Yesterday, I was inspired by a link that appeared on a friend’s Facebook wall a few weeks ago. Click here to see the experiment (unless you speak German, click below the picture for the English version of the article).
In 2005, Neubaugasse, Vienna participated in an art exhibit called “Delete!” which essentially “deleted” media (“signs, slogans, pictograms, company names and logos“) for a period of two weeks. Advertisements were covered with (what looks like) yellow foil, and causes consumers to examine their everyday world without advertising, and shows us how many messages we are really exposed to on a daily basis. I highly recommend looking through the picture deck on the right side of the link.
According to a excerpt from Marketing Without Advertising by Michael Phillips & Salli Rasberry (available online at the link listed below), “236 billion will be spent this year in the United States on print, radio, online, and broadcast advertising” to cause the average American to view in excess of 5,000 advertising messages daily.
As a mini experiment, I tried to count every single advertisement that I came into contact with. My rules were the same object could not be counted twice (for example, I could not count my cell phone more than one time just because I looked at it multiple times), I could only count messages that were clearly branded (i.e. I only counted the brands of the clothes that I have on, and not count of all of the other brand tags of the clothes in my closet because I didn’t necessarily see them), and it had to be an official logo or advertisement (my seeing a handwritten note about calling a client did not count, while seeing a client’s display ad counted). Needless to say, I decided not to wear my glasses to work, made sure that my pop-up blocker was on, and tried to avoid CNN.com, Pandora, and Facebook.
Before I even got out of bed yesterday morning, I had counted 37 branded items, and by the time I left the house I had counted 74. For safety reasons, I decided not to count advertisements while driving to work, but was already up to 236 visible ads by 9:30 this morning (I get to work at 9am). By 1pm, that number had increased to 693—and these are counting ads that I am cognizant of! I can’t imagine if I really had the time to actually look around and listen for various types of advertisements and count exactly how many messages I’m exposed to regularly.
There are so many different ways that advertisers are able to reach consumers, that a lot of the time the message is lost in advertising white noise. Advertisers need new and exciting ways to cut through all of the other marketing messages to reach consumers and make them remember their brand above all others using a variety of traditional and atypical methods—display, search, print, broadcast as well as word of mouth (including social networking), charitable contributions, microsites/widgets, and other innovative and cool ways for advertisers to touch consumers in a way that will cause consumers to remember their brand, and have that brand be top of mind when they go to make a purchase.
At the end of the day, I had counted 1,492 ads. An experiment worth trying in your own life.
References:
http://www.steinbrener-dempf.com/index.php?article_id=5
Marketing Without Advertising by Michael Phillips & Salli Rasberry
http://www.nolo.com/product.cfm/objectID/5E5BFB9E-A33A-43DB-9D162A6460AA646A/sampleChapter/5/111/277/#summary
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Mainstream Green
Tomorrow, April 22, is Earth Day—a day promoting awareness and change for environmental issues including global warming, pollution, wildlife, alternative energy, going green, etc. With the arrival of Earth Day, I am inspired to discuss the consumer movement (and reactions of advertisers) towards going green.
So why are consumers going green?
About 35 million Americans are going green and willing to pay 5 to 10% higher prices for eco-friendly products, and thus defying recessionary trends – meaning potential profits for those companies who are willing to and can meet consumer demand. Labels and ads are focus on words like ‘all natural,’ ‘eco-friendly,’ and ‘organic’ – buzz words meant to attract consumers’ desire for environmentally friendly products.
