I got a DVR five or six years ago. I wasn’t exactly an early adopter, but I must say I love it. I record everything, often watching a program a mere 20 minutes after it starts to avoid the commercials. I know I’m not alone.
Don’t get me wrong. Good advertising I really like. But so much of it is bad – or stupid. The DVR lets me watch commercial-free if I want to.
Among DVR owners in Nielsen markets (37%), Nielsen recently reported that 40-50% of commercials are watched during playback, up from earlier estimates of 30-40%. (Source: MediaDailyNews, 8/5/10)
I’m not sure what to believe about this: Commercial viewership up among DVR owners? Really? Or did Nielsen change how they’re measuring things? One hypothesis I had was that more recent DVR adopters could be less sophisticated/less comfortable using the fast forward/jump feature on their remote controls. But Nielsen says that DVR playback is happening more among younger and higher-income viewers, so I can’t imagine my hypothesis is true.
While DVR viewership isn’t universal, these “facts” got me asking a few questions:
- Who’s not watching ads – consistently? Do they have any identifiable characteristics that we can plan around?
- What are the best, most effective ways to reach these ad-skippers in other media and/or via other ways on TV (e.g., product placement, sponsorships, etc.)?
- What defines “stopping power” in a TV ad today, and how is it measured, particularly among DVR viewers? I would think that the first and last ads in a pod would have the highest viewership, yet is this reflected in the numbers agencies are getting to calculate impressions? Related to this, for researchers/account planners, is there a method out there for testing ads in a program-embedded clutter and letting people skip as they would at home, to get at stopping power and ad effectiveness? Plus, can ads be tested at fast-forward speed to assess their stopping power?
- What impact is all this having on brand awareness or brand image? Have any tracking studies been done among ad-skippers vs. those who fast-forward through ads vs. ad-watchers to see what impact ad viewing behavior has on these critical brand measures?
As I write these questions from my logical left brain, I have to remind myself that how we take in information isn’t very well understood. I might not “know” the latest musical phenom, but I always seem to have heard the tune before I learn the artist’s name or see their face – and this is without kids at home. What goes on around us seems to sink in and have an impact.
I don’t know the answers to the questions above, and maybe I’ll dig around to learn a bit more. Yet it’s clear that whether TV ads are skipped or seen, consumers continue to form impressions of brands. And since no matter how hard we try, not everything that impacts them will be known or measurable, I feel more strongly than ever that having consistent brand values which shine in all we do – and being present where our target lives – is the best foundation for the relationships we want to have with them.
I saw this yesterday in “SmartBrief on Social Media”:
No wonder marketers are confused about how to use social media effectively! The juxtaposition of the two article titles made me laugh. (Actually, the FeverBee.com piece is rather good, offering some creative pointers on how to engage community members.)
Staying with the subject of online communities, this month’s “Quirk’s” piece on the 2009 Globalpark Market Research Software Survey reported that only 17% of companies worldwide manage at least one online community and that 56% have no plans for starting one. (A bit more detail: 60% of small and medium companies say they have no plans, with 41% of large companies responding the same way).
Bottom Line: From their actions, most marketers seem aware of the a fine line between staying attuned to customers and invading their privacy. Sure, an online community is a major investment of both time and money. But there are other ramifications that marketers are having to consider which may be slowing down this new research method’s adoption.
As a marketing researcher and consumer advocate, I’ve long held that no business would be in business without customers, and that the consumer-brand relationship is paramount in all business activities. The Internet has made these relationships both more intimate and interactive. And selling can be a bit more difficult in this environment. Many of the old “relationship” rules no longer hold up.
“Brand Butlers” – just the clever name – caught my eye recently. Coming out of TrendWatching.com, this opinion piece says there’s a transition underway: “Why serving is the new selling” is their proposition.
The argument is that recession-weary consumers are “jaded, time-poor, and pragmatic” and are looking for “uber-relevant services” offered anywhere, anytime – by companies that show they aren’t in it just for the money (that they care about their customers and their lives).
From a brand perspective, these new, closer relationships allow for greater interaction, more immediate understanding of the customers’ needs (as it directly or indirectly relates to the brand), and greater feedback overall.
Personally, I don’t think is this an entirely new wave or generation of relationship marketing, but rather an outgrowth of a related technology which is allowing for better, softer-sell, sponsored-sell, and generally relationship-building opportunities. (Hence the 2.5 designation.)
Having said that, the Brand Butler paper has some great examples of their new relationship-service proposition. A lot of them are mobile web apps for smartphones and others are web-based or offline. Take a peak.
- Obvious Butler: Mastercard’s ATM Hunter iPhone app allows users to find their nearest ATMs by entering their location or using built-in GPS functionality.
- In the Know Butler: Nike’s True City iPhone app aims to give consumers ‘insider’ information on six European cities, while also allowing users to share their own tips and delivering exclusive Nike offers and information.
- Money-Saving Butler: Sprize, provided by Gap in and around Vancouver, BC, allows shoppers to register online before they shop, and if an item’s price is reduced within 45 days of purchase, their Sprize account will automatically be credited the difference.
- “Finding” Butler: Pet food brand Purina offers a branded application that helps consumers to find ‘Petcentric’ locations in their vicinity.
