I watched a documentary last night titled Red Gold, which showed two sides of an environmental battle. On one side were the salmon fishermen of the Bristol Bay area in Alaska, and on the other side were geologists and corporate men and women who were trying to build Pebble Copper Mine. It was a very interesting documentary, not only because it was very well done--photography, music, characterization--all were stellar, but also because it illustrated the fundamental issue between these two groups was not a financial issue, or even really an environmental issue. The problem evolved because it dealt with two groups of people with fundamentally different concepts of the world and people's place in it.
The fishermen in the Bristol Bay area spend only a few weeks each year preparing for the season and then fishing. The rest of the year they are free to take on freelance, tradesmen jobs, spend time with their families, and enjoy Alaska's vivid landscapes and sporting recreation. While this lifestyle seems almost perfect, one glaring fact remains--these fishermen are living in what the goverment terms 'poverty'. They live on about 11,000 dollars a year, but they never go hungary because they live off the land, which is a practice that has been handed down to them for generations by family and community members.
On the other hand, the geologists and businessmen behind the Pebble Copper Mine know that opening the mine will give thousands in the Bristol Bay area steady jobs and salaries. They have publicly committed themselves to not injuring the environment and especially the fishing industry, and they literally believe that beneath their over 300 billion dollar investment lies a gold mine. They thought that the subsistence fishermen of Bristol Bay would be thrilled with the new job opportunities and increased business that the mine will bring.
However, the fishermen do not see it that way. They have fished for hundreds of years. When the salmon spawn and fishing begins, literally the entire family--even small infants observe from parental perches or nearby cribs--partake in preparing the salmon for the smokehouse. It is their way of life. They lead a financially simple, but very fulfilled life. Family, fishing, and Alaska's great outdoors are the primary objects in these people's lives, and a salary increase of 50,000 dollars, without those components, has very little appeal. One man described his life dream of seeing his grandson fishing with him. And though the little boy is only about 10 months old, we was there fishing, and this man was the happiest he has ever been.
Yet the men and women behind Pebble Mine continue to funnel time and resources into building this mine that has so much resistance rising up against it. They continue to think that once it is there and the money starts rolling in, these people will change their minds, and find a new passion--money. Because in the corporate world, it always comes down to the bottom line. That is why there is so much corruption and so many ethical meltdowns.
I think this is important for us as students in consumer insights but also as business men and women. Because our job is to get in the minds of consumers, no matter what level of consumption they operate at, and understand their fundamental needs and desires. Pebble Mine cannot understand the needs of the fishermen at Bristol Bay who refuse to watch the fishing population die out...along with their livelihood. There are so many different kinds of people in the world, and I think too often in marketing we get into this segmenting mindset (which is a powerful tool), but the danger is that we focus too much on the groups in aggregate and how the majority of people respond, that we forget the power of the minority, and how the strong beliefs of a few threatened can make a big impact.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Persuaders
Dr. Rapaille three stage process tries to get beyond what people think they think or want others to think about them, and to get to the primal core and discover what he calls “the reptilian hot spot”. Stage one, labeled Past Reason, is focused on the cortex and allows the focus group to feel like they are intelligent and mentally impressive people. It is all about asking for synonyms or word association, etc. Then after an hour, the group gets a break and returns. They are now entering what Rapaille calls the “Through Emotional” stage, where he tells them to tell him a story as if they were telling it to a five year old kid from outer space. This really confuses the focus group because they do not understand how this relates to what they were told they would be doing. Finally, Rapaille gives them another break, and when they come back he has removed all the chairs. This really throws the group. He makes them lay down and dims the lights. This is Stage three, or the “Primal Core”. He wants them to go back to the first time they experienced luxury, as if they had been sleeping and were just awakened. It is in this stage that Rapaille can understand the Reptilian Code or the underlying reason consumers do what they do. His theory is that the Reptile always wins, no matter what. And so he wants to get the that part of the brain or psyche and understand what motivates the reptile.
