It is a good thing that bank and investment advertising no longer touts high-higher-highest (!) returns, Morningstar stars, 40-something couples retiring to their house(s) in paradise, and the like. Outside of just a few stalwarts, such as Vanguard with its measured point of view and Bogle-esque approach, many of the siren calls in the newspaper, on television and online had all begun to (or already did) sound and look the same. That’s not effective.
Now we appear to have swung all the way to the other extreme. Take a look at a list of advertisers, all crammed into today’sWall Street Journal, along with text pulled verbatim from their ads:
MORGAN STANLEY: “To find the smart investments today, you need to be world wise.” MERRILL LYNCH (aka Bank of America): “Seeing clearly. Acting confidently.” “With personal insight into your goals and an understanding of the market…” “…Find a smart place for your money.” CME GROUP: “Rise Above the Risk.” “For more than a century CME Group has provided competitive, transparent and safe markets.” “…protect customers and ensure financial integrity by guaranteeing the performance of every transaction on our exchange.” TD AMERITRADE: “There’s never been a better time for a second opinion.” FIDELITY: “Guaranteed income you can live with.” GLENMEDE: “There’s no substitute for safety and stability.” PNC: “…It’s also a way of doing business that has strength and stability at its very core.”
Safe, smart, transparent and guaranteed: these are the adjectives financial firms are now scrambling to use, as they adjust to our new reality The problem is – well, it’s the same problem as before – if you sound like everyone else, the messages essentially melt into one and stakeholders become unable to distinguish one from the other. If I held a focus group tonight, and scrambled the names of the above firms and the quoted text, I would challenge anyone to re-match the elements correctly.
I’ll also say this: killing your ads’ effectiveness may, in fact, be the most benign result. Worse? Just as when every firm claimed great returns – which turned out to be untrue and, in some cases, unscrupulous – everyone claiming safety now looks equally unlikely and untrustworthy.
All of these brands are more and are capable of doing more: the “more” being the hard work needed to determine exactly what it is about the brand that is unique and distinguishable from the competition.*
Without doing this work, going out with a “safety” message isn’t safe at all.
* I am aware that many of the above firms are in different businesses and are not competitors per se. It does not matter, because it does not matter to the public. For individual investors (and Congress…), too much of the same becomes one, amorphous perception. Morgan_Stanley Ameritrade PNC Fiduciary_Trust_International Glenmede_Investment Fidelity CME_Group
Did you see the Oscars telecast this past weekend? Third worst-rated show in history. Just painful. I adore Hugh Jackman (duh), so I watched his interview with Barbara Walters before the ceremony started. The first-time host told Barbara that he would indeed perform and that he felt the awards needed “more show, less business.” I think we just needed less of everything.
Aside from Kate Winslet, “best performance” has to go to Glam Media, the women-focused vertical network boasting over 75 million users and 700 publishers. comScore has named Glam one of the top 10 media properties on the Web.
While the likes of ABC (who did not stream the broadcast!), Twitter and Facebook wandered around trying to figure out how to make money on online Oscar conversations – celebs in the audience and at the parties were twittering, for cryin’ out loud – Glam just went ahead and hosted its ownTwitter widget. Glam then offered advertisers the opportunity to sponsor an edited version of the tweet stream during the telecast.
Glam hand-selected which tweets appeared in the stream, thereby making it safer for brand advertisers who are always (and understandably) concerned about appearing alongside a conversation that veers into unacceptable subjects.
Aveenosponsored the Twitter widget, and Glam says it will introduce widgets for both FriendFeed and Facebook streams running during future shows and other events.
Poaching on other sites’ turf to generate ad dollars, when those sites haven’t figured it out themselves? Nicely done!
“New mover” marketing is huge. Most banks and many other types of institutions have individuals or teams assigned to the art of capturing business from consumers who move from one home to another. Banking, home improvement and security, auto repair, dry cleaning, groceries, pharmacy, electrical, plumbing, gardening… you name it and you need it in a new place.