Havas CEO Fernando Rodes Vila says that “Companies who are committed and respect the environment will be favored by consumers…And in most markets, consumers are ready to reward companies who do right by the environment”
Several companies have already taken steps towards becoming green. FedEx, UPS, and Coca-Cola are all converting their delivery fleets to hybrid vehicles. Cargill and SC Johnson are using trash/waste to power factories to make environmentally friendly products. Car makers are turning towards production of hybrid and alternative energy vehicles. In my own office, employees are asked to power off computers and lights at the end of the day, recycle paper, and conserve water. Here are a few examples of some other companies exploiting their own green initiatives:
General Electric – Ecomagination
http://ge.ecomagination.com/site/index.html#ads
Chevron – Power of Human Energy
http://www.chevron.com/about/advertising/
Apple MacBook
While companies are capitalizing on inflated prices of green products, they should also note that their point of differentiation will fade as consumers demand more and more environmentally friendly products at a lesser price. However (at least time being), companies and advertisers should exploit this consumer trend, which will most likely prove profitable for companies, consumers, and especially the environment.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Day
http://adage.com/article?article_id=136091
http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2007-06-22-cannes-green-usat_N.htm
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=136116
http://www.csrwire.com/News/1782.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/fast-company-staff/fast-company-blog/sustainability-green-age-advertising
http://www.etftrends.com/2009/01/are-consumers-serious-about-going-green-etfs.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12040418/
Weather Channel (TV Show)
So why are consumers going green?
About 35 million Americans are going green and willing to pay 5 to 10% higher prices for eco-friendly products, and thus defying recessionary trends – meaning potential profits for those companies who are willing to and can meet consumer demand. Labels and ads are focus on words like ‘all natural,’ ‘eco-friendly,’ and ‘organic’ – buzz words meant to attract consumers’ desire for environmentally friendly products.
Havas CEO Fernando Rodes Vila says that “Companies who are committed and respect the environment will be favored by consumers…And in most markets, consumers are ready to reward companies who do right by the environment”
Several companies have already taken steps towards becoming green. FedEx, UPS, and Coca-Cola are all converting their delivery fleets to hybrid vehicles. Cargill and SC Johnson are using trash/waste to power factories to make environmentally friendly products. Car makers are turning towards production of hybrid and alternative energy vehicles. In my own office, employees are asked to power off computers and lights at the end of the day, recycle paper, and conserve water. Here are a few examples of some other companies exploiting their own green initiatives:
General Electric – Ecomagination
http://ge.ecomagination.com/site/index.html#ads
Chevron – Power of Human Energy
http://www.chevron.com/about/advertising/
Apple MacBook
While companies are capitalizing on inflated prices of green products, they should also note that their point of differentiation will fade as consumers demand more and more environmentally friendly products at a lesser price. However (at least time being), companies and advertisers should exploit this consumer trend, which will most likely prove profitable for companies, consumers, and especially the environment.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Day
http://adage.com/article?article_id=136091
http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2007-06-22-cannes-green-usat_N.htm
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=136116
http://www.csrwire.com/News/1782.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/fast-company-staff/fast-company-blog/sustainability-green-age-advertising
http://www.etftrends.com/2009/01/are-consumers-serious-about-going-green-etfs.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12040418/
Weather Channel (TV Show)
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Don’t Blame Advertising for the Current Economic Crisis
I just read an article on Adweek entitled "Let's Blame Advertising" by Mark Dolliver, and was intrigued enough to voice my opinion on the by the number of people who are blaming advertisers for the downfall of the American economy.
According to the article, Adweek Media surveyed over two thousand adults, and an astounding 66% of the sample (7% “complete responsibility,” 26% “great deal of responsibility,” and 33% “some responsibility”) felt that advertisers were responsible for causing people to buy items that they couldn’t manage to pay for.
But, is advertising really to blame for the state of the economy?
This article reminded me of a business philosophy class discussion at Georgia State University. The class was asked to assess the morality of targeting advertising a form beer with high alcohol content to minorities in poverty-stricken, alcohol and drug infested, violent neighborhoods. It was argued that promotion of alcohol would encourage the destructive nature of the community. While I don’t think that the product will improve any of the ailments of the community, I would have to argue that the community demands that the beer (and other similarly damaging products such as hard liquor, cigarettes, condoms, etc.) be available, and advertisers have not only the right, but the responsibility to promote the product to meet that demand. If beer was not offered in the marketplace, wouldn’t consumers just go elsewhere to suffice that demand? Maybe purchase something far more harmful than beer—drugs, weapons, or other products that are far more damaging to society’s welfare.
In reference to the original Adweek article, consumers – and not advertisers – must be blamed for their own purchase decisions and thusly the downfall of the economy. Advertisers are exhibiting products that are available to the marketplace and in demand by consumers, but consumers are the ultimate decision makers and must accept responsibility for their own purchase decisions. Although the repercussions are immense and long lasting, I am hopeful that the current economic crisis will encourage consumers to learn to better manage their buying decisions.
