I am not sure what to really call this idea, but one of the most important, and definitely most interesting, concepts I understand better as a result of the group project is that the target demographic is not always who the marketer must target. An obvious way that this idea was manifested was the issue of the purchase decision maker. Although our target market, 14- 15 year old girls, do have a small amount of disposable income from an allowance or babysitting jobs, they were not the ones who would ultimately decide whether or not to buy our product. That power rested in the hands of their parents. In the end, they would decide if our product was a worthwhile investment. This was a challenge for us because teenage girls are notorious for fighting parental authority. Ironically, the room we were assigned represented this clash of wants and needs perfectly. The girls we interviewed saw the family room as place of relaxation and comfort where they could engage in leisurely activities like watching TV. At the same time, though, the girls detested spending time in the room because it was a public area that lacked privacy. In the family room, they had to follow their parents’ rules of “no food on the couch,” “no TV until homework is finished,” or “no feet on the coffee table.” Our product had to strike the right balance between the teens’ desire for freedom and the parents’ desire to retain control over their child’s actions without offending either group.
However, that was not the end for us. We had to take that targeting problem a step further. Our insights proved that 14-15 year old girls’ perceptions of themselves were different from who they actually were. Many of the girls we interviewed conveyed their attempts to be independent by dictating what items they felt should and should not be in their family’s common room. They pointed out particular pieces of furniture as “ugly” or “pointless” and communicated their disgust for their father’s mini bar or their younger sister’s toys strewn about the floor. However, as we analyzed these findings, we discovered that the underlying desires of our demographic were, in fact, the opposite of independence. More than anything, they wanted to fit in with their peers; they wanted to take certain items out of the family room because they were embarrassed by them when their friends came over. We realized, from our research and from personal experience, that our target market is motivated by self-image and following all of the right trends. Whether they would admit it or not, teenage girls are victims of groupthink and are most apt to do whatever their friends do. Also, to them, they are the single most important person in their lives, which is normal for an age group with little responsibility or concern outside of their social group. Actually, this mentality is probably applicable to college students too, including me. So in addition to creating a product that would appeal to our target market and their parents, we also had to consider who our target market perceived themselves to be. Our product had to be something that would help them relate to their friends while simultaneously making them think they are being innovative and independent.
I really did enjoy this project. At first, I was skeptical because our group did not seem to mesh well. I felt like there were people who were determined to choose the age group they felt would be best and others that really could not care less. But as time passed, our meetings became more productive as we became more acquainted with each other’s personalities. We discovered that we each had different strengths, and that recognition made the process of the project more efficient, as each of us naturally gravitated to what we did best. You as an instructor were very helpful; the guidelines were very straightforward but still allowed for creative freedom along the way. It was great to get feedback from you after we turned in every step so we knew exactly how we could improve the next time around. Overall, this project was a unique way to gain customer insights; it helped me shape my way of thinking, and if I was ever faced with a marketing dilemma in the future, I definitely feel that I would go about it in this way. As one of my group members mentioned, though, I think the overall objective of this project should be kept a secret until some of the insights were gained. That way, we would not have been so focused on the project and tailored our research questions in a way that could have presented a bias.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Alamo Drafthouse: Ahead of the Rest
I read an entry on the Church of the Customer blog (http://customerevangelists.typepad.com) about one of Austin’s finest establishments, Alamo Drafthouse. The Alamo, as I lovingly refer to it, is one of my favorite things about this city, second only to its rich heritage of live music. I have often admitted to my friends my fear of having to watch movies without the company of their trademark Grilled Cheese and Sundried Tomato Sandwich if I ever have to move out of Austin. Regardless of how simple it sounds, the idea of serving good food and alcoholic beverages at a movie theater is one of the greatest innovations of our time.
The first Drafthouse opened in the late 1990’s in downtown Austin. Since then, the company has allowed franchisees to open Alamo Drafthouse locations all over Texas and even one in Virginia! Alamo Drafthouse prides itself on its ability to provide a unique experience to its customers. Like any other movie theater, they play most of the current movies, and to cater to the population of Austin, they also play many independent films. However, Alamo Drafthouse’s “Signature Events” are the company’s point of differentiation.
Ben McConnell, the author of “Fun is contagious,” described two of these events on the Church of the Customer blog. One was “Renegade Karaoke,” a bus ride during which customers serenaded people at random Austin locations. Thanks to a mobile sound system, this hilarious journey was videotaped, with the highlights to be screened as pre-show entertainment for movie showings at the various Alamo theaters. McConnell also mentioned a recent screening of an old Star Trek movie, at which attendees were promised an extended sneak peek at the new Star Trek movie which would not be released until this summer. A few minutes into the movie, though, these diehard fans were told that the movie was broken. Then, out of nowhere, appeared Leonard Nimoy, also known as “Mr. Spock,” who suggested that the audience be granted permission to see the new Star Trek movie in its entirety.
Events like the ones McConnell described show that Alamo Drafthouse is unique. In a fiercely competitive industry, it gives consumers more than enough reasons to establish deep loyalty with its brand. At what other movie theater can you go to a Caddyshack quote-a-long or watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy while feasting on nine hobbit meals? Alamo Drafthouse has completely changed the way people watch movies. They go above and beyond those national chains that see their duty as screening a movie and nothing more. When I went to see Adventureland a few weeks ago, Martin Starr, one of the movie’s stars, made an appearance. On the menu were Adventureland-specific food items like corndogs. Theater employees wore the same t-shirts as the characters in the movie who worked at a local amusement park. Last year, my roommate’s sorority took their new pledges to one of the Austin Alamos for a boy band sing-a-long. On Monday nights at the downtown location, The Ritz, you can see musically-focused documentaries for just a dollar.