17-20% of the US population move every year, and new mover total spending is around $170 billion. New mover list rental is a huge and attractive business because new movers are highly responsive.
I have seen QSRs market to new movers (they buy their way into “welcome wagon” programs with coupons or send stand-alone postcards, etc.). A Denny’s example pulled a 38% response.
Now comes a study from Epsilon pointing out that folks spend over 50% more on home decor and furnishings in the first year after they move than do people who stay put. These same movers, however, spend 24% less than non-movers on apparel and personal accessories in that same year.
So… Do national department stores and clothing stores purposefully promote to new movers? Nordstrom, Macy’s, Dillard’s? Do they market a specific message (and offer) to existing store cardholders who change zip, and new prospects (cut by income) living in an X-mile radius of a store?
Well, this is pretty amusing. Dick Fuld and his wife are flying JetBlue, and their fumbling at a self-serve kiosk in Florida last month has triggered some timely and clever work from the airline and its agency, JWT Partners.
“Welcome Bigwigs” not only invites former masters of the universe to “jet” with JetBlue anytime, it also offers some handy advice about how to fly – SHUDDER – commercial. Click on the image to the left to see one of the ads.
Next up in the campaign: instructional videos for confused titans who must learn to share armrests, eat teeny tiny bags of peanuts and stand in line for the most skeevy restroom experience of their lives.
“Executives haven’t thought of JetBlue as viable for businesses and that’s wrong, because you can watch CNBC and CNN all the way to the destination,” says JWT’s Kristen Lenz. Is that tongue in cheek? If not, the ads serve up a hearty helping of satire and mock sympathy, cooing “Nobody will blame you if you just want to watch kittens on Animal Planet.”
This extension of JetBlue’s “Happy Jetting” theme does a nice job tapping into the current public zeitgeist, without going overboard one way or the other. It’ll be interesting to follow the campaign and see how it performs. JetBlue Dick_Fuld Welcome_Bigwigs JWT_Partners Lehman_Brothers
BBC Radio created a widget that calculates the food equivalent of your alcohol intake. Try it for yourself by clicking HERE or on the image on the left.
Two regular beers and a cola (no zero calorie stuff) equals 420 calories, or the equivalent of one slice of pizza, a donut, a jaffa cake (a biscuit-like cake) and a fried onion thingy the Brits eat called a bahji.
Some friends are having a pub crawl this weekend (yes, they are all over 30 years of age; it’s sad, really). The event starts at 12 noon and ends who knows when – say midnight. Let’s be conservative and say you drink one beer every couple hours, 3 colas and a tonic water. Those 1,330 calories are equivalent to:
- 1 hot dog
- 1 burger
- 1 slice of pizza
- 1 donut
- 1 pastry
- 2 jaffa cakes AND
- 2 of those funky fried onion things
And those 1,300+ calories don’t include the stuff you need to absorb all the booze: food! Think about college: four years worth of pizza, McDonald’s, pizza, subs, cheesesteaks, pizza, bar visits… *Shudder*
In all seriousness, the BBC site and radio shows are part of a series about alcoholism and its devastating effects. Both are connected to the Drinkaware Trust, an organization focused on changing Britain’s drinking habits. Drinkaware is a non-profit that offers funding for education work and other projects dedicated to addressing the misuse of alcohol. It is funded by “voluntary” contributions from UK’s alcohol industry (smart).
The online/social media environment has greatly amplified the opportunities for customers who love you (or hate you) to spread the word – and spread it more frequently, to a broader audience and with a greater array of tools.
Colloquy has released a white paper reflecting the results of an October 2008 survey that measured the intersection between reward program membership and online word-of-mouth (WOM) activity among those members.