When Rapaille consulted with Hummer, he told them to make the windows darker and the vehicle larger. Because the reptilian code for hummer is “dominance”. So consumers might say that they are buying a Hummer for whatever reason…off-roading, safety, whatever…but what is really driving the purchase is the need for dominance. So Rapaille says make the product reflect the reptilian underlying code, and it will win out. He believes that consumers are not rational, but they want to appear rational so they simply make up why they are doing something. Rapaille began to understand this when he was working with Autistic children who could not speak or communication in traditional ways. He had to observe their behavior and find meaning in what they did.
I think Song Airlines idea has merit and definite possibility. But with the parent company continually losing money, I do not think that the strategy of Song Airlines would have worked as a lifeline. I searched for Song online and was directed to the Delta website. I searched the Delta website and could not find anything on it. It has disappeared. Then again, years ago who could have anticipated the current state of the economy, and I definitely do not think their strategy would work in today’s business climate. Not only because most companies are losing money, but because their strategy of luxury and comfort is not really what people want right now. I think people now want to see where companies are cutting corners and want to feel like they, as consumers, are saving and economizing. And organic food and all these great amenities do not really send that message. I think that their marketing and advertising campaigns were unique and very well suited toward their target market, and the idea of peace and comfort and happiness is appreciated in regards to an airline since travel is usually so miserable and stressful. But I think Song’s major problem was that its competitors offered a similar product (i.e. JetBlue, Southwest, low price, fun, easy), but they did not limit themselves to the target market of Carry, who has a Neimans card but still shops at Target. The broader appeal of those airlines worked, where as Song’s appeal was geared toward too small a segment. But not thinking about it in a marketing context, or in the context of the finite resources of a company, the ads and the ideas and general mentality of Song, as transmitted through the program, appealed to me. I did think to myself, “I would like to fly on that airline.” But with the current economy and Delta’s problems, I just did not really see how this could have worked.
When Rapaille consulted with Hummer, he told them to make the windows darker and the vehicle larger. Because the reptilian code for hummer is “dominance”. So consumers might say that they are buying a Hummer for whatever reason…off-roading, safety, whatever…but what is really driving the purchase is the need for dominance. So Rapaille says make the product reflect the reptilian underlying code, and it will win out. He believes that consumers are not rational, but they want to appear rational so they simply make up why they are doing something. Rapaille began to understand this when he was working with Autistic children who could not speak or communication in traditional ways. He had to observe their behavior and find meaning in what they did.
I think Song Airlines idea has merit and definite possibility. But with the parent company continually losing money, I do not think that the strategy of Song Airlines would have worked as a lifeline. I searched for Song online and was directed to the Delta website. I searched the Delta website and could not find anything on it. It has disappeared. Then again, years ago who could have anticipated the current state of the economy, and I definitely do not think their strategy would work in today’s business climate. Not only because most companies are losing money, but because their strategy of luxury and comfort is not really what people want right now. I think people now want to see where companies are cutting corners and want to feel like they, as consumers, are saving and economizing. And organic food and all these great amenities do not really send that message. I think that their marketing and advertising campaigns were unique and very well suited toward their target market, and the idea of peace and comfort and happiness is appreciated in regards to an airline since travel is usually so miserable and stressful. But I think Song’s major problem was that its competitors offered a similar product (i.e. JetBlue, Southwest, low price, fun, easy), but they did not limit themselves to the target market of Carry, who has a Neimans card but still shops at Target. The broader appeal of those airlines worked, where as Song’s appeal was geared toward too small a segment. But not thinking about it in a marketing context, or in the context of the finite resources of a company, the ads and the ideas and general mentality of Song, as transmitted through the program, appealed to me. I did think to myself, “I would like to fly on that airline.” But with the current economy and Delta’s problems, I just did not really see how this could have worked.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Lessons from Kenna
One of the first things that occurred to me after reading Kenna’s Dilemma was the iTunes store’s model of allowing customers to listen to about a 30 second blurb of whatever song before deciding whether or not to purchase it. I wondered how this affects the chances of a consumer buying the song; for instance, the initial reaction is to assume that “That’s great!” attitude, or now you know exactly what you are buying because you’ve listened to 30 seconds of what could be a 2 minute, 5 minute, or 10 minute track. But then I thought of all the times I have purchased music on iTunes, based off the blurb, only to realize I hated the full track, or was bored by it, or that it was, in its majority, completely different from the blurb.