The people of Alamo Drafthouse have discovered that a movie theater is not just a movie theater. Instead, it is a venue that could be used for so many other purposes, and I am continuously surprised at the events they put together. They are very in tune with their customers; at the premiere of the Sex and the City movie, the theater served cosmos. When I saw the ad for that event, I thought to myself, "What a perfect idea. Why hasn't anyone else ever thought of this before?"
Ben McConnell says that "Fun is contagious. Fun spreads. Fun inspires loyalty. Fun opens wallets." I absolutely agree. Alamo Drafthouse is always my first choice when I want to see a movie. Because food is also served, a typical Alamo experience is more expensive than going to another theater. However, shelling out a couple of extra bucks to tip the server is worth it, especially when they also offer the cheapest movie in town: $6.50 for students!
In 2005, Entertainment Weekly named Alamo Drafthouse "The Number One Movie Theater in the Country Doing it Right." The company is a great example of an entity that refuses to be constrained by the actions of its competitors. As a matter of fact, you could even say that they are in a league of their own, as they offer much more than the average American movie theater.
The first Drafthouse opened in the late 1990’s in downtown Austin. Since then, the company has allowed franchisees to open Alamo Drafthouse locations all over Texas and even one in Virginia! Alamo Drafthouse prides itself on its ability to provide a unique experience to its customers. Like any other movie theater, they play most of the current movies, and to cater to the population of Austin, they also play many independent films. However, Alamo Drafthouse’s “Signature Events” are the company’s point of differentiation.
Ben McConnell, the author of “Fun is contagious,” described two of these events on the Church of the Customer blog. One was “Renegade Karaoke,” a bus ride during which customers serenaded people at random Austin locations. Thanks to a mobile sound system, this hilarious journey was videotaped, with the highlights to be screened as pre-show entertainment for movie showings at the various Alamo theaters. McConnell also mentioned a recent screening of an old Star Trek movie, at which attendees were promised an extended sneak peek at the new Star Trek movie which would not be released until this summer. A few minutes into the movie, though, these diehard fans were told that the movie was broken. Then, out of nowhere, appeared Leonard Nimoy, also known as “Mr. Spock,” who suggested that the audience be granted permission to see the new Star Trek movie in its entirety.
Events like the ones McConnell described show that Alamo Drafthouse is unique. In a fiercely competitive industry, it gives consumers more than enough reasons to establish deep loyalty with its brand. At what other movie theater can you go to a Caddyshack quote-a-long or watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy while feasting on nine hobbit meals? Alamo Drafthouse has completely changed the way people watch movies. They go above and beyond those national chains that see their duty as screening a movie and nothing more. When I went to see Adventureland a few weeks ago, Martin Starr, one of the movie’s stars, made an appearance. On the menu were Adventureland-specific food items like corndogs. Theater employees wore the same t-shirts as the characters in the movie who worked at a local amusement park. Last year, my roommate’s sorority took their new pledges to one of the Austin Alamos for a boy band sing-a-long. On Monday nights at the downtown location, The Ritz, you can see musically-focused documentaries for just a dollar.
The people of Alamo Drafthouse have discovered that a movie theater is not just a movie theater. Instead, it is a venue that could be used for so many other purposes, and I am continuously surprised at the events they put together. They are very in tune with their customers; at the premiere of the Sex and the City movie, the theater served cosmos. When I saw the ad for that event, I thought to myself, "What a perfect idea. Why hasn't anyone else ever thought of this before?"
Ben McConnell says that "Fun is contagious. Fun spreads. Fun inspires loyalty. Fun opens wallets." I absolutely agree. Alamo Drafthouse is always my first choice when I want to see a movie. Because food is also served, a typical Alamo experience is more expensive than going to another theater. However, shelling out a couple of extra bucks to tip the server is worth it, especially when they also offer the cheapest movie in town: $6.50 for students!
In 2005, Entertainment Weekly named Alamo Drafthouse "The Number One Movie Theater in the Country Doing it Right." The company is a great example of an entity that refuses to be constrained by the actions of its competitors. As a matter of fact, you could even say that they are in a league of their own, as they offer much more than the average American movie theater.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Converse v. Banana Republic Outline
For my paper, I plan to explore the role that music has played in advertising campaigns, specifically in the most recent efforts of Converse and Banana Republic. By comparing the execution of the campaigns, as well as the artists involved in each, I hope to gain insight on what kind of experience each brand was trying to create for their customers. I will also try to gauge the effectiveness of the two campaigns based on what was done and how compatible these actions were with the brand's image.
Note: I had some problems with formatting, so something is off with the font size and the outlined numbering system.
Note: I had some problems with formatting, so something is off with the font size and the outlined numbering system.