While I hope it won’t come as a big surprise, membership in and usage of a brand’s reward program is a significant predictor of a consumer’s likelihood to speak positively about your brand online. The more active the frequent user/shopper/flyer in your program, the greater the chance that you will experience the happy halo effect of him/her praising you online. This is particularly true among women, who have become a driving force in terms of discussing and sharing products and experiences on the Web (Motrin, anyone?).
The larger take-away here – the hardest one, I think, for large companies to absorb - is that everything is connected now. The idea that you could treat your customers one way and your employees another, without affecting your public persona, is no longer relevant. Cut your charitable activities without the “outside world” finding out? Forget it. Increase mileage requirements in your frequent flyer program, and it will not only affect the opinions of your members, but also those members’ Twitter readers (who may not even be your customers).
One person with an anonymous blog and a catchy URL can impact your reputation around the world.
Of course The New Champion Customers is just a tip of this iceberg, but it offers an interesting angel and chock-full of great charts. Take a look.
I’ve never been a big Costco person, probably because I live in an apartment the size of a postage stamp. But just this year – when my mom moved close to one in the New Jersey burbs – I took the leap and bought a membership. Now I love going there: the warehouses are like Disneyland! There’s a pie as big as my couch! Cool!
Sidebar: when I finally did buy, it’s because I saw a specific product I wanted that Costco carried at a great price. I bought enough of that product (plus some gum, I think) to “pay for” the $50 membership fee on my first visit. Making a purchase a no-brainer is every retailer’s goal , no?
Now we get a little glimmer into the company’s customer service smarts, as well. Like many membership-based retailers with preferred shopper programs, it’s easy for Costco to keep track of a member’s purchases and to retain specific transaction-related data, such as the date and time of purchase. It turns out that one of the ways in which Costco delivers value back to members based on this information comes in the form of product recall notifications.
While Costco routinely sends letters to customers who have purchased recalled products, it is now the first major retailer to implement an automated calling service that dials and leaves messages for members warning them of problem products.
Costco uses an external vendor that can make up to 500,000 calls per hour. The company estimates that it has already made 1.5 million calls so far related to the ongoing recall of peanut butter products alone.
Would a company focused only on this quarter’s profitability do the same? Probably not…. especially since Costco will give the customer a refund for any recalled product that is returned to a warehouse (with or without a receipt). But how much is a call like this worth to a customer about to serve tainted food to his or her family? It’s invaluable. And, if the company doesn’t already, it would be fairly straightforward to measure the monetary value of the program.
This is a worthy practice. Let me know if you see holes in it.
Today on my (other) blog Marketing Mojo, I wrote a lengthy post on the necessity of creating real value – vs. sometimes status-driven perceived value – in a down market.
When most people hear “value” they think price, packaging, size, promotion… the standard inward-looking levers a company has at its disposal. But if a company’s key constituents care about philanthropy, then a company’s outward-looking position can create value, as well.
At this point in time, I think the attention being paid to companies’ philanthropic efforts is driven by both “positive” and “negative” factors: (a) positive, because younger generations are more sensitive to the societal impact of the products and services they consume, and (b) negative, in that people are generally so disgusted with the bad behavior and greed exhibited by many companies that there is a heightened demand to “give back.” Whatever the reason… philanthropy is a very real way to engage with stakeholders.
And if we need numbers, it turns out that customers with a favorable impression of a company’s philanthropic efforts are 3x as likely to become loyal customers, and 91% of consumers say they would consider switching (away) if they found out that a company had exhibited ”negative corporate citizenship” behaviors.
Think Ben & Jerry’s or Target or Pfizer or Nike – the very fabric of these companies is inextricably connected to their social efforts. Think about your employer, your own company or the companies from which you purchase products and services… are these organizations doing enough to suit you and, if so, do the right people know about it?
The Financial Timesrecently ran an article claiming that social media networks are a threat to advertising agencies.
I can’t decide whether to respond with a “Duh” or simply say that social media is barely the tip of the iceberg re. the decline of ad agencies. I’m not even sure that social networks can see the iceberg – that’s how far downstream they are from the major problems of the agency community.