According to the article, Adweek Media surveyed over two thousand adults, and an astounding 66% of the sample (7% “complete responsibility,” 26% “great deal of responsibility,” and 33% “some responsibility”) felt that advertisers were responsible for causing people to buy items that they couldn’t manage to pay for.
But, is advertising really to blame for the state of the economy?
This article reminded me of a business philosophy class discussion at Georgia State University. The class was asked to assess the morality of targeting advertising a form beer with high alcohol content to minorities in poverty-stricken, alcohol and drug infested, violent neighborhoods. It was argued that promotion of alcohol would encourage the destructive nature of the community. While I don’t think that the product will improve any of the ailments of the community, I would have to argue that the community demands that the beer (and other similarly damaging products such as hard liquor, cigarettes, condoms, etc.) be available, and advertisers have not only the right, but the responsibility to promote the product to meet that demand. If beer was not offered in the marketplace, wouldn’t consumers just go elsewhere to suffice that demand? Maybe purchase something far more harmful than beer—drugs, weapons, or other products that are far more damaging to society’s welfare.
In reference to the original Adweek article, consumers – and not advertisers – must be blamed for their own purchase decisions and thusly the downfall of the economy. Advertisers are exhibiting products that are available to the marketplace and in demand by consumers, but consumers are the ultimate decision makers and must accept responsibility for their own purchase decisions. Although the repercussions are immense and long lasting, I am hopeful that the current economic crisis will encourage consumers to learn to better manage their buying decisions.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The B2B Risk Gap – What B2B Advertisers Should Know...
Recently, I attended the Beyond the B2B Buying Funnel webinar sponsored by Enquiro, with panelists from Google, Business.com, Marketo, Demandbase and Covario. This research focuses on B2B lead acquisition and management strategy, and closing the “Risk Gap” in the B2B buying structure.
According to the study, B2B buying behavior can be categorized into three groups of consumers:
(1) Repeat buyers who continuously buy items all the time with little consideration as to the purchase.
(2) Modified repeat buyers who purchase all the time, but want to reevaluate their purchase decision to find a better solution.
(3) Blank slate customers who are making a first time purchase—these buyers have a huge learning curve.
The important thing to note about B2B consumers is that although these businesses are operated by people who are irrationality and controlled by their emotions. As a result, these B2B clients control their purchase decisions with a variety of mechanisms to mitigate risk. These mechanisms include personal past experiences, word of mouth of others, asking existing vendors, credibility of vendors, online research, and price points.
I think that for advertisers to better target these B2B consumers, advertisers should tailor their messages to the purchaser at the appropriate stage of the B2B buying cycle and to the role of the decision maker. It’s important for B2B advertisers to understand that a poor purchase decision is more detrimental for a decision maker (i.e. risking one’s reputation and job security), than the possibility of potential reward (most probably aren’t rewarded or affected at all) for making the positive purchase decision.
Food for thought--especially for B2B advertisers trying to retain and win new business in this economy.
According to the study, B2B buying behavior can be categorized into three groups of consumers:
(1) Repeat buyers who continuously buy items all the time with little consideration as to the purchase.
(2) Modified repeat buyers who purchase all the time, but want to reevaluate their purchase decision to find a better solution.
(3) Blank slate customers who are making a first time purchase—these buyers have a huge learning curve.
The important thing to note about B2B consumers is that although these businesses are operated by people who are irrationality and controlled by their emotions. As a result, these B2B clients control their purchase decisions with a variety of mechanisms to mitigate risk. These mechanisms include personal past experiences, word of mouth of others, asking existing vendors, credibility of vendors, online research, and price points.
I think that for advertisers to better target these B2B consumers, advertisers should tailor their messages to the purchaser at the appropriate stage of the B2B buying cycle and to the role of the decision maker. It’s important for B2B advertisers to understand that a poor purchase decision is more detrimental for a decision maker (i.e. risking one’s reputation and job security), than the possibility of potential reward (most probably aren’t rewarded or affected at all) for making the positive purchase decision.
Food for thought--especially for B2B advertisers trying to retain and win new business in this economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