- Music in Advertising (1-2 pages)
- Role of music
- Differences in high-involvement and low-involvement products
- Classical conditioning paradigm
- Gorn's experiment
- Other conclusions
- Gorn's experiment
- The ELM (Petty and Cacioppo)
- Changing and creating attitudes
- Central route
- Peripheral route
- Central route
- Support from other studies
- Idea of musical fit (MacInnis and Park)
- Author's study on the effect of different but congruent musical styles
- Role of music
- Celebrity Endorsements (1-2pages)
- Definition of "celebrity"
- Reasons celebrities are used for endorsements
- When they are most effective (products with high social risk)
- Processes of social influence
- Compliance
- Identification
- internalization
- Compliance
- Definition of "celebrity"
- Converse (3-4 pages)
- Company background
- Wholly owned subsidiary of Nike, Inc. (My)
- Established in 1908
- Brief mention of financial data
- Converse as "heritage brand"
- Overview of product lines
- "Role in disrupting the status quo over the last 100 years" ("Advertising")
- Past cultural icons used
- Wholly owned subsidiary of Nike, Inc. (My)
- "Connectivity" Campaign
- "My Drive Thru"
- Song downloads
- Music video
- Song downloads
- Overall purpose
- Quotes from CMO
- "catalyst for creativity"
- Quotes from CMO
- Target market
- Agencies used
- Cornerstone
- Anomaly
- Cornerstone
- Paper doll graphics
- Artists in campaign
- Media outlets
- Television
- Outdoor/Transit
- Digital/Web
- Cinema
- Print
- Television
- Sense Experiential Modules
- Sensory
- Emotional
- Intellectual/Cognitive
- Physical/Behavioral
- Relational
- Sensory
- Benefit to musicians involved
- Reactions from music blogs (positive and negative)
- Stereogum.com
- Pitchfork.com
- PostAdvertising.com
- Stereogum.com
- Survey results
- Demographics
- Familiarity with artists involved
- Perception of Converse brand
- Shortcomings of survey
- Demographics
- Banana Republic (3-4 pages)
- Company Background
- Gap Inc.
- Founded in 1969 in San Francisco, CA
- Historical milestones
- Financial data
- Acquired Banana Republic in 1983
- Founded in 1969 in San Francisco, CA
- Banana Republic
- Started as two-store safari and travel clothing company
- Accessible luzury brand
- "elevated design," "luxurious fabrications," "uncomplicated style"
- Started as two-store safari and travel clothing company
- "City Stories" Campaign
- Overall purpose
- Tradition of city style
- Quote from CMO
- Tradition of city style
- Focus on New York City and Brookyn
- Target market
- "the modern soul"
- Shoppers between 25 and 49 who "aspire to a city lifestyle"
- "the modern soul"
- Agencies used
- AR
- Starworks: artist casting support
- Rock River Music: music aggregation and marketing
- AR
- Artists in campaign
- Media outlets
- Print
- Outdoor
- Online
- Direct Mail
- In-Store
- Virgin America's RED: first-ever branded channel for in-flight entertainment system
- Print
- Sense Experiential Modules
- Sensory
- Emotional
- Intellectual/Cognitive
- Physical/Behavioral
- Relational
- Sensory
- Reactions from music blogs (positive and negative)
- Stereogum
- Pitchfork
- Stereogum
- Survey Results
- Demographics
- Familiarity with artists involved
- Perception of Converse brand
- Shortcomings of survey
- Demographics
- Converse v. Banana Republic (2-3 pages)
- Successes
- Failures
- Successes
Concerns:
- I will be deploying a survey after this outline is approved, so I will need someone to proof the survey. Also, like with all other surveys, the number of respondents is a concern. In addition, I do not know very many individuals that fall in Banana Republic's target demographic (ages 25-49), so my results may favor the Converse campaign, since more of my peer group falls into that target market and will probably be more familiar with those artists.
- Another concern I have with the survey is whether or not I need to form hypotheses before beginning. Should I wait to discuss the survey until after I summarize the two campaigns?
- I need to find another academic article about celebrity endorsements. The one I currently have may be outdated.
- I originally had the idea to incorporate some other campaigns into my paper, but after doing this outline, I feel like I have enough information to fill the required 10-15 pages. If not, I will use Adidas' current "House Party" campaign as a third example.
Sources:
"Advertising Campaigns: Converse 'My Drive Thru.'" UTalkMarketing. 7 April 2009 <http:// utalkmarketing.com/Pages/CreativeShowcase.aspx?ArticleID=11101&Filter=0&Keywords=&Order=LATEST&Page=1&Title=Converse_%E2%80%98My_Drive_Thru%E2%80%99>
"Banana Republic Celebrates Spring with Music-Inspired 'City Stories' Campaign." Press Release. Gap Inc. Jan. 2009. 4 April 2009 <http://www.gapinc.com/public/Media/Press_Releases/ med_pr_BRSpringAd012309.shtml>
"Company Fact Sheet." Gap Inc. 12 April 2009 <http://www.gapinc.com/public/About/abt_fact_ sheet.shtml>
"Converse Launches New Advertising Campaign Built Around the Hit Summer Track 'My Drive Thru.'" Press Release. Reuters 15 July 2008. 7 April 2009 <http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease /idUS116362+15-Jul-2008+BW20080715>
"Drivin' Thru Summer in My Chucks." Post Advertising. 11 July 2008. 7 April 2009 <http://www. postadvertising.com/post/2008/07/11/Drivin-Thru-Summer-in-My-Chucks.aspx>
Kamins, Michael A., Meribeth J. Brand, Stuart A. Hoeke, and John C. Moe. "Two-Sided Versus One-Sided Celebrity Endorsements: The Impact on Advertising Effectiveness and Credibility." Journal of Advertising 18.2 (1989): 4-10.