There is nothing unique about social media in that – to use it - an agency (or brand) needs to: (a) understand the audience, (b) how, when and why members of that audience have selected the medium in question, (c) what messaging would be most effective as a result, and (d) how to craft that message so that it specifically meets the expectations a user may consciously or unconsciously have in that specific environment (i.e., the same person will consume a message differently when it’s delivered by radio vs. Facebook).
The FT article is a bit of a “when you have a hammer…” situation: it’s written by the paper’s digital media correspondent and cites exactly one study on (only) social media.
If only agencies could fix all their problems by “getting” social media. Agencies are going to need to fundamentally alter their compensation, organization and recruiting models if they are going to pull even with brands forever changed by the economy, a more knowledgeable consumer and the information overload we all wade through every day.
My latest experiment is Twitter. I’m a bit late to the game according to some, but better to “tweet” late than never (I think).
Twitter describes itself as a conversation, a service for people to “communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?”
The “what are you doing?” element sounds a lot like Facebook’s “Stephanie Fierman is…” status question, but thankfully more people seem to ignore that forced piece of organization on Twitter and just say whatever they want to say. And unlike Facebook, Twitter only gives you 140 characters (including spaces) to get your thought out. Great for loooong talkers like me.
Here are the basics of Twitter: You sign up at www.twitter.com. Then you cruise for friends. When you find one, go to her Twitter page www.twitter.com@name and “follow” her. Following means that all of her updates will land on your Twitter homepage. The easy way to find interesting people to follow is to snoop around your friends’ pages. Check their lists: who’s following your friend and whom is your friend following? From there, it’s simple to click over to a person’s page and decide to “follow” them, as well. Your home page keeps score: how many people are following you (in other words, how many people are interested enough in what you have to say to have your “tweets” gum up their home pages every day) and how many you are following.
I’m still learning Twitter etiquette, but it’s clear that too terrible an imbalance between your Follows and Following is uncouth: tres tacky to spam lots of people (by asking them to follow you), and equally tacky to be a freeloader who never comments yourself but just follows what others have to say. 2-3 tweets per day seem to be within the acceptable range.
Like Facebook, there are people who unfortunately believe that “Getting on plane now” and “Wow, it’s cold in New York” deserve space on your home page (did I mention you can “unfollow” people, too?). But I’ve found many to have useful insights on politics, marketing, business and other topics that I enjoy perusing, and I try to contribute every day. As a jumpstart, here is Guy Kawasaki‘s post on how to get the most out of Twitter. You can also search Twitter at search.twitter.com to see if anyone is talking about a topic of particular importance to you.
So try it! Sign up and follow me at www.twitter.com/stephfierman. Give the service a little time to blossom into something useful. It is true that we’re all faced with information overload, but a lot of that information is entirely useless. If you can use Twitter in a surgical way to enrich your understanding and “tune in” to people you respect, I consider it a net gain.
Outer Mongolia… that’s the place where your favorite stores sometimes locate Customer Service and the Returns desk. It’s all sun-shiny up front when you’re buying, but returning? Not so much.
In November, I pointed out the opportunity to communicate positively with a shopper when he/she is returning an item, rather than turning the event into a hum-drum (or negative) in-and-out transaction. Now comes a survey that drives the point home.
20% of respondents to a survey fielded by Opinion Research Corp. say that their 2007 holiday return experience exceeded their expectations. Only 9% could say the same after the 2008 holiday. Wait time and a lack of adequate staffing were major complaints. That’s rough, because returning customers who have a positive experience are exponentially more likely to shop in the store again and recommend it to others.
