Online retail sales are bleak – no question – but there are some opportunities for sharp loyalty marketers.
I say that because some gift types actually saw an uptick around Valentine’s Day this year vs. month prior or year prior or both – ok, the only gifts in the latter category were pets and outdoor gear, but still…
Internet Retailerlooked at both shopping cart completions and sales totals for February 09 and gifts, pets, jewelry and sports apparel & gear all saw increases in the percentage of orders that were completed vs. February 08. That does not mean that order sizes increased – ticket size, in fact, decreased in all of these categories – but more customers completing any orders offer a smart online retailer the opportunity to capture:
- incremental email addresses
- more refined SEO information
- additional data about the relationship between ticket size and order completion
- increased data regarding site visit and purchase behavior
All of these factors permit more accurate and efficient site design and offer development targeting a broader consumer base.
‘Definitely a glass-half-full approach to some pretty dismal numbers, but both more and less of just about every kind of behavior online can make you a better marketer over time.
While I’d prefer to come up with these on my own, I’m afraid that I would be the one who’s hard of hearing if I didn’t pick a recent Pepsi ad for G2 (low-calorie Gatorade) as the tone-deaf ad of the week.
You can see what Pepsi was trying to do almost immediately, but BLAM: this thing has really come back around and smacked them in the head. This means Pepsi now have something in common with AIG – but I’ll get to that later.
The spot switches back and forth between NBA player Kevin Barnett and a normal, suburban-looking guy – also named Kevin – swimming like crazy. The voiceover also switches back and forth and herein lies the problem. In trying to write a standard “athletic striving” ad, they get seriously tangled in a lot of language that many are considering cruel and insulting to people who have lost their jobs and are otherwise suffering because of the economic crisis. See for yourself (if you can’t see the ad already, click HERE)
When I first heard about this controversy, I really, really wanted to support Pepsi. Then I saw the ad, and that became impossible.
The lines hurtle between insensitivity and cruelty:
Garnett: “I’ve never been handed a pink slip and “I’ve never had to tell me wife ‘We can’t make the mortgage.’” (Kevin “The Big Ticket” Garnett has a $24.75 million NBA contract)
Normal Kevin: “I’ve never had to fill the holes in my sneakers with cardboard.”
That last one IMHO is the most offensive of all. Normal Kevin appears to be taking us past unemployment and foreclosure straight on to visions of being homeless in the park.
The tragedy here is this was completely unnecessary. The financial services companies got into trouble for how they handled their (financial services) business! Gatorade just runs right into a buzz saw for no reason at all.
And so, let me wrap up a Friday by coming back to how Pepsi is now an AIG comrade. Both companies have fundamentally failed to grasp how people are feeling today… how many people are suffering. 1.3 million children in the United States were homeless at some point in one year – and that was before the recession started. I would assume that many of those children have had to use cardboard to plug the holes in their shoes.
If you think I am overdramatizing, I would respectfully suggest that you could make a mistake not dissimilar to the ones made by Pepsi and the banks, either while on the job or at a cocktail party. This is vast, vast pain.
I am counseling clients today to look hard at the need to advertise. If you are running ads, make sure they are seen and tested with a much broader swath of consumers and experts – ones who may not be in your target audience.
Is all this fair? NO ONE CARES. We are all in the business to sell, of course, but think long-term. If you’re not 100% secure in next week’s flight, cancel it. Because getting this wrong could negatively affect your brand’s reputation for years, if not a lifetime.
As a promotional tactic, BOGO (Buy One, Get One Free) has been around for decades. Now Coca-Cola has put a fresh spin on the concept.
Coke is offering a free bottle of Vault (its own Mountain Dew competitor) when you buy a bottle of Mountain Dew – a program it’s calling the “Vault Taste Challenge.” That’s right kids, Coke is giving you its product for free when you buy the competition.
Based on the sites I’ve scanned, no one seems to remember any other marketer trying this; it’s really fascinating if you think about it.
Why doesn’t Coke just offer coupons to get its product free? A couple reasons: (1) The gimmick is getting a lot of mostly-positive attention in the marketing world - when was the last time an average free coupon landed on the of AdAge? and (2) Maybe Coke actually thinks that a one-on-one taste test will show customers that Vault tastes better. Mountain Dew has an 80% share of the citrus segment and Vault has 4% so Coke doesn’t have a lot to lose.