"Milestones." Gap Inc. 12 April 2009 <http://www.gapinc.com/public/About/abt_milestones.shtml>
"Our Brands- Banana Republic." Gap Inc. 9 April 2009 <http://www.gapinc.com/public/OurBrands/ brands.shtml>
Ben-Yehuda, Ayala. "Banana Republic to Kick Off Artist Ad Campaign." Billboard. 10 Feb. 2009. 9 April 2009 <http://billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i73b3660e2c6025e6cdb460b9fd283859? imw=Y>
My Drive Thru- Converse. 9 June 2008. 7 April 2009 <http://mnr.onthescene.com/converse/ mydrivethru.html>
Parpis, Eleftheria. "Converse Turns Up the Noise." Adweek. 14 July 2008. 7 April 2009 <http:// www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/agency/e3i5dab627a6e5e9f67f6c2ff46aaef1efe>
Polikarpov, Yana. "Banana Republic Tells 'City Stories.'" Adweek. 10 Feb. 2009 9 April 2009 <http:// www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/creative/new-campaigns/e3id86b3c6480b9377f51f2c980 c9a50817>
Zander, Mark F. ""Musical influences in advertising: how music modifies first impressions of product endorsers and brands." Psychology of Music 34 (2006): 465-480)
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Nike Takes on March Madness
Like every other year, March Madness has taken over America. Right now, we are caught in the heat of “The Big Dance, coming off of the first two rounds of play and headed straight into the Sweet Sixteen tonight. By the end of next weekend, the field of sixty-five Division I college basketball teams will be narrowed down to two, and on the following Monday, a new team will replace the Kansas Jayhawks as the NCAA Champions, cutting down the nets in Detroit to the tune of “One Shining Moment.”
From a marketing standpoint, there are so many fascinating things about this annual tournament and the “madness” that comes with it. In my opinion, March Madness is one of the most powerfully unifying sports forces that America has ever seen, behind the Super Bowl of course. People who don’t even care about sports fill out brackets. CBS, a major network, devotes its programming during the first two rounds of the tournament entirely to game coverage; if a games goes long, the local news doesn’t even air! And for goodness sake, “bracketology” is a real word now.
On Wednesday, in class, we discussed the risk Song Airlines took in selling their brand as a spirit. Their commercials did not mention or even show an airplane; Song hoped to portray themselves as an emotion. Our discussion reminded me a series of Air Jordan (a Nike brand) ads that have been airing throughout the NCAA tournament. The first is a scene in which a police officer in Illinois tickets a driver from North Carolina from going 36 in a 35 MPH zone, referencing the 2005 title game in which the Tarheels defeated the Fighting Illini, who came into the game with an unbelievable 37-1 record.
This one shows a family, observably University of Washington fans, unwilling to accept a daughter’s new boyfriend who went to school at UConn. A clip is shown of the 1998 Sweet Sixteen game between the two schools in which Richard Hamilton hit a last second, buzzer beating shot that allowed UConn to advance to the next round.
The next is a father talking about his daughter’s birthday, April 5, 2003, also the night that Carmelo Anthony, who eventually led Syracuse to the national title that year, scored 33 points against Texas in the Final Four. At the time, Texas was the only #1 seed left in the tournament and the favorite to win it all. The Longhorns, led by T.J. Ford, saw their hopes of winning a national championship dashed by the eventual third overall pick of the 2003 NBA Draft.
I absolutely love these commercials. Not only do they show Nike’s knowledge of their customer base and their willingness to connect with them, but they succeed in doing what Song failed to do. These commercials aren’t explicitly advertising Air Jordan shoes. Instead, Nike is selling a certain spirit, an emotion. They are appealing to the customers who have experienced absolute heartbreak during the NCAA tournament. Regardless of how long ago that moment occurred, Nike assures them that it’s okay to still feel that way and almost encourages them to continue harboring those feelings.
What is ironic is that Nike does almost the opposite of Song. The emotions that these advertisements are meant to convey are in no way positive. These moments haunt hardcore basketball fans for years. I remember watching that game when Syracuse beat Texas. Those feelings of disappointment, angst, and even hatred came flooding back as soon as I saw this commercial for the first time. Yet, I thought to myself, “Wow, what a great commercial. What a great concept for Nike to use.”
The only problem with this campaign is the following ad:
From a marketing standpoint, there are so many fascinating things about this annual tournament and the “madness” that comes with it. In my opinion, March Madness is one of the most powerfully unifying sports forces that America has ever seen, behind the Super Bowl of course. People who don’t even care about sports fill out brackets. CBS, a major network, devotes its programming during the first two rounds of the tournament entirely to game coverage; if a games goes long, the local news doesn’t even air! And for goodness sake, “bracketology” is a real word now.
On Wednesday, in class, we discussed the risk Song Airlines took in selling their brand as a spirit. Their commercials did not mention or even show an airplane; Song hoped to portray themselves as an emotion. Our discussion reminded me a series of Air Jordan (a Nike brand) ads that have been airing throughout the NCAA tournament. The first is a scene in which a police officer in Illinois tickets a driver from North Carolina from going 36 in a 35 MPH zone, referencing the 2005 title game in which the Tarheels defeated the Fighting Illini, who came into the game with an unbelievable 37-1 record.
This one shows a family, observably University of Washington fans, unwilling to accept a daughter’s new boyfriend who went to school at UConn. A clip is shown of the 1998 Sweet Sixteen game between the two schools in which Richard Hamilton hit a last second, buzzer beating shot that allowed UConn to advance to the next round.
The next is a father talking about his daughter’s birthday, April 5, 2003, also the night that Carmelo Anthony, who eventually led Syracuse to the national title that year, scored 33 points against Texas in the Final Four. At the time, Texas was the only #1 seed left in the tournament and the favorite to win it all. The Longhorns, led by T.J. Ford, saw their hopes of winning a national championship dashed by the eventual third overall pick of the 2003 NBA Draft.