- Connectivity Butler: vtravelled, launched by Virgin Atlantic, is a social network aimed at creating a global community of travel lovers. The free service allows members to share travel knowledge, thoughts and photos, and access real time updates about destination events and information.
- Health Butler: The Nivea Sun iPhone app is designed to help Brazilians tan safely. The app collects information about the user, suggests the correct SPF to be used on a particular day, and alerts the user when the protection should be reapplied.
- Advice Butler: In 2009, Smirnoff held a series of master-classes for men wanting to become ‘Modern Gentlemen’. Three complimentary classes were delivered in London to a limited number of guests, focusing on classic cocktail making, style consulting and grooming.
- Utility Butlers: The Zipcar iPhone app allows members of the car-sharing service to find, reserve and unlock vehicles using their mobile device. And ColorSnap is a free iPhone app from US paint brand Sherwin-Williams that allows consumers to match the color of a photo taken on their iPhone with over 1,500 colors listed in the Sherwin-Williams database.
(Source: www.trendwatching.com/trends/brandbutlers/)
Clearly, the focus is on service (not selling) and supporting a brand by supporting key target groups in ways that go beyond the tried and true.
Inspired to come up with you own Brand Butler idea? These ideas are fun and clever. My only suggestion if you’re developing for smartphones is that you develop for the iPhone, Droid, and Blackberry platforms.
Since the start of the year, clients have been preoccupied with “innovation” and how they can be (or become) an innovative brand. During this period, the consumers I’ve spoken with have consistently identified three innovative brands: Apple, Google, and Nike.
Client interest in this subject got me thinking: Has innovation become a component in the consumer value equation? Is this why brands are so interested in owning this association?
The value equation has evolved over the years. At its core remains three components: quality, time and price. But if innovation is an element which is becoming more central to consumer-perceived value, what is it exactly?
Here are my thoughts. Innovation requires three things:
- Initially, its “newness” must be tangible or something understood. (If something’s too esoteric, consumers may have trouble connecting with the product or service.)
- It needs to be something used (frequently) or easily integrated into a consumer’s life/lifestyle. (Interaction is key to believing there’s added value; a consumer needs to notice their life is better/different day-to-day.)
- It needs to be available or accessible to the market it’s targeting. However, for a brand to get high marks for innovation, it needs to get there first.
Does a brand need to “invent” in order to “innovate”? No. Apple is the classic case history for this. It didn’t invent the MP3 player or the cell phone or the tablet computer. But clearly, Apple innovated technologies based on a belief that it could create a better user experience coupled with its “rebel with a cause,” anti-establishment attitude.
Google has been an innovator (and some might say inventor) from the start. But lately I’m hearing the most about Google Apps and the new Google Droid cell phones – innovation not invention. Along the way, it has become a more mainstream consumer brand (vs. a mere verb for finding things on the Web).
Nike has a history of “inventing” new technologies, borrowed heavily from other industry applications, and building them into its shoes and other gear. Between its sports endorsements (don’t celebrities always want to wear the latest and greatest?) and selling at somewhat of a higher price for the newer models, it is most often viewed as the most innovative in its category.
Dell had an innovative selling model at the beginning: they built each computer to order using high-quality components. At one time, that innovation had value; a computer was a significant purchase. As computer costs came down, and more known/mainstream/trusted players entered the market, the uniqueness of its selling model became something of an impediment. So Dell took its products to retail. An established name, but a brand I no longer consider an innovator in its field. (They are doing a good job leveraging social media as a selling tool, however.)
While innovation may be playing a larger role in the consumer value equation, my caution is this: innovation without brand loyalty is meaningless. What a brand doesn’t want is to have the cool, hot, innovative product or service of the moment, only to have early adopters flock to another brand who offers the next level in innovation. How far a brand pushes with innovation should be consistent with its branding, its place in the competitive marketplace, and the short- and long-term dividends that innovations will pay – both to the bottom line and with consumers.
I read something recently about beer drinkers where the author said that Brand X customers were so loyal to the company that it didn’t have to worry about its core customers switching brands.
Whoa. There’s a difference between loyal customers and habitual customers. In my experience, loyal customers are actively engaged in choosing a brand whereas habitual customers are no longer actively engaged. If another brand captures a habitual consumer’s interest, they could switch – a costly loss. Is the beer company that confident in their customers’ loyalty?
Quite a number of years ago, I was doing research in the high-end, white tablecloth chain restaurant segment. As I was moderating group after group, I was met with silence when asking about their decision-making process. After the first group I thought “maybe it’s me.” During the second group, when I met with the same silence, I probed even more. By the third group, I’d figured out what was going on. Most of the target consumers were older and had been dining out 2-4 times a month at these high-end chain restaurants. They’d been doing this for so long they could no longer explain why they were doing it. “That’s just what we do.”
The key consumer insight for the client was one they didn’t really want to hear: this restaurant segment was dying. I believed it was going to take some time, but two things were at play. First, the segment customers were older and in many cases were (literally) dying. Second, target consumers – both younger and older – had more options than ever before (Cheesecake Factory, PF Chang’s, Macaroni Grill, etc.) and these options met their needs and were places friends and family liked to visit.
While a few chain restaurants of this type still exist today, the segment is almost completely gone.
Irrespective of segment or category, how can you engage your more profitable customers to ensure their repeat business? Is there a way to make them brand advocates vs. passive purchasers?