I feel I must report that some are griping that the program will be super-expensive, and that “a few million people” who might not have otherwise bought a Mountain Dew will now do so in order to get a free Vault. Not likely. Given the recession and the particular preference for citrus soda that a shopper either does or does not already have, I don’t think that helping the competition (with its 80% share) is a real concern for Coca-Cola in this instance. No, in this case, Coke can only win with the press and the public. And you gotta give the company points for guts.
So, rock on – promotional innovation is not dead! I hope that some sort of results are released; it’d be interesting to see if Vault does the Dew (get it?).
AIG opened a Pandora’s Box when it sent a media advisory to MSNBC notifying the network that the company was adding a new shop to its list of PR firms. List, you say?? This peaked MSNBC’s/Rachel Maddow’s interest, and she has twice run lengthy segments this week regarding the firm at the top of that list: Burson- Marsteller.
And aside from being absolutely beside herself that AIG is spending taxpayer money on spin, she offers a quite lengthy history lesson about BM, including specific references to the following Burson-Marsteller clients (Oh yeah: she’s irritated):
- Blackwater after it killed 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad
- The folks at Three Mile Island post-nuclear meltdown
- The Bhopal people after the disaster that killed thousands of people in India
- The Romanian dictator Nikolai Ceauşescu
- The government of Saudi Arabia three days after 9/11
- The military junta that overthrew the government of Argentina
- The government of Indonesia, accused of genocide
- The government of Nigeria, accused of genocide and Biafra
- Philip Morris? *cough*
- A silicon breast implants manufacturer
- The government of Columbia after killing unionizers
- They Aquadot people, after it was found that the toy produced the date rape drug.
She concludes this first segment with the following statement: “When Evil needs public relations, Evil has Burson Marsteller on speed dial.“
Wow. So I waited with interest to see Burson-Marsteller’s reaction… and think the shop missed an opportunity to sound like the grown-ups in the room.
After reading Mark Penn‘s (BM’s President) response, which includes a great deal of “for 50 years” phrases and chest-clutching indignity, I posted the following comment on www.PRWeek.com:
—- Penn had a shot here at a succinct, fact-based response, but blew it with a reaction that IMHO comes off as self-promoting, and his “mock outrage” mutes the core of his message. Phrases such as “our corporate values over the past 50 years”and “never forget over the past 20 years…” are entirely irrelevant and, more importantly, causes the reader to wonder as to the actual intent of this response.
From the way this is written, it appears to me that Penn felt he needed to address at least four different audiences: MSNBC/the cable news business, employees, clients and potential clients. I would propose that the firm would have been better off with shorter and more customized messages to each rather than this rambling catch-all that had to do double or triple (or four-ple??) duty.
And one last thing: I only read the entire statement because Penn’s statement that B-M wasn’t hired to help “burnish [AIG's] image” caught my eye. As a long-time marketing/mgmt exec, let me be clear: regardless of the specific task my team may give an agency, it is ALWAYS a PR shop’s job to help build (or “burnish,” if you will) a client’s image 24/7. If I were under siege at AIG, this comment alone would make me wonder, “What am I paying these guys for??” —–
And in a Penn v. Maddow mud wrestle? My money is on Maddow.
It’s been nearly 18 months since I interviewed the marketing and communications brains behind the highly successful tap water effort, Tappening. Man, time flies when people are out saving the planet!
I also covered Tappening’s first ad campaign right HERE, which took iconic imagery and – without being too heavy-handed – delivered a hard message about the global impact of bottled water.
Mark Dimassimo and Eric Yaverbaum created Tappening as a fun and meaningful consumer movement to sensitize everyone to the financial and societal costs of bottled water and to “make tap water cool again.” Since then, the effort has gone so public, and reached so many fans, that not only are average people making fan videos on YouTube but the effort was recently the cover story of Brilliant Resultsmagazine. To see a pdf of the cover and the full story, click HERE.
Keep up with Tappening: it’s not only a model for how to create a messaging phenom from nothing – drinking tap water is a quick and easy step you can take to help preserve our world and save money.
Recently, Jeffry caught something that tells us just how bad the financial situation is.
Yes folks, these institutions are so upset, and have become so unstable, that they are literally peeing their own metaphorical pants. And their grammar stinks. Oh, I know: it’s shocking!
Jeffry points out something that shouldn’t be a surprise, however: anything that represents a financial company today that is viewed or experienced by the public – even signage in a local branch - deserves additional scrutiny. The smallest failure in personal service can undermine costly efforts elsewhere.
Did I mention that this sign was posted on the door of a credit union inside the U.S. Capitol Building?