And also when you are sitting in front of your computer, evaluating this 30 second blurb, you might like it, or not, or feel somewhat apathetic, but you see that it is only 99 cents. And you think well I probably have that much clanking around in my washing machine from jean pockets. And so you buy that song, and then you buy the next 15 songs, based off of 30 second blurbs, that maybe or maybe not made an impression. But as you listen to more songs, you buy fewer and fewer, because suddenly you realize that the 99 cent songs have accumulated to a 99 dollar dinner at a premier steak house. And for the most part you cannot even remember what songs you purchased.
This had me wondering if the 30 second blurbs and 99 cent songs prompt you to buy more, or merely unevenly distribute your purchases with the majority in the beginning. And also it had me wondering if consumers enjoy their purchases more because of the blurbs, and value the song more, or not. I think I am somewhat jaded now about the blurbs, and I do not listen to them anymore because if I really like the blurb but feel lukewarm about the song as a whole, I end up hating the song.
This little blurb rebellion of mine illustrated to me the lunacy of sip test, song blurbs, and pilot/movie clip tests, because rarely will a fragment of the picture give you a complete view. If someone were to take a 4-by-4 inch section of one of Frans Hals’ paintings for critique, the majority of viewers would probably say that is was crude, elementary, and without talent or promise. However, in their entirety his work is beyond compelling and inspired. I think that is a major point that Kenna’s Dilemma argues, that many of the tests and surveys that we as marketers cling to and rely on, do not offer a view of the whole painting. And that why some products, who might have a few seconds of compelling product aspects, soar in tests but dismally fail in stores.
But since costs increase with the more comprehensive testing and surveys that marketers do, it becomes vital for marketers to take a step back periodically from their product and view it from all angles, real and imaginary. Because they are the product experts, like the food critics, and they have the knowledge to really examine all the different aspects. But when the excitement and group think of how great your product is, over shadows a marketer’s analytical abilities, then products fail and huge investments are lost.
Another really important issue I found in Kenna’s Dilemma was the aspect of packaging. For instance, Kenna, himself, had poor packaging. He was not what people expected of a “rock star”, and that sometimes distracted them from the experience of his music. But at the same time, had he conformed to the rock star standard packaging, it might have devalued his service, or at least made him a talented sell out.
I think there is a very fine line between selling packaging and selling a product, and marketers are supposed to do both, in a completely cohesive and complementary way. The problem is, I think, that when someone is not selling, marketers resort to typically traditional selling techniques…sex, celebrities, excitement and hurrah, adding more features, or copying what everyone else does. And sometimes, when they rely on those tactics too much, or blatantly abuse them, they backfire in their face, resulting in an even worse catastrophe.
And also when you are sitting in front of your computer, evaluating this 30 second blurb, you might like it, or not, or feel somewhat apathetic, but you see that it is only 99 cents. And you think well I probably have that much clanking around in my washing machine from jean pockets. And so you buy that song, and then you buy the next 15 songs, based off of 30 second blurbs, that maybe or maybe not made an impression. But as you listen to more songs, you buy fewer and fewer, because suddenly you realize that the 99 cent songs have accumulated to a 99 dollar dinner at a premier steak house. And for the most part you cannot even remember what songs you purchased.
This had me wondering if the 30 second blurbs and 99 cent songs prompt you to buy more, or merely unevenly distribute your purchases with the majority in the beginning. And also it had me wondering if consumers enjoy their purchases more because of the blurbs, and value the song more, or not. I think I am somewhat jaded now about the blurbs, and I do not listen to them anymore because if I really like the blurb but feel lukewarm about the song as a whole, I end up hating the song.