I absolutely love these commercials. Not only do they show Nike’s knowledge of their customer base and their willingness to connect with them, but they succeed in doing what Song failed to do. These commercials aren’t explicitly advertising Air Jordan shoes. Instead, Nike is selling a certain spirit, an emotion. They are appealing to the customers who have experienced absolute heartbreak during the NCAA tournament. Regardless of how long ago that moment occurred, Nike assures them that it’s okay to still feel that way and almost encourages them to continue harboring those feelings.
What is ironic is that Nike does almost the opposite of Song. The emotions that these advertisements are meant to convey are in no way positive. These moments haunt hardcore basketball fans for years. I remember watching that game when Syracuse beat Texas. Those feelings of disappointment, angst, and even hatred came flooding back as soon as I saw this commercial for the first time. Yet, I thought to myself, “Wow, what a great commercial. What a great concept for Nike to use.”
The only problem with this campaign is the following ad:
Just like the others, right? WRONG! The game being referenced is not one that stands out. In fact, my friend's boyfriend, a Syracuse alum and diehard Orange basketball fan, can't remember this supposed domination by Ray Allen. Maybe this was a game from a Big East Tournament in the mid 90’s, but it definitely cannot be considered as memorable and epic as the games in the other three commercials. The only logical explanation for this “miss” by Air Jordan is the fact that Ray Allen is a member of their brand. Perhaps they felt the need to make him the focal point of one of the commercials.
It’s not that they completely fabricated the game; they didn’t do that. They simply exaggerated the nostalgic effect of a game that occurred almost 15 years ago to make the campaign cohesive. Most people probably wouldn’t even notice, but Syracuse fans definitely would. And a few UConn fans are probably scratching their heads a bit, too.
I think Nike should have really thought about airing this commercial because while most people that see it will think it fits in with the rest, a small percentage of viewers will be turned off. It is airing during the tournament, a time when diehard fans are definitely tuning in.
Now, every time I see an Air Jordan commercial, I won't help but think of the time Nike tried to trick America into believing that Ray Allen's performance against Syracuse was comparable to North Carolina's run to the Championship in 2005. Nice try, Nike.
Now, every time I see an Air Jordan commercial, I won't help but think of the time Nike tried to trick America into believing that Ray Allen's performance against Syracuse was comparable to North Carolina's run to the Championship in 2005. Nice try, Nike.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Persuaders
Dr. Rapaille believes that consumers are driven by unconscious needs. We seldom understand why we do what we do, leading us to make up something that makes sense when asked about our motivations. He says that the key to the psyche of consumers is a 3 step process of getting past reason, through emotion, to the primal core where all purchase decisions lie.
1. He conducts focus groups, asking them how they feel about a certain word and how that concept is sold to them. At this point, Rapaille doesn’t care what they say, he just wants them to feel intelligent.
2. Rapaille doesn’t want his focus groups to be logical or intelligent. He asks them to tell a story as if they were speaking to an alien child. People don’t understand what they are doing during this stage, and that is exactly what he wants.
3. The focus group is encouraged to go back the first time they experienced what they’re trying to understand. This is where the primal urges can be seen, or as Rapaille calls it, the Reptilian hotbutton. According to him, this reptilian hotbutton, or code, has nothing to do with intellect, and it always wins.
I thought the example Rapaille provided was hilarious. He told a French cheese company that they were going “off code” by advertising their products in a way that did not appeal to Americans. In France, cheese is alive and does not belong in the refridgerator; however, Americans treat cheese very differently and perceived the French cheese as unsafe.
Rapaille’s clients can use the code to improve a product. Competitors can then replicate that product. However, without the knowledge of why the product was created that way, the product does not have the same effect.
Song Airlines’ main goal was to establish a solid brand rather than promoting the benefits of the product they were offering. Of course, they wanted to mention that their airline offered flights at reasonable prices and that the in-flight meals were fresh and organic, but they believed that it was more important to invent a new culture of flying. The president of Song argued that a company can only be the sole provider of a benefit, like an individual TV for every seat, for a finite period of time. On the other hand, the company’s spirit cannot be recreated. Song focused on the heart rather than the head, creating advertisements that did not even mention planes; instead, they invoked emotions and feelings that could be classified as “Song.”
As an idea, I think this campaign was very innovative. Like the video kept mentioning, consumers are becoming more and more immune to advertising. We no longer want facts shoved in our faces about how great a product is; instead, we are drawn to creativity and humor. By selling something intangible, the Song brand, the company is able to convey an attitude that is welcoming and thoughtful. It is absolutely true that marketers must adjust to the changing perceptions of customers. Today, consumers are asking, “What does this product mean?” not “What does this product do?” Brands must go beyond the five senses. The desire to buy must be more deeply rooted than before; consumers want to belong, and brands can create a meaning system for them.
At the same time, though, I do not think this was the right thing for Song to do. As was proven, customers were confused about what the company even was. Was it a travel agency? An airline? A store? The advertisements actually had the opposite effect of what was intended; they took away from the product instead of enhancing it. While the ads were smoothly executed and were generally appealing, it was unclear as to what was being sold. Yes, Song was trying to sell certain emotions, but if those emotions are not connected to the brand explicitly enough, especially with a new brand, the ad is bound to fail.