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
The enormous matters of CEO and corporate trust and transparency - or the lack thereof – are everywhere these days. The need for CEOs to be open and honest… to communicate with all of their stakeholders about what’s happening and what they’re doing to ensure their companies survive the recession. Weber Shandwick, a very large PR agency that’s won many accolades, has taken a position at the front of the line on this topic.
Weber Shandwick has a practice called ReputationRx, and its site offers numerous press releases and papers, including “Seven Out of 10 Global Executives Fear For Their Corporate Reputations As Online Risks Grow” and ”Company Leaders Not Communicating To Employees On Financial Crisis.” The agency’s CEO, Harris Diamond, penned an Op-Ed for The Washington Times in October titled, “A crisis of confidence, The lost art of communication.” Etc. etc. The place takes reputation and open communication seriously.
So I had to laugh at the inadvertent comedic timing of a just-received business school event newsletter [verbatim] :
THE C.E.O. SERIES: MANAGING AND COMMUNICATING IN ECONOMIC CRISIS
Tuesday, 3/31/09 at 12:00pm
Harris Diamond, C.E.O. of Weber Shandwick Worldwide, will share his thoughts on communicating to stakeholders when your company is going through a rough patch. THIS EVENT HAS BEEN CANCELLED!
After offering a trustmeister wince of sympathy (these things happen) all I can say is…
As a fun way to head into the weekend, I thought I’d write a quick post on a TV commercial that I’ve been enjoying lately.
The ad is for Sprint Nextel and it’s called “What if delivery people ran the world?” Here it is:
The reasons I like this ad (and some rules of thumb I apply, in general) are:
1. Product features are clearly represented
2. The benefit(s) of those features are presented in a thoughtful way
3. The ad is told as a story that isn’t so outlandish that it steals attention away from the product. Callahan’s unfortunate adventure is a solid underpinning for the product itself – not the other way around.
4. It’s a positive ad. Some products make it difficult to tell a happy story, but Sprint made a conscious choice. Instead of, say, showing parents using their walkies while searching for their missing child, Sprint’s tale makes the viewer smile. That’s not always possible and I’m no goodie-two-shoes but it’s nice to see a ”happy” message once in awhile. I might also propose (with no research to back it up whatsoever) that positive ads may get more than their fair share of mind right now, given the economic environment.
My only demerit would be that I think the voiceover swallows the name of the particular product (“Direct Connect“) while the card is up at the end.
While I’m at it, here is my favorite ad from 2008 that observes the 4 principles above. Enjoy.
This is the second in a series of posts about ads so weirdly out of tune with the public zeitgeist that they deserve your attention. I haven’t found one every week (thank goodness), but this one definitely makes the (F) grade.
Say hello to Hawker Beechcraft Corporation of Wichita, Kansas. Hawker ran this full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal last week. Intended to look like a letter from James Schuster, Chairman and CEO, the ad begins, “Dear Starbucks, You still need to fly. We’re here to help.” and goes on to say that “in an era where every dollar counts” and “you need to fly smarter,” the Hawker 4000 is the way to go. The Hawker 4000 costs $18.8 million, according to Wikipedia, and can seat 8 (for the aero-enthusiasts among you).
The ad is part of the company’s campaign to “fire back at the media and politicians on business jets” and was accompanied by a press release in which the company’s Marketing VP claims the company is “puzzled” that the media and political community could so badly mistake private aircraft to be a symbol of excess. This individual goes on to express concern that this “stereotype is damaging the ability of American corporations to compete globally and, at the same time, jeopardizing thousands of American aviation jobs.”
OK, let’s start with the revenue potential represented by this campaign.
That would be zero. A private aircraft is a highly considered B2B purchase with a long sales cycle. Let’s say there are 100 people/organizations in the market for this product right now (at best). Such a sale requires personal relationship-building at the CxO level over time, extensive, expensive marketing and promotional efforts and community/industry participation. A newspaper ad is a needle in a haystack.
After all, Hawker Beechcraft has sold exactly one commercial-use unit so far to Talon Air, a luxury air charter company. None have been sold outside the industry. And as a side note, thanks for pointing out that Starbucks uses private aircraft (perhaps to help executives fly around closing stores and getting rid of staff). Starbucks investor relations department must have been delighted to be called out in this manner.
If anything, this ad may impede sales, as it does not make Hawker appear to be a prudent and discreet partner at a time when such a purchase might receive signficant scrutiny.
