opinions, the need for everything in the blink of an eye, patronization of small businesses, and openness in expression, make an appearance on the list as well. I sometimes have a hard time with labels, but the author did not miss a step when labeling me.
As far as the Podcast and Article Generation Y are concerned, consumer involvement in the brand, the experience, is integral to success. My job guarantees I would see this no other way, but what others are thinking, saying, and experiencing enhances my decision making process, and give ME a chance to make my opinions known. Driving a car built for customization, the Toyota Scion, could provide an excellent opportunity for Toyota to capture brand loyalists who would love to compare and contrast what features are on their Scion. The podcast nails it on the head though, when it claims that no one cares what Toyota has to say, but people are enthused by what real people think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)