Airline tickets are a fairly expensive good. I feel like there is a curve to this idea of selling an intangible concept. I think it would work really well with cheap goods, like a snack food or article of clothing because these goods require less disposable income, and consumers are more willing to take “risks.” However, an airline ticket is something that requires more consideration before purchase. For most people, price is the bottom line, and they are willing to sacrifice things like a good meal or in-flight movie for a lower price. Song’s emotion provoking commercial may be well received, but might not translate to actual purchase decisions. But after a certain price point, the emotional appeal can be effective again. Someone doesn’t buy a set of Louis Vuitton luggage because it’s so much better quality than Samsonite; they buy it because it makes them feel a certain way. That’s an assumption, though.
1. He conducts focus groups, asking them how they feel about a certain word and how that concept is sold to them. At this point, Rapaille doesn’t care what they say, he just wants them to feel intelligent.
2. Rapaille doesn’t want his focus groups to be logical or intelligent. He asks them to tell a story as if they were speaking to an alien child. People don’t understand what they are doing during this stage, and that is exactly what he wants.
3. The focus group is encouraged to go back the first time they experienced what they’re trying to understand. This is where the primal urges can be seen, or as Rapaille calls it, the Reptilian hotbutton. According to him, this reptilian hotbutton, or code, has nothing to do with intellect, and it always wins.
I thought the example Rapaille provided was hilarious. He told a French cheese company that they were going “off code” by advertising their products in a way that did not appeal to Americans. In France, cheese is alive and does not belong in the refridgerator; however, Americans treat cheese very differently and perceived the French cheese as unsafe.
Rapaille’s clients can use the code to improve a product. Competitors can then replicate that product. However, without the knowledge of why the product was created that way, the product does not have the same effect.
Song Airlines’ main goal was to establish a solid brand rather than promoting the benefits of the product they were offering. Of course, they wanted to mention that their airline offered flights at reasonable prices and that the in-flight meals were fresh and organic, but they believed that it was more important to invent a new culture of flying. The president of Song argued that a company can only be the sole provider of a benefit, like an individual TV for every seat, for a finite period of time. On the other hand, the company’s spirit cannot be recreated. Song focused on the heart rather than the head, creating advertisements that did not even mention planes; instead, they invoked emotions and feelings that could be classified as “Song.”
As an idea, I think this campaign was very innovative. Like the video kept mentioning, consumers are becoming more and more immune to advertising. We no longer want facts shoved in our faces about how great a product is; instead, we are drawn to creativity and humor. By selling something intangible, the Song brand, the company is able to convey an attitude that is welcoming and thoughtful. It is absolutely true that marketers must adjust to the changing perceptions of customers. Today, consumers are asking, “What does this product mean?” not “What does this product do?” Brands must go beyond the five senses. The desire to buy must be more deeply rooted than before; consumers want to belong, and brands can create a meaning system for them.
At the same time, though, I do not think this was the right thing for Song to do. As was proven, customers were confused about what the company even was. Was it a travel agency? An airline? A store? The advertisements actually had the opposite effect of what was intended; they took away from the product instead of enhancing it. While the ads were smoothly executed and were generally appealing, it was unclear as to what was being sold. Yes, Song was trying to sell certain emotions, but if those emotions are not connected to the brand explicitly enough, especially with a new brand, the ad is bound to fail.
Airline tickets are a fairly expensive good. I feel like there is a curve to this idea of selling an intangible concept. I think it would work really well with cheap goods, like a snack food or article of clothing because these goods require less disposable income, and consumers are more willing to take “risks.” However, an airline ticket is something that requires more consideration before purchase. For most people, price is the bottom line, and they are willing to sacrifice things like a good meal or in-flight movie for a lower price. Song’s emotion provoking commercial may be well received, but might not translate to actual purchase decisions. But after a certain price point, the emotional appeal can be effective again. Someone doesn’t buy a set of Louis Vuitton luggage because it’s so much better quality than Samsonite; they buy it because it makes them feel a certain way. That’s an assumption, though.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Kenna's Dilemma
The most important thing that I learned from the “Kenna’s Dilemma” chapter was the relevance of context in gaining customer insights. I thought it was very interesting how the results of the taste test did not necessarily provide Coca-Cola with the answer to why they were losing market share, especially because most would assume that taste is the most important aspect of the beverage industry.
When testing a product, it is imperative to consider the environment in which the test is given. In the case of Coca-Cola, they found that consumers preferred Pepsi in a sip test. So when Coca-Cola tweaked their formula to taste more like Pepsi, they were simply responding to the findings of the taste test; in essence, they thought they were giving consumers what they wanted. However, the problem was that customers rely on more than the taste factor when buying soda. According to Gladwell, “we transfer to our sensation of the Coca-Cola taste all of the unconscious associations we have of the brand, the image, the can, and even the mistakable red of the logo.” Coca-Cola assumed their loss in market share had to be attributed to taste, when, in fact, the problem was brand imagery. They should have realized that, while a blind sip test seemed like an unbiased method, it was not the usual context in which Coca-Cola was consumed.
While it may sometimes be difficult or impossible, simulating the environment of use when testing a product is the only way to guarantee the results. Gladwell warns against letting “the guys in the white lab coats take over,” which also had a negative impact in Kenna’s case.
I think this is a dilemma that consumers can potentially face every time they shop. When I try on a pair of shoes, a couple of walks down the length of the aisle are usually not enough to determine the level of comfort and stability the shoes will provide during a long day of walking around campus. Every year around Christmastime, I go to Sephora to pick out a new bottle of perfume. After a few disappointing purchases, I now ask for a sample size of three or four scents and try them out over the next week before buying an entire bottle. Like the Coca-Cola taste test, a perfume that smells great after one spray in the store may not be what I want to smell like every single day.