But beyond the lack of revenue potential, this campaign is so unnecessarily cold and snarky that it eliminates the potential for any good result at all. The company coyly says it is “puzzled” at the public outcry about waste and excess. Puzzled? I don’t think so. Private air travel is the only efficient way to fly? They know this is not the case, or that customers and shareholders of companies that may purchase private aircraft would not think that was the case.
Look, here’s my point: no one in this country or any other will begrudge a worthwhile company trying to sell a legal product. Whether someone is unemployed or put out of his home, everyone understands that a company is in business to sell and that sales create jobs. But to play-act surprise, to clasp one’s breast and say that the media and politicians are trying to “destroy” America’s strongest industries… to spend money on a full-page WSJ ad that will generate only bad will and no sales – at a time when most companies, including Starbucks (the unfortunate target of this particular ad), are scrambling, and Hawker Beechcraft itself is laying off employees – is irreparably misguided and, frankly, sad.
And P.S. An effort like this also draws attention to the company itself as well as its executives. For example, a quick review of a few SEC documents reveals that the company posted a 2008 net after-tax loss of $139.9 million, while Jim Schuster’s 2008 bonus was set at (up to) $630,000 – the same amount he received in salary. And upon his imminent retirement, Schuster will get $321,000 in severance, company-subsidized health benefits for himself and his family for at least 12 months, an additional $750,000 when the company buys back 75,000 common shares and another $1 million for no discernable reason at all. Is this what Schuster meant in November 2008 when he announced an earlier layoff and told employees to “plan for the worst?” He certainly appears to have done ok for himself.
Is that a low blow? Wrong question. This isn’t personal: it’s business. CEOs mustn’t get pulled off track by what they know about the inner workings of their own organizations. It’s how things look in the current economic climate that must be factored into the equation. Tell me again why Hawker’s executives and ad team deliberately drew this kind of attention to themselves?
In his memo to all employees last month announcing additional layoffs, Schuster offered concern, understanding and reflection on the economic conditions that are causing suffering, both within and outside his own company.
A good media and crisis communications expert – and any marketer worth his or her job – would recommend to Mr. Schuster, Hawker Beechcraft’s Board and Schuster’s successor that perhaps this tone is far wiser and more welcome under the circumstances. Hawker_Beechcraft
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
Do you remember the 1970′s Fifth Dimensionsong, “One less… FICO to answer. One less… FICO to fry…” You don’t? Well you may start singing it when you go to collect your three FICO scores and discover only two available.
As of Valentine’s Day, Experian will no longer make its credit score, or FICO, available to individual consumers. So while you previously could have gone to myFICO.com and purchased any or all of three scores – from Experian, Equifax and TransUnion– there will now be only two.
Given what’s happening in the economy, it seems an odd time from a PR point of view to take such an action. Lenders are raising their credit standards, and a yes/no decision can sometimes come down to a matter of a few points on your FICO. If you are in the market for a loan, you want to see all the same information that lender is seeing: particularly because individuals often find errors in their credit records that must be corrected.
The stakes are particularly high because Experian itself will continue to sell (your) FICO scores based on its data to lenders, such as banks. This means that the lending institution will see a score that you can no longer see for yourself.
Fair Isaac expressed surprise at the action at a time when consumers are particularly “concerned about their credit standing.” Of course, there is some competition between all these parties, and Fair Isaac actually sued Experian in 2006 on an unrelated matter. That lawsuit is still outstanding, which probably doesn’t exactly create a spirit of cooperation between the two firms.
If you are in the market for a loan or credit card, I would recommend buying your Experian-based FICO score while you still can. And always pull your other FICOs once a year for free at www.annualcreditreport.com.
Now don’t get too excited – I hope that this is the first in a weekly series presenting tone deaf ads, but we’ll have to see. Companies are scrambling so crazily trying to figure out what to say in this economy that I think the odds are in my favor, but the proof will be in the… tone deaf ads.
Let’s knock it out of the park this first week, at least, OK?
May I present to you… Bessemer Trust. Henry Phipps founded Bessemer over 100 years ago to manage his family’s proceeds from the sale of Carnegie Steel. Today, the firm’s website states that Bessemer manages in excess of $50B in assets for over 1,900 families, and that its “history of serving wealthy families affords us an understanding of the issues that matter to you.”
Really? Let’s review some of the issues that are, in fact, on everyone’s minds these days with regard to the financial markets: Economic meltdown. Uncertainty. Greed. Irresponsibility. Misrepresentation. Anxiety. This means that any financial firm today has a choice to make: either don’t advertise – which is a perfectly acceptable option for now - or advertise a message that is very, very carefully crafted to take these concerns into account.
