Will Apple do for (to) TV what it did for (to) music?
Posted on | August 30, 2010 | No Comments
Author:
Jason Voiovich
Ecra Creative Group
Key Points:
1. Purchasing television shows through any of the existing services – iTunes, Sony, or Hulu – is a clunky process, ripe for re-engineering.
2. Apple and Disney are in the process of doing just that, “selling” individual television episodes for 48-hours of viewing for the magical price of 99 cents.
3. Bottom line: This arrangement has the potential to provide television content providers a reliable source of revenue in a new media environment.
My sons enjoy watching television.
I really wish they didn’t. And I kick them out of the house into the summer air at every opportunity. But the television is an insidious beast. I really don’t want to come off as a Luddite, but my sons find new and creative ways to thwart my efforts.
The latest trick is downloadable television. My oldest son is a PSP kid, onto which he buys and downloads episodes of your standard pre-teen fair. My younger son is an Apple kid, and uses his iTunes account to download episodes of the gratingly irritating (and sometimes oddly funny) “Spongebob Squarepants”. In either case, the shows cost what I consider to be a stupidly-high $9.99 per episode. Some are cheaper, but considering they rerun constantly on cable, I cannot see the value.
To this point, purchasing television shows through whatever network – PlayStation’s or Apple’s – has been akin to buying or renting a DVD. That business model paradigm permeates. The logic is pretty simple: If you can pick up episodes of your favorite shows at your local Target or Wal-Mart for $14.99, paying $9.99 (or less) as a downloadable item, sans the packaging, makes it a bargain for everyone.
But network or syndicated television really isn’t comparable to the DVD market, and aside from my children it seems, the whole business model has been sluggish.
On the other side of the value spectrum is the equally bone-headed Hulu approach. Newsflash: When you give away your valuable programming for nothing, don’t expect to be able to charge for it later. What’s even worse, Hulu has damaged the value of programs as they enter syndication. Smooth move.
So neither model really works. That’s why the announcement of an “imminent” deal between Apple and Disney is so interesting.
From reports from those familiar with the negotiations, the two media giants are close to inking a deal to move Disney episodic programming through the iTunes store for $0.99 per show for 48 hours. Basically, if you want to catch the latest episode of “The Wizards of Waverly Place”, you download it to your mobile device or computer for 99 cents. You then have 48 hours to watch it.
Certainly, there’s the issues of “ownership” of your 99 cent purchase. For all intents and purposes, you own your music track, but you won’t own your television program. That might seem a bit off-putting, but it makes sense. If you really wanted to keep a particular episode, you’d be able to buy the “season” later. Most people simply want to watch their show once.
You could also make the case this supports Apple’s rumored successor to Apple TV coming in time for the Holidays. It’s been called a game-changer for the cable/satellite industry – a clear disruptive innovation. If you could divorce yourself from paying $15 of every cable bill for ESPN (yes, sadly, you do) and a hundred other channels and thousands of shows you’ll never watch, would you? Would you prefer to create your own TV playlist where you pay only for the programs you want to see, when you want to see them? Would you simply supplement the occasional live-television or sporting event? Apple thinks so. And if they’re correct, I’d sell my stock in DirecTV.
But as significant as that is, I think Apple and Disney are really making a play for the monetization of the television product in the digital age.
As recently a five years ago, the business model of television hadn’t materially changed since the introduction of the paid cable subscription. For better or worse, that model survived largely intact until video content found its way – free – online. So no cable subscription fees, and a dramatic reduction in advertising revenue (internet advertising revenues for content producers don’t even come close to broadcast advertising revenues).
Even though the average American adult, according to Nielsen, watches almost 6 hours of television per day (Millennials, surprisingly watch nearly 5 hours per day), the networks are struggling to continue to produce expensive content without a reliable revenue stream.
Disney, for its part, seems to want to be on the front end of this rather than on the “begging” end in about two years. Probably smart.
It’s hard to say how all this will shake out, but if iTunes has taught us anything, it’s that it has found a way to reinvent the media marketplace. Saving the music industry was first. Democratizing software was second. How we read books is changing as we speak. How we watch television, I think, is next.
Related articles:
Apple Close to Deal With Disney to Rent ABC Shows Via iTunes
Tags: Apple > Apple TV > Disney > iTunes
The value of silver
Posted on | August 23, 2010 | 1 Comment
Author:
Jason Voiovich
Ecra Creative Group
Key Points:
1. Silver-ion infused products are gaining in popularity, but their growth has been stunted by reluctance to pay more in recession-plagued (or is it post-recession?) 2010.
2. More than the price, silver products are lagging their potential because they have a difficult time demonstrating how they work in a US chemical market with entrenched, mature competitors and years of consumer education campaigns.
3. While the “green” trend could help, paradoxically, the price argument could be the better motivator as consumers see the value in reducing their household expenses.
My wife drank the Sleep Number Kool-Aid.
No, we don’t have a bed just yet. And we don’t know our “sleep numbers”. But believe me, that’s coming for the holidays this year. Despite that, we must have spent $1000 on pillows, sheet sets, and the like over the past six months.