Another concept I related to was the perception of “new” as “bad.” The Aeron chair was a great example of this phenomenon. Customers initially gave the Aeron bad ratings because it was not aesthetically pleasing. To them, “the word ‘ugly’ was just a proxy for ‘different,’” forgetting that comfort is the driving force behind a great chair, not necessarily its design.
In market tests, the testers were not actually purchasing the chair. I think this had an effect on their perception of the Aeron. If they were really in the market for a durable chair, would its appearance have such a significant impact on their purchase decision? If your goal was to buy the best chair possible, you would choose the one that was least likely to cause back problems, the one that provided the best support and greatest level of comfort.
Clearly, those that rated the Aeron, as well as All in the Family and The Mary Tyler Moore Show, really could not overcome the initial newness factor to really evaluate the product. After the Aeron began to achieve high sales volume, customers’ perception of its aestheticism skyrocketed. Those two TV shows are now remembered as classic programs that continue to have cultural relevance today.
I guess market research is not always a good indicator of what will actually happen when the product hits the market place. I think this is similar to the Halo Effect, where a customer’s “yes” to “would you buy this product?” does not always translate into an actual purchase decision. No matter what precautions a company takes to make sure their results are as “accurate” as possible, there does not seem to be a way to actually perform market research in a way to generate perfect solutions.
When testing a product, it is imperative to consider the environment in which the test is given. In the case of Coca-Cola, they found that consumers preferred Pepsi in a sip test. So when Coca-Cola tweaked their formula to taste more like Pepsi, they were simply responding to the findings of the taste test; in essence, they thought they were giving consumers what they wanted. However, the problem was that customers rely on more than the taste factor when buying soda. According to Gladwell, “we transfer to our sensation of the Coca-Cola taste all of the unconscious associations we have of the brand, the image, the can, and even the mistakable red of the logo.” Coca-Cola assumed their loss in market share had to be attributed to taste, when, in fact, the problem was brand imagery. They should have realized that, while a blind sip test seemed like an unbiased method, it was not the usual context in which Coca-Cola was consumed.
While it may sometimes be difficult or impossible, simulating the environment of use when testing a product is the only way to guarantee the results. Gladwell warns against letting “the guys in the white lab coats take over,” which also had a negative impact in Kenna’s case.
I think this is a dilemma that consumers can potentially face every time they shop. When I try on a pair of shoes, a couple of walks down the length of the aisle are usually not enough to determine the level of comfort and stability the shoes will provide during a long day of walking around campus. Every year around Christmastime, I go to Sephora to pick out a new bottle of perfume. After a few disappointing purchases, I now ask for a sample size of three or four scents and try them out over the next week before buying an entire bottle. Like the Coca-Cola taste test, a perfume that smells great after one spray in the store may not be what I want to smell like every single day.
Another concept I related to was the perception of “new” as “bad.” The Aeron chair was a great example of this phenomenon. Customers initially gave the Aeron bad ratings because it was not aesthetically pleasing. To them, “the word ‘ugly’ was just a proxy for ‘different,’” forgetting that comfort is the driving force behind a great chair, not necessarily its design.
In market tests, the testers were not actually purchasing the chair. I think this had an effect on their perception of the Aeron. If they were really in the market for a durable chair, would its appearance have such a significant impact on their purchase decision? If your goal was to buy the best chair possible, you would choose the one that was least likely to cause back problems, the one that provided the best support and greatest level of comfort.
Clearly, those that rated the Aeron, as well as All in the Family and The Mary Tyler Moore Show, really could not overcome the initial newness factor to really evaluate the product. After the Aeron began to achieve high sales volume, customers’ perception of its aestheticism skyrocketed. Those two TV shows are now remembered as classic programs that continue to have cultural relevance today.
I guess market research is not always a good indicator of what will actually happen when the product hits the market place. I think this is similar to the Halo Effect, where a customer’s “yes” to “would you buy this product?” does not always translate into an actual purchase decision. No matter what precautions a company takes to make sure their results are as “accurate” as possible, there does not seem to be a way to actually perform market research in a way to generate perfect solutions.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Current Topics Report
As the eldest of four siblings, I have always been interested in the effects of birth order. My younger sister and brothers are nineteen, thirteen, and twelve years old, respectively. Despite our shared genetics and virtually identical upbringings, Pamela, Joseph, Samuel, and I all have unique, and often contrasting, interests, personalities, and mental processes. Life at our house was chaotic; my family was late to almost everything, and I rarely ever had time alone, much less peace and quiet. At the same time, though, I feel like my childhood was also overflowing with laughter, love, and joy. And even as a twenty-two year old, my greatest source of happiness is my large family.
While growing up, I was fortunate enough to have two very close guy friends who also came from four children households. Since elementary school, we have been sharing our frustrations, as well as all of our hilarious anecdotes ,with each other, as very few of our peers understood what it was like to grow up with three siblings. When I came to UT, I met another friend, also male, who empathized with me. In the past three years, the four of us have had many discussions concerning the dynamics of our families.
Not surprisingly, we have discovered striking similarities between each of our siblings. The oldest is usually the most conservative and least interesting of the bunch, well-liked for adhering to social norms. The second is the over achiever and parent pleaser, having waited their entire lives to be in the spotlight. The third child is the brooding rebel who prefers solitude, often the “odd man out” of the four. The fourth is the stereotypical baby of the family, a sweet but self-indulging free spirit, craving, and usually earning, parental attention.