Unfortunately, the core of this problem may be an attitude that a consumer buying items has free will and will not put up with a negative service experience, while a shopper trying to return an item has no options. This is short-sighted, at best. Retailers are going to be relying on repeat shoppers – keeping their bases loyal – more than ever. Every contact at every touchpoint will factor into a shopper’s choice of retailers. Don’t overlook those experiences that don’t immediately translate into a sale – returns are on the top of a list that would include parking, bathroom availability and cleanliness. Not the sexiest elements, but vital just the same.
Will Ferrell is appearing for the first time on Broadway in a new one-man show, You’re Welcome America. A Final Night with George W. Bush. The run kicks off on January 20 — Bush’s final day in office — and concludes March 15. Ferrell’s friend and collaborator, Adam McKay, is directing. McKay played Ferrell’s friend in the legendary FunnyorDie.com video, The Landlord. Remember the baby?? “You pay me nowwww!”
Ferrell is masterful as Bush. Here he is on the topic of global warming: “Apparently the sun’s rays are, uh, intensifying in a way that’s, uh, increasing lava flows and, uh… Liberals and godless taxraisers are tryin’ to make me look bad with facts and scientific data. When you think back 6,000 years ago to when the world was created, when Adam and Eve talked to that snake, it was hot then, too. Why do you think Adam and Eve were naked? And you didn’t hear Adam and Eve runnin’ around talkin’ about emission standards or hybrid cars… and I think the polar icecaps suck! Who cares about a place where penguins can have an orgy?”
But I’m curious: does everyone think Ferrell was funny, and will our political views impact the show’s ticket sales? Will Dems not go because they don’t want to see anyone even pretending to be George Bush? Or will Dems want to go for the release? Will Republicans not go because they’re not excited about someone mocking their President?
I can’t think of an analogous situation in the past. There’s the song “Springtime For Hitler” in Mel Brooks’ film/musical The Producers, but — aside from any other factors I’m probably not considering — The Producers was released in 1968, decades after the events that spawned the song.
There have been a couple articles recently on how weight loss companies might fair in a down economy. The subtle or not-so-subtle implication is that this may be a very crummy time for Weight Watchers, Atkins, Jenny Craig and the like.
I’m not so sure. Nearly all the best-known companies have new work out right now in an attempt to take advantage of what is usually the plumpest (sorry) time for new sign-ups: each year’s first quarter, right after those resolutions are made. And some of the pricing is quite good. Weight Watchers can cost next to nothing if a member has enough willpower, and some of the others that do rely on selling there own food are offering some great deals.
I was smugly pleased when I saw a snarky article today mentioning that NutriSystem had recently lowered its price for a monthly program from $400/mo (including food) to $300. The point was that $300 was still impractical. I guess that writer doesn’t channel surf enough: just this weekend I saw NutriSystem selling this same program on QVC – and with a lot of bonus food - for under $200/mo. Forbes.com just found that NutriSystem is the least expensive holistic weight loss program available.
Whether these companies do well in a down economy will in large part depend not only on consumer priorities but also on whether committed people use these programs as substitutes for more expensive behaviors, such as dining out. these programs for other, more expensive behaviors, such as dining out. Having every week’s breakfasts, lunches, snacks and dinners delivered to your home could actually fit nicely with the trends toward budgeting and entertaining/dining at home.
Let’s not count all these companies out just yet. It’s possible that some clever investment in 2009 may help superior competitors scoop up savvy, motivated consumers who not only see the opportunity to lose weight but whose current (expensive) habits make weight-loss programs look like a pretty good deal. NutriSystemweight_lossWeight_Watchers
“Cheap is cool.” Thus was MediaPost’s conclusion upon naming Wal-Mart retail marketer of the year. Like ‘em or not, I have to agree with the choice.
And anyone reading this blog regularly will probably guess my choice for worst marketer of the year (a caffeinated drumroll please)… Yes, Starbucks. A painful example of the fact that (a) brands that don’t change with the times get into trouble and (b) having your founder return in a Michael Dell-like manner does not always work.
But I digress.