What’s of particular interest to my wife are the silver-infused products. We own silver pillow covers and are buying a silver mattress pad shortly. The reason is pretty simple if you’ve ever taken the pillowcase off an old pillow and taken a good long whiff.
They stink.
Oils from your scalp along with a healthy dose of dead skin (gross, but true) make their way through even the best pillowcases and embed themselves in your pillow. Unless you have your friendly neighborhood dry cleaner go to work on them every month or so, they begin to get funky.
With the silver barrier, no hint of any odor. Silver ions are a natural anti-microbial, and make great, natural, odor protectors.
That’s why my wife was so disappointed when Sleep Number decided to discontinue its silver-infused comforter. Being nosy (love you, dear), she asked why they would do that. The answer was pretty simple: Most people simply don’t see the value. For them, the price premium (anywhere from 10-30%) is too much to ask for what they consider a “luxury” item at best, and a “gimmick” at worst.
It might be a bit frustrating to those who do see the value, but the product manager in me sees the problem. And it’s a tough one. Actually, a tough two problems, and I’m not sure they can be easily overcome.
But let’s start with the obvious red herring – the price argument.
Consumers pay premium prices for all sorts of things, many of which have much more dubious value than silver ions. If we stay in the bedding industry, all we need to do is examine the “thread count” bonanza. Certainly, it’s easy to tell the difference between a 50-thread count sheet and a 200 count, but the numbers are misleading for a couple of reasons. First, the “count” ignores the quality and type of the thread itself. Mix a little silk (or soft poly) material in with a base cotton, and a low count sheet can feel like a much higher quality one. Check the materials list for yourself. Second, after a certain number, it’s hard to make any distinction at all. But there is a striking linear relationship between price point and thread count, and consumers happily pay it largely on perceived quality.
As silly as I think the thread count issue is, it does raise the first intractable issue for silver-infused products: Demonstrate-ability.
In other words, there is no way for you to “see the product working”. It’s not like the old Scrubbing Bubbles advertising that showed the little bubble guys scouring away bathroom grime and soap scum while you watched. Silver-ion materials simply prevent bacteria from growing in the first place. Of course, one could imagine a television spot showing the silver-infused cloth with little germ characters frustratingly bouncing off, but I’m not sure that will happen.
And it’s because of the second intractable problem: The entrenched market for household chemicals.
Big players such as Proctor and Gamble, and smaller ones such as SC Johnson sell roughly $5 billion in household chemicals every year. That includes everything from bathroom cleanser to furniture polish, but it doesn’t include laundry detergent and toiletries, which is an even bigger market. They have built a market convincing you that ordinary soap and water is bad, and that the only way to be truly clean, or truly germ-free, or truly protect your table’s valuable finish, is to purchase and use one of the many chemical wonders on your grocery store shelf. The market is so mature, and so entrenched, that companies fight over the tiniest of market share movement using all manner of real (and perceived) innovations.
Silver-infused sheets, towels, clothing, and rags are a supreme disruptive innovation.
Please understand, I am not accusing the chemical manufacturers of some vast conspiracy to hold more effective products back from the market for fear of ruining a multi-billion-dollar scam. But I am saying that they have little incentive to promote a product that could eliminate the need (or severely disrupt the purchase cycle) for huge swaths of their product lines. I’m not sure I would.
Given those two inherent problems – lack of easily demonstrable function and an entrenched market that has spent years educating its customers – I don’t see a bright future for silver-infused products.
My only caveat might be the growing movement of removing (or drastically reducing) the number of household chemicals. This isn’t big yet, but an increasing number of households are convinced that the promise of household cleaners is a bunch of hooey, and they may even be causing harm.
Yes, you could see that as an offshoot of the “green” movement – and it is – but what happens when middle America decides its had enough of spending hundreds of dollars per year on average in home chemicals and could reduce that number by 60, 70, or 80 percent?
That seems like a pretty good value proposition to me.
Related Links:
This War Against Germs Has a Silver Lining (from 2006!)
Tags: green cleaning > silver cleaning > silver infused
Marketing “Made in the USA” in 2010
Posted on | August 16, 2010 | No Comments
Author:
Jason Voiovich
Ecra Creative Group
Key Points:
1. In the face of stiff global competition, domestic manufacturers are under pressure to find any differentiator – including their USA address.
2. It’s important to remember, however, that the FTC does have rules on this. Even though there is no “pre-approval process”, it should go without saying you should know you’re in compliance before you run ads.
3. While “made in the USA” definitely has appeal – on its face – to a certain audience, linking American origin to tangible benefits is the real key to success with this strategy.
I have to admit, I was not prepared.
Over the course of five business days last week, I had three separate clients asked my opinion – in one form or another – regarding marketing their products as “made in the USA.” I guess everything old is new again. As I watched my father work with manufacturing clients in the early 1980s, he ran into the same strong urge to tout products as “American made”.
In each case, the client was a US-based manufacturer facing stiff and growing competition from overseas firms and conglomerates.
The question was simple: Do you think it makes sense to “push” the domestic origin of our products? How can we phrase it? What are the risks? How are others handling it?