This little blurb rebellion of mine illustrated to me the lunacy of sip test, song blurbs, and pilot/movie clip tests, because rarely will a fragment of the picture give you a complete view. If someone were to take a 4-by-4 inch section of one of Frans Hals’ paintings for critique, the majority of viewers would probably say that is was crude, elementary, and without talent or promise. However, in their entirety his work is beyond compelling and inspired. I think that is a major point that Kenna’s Dilemma argues, that many of the tests and surveys that we as marketers cling to and rely on, do not offer a view of the whole painting. And that why some products, who might have a few seconds of compelling product aspects, soar in tests but dismally fail in stores.
But since costs increase with the more comprehensive testing and surveys that marketers do, it becomes vital for marketers to take a step back periodically from their product and view it from all angles, real and imaginary. Because they are the product experts, like the food critics, and they have the knowledge to really examine all the different aspects. But when the excitement and group think of how great your product is, over shadows a marketer’s analytical abilities, then products fail and huge investments are lost.
Another really important issue I found in Kenna’s Dilemma was the aspect of packaging. For instance, Kenna, himself, had poor packaging. He was not what people expected of a “rock star”, and that sometimes distracted them from the experience of his music. But at the same time, had he conformed to the rock star standard packaging, it might have devalued his service, or at least made him a talented sell out.
I think there is a very fine line between selling packaging and selling a product, and marketers are supposed to do both, in a completely cohesive and complementary way. The problem is, I think, that when someone is not selling, marketers resort to typically traditional selling techniques…sex, celebrities, excitement and hurrah, adding more features, or copying what everyone else does. And sometimes, when they rely on those tactics too much, or blatantly abuse them, they backfire in their face, resulting in an even worse catastrophe.
Monday, February 23, 2009
I want my paper to relate to the travel and tourism industry, with a focus on the difficulties and opportunities that will arise in the upcoming years of the recession. I think the tourism industry is particularly vulnerable to fluctuations in the economy, because leisure activities are some of the first things people cut from their budget when they need to save money. So companies in the tourism industry must be looking for ways to save as well and market their destinations for the changing economic times.
However, I think this also presents a challenge because luxury travel destinations, which assumedly will be hit hard by budget cutbacks, will want to maintain their luxury appeal in the long term. So higher-end travel destinations must combat the paradox of being temporarily cheap, but still maintain the quality and long term luxury appeal that initially, and ultimately, defined their business model.
There are a variety of ways that travel destinations can market themselves to survive these economic hard times. For instance, corporate groups that have budgets for events, retreats, etc. can be a dependable, safe target segment, because the money is already set aside. The travel destination has to find ways to make themselves attractive to corporate groups, for instance with easy accessibility, event planning resources, in house options (catering, entertainment, meeting arrangements, etc.), and tailored packages for specific companies. The marketing communications have to be aggressive and proactive, seeking out corporate event planners and maintaining contact with the human resources representatives of past and future clients.
Another segment that travel destinations could target is upper class retirees, who have already budgeted for their life and plan on maintaining a comfortable but not extravagant lifestyle. These are people who plan to take annual/semi-annual trips as part of their retirement, and they have a specific set of travel needs. Galit Nimrod’s article “Retirement and Tourism: Themes in Retirees’ Narratives”, explores the different needs that this segment has from other tourists. For instance, comfort and ease are important to retirees. Relaxation and pampering are also valuable. This segment is not as concerned with high energy activities and constant entertainment, but they want to have resources at hand, and have everything hassle free.
Obviously the recession will have a major impact on the tourism industry, and in my paper I would like to explore ways that particular travel destinations can avoid major losses, and perhaps even capitalize on the side effects of the recession. I just outlined a few segments that I thought had potential for travel destinations, and I think that there are other segments also that provide an opportunity. The problem will be finding ways to market the destination, while still maintaining its original destination integrity, so that when the country recovers from the recession, it has not completely altered its business model.