I know there have been a myriad of birth order studies done in the past. In October 2007, Time published an article, “The Power of Birth Order,” which cites various findings from around the world that support the important effect of birth order on humans’ perceptions and life circumstances. Jeffrey Kluger, its author, asserts that “firstborns score especially well on the dimension of temperament known as conscientiousness- a sense of general responsibility and follow-through.” They are “generally smarter” and take less risks than their younger siblings. Meanwhile, “later-borns score higher on what’s known as agreeableness, or the simple ability to get along in the world.” They are “looser cannons, less educated and less strapping” but likelier to live more exciting lives. In fact, a psychology professor at Guilford College “revealed the overrepresentation of firstborns in Congress” found that the majority of picketers arrested at labor demonstrations “were later- or last-borns.”
In my Current Topics Report, I would like to explore the effects of birth order on American consumers. I want to see how the perceptions of the oldest, middle, and youngest children have influenced market segmentation, if at all. Obviously, birth order affects the way we think and what we do. So does it then, also, affect how we buy? Do I perceive products differently than my younger sister? Do companies market differently to youngest children than firstborns? What about only children? Also, does birth order affect an individual’s strategic experiential modules? Will we ever be able to unfold the mysteries known as middle children? After all, they are the hardest group to define because of their constantly changing role in the family.
These are all questions I hope to answer as part of the research process for my report. I am aware that birth order is a very subjective topic. While many studies have shown strong evidence of common tendencies in oldest, middle, and youngest children, there are many other factors influencing our lives that simply cannot be ignored.
Culture, race, income class, and religion, among others, play a huge role in our lives. Family background is also important. Single-parent households are sure to be different than two-parent households; as we know, divorce can have a tremendous impact on a child of any age. Family dysfunction, like domestic or substance abuse, causes disruptions of typical birth-order generalizations. Even the number of siblings we grew up with probably has a huge effect on the way we think and buy.
Even though my own experiences are the basis of my curiosity in this particular subject, I will try my best to remain objective. I was raised in a Protestant, Korean American household in College Station, Texas, by two Texas Exes who were married in 1985. I am aware that these factors make my family unique and that every other American family has their own unique qualities as well.
By the end of the semester, I hope to have a more “scientific” understanding of me and my siblings. As a marketing major, I am also interested in how our differences have crafted us into consumers with varying thought processes and behaviors.
While growing up, I was fortunate enough to have two very close guy friends who also came from four children households. Since elementary school, we have been sharing our frustrations, as well as all of our hilarious anecdotes ,with each other, as very few of our peers understood what it was like to grow up with three siblings. When I came to UT, I met another friend, also male, who empathized with me. In the past three years, the four of us have had many discussions concerning the dynamics of our families.
Not surprisingly, we have discovered striking similarities between each of our siblings. The oldest is usually the most conservative and least interesting of the bunch, well-liked for adhering to social norms. The second is the over achiever and parent pleaser, having waited their entire lives to be in the spotlight. The third child is the brooding rebel who prefers solitude, often the “odd man out” of the four. The fourth is the stereotypical baby of the family, a sweet but self-indulging free spirit, craving, and usually earning, parental attention.
I know there have been a myriad of birth order studies done in the past. In October 2007, Time published an article, “The Power of Birth Order,” which cites various findings from around the world that support the important effect of birth order on humans’ perceptions and life circumstances. Jeffrey Kluger, its author, asserts that “firstborns score especially well on the dimension of temperament known as conscientiousness- a sense of general responsibility and follow-through.” They are “generally smarter” and take less risks than their younger siblings. Meanwhile, “later-borns score higher on what’s known as agreeableness, or the simple ability to get along in the world.” They are “looser cannons, less educated and less strapping” but likelier to live more exciting lives. In fact, a psychology professor at Guilford College “revealed the overrepresentation of firstborns in Congress” found that the majority of picketers arrested at labor demonstrations “were later- or last-borns.”
In my Current Topics Report, I would like to explore the effects of birth order on American consumers. I want to see how the perceptions of the oldest, middle, and youngest children have influenced market segmentation, if at all. Obviously, birth order affects the way we think and what we do. So does it then, also, affect how we buy? Do I perceive products differently than my younger sister? Do companies market differently to youngest children than firstborns? What about only children? Also, does birth order affect an individual’s strategic experiential modules? Will we ever be able to unfold the mysteries known as middle children? After all, they are the hardest group to define because of their constantly changing role in the family.
These are all questions I hope to answer as part of the research process for my report. I am aware that birth order is a very subjective topic. While many studies have shown strong evidence of common tendencies in oldest, middle, and youngest children, there are many other factors influencing our lives that simply cannot be ignored.
Culture, race, income class, and religion, among others, play a huge role in our lives. Family background is also important. Single-parent households are sure to be different than two-parent households; as we know, divorce can have a tremendous impact on a child of any age. Family dysfunction, like domestic or substance abuse, causes disruptions of typical birth-order generalizations. Even the number of siblings we grew up with probably has a huge effect on the way we think and buy.
Even though my own experiences are the basis of my curiosity in this particular subject, I will try my best to remain objective. I was raised in a Protestant, Korean American household in College Station, Texas, by two Texas Exes who were married in 1985. I am aware that these factors make my family unique and that every other American family has their own unique qualities as well.
By the end of the semester, I hope to have a more “scientific” understanding of me and my siblings. As a marketing major, I am also interested in how our differences have crafted us into consumers with varying thought processes and behaviors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)