The “cheap is cool” mantra will hold through 2009. It’s not that you can’t have fun, or a treat once in awhile, but in-bred ostentatiousness is so 2007 (and 2006 and 2005….). Consider how your product or service can reflect the changing times and mood – even if you only make a customer feel better about all the money he’s spending.
Case in point: slum tourism, the phenomenon of people spending a lot of money to visit the poorest slums of the world. Are they helping matters? Questionable. Do they have a more soulful story for their friends (formerly known as Lehman Brothers masters of the universe) when they come home than they did after last year’s trip to St. Bart? Absolutely.
If you’re like me, you don’t need external affirmation or reinforcement of your decisions all the time… but sometimes is nice!
Back in June, I told you about The Consumerist, a wonderful online community and blog owned by Gawker. I raved about its informative stories about good and bad customer service experiences (“Shoppers Bite Back”), along with all the corporate phone numbers, addresses, etc. you frequently wish you had at your fingertips. The site also does a great job for its 1.8 million readers of promoting great deals and discounts.
Now comes the affirmation I mentioned: Consumer Union has just purchased The Consumerist! Jim Guest, President and CEO of Consumers Union, says that the Consumerist community’s passion for helping consumers shop in a “fair, safe and just marketplace” will add exponentially to his company’s relevance and reach. It will also bring younger readers into the Consumer Reports fold.
And for The Consumerist and Gawker: WOW. The site’s new owner knows a thing or two about online marketing and revenue generation. With 3.3 million loyal, paying readers, ConsumerReports.org is the largest paid-subscriber website in the world.
A good deal all around! Let’s just hope that Consumerist readers will continue to have access to its content free of charge… with some heavy-duty Consumer Reports cross-sell pitches thrown in, of course. Consumers UnionConsumer Reportsconsumerreports.orgThe Consumerist Consumers Union Buys Consumerist
It’s no secret that Wal-Mart has benefited from the failing economy; it also did a very nice job recently with a promotion helping families pay for Thanksgiving dinner.
Now that the company has agreed to pay $640 million to settle over 60 wage-related lawsuits, I see an opportunity for Wal-Mart to reconstitute its image.
While 42% of Americans (as of 2006) say they shop at Wal-Mart at least once a month, there is at least 14% of U.S. consumers who consider themselves “conscientious objectors” to the retailer based on its employment, charitable and other policies. And it’s probably safe to say that at least a portion of that 14% consists of parties that can capture an inordinate amount of media attention such as local governments and retailers, unions, prosecutors and others.
So with its successful new tagline “Save Money. Live Better,” will Wal-Mart seize what I see as a window of opportunity to change some of its policies and win over its detractors? Pay-outs like $640 million are a drop in the bucket for Wal-Mart: there’s a lot the company could do (and spend) to ensure that it comes out smelling much sweeter once the economy turns around.
Consumers need a savior right now: will Wal-Mart go out of its way to step up to the plate?
It’s been a very odd few weeks in the fast food marketing business.
First, there’s Burger King’s effort to spread “ugly Americanism” around the globe with its odd “Whopper Virgins” campaign. “What happens if you take remote Chang Mai villagers who’ve never seen a burger, who don’t even have a word for burger, and ask them to compare Whopper versus Big Mac in the world’s purest taste test?” I don’t know the answer, but I’m doubtful that this campaign will shift any new business to Burger King – it may fuel the fanatics (and I’m not knocking the importance of retention) but I wonder if it’s enough to balance the heat the company has received as a result of the campaign. Early results already show that the campaign is putting off women, and positive chatter on the Web is dropping quickly. Barbara Lippert judging the work as “culturally tone deaf” was one of the nicer phrases critics have used.
Then yesterday, the Pizza Hut “anti-Main Street” (my phrase) ad debacle hit Twitter, care of Ian Schafer, CEO of Deep Focus. Pizza Hut has created this odd viral campaign in which actors walk into mom-and-pop pizza shops and order pizza delivery – from Pizza Hut. So… in a recession, Pizza Hut puts out ads in which people order pizza that we all know is not as good as the product you can find in your own neighborhood, AND mocks/steals business from little restaurant owners just trying to make a living.