I think this relates to the class because travel destinations must understand the psych of their target markets and seek out target markets that will be loyal and active customers. Travel is innately about an experience, and consumer insights are fundamental to understanding how to create the ideal experience for each target customer and also what value each customer places on that experience.
However, I think this also presents a challenge because luxury travel destinations, which assumedly will be hit hard by budget cutbacks, will want to maintain their luxury appeal in the long term. So higher-end travel destinations must combat the paradox of being temporarily cheap, but still maintain the quality and long term luxury appeal that initially, and ultimately, defined their business model.
There are a variety of ways that travel destinations can market themselves to survive these economic hard times. For instance, corporate groups that have budgets for events, retreats, etc. can be a dependable, safe target segment, because the money is already set aside. The travel destination has to find ways to make themselves attractive to corporate groups, for instance with easy accessibility, event planning resources, in house options (catering, entertainment, meeting arrangements, etc.), and tailored packages for specific companies. The marketing communications have to be aggressive and proactive, seeking out corporate event planners and maintaining contact with the human resources representatives of past and future clients.
Another segment that travel destinations could target is upper class retirees, who have already budgeted for their life and plan on maintaining a comfortable but not extravagant lifestyle. These are people who plan to take annual/semi-annual trips as part of their retirement, and they have a specific set of travel needs. Galit Nimrod’s article “Retirement and Tourism: Themes in Retirees’ Narratives”, explores the different needs that this segment has from other tourists. For instance, comfort and ease are important to retirees. Relaxation and pampering are also valuable. This segment is not as concerned with high energy activities and constant entertainment, but they want to have resources at hand, and have everything hassle free.
Obviously the recession will have a major impact on the tourism industry, and in my paper I would like to explore ways that particular travel destinations can avoid major losses, and perhaps even capitalize on the side effects of the recession. I just outlined a few segments that I thought had potential for travel destinations, and I think that there are other segments also that provide an opportunity. The problem will be finding ways to market the destination, while still maintaining its original destination integrity, so that when the country recovers from the recession, it has not completely altered its business model.
I think this relates to the class because travel destinations must understand the psych of their target markets and seek out target markets that will be loyal and active customers. Travel is innately about an experience, and consumer insights are fundamental to understanding how to create the ideal experience for each target customer and also what value each customer places on that experience.
Monday, February 16, 2009
When Does a Product Transition to an 'Experience'...?
After the last class discussion about hair color and the brand personality created by both L'Oreal and Clairol, I began to think about the different experiences woman had when using those products. For instance, some women probably colored their hair as an act of defiance, for others it was self-impowering, like a stamp of independence. Others transformed themselves into bombshells to attract men or compete with other women, and for some women it was simply part of their cosmetic regime, like applying their morning make up. What struck me was how a simple product was branded into becoming an experience for women, supplying them with positive emotional support and extending the branded concept onto the individual women...women could become Cybil Shepherd or Heather Locklear when they used the product.
In today's world, when pretty much every product out there is standardized to the same level of supreme quality, and there's almost no level of quantifiable quality differentiation, this drive toward experiential products and services has almost taken over marketing. Consumers have developed relationships with certain products and services, and because of the personality the brands take on, it is almost as if consumers don't want to 'hurt the brands feelings' by trying something new or going to a new place.
Take for instance, Starbucks coffee drinkers. Every time I get a Starbucks, I go to the coffee shop on 24th and San Antonio, because I'm comfortable there, they are usually extremely efficient, I know a lot of my friends go there, and it is what I always do. Often when I want a bagel from Einstein Brothers, I'll go there first, get my bagel, and then go across the street (adding at least 15 extra minutes to my routine), and get a Starbucks coffee, even though Einstein Brothers probably has just as good of coffee as Starbucks. I do this because I like the experience I have at "my" Starbucks.
Starbucks is probably a pretty typical 'experiential marketing' example. But there are millions out there, and even more that are popping up every day...ipod and itunes with the artistic/quirky/hip users--mastercard and the priceless slogan--marc jacobs using men models in women clothing--freebirds burritos--redbull--budweiser, all these products that are simply goods, for the most part completely undifferentialable in a brand-free test---have created a brand personality that consumers assume when they use the brand. "I'm an Apple user, He's a PC"...these products are beginning to define who members of society are.