So I was shocked when I saw Bessemer’s ad in The Wall Street Journal yesterday: a half-page ad with huge type, saying “We invest your money right along with ours. Needless to say, you benefit from some very careful thinking.”
My reaction: “They’re joking. Bessemer is an honorable and discreet company. Why would they get down in the mud with a bunch of other companies that followed this same practice and scr**ed over their investors?” Investing your own funds is no guarantee of anything – it’s not a guarantee of wealth, intelligence, integrity or the “alignment of interest” explained in Bessemer’s ad. Lots of categories currently in the hotseat invest their own funds: venture capital firms, investment banks, mortgage companies… Enron invested its own funds alongside clients, for goodness sake!
To make matters worse, the small type does actually call out some positive characteristics and benefits of being a Bessemer client “as the credit crisis loomed.” Unfortunately, I can guarantee that no one who saw this ad ever read the small type.
Does the firm have an executive tuned in to the American zeitgeist today? If not, they need one; if so, that person needs to get his hearing checked. This is truly a frustrating example of a company deliberately and needlessly putting itself in harm’s way.
How long did you think I could go in 2009 without talking about Starbucks, hmmm? C’mon, I think 20+ days is pretty good.
The latest ragging I’m going to do is about Starbucks’ weird Obama-based feel-good advertising effort. WHAT does this message have to do with coffee… particularly Starbucks coffee?
“Starbucks and Hands On Network are supporting the President’s call for national service. From January 21-25, 2009, pledge 5 hours to the cause of your choice and Starbucks will salute you with a free Tall brewed coffee in participating U.S. Starbucks stores.” First of all, I think it’s hilarious that a twist on this message is that you need to work 5 hours to *afford* a small cup of Starbucks coffee. That’s priceless. Second, Starbucks is behaving as if its world has not changed. I’m not saying that a brand should give up its principles in a recession – not at all. What I am saying is that (a) consumers process information and behave differently in a down market (like dropping Starbucks in favor of cheaper coffee), and (b) they look at a brand’s behavior differently, as well. Anyone paying attention knows that Starbucks is closing stores and laying people off. It means nothing to me that you did a cute ad. I would much prefer to see you give the money you spent on this ad effort directly to Hands On Network. Or – better yet – lower your prices on Inauguration Day.
And if you wanted to let me know – because I am a loyal Starbucks customer, and exactly the kind of person you want to hold on to now – you could email me. You know where I am. Too bad I’ve never heard from you except when you want me to buy something. I see no indication that Starbucks has grasped its “new reality,” and predict further self-inflicted pain in its future. This company needs a brain transplant, and fast. Starbucks Hands_On_Network
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?
“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.
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?
Technomic recently announced the top 5 restaurant trends for 2009. I didn’t think the list held too many foodie-oriented surprises, declaring “ethnic flavors will continue to star” and “experimentation with flower.”
While Technomic’s press release acknowledged that the coming year will be even more of a “buyer’s market” than 2008, I was surprised to see that none of the trends reflected the fact that what is not flowering is consumers’ wallets. There is no mention of how restaurateurs are going to try to drive traffic in the worst economy since the ’30s. One of the trends, in fact – “kids menus will be up-scaled and expanded” – could imply an up-scaled price, as well.
This is odd, given that Technomic itself issued the results of a survey in October indicating that restaurants will be hit hard by the weakened economy. 74% of consumers plan on visit QSRs and full-service establishments less often next year and 50% - including 70% of higher income diners – plan to spend less when they do dine out.
At least from a consumer point of view, there seems to be an odd disconnect between the trend list and reality.
Tappening 
Mark_Dimassimo 
Ericho_PR 
Eric_Yaverbaum 
tap_water 
Dimassimo_Goldstein 
Jeffry_Pilcher 
TheFinancialBrand.com 
Politico.com 
Morgan_Stanley 
Ameritrade 
PNC 
Fiduciary_Trust_International 
Glenmede_Investment 
Fidelity 
CME_Group 
Weber_Shandwick 
Columbia_Business_School 
Hawker_Beechcraft 
JetBlue 
Dick_Fuld 
Welcome_Bigwigs 
JWT_Partners 
Lehman_Brothers 
FICO
credit_score 
Fair_Isaac 
Equifax 
Experian 
Starbucks 
Hands_On_Network 
philanthropy 
corporate_philanthropy 
ben_&_jerry’s 
nike 
Target_shopping 