While it has not received much credit for it, Burger King actually did donate some money to the towns in which the Whopper Virgins ads, so the company wasn’t entirely tone deaf. The Pizza Huts ads are just, well, mean.
And lastly, there’s just not a whole lot to say about a Burger King body spray for men that smells like… meat. “Flame” offers “the scent of seduction with a hint of flame-broiled meat.” Nah, I’m not going to take the bait (pardon the pun) – it’s just too easy.
So there you have it: a strange time in fast food land. Go offer some love (and cash) to your neighborhood diner today!Burger KingWhopper VirginsPizza HutIan SchaferDeep Focus
Straight from treehugger-land… a list of stuff NOT to buy this holiday if you give a hoot about your planet.
Some of the items on the list are more sustainability-sensitive than others, and some are just funny. Like…
GIFT CARDS: “No better purchase says, ‘I did all my shopping at the gas station.’” Nice! I still like iTunes gift cards, however, so don’t let Planet Green stop you.
PAPERWEIGHTS: “Companies… pass every piece of non-functional junk off as a paperweight. Whose office is that windy? Are these paperweights for tornado-chasers and sea captains? Rocks are free.”
You do not even want to KNOW what these guys say about mail-order fruit…
* Grand Prize – John McCain’s Presidential campaign
* Overly confident LifeLock CEO brags about his company’s identity theft protection service by publishing his own social security number – and gets his identity stolen.
2007 saw folks pushing The Facebook Marketing Bible, conference segments and endless articles on the wisdom of marketers hawking their wares on Facebook. A lot of this stuff is still around, but the climate appears to be changing.
In a recent survey of CMOs, over half indicated a very low level of interest in including Facebook in their current plans. A third said they have no interest at all.
Epsilon commissioned the survey, and I do agree with the company’s CMO, Steve Cone, that marketers aren’t interested in “teenagers sharing photographs with one another.” However, I think the fact that that is the case – or even the perception – is a failing that smacks of lost opportunity.
33% of Facebook’s 33 million users are over 26 years of age, and 13% are 35 or older. That’s nothing to sneeze at. But are there any particular areas on Facebook that might be attractive or particularly relevant for an older audience? Nope. And more importantly, Facebook’s efforts to target advertising by age and other characteristics have failed to gain traction. At this very moment, there are 3 ads on my profile page: one for an HP something (dvt5 anyone?) powered by Intel Centrino2 Processor Technology, another for “faith-based universities” and one asking if I want to get an MBA.
Let’s just say that 0 out of 3 of these ads are relevant to me personally. Based on my zip code and self-reported educational data, at least two of them shouldn’t be there at all. As a marketer looking to spend precious dollars wisely, this sends me a strong message that Facebook is not the place to do so.
Facebook needs to figure out target marketing quick and take its show on the road to marketers interested in reaching grown-ups.
Morgan_Stanley 
Ameritrade 
PNC 
Fiduciary_Trust_International 
Glenmede_Investment 
Fidelity 
CME_Group 
JetBlue 
Dick_Fuld 
Welcome_Bigwigs 
JWT_Partners 
Lehman_Brothers 
alcohol_abuse 
BBC 
alcoholism 
Drinkaware 
Motrin moms
Colloquy
WOMMA
Costco
peanut_butter_recall
philanthropy 
corporate_philanthropy 
ben_&_jerry’s 
nike 
Target_shopping 
Financial_Times 
social_media 
If this blog and 
Twitter
Will_Ferrell_George_Bush 
Will_Ferrell_Broadway 
NutriSystem
weight_loss
Weight_Watchers
GIFT CARDS: “No better purchase says, ‘I did all my shopping at the gas station.’” Nice! I still like 