But now it has become a competition, I think, for any and every product out there to create this experiential brand personality, and for many low involvement products it seems almost ridiculous to try and imbude them with some sort of emotional or sentimental attributes. Lately I've been seeing a lot of commercials featuring moms and kids cuddling and safe and laughing, and they will have this slogan like "Now you can know everyday your child has the safest/best/most loving experience in the world"...and then the product is diapers or socks or something that really isn't that emotionally compelling.
Of course I understand that as marketers, our job is to try and make our products as complete and desireable as possible, and often that means looking at low involvement/boring products and finding the deeper, underlying meaning. Like mastercard, it's not just a credit card, but it's a way to give your family the most unforgettable vacation ever, or whatever. But I think that marketers need to realize that the experiential product/service has been a trend that is hugely successful, but that will have to peak and decline at some point. And only those products that can truly back up and substantiate the experience or personality they are trying to assume will survive.
So I think it's an interesting challenge for our generation of marketers to try and look beyond the experiential product and try to see what branding strategies could be popular in the future. Or maybe even just try and find a new take on creating the experience or personality of products. In today's world, everything is evolving at a faster pace, and the world loses interest almost immediately. So I think that to be competitive, marketers must always be doing whatever works at the moment, but searching and looking for the innovation that will be the future.
In today's world, when pretty much every product out there is standardized to the same level of supreme quality, and there's almost no level of quantifiable quality differentiation, this drive toward experiential products and services has almost taken over marketing. Consumers have developed relationships with certain products and services, and because of the personality the brands take on, it is almost as if consumers don't want to 'hurt the brands feelings' by trying something new or going to a new place.
Take for instance, Starbucks coffee drinkers. Every time I get a Starbucks, I go to the coffee shop on 24th and San Antonio, because I'm comfortable there, they are usually extremely efficient, I know a lot of my friends go there, and it is what I always do. Often when I want a bagel from Einstein Brothers, I'll go there first, get my bagel, and then go across the street (adding at least 15 extra minutes to my routine), and get a Starbucks coffee, even though Einstein Brothers probably has just as good of coffee as Starbucks. I do this because I like the experience I have at "my" Starbucks.
Starbucks is probably a pretty typical 'experiential marketing' example. But there are millions out there, and even more that are popping up every day...ipod and itunes with the artistic/quirky/hip users--mastercard and the priceless slogan--marc jacobs using men models in women clothing--freebirds burritos--redbull--budweiser, all these products that are simply goods, for the most part completely undifferentialable in a brand-free test---have created a brand personality that consumers assume when they use the brand. "I'm an Apple user, He's a PC"...these products are beginning to define who members of society are.
But now it has become a competition, I think, for any and every product out there to create this experiential brand personality, and for many low involvement products it seems almost ridiculous to try and imbude them with some sort of emotional or sentimental attributes. Lately I've been seeing a lot of commercials featuring moms and kids cuddling and safe and laughing, and they will have this slogan like "Now you can know everyday your child has the safest/best/most loving experience in the world"...and then the product is diapers or socks or something that really isn't that emotionally compelling.
Of course I understand that as marketers, our job is to try and make our products as complete and desireable as possible, and often that means looking at low involvement/boring products and finding the deeper, underlying meaning. Like mastercard, it's not just a credit card, but it's a way to give your family the most unforgettable vacation ever, or whatever. But I think that marketers need to realize that the experiential product/service has been a trend that is hugely successful, but that will have to peak and decline at some point. And only those products that can truly back up and substantiate the experience or personality they are trying to assume will survive.
So I think it's an interesting challenge for our generation of marketers to try and look beyond the experiential product and try to see what branding strategies could be popular in the future. Or maybe even just try and find a new take on creating the experience or personality of products. In today's world, everything is evolving at a faster pace, and the world loses interest almost immediately. So I think that to be competitive, marketers must always be doing whatever works at the moment, but searching and looking for the innovation that will be the future.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Overwhelming Choices
I think that Barry Schwartz has touched on something that plagues everyone. For instance, if I am in a hurry or on somwhat strict time table, I never go to the grocery store for the exact reasons he listed: there are too many things to buy, and I get sidetracked and spend hours idly wandering the isles.
I especially related to his observation on young adults and the personal choices they face today. The option of marriage, job, grad school, peace corp, studying abroad, etc, etc, etc, take up thousands of extra minutes in my life. Often when I think to myself 'I really got a lot done today' perhaps only 20% of it was actually related to school (my primary occupation), where as the vast majority of things I 'accomplished' had to do with running errands, shopping, looking for jobs, thinking about all the things i need to do, making lists, filling out applications, e-mailing people questions, calling people with questions, answering other peoples' questions, going to meetings... and all of the million other things that the average adult in an American society deals with on a daily basis.
In regards to the consumer, I think that the choice paradox is a stumbling block in their consumption. In knowing that they have the resources (i.e. internet) to find the 'perfect' good, they spend hours searching and agonizing about it, imagining the ideal object, that when they actually obtain it, it falls short of their expectations. So his observation that today's consumer has high expections and therefore a significant risk of disappointment is very applicable.
When I go dress shopping for a special occasion, I usually got to several small stores and place one item on hold at each. I do this because I think at the smaller store, it's less likely someone will have the same dress I want (because there are usually only one in each size), and especially in Austin, boutiques tend to find out of the labels to attract buyers from the larger dept. stores (i.e. Neiman Marcus, Saks, Nordstrom, etc). But I always buy the dress from the store that has a return policy, because I don't want it to be set in stone if I change my mind, or gain 10 lbs., or end up in the hospital the day of the event and can't attend.
This is just to illustrate that with all of the options available to consumers, marketers have to realize that not only the merit of the good comes into play in the consumer's mind. And many of the variables that affect consumers are difficult to predict and even more difficult to control.
I especially related to his observation on young adults and the personal choices they face today. The option of marriage, job, grad school, peace corp, studying abroad, etc, etc, etc, take up thousands of extra minutes in my life. Often when I think to myself 'I really got a lot done today' perhaps only 20% of it was actually related to school (my primary occupation), where as the vast majority of things I 'accomplished' had to do with running errands, shopping, looking for jobs, thinking about all the things i need to do, making lists, filling out applications, e-mailing people questions, calling people with questions, answering other peoples' questions, going to meetings... and all of the million other things that the average adult in an American society deals with on a daily basis.
In regards to the consumer, I think that the choice paradox is a stumbling block in their consumption. In knowing that they have the resources (i.e. internet) to find the 'perfect' good, they spend hours searching and agonizing about it, imagining the ideal object, that when they actually obtain it, it falls short of their expectations. So his observation that today's consumer has high expections and therefore a significant risk of disappointment is very applicable.
When I go dress shopping for a special occasion, I usually got to several small stores and place one item on hold at each. I do this because I think at the smaller store, it's less likely someone will have the same dress I want (because there are usually only one in each size), and especially in Austin, boutiques tend to find out of the labels to attract buyers from the larger dept. stores (i.e. Neiman Marcus, Saks, Nordstrom, etc). But I always buy the dress from the store that has a return policy, because I don't want it to be set in stone if I change my mind, or gain 10 lbs., or end up in the hospital the day of the event and can't attend.
This is just to illustrate that with all of the options available to consumers, marketers have to realize that not only the merit of the good comes into play in the consumer's mind. And many of the variables that affect consumers are difficult to predict and even more difficult to control.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Generation Y
I think the Generation Y article has a lot of interesting points, and was a good to prelude to where 'Generation Y' was going at the time it was written. But I also think it makes a too much of the fact that teens and young adults have always and most likely will always seek fashions, activities, gadgets, etc., that are different and more hip than the fashions and activities their parents and grandparents are engaging in. I think it is a characteristic of growing up--a certain amount of rebellion against classic, mature, or outdated ideas. For instance, the greasers and Tbirds in the 40s and 50s, the hippies in the 60s and 70s...as every generation ages, it attempts to develop its own sense of character, style, personality. I think some of the comparisons the BW article makes a little obvious, for instance, obviously a 13 yr old girl isn't going to get dreamy eyed about Harrison Ford when Leonardo Dicaprio is an option. And the Gap and Delia's comparison i find interesting, because I have always thought of my generation at the generation of the Gap Kid. And though I remember when Delia's became popular, I thought of it as a fad, shopped the catalog maybe a couple times, but Gap was one of my favorite staple stores at least through Junior High School.
I think a major trend or theme the article doesn't explore is with the internet and the ridiculously quick proliferation of fads, trends, and ideas, I think that my generation attempts to differentiate on an individual level more. Popular TV now features stars who aren't psudo-cheerleader-jock-cookie cutter hottie, but are quirky, weird, endearing stars with spunk. I think this reflects our generations' need to be seen as individuals in a highly digital world, and the explosion of customization in personal choices--music (itunes), clothing/shoes (design your own online), media (blogging), etc--aids my generation in not only the age old sentiment of 'sticking it to the man' i.e. rebelling against the establishment, but also a deeper need to really escape the overwhelming, almost robotic technological age that is developing.
I think marketers have to really understand that generation Y consumers don't necessarily want to join or be apart of every trend and fad, but they want to create their own fads. Generation Y consumers have become accustomed to being much more proactive consumers--they search for their own music, technology, and clothing digitally--and so the possiblities are endless. In order words, to merely ride the current band wagon trends would be lazy with all of the search tools at our disposal.
I also think that online social networking is a powerful tool, but I think it is very misunderstood as an advertising venue. No one (that I know of) pays the slightest attention to any advertising done on Facebook, unless (perhaps) it is a message sent out by a friend who is involved in the product. I think search engine advertising is more effective because that is when the consumer is engaged and open to looking for products.
The Generation Y article sums up some interesting points about our generation and makes some telling predictions, but when it comes down to why generation Y is edgy, controversial, or resistant to typical marketing techniques, I think it takes a somewhat surface approach and ignores the deeper influences of the unlimited education, communication, purchasing, and individualization opportunities that generation Y not only utilizes, but combats.
I think a major trend or theme the article doesn't explore is with the internet and the ridiculously quick proliferation of fads, trends, and ideas, I think that my generation attempts to differentiate on an individual level more. Popular TV now features stars who aren't psudo-cheerleader-jock-cookie cutter hottie, but are quirky, weird, endearing stars with spunk. I think this reflects our generations' need to be seen as individuals in a highly digital world, and the explosion of customization in personal choices--music (itunes), clothing/shoes (design your own online), media (blogging), etc--aids my generation in not only the age old sentiment of 'sticking it to the man' i.e. rebelling against the establishment, but also a deeper need to really escape the overwhelming, almost robotic technological age that is developing.
I think marketers have to really understand that generation Y consumers don't necessarily want to join or be apart of every trend and fad, but they want to create their own fads. Generation Y consumers have become accustomed to being much more proactive consumers--they search for their own music, technology, and clothing digitally--and so the possiblities are endless. In order words, to merely ride the current band wagon trends would be lazy with all of the search tools at our disposal.
I also think that online social networking is a powerful tool, but I think it is very misunderstood as an advertising venue. No one (that I know of) pays the slightest attention to any advertising done on Facebook, unless (perhaps) it is a message sent out by a friend who is involved in the product. I think search engine advertising is more effective because that is when the consumer is engaged and open to looking for products.
The Generation Y article sums up some interesting points about our generation and makes some telling predictions, but when it comes down to why generation Y is edgy, controversial, or resistant to typical marketing techniques, I think it takes a somewhat surface approach and ignores the deeper influences of the unlimited education, communication, purchasing, and individualization opportunities that generation Y not only utilizes, but combats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)