We’ll get back to the first three questions in a moment, but there’s no shortage of American-origin-focused promotion going on in the market right now. The most significant is the latest campaign for the 2011 Jeep Cherokee.
Watch the Jeep “Manifesto”
Of course, this is a prime example of “feel good” advertising, but it speaks to the best aspect of the “American” strategy – the innovation, ingenuity, and can-do spirit of the American people. That stands in stark contrast to “flag waving” patriotic themes, where their is little connection to a benefit to the buyer, other than simply a feeling of affinity. Sorry, but competition is too stiff these days for that type of appeal to work.
The Jeep campaign is effective because it ties those positive attributes to the design and construction of the vehicle itself. And all of that is left to the voice-over – not a “waving flag” in sight. Instead, the visuals focus on classic American craftsman themes, the rich leather interior (darn nice, for a Jeep, by the way), driving through what appears to be a “classic” American forest. The concepts all work together to form a powerful sense of pride and excitement at a time when Chrysler (and the rest of us) really can use it.
Pundits in my industry point to research that shows these ads appeal to a certain demographic far more than others – those who want to support local jobs in the recession, those who fear globalization, and those who feel a more powerful visceral attachment to their country. I can buy that, but we saw plenty of flag-waving advertising trash in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and that didn’t stop millions of manufacturing jobs from heading overseas.
The reality of the global market underscores the opportunity – and the risk – of an American origin claim.
Before we go any farther, we need a brief regulatory detour. I wouldn’t do so if it weren’t critical to the situation, so bear with me.
Inside the bowels of the FTC is a little-understood write up on “origin claims”. In other words, if you plan to market your product using the words “Made in the USA” or some variant, it must meet certain criteria. A brief sample of the key portions of the provision:
The Standard For Unqualified Made In USA Claims
What is the standard for a product to be called Made in USA without qualification?
For a product to be called Made in USA, or claimed to be of domestic origin without qualifications or limits on the claim, the product must be “all or virtually all” made in the U.S. The term “United States,” as referred to in the Enforcement Policy Statement, includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories and possessions.
What does “all or virtually all” mean?
“All or virtually all” means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the product should contain no — or negligible — foreign content.
What substantiation is required for a Made in USA claim?
When a manufacturer or marketer makes an unqualified claim that a product is Made in USA, it should have — and rely on — a “reasonable basis” to support the claim at the time it is made. This means a manufacturer or marketer needs competent and reliable evidence to back up the claim that its product is “all or virtually all” made in the U.S.
What factors does the Commission consider to determine whether a product is “all or virtually all” made in the U.S.?
The product’s final assembly or processing must take place in the U.S. The Commission then considers other factors, including how much of the product’s total manufacturing costs can be assigned to U.S. parts and processing, and how far removed any foreign content is from the finished product. In some instances, only a small portion of the total manufacturing costs are attributable to foreign processing, but that processing represents a significant amount of the product’s overall processing. The same could be true for some foreign parts. In these cases, the foreign content (processing or parts) is more than negligible, and, as a result, unqualified claims are inappropriate.
And there’s much more to it than this.
Needless to say, although getting the okay ahead of time is not required, anyone thinking about making an origin claim should get a legal opinion before moving forward, especially if manufacturing and sourcing channels are complicated.
For my part, I think the issue really isn’t about the regulatory environment or the “legality” of the claim as much as it is about the potential affect on the audience you want to reach.
You’ll notice the Jeep ad never explicitly mentioned “made in the USA” (which i am not sure it really could…), but nonetheless invoked the same spirit and feelings. The more important consideration then, becomes “What will your buyer respond to?” Or more importantly, will enough of them respond positively and consider your claim a legitimate differentiator?
To that end, my clients can take a lesson from Jeep. It wasn’t enough that the new product was “American made”, but rather that the new product is innovative, well-crafted, and durable. In other words, the stars and stripes weren’t enough. They were just the start.
Related Links:
Just Make It: Hard Workin’ Ads
Complying with the Made In the USA Standard
Tags: FTC origin claim > Jeep Manifesto > Made in the USA
No more Bing bling
Posted on | August 9, 2010 | No Comments
Author:
Jason Voiovich
Ecra Creative Group
Key Points:
1. After less than a year, Microsoft decided to discontinue its cash rebate incentive system that paid Bing users if they used the search engine to find and buy products.
2. Commentators barked that the system was clunky, complicated, and cheap – a waste of time and a laughable idea.
3. I disagree. A rebate system is a powerful strategic wedge in online search behavior related to the shopping process. Microsoft quit when it should have retooled.
Not many people knew about it.
About a year ago, Microsoft quietly launched an ambitious program with its whiz-bang new web browser, Bing.
Basically, it worked like this: If you signed up for an account, and agreed to use the Bing search engine on your way to your favorite shopping sites, Bing would give you a percentage of your purchase back as a cash rebate (from 2 to 15 percent). Of course, it wasn’t necessarily instant gratification, but cash is cash all the same.
And it wasn’t just second tier retailers (although there were a lot of those too), but big names including Barnes and Noble, Macy’s, eBay, and Foot Locker.
Needless to say, most people might (might!) remember the Bing media blitz happening at the same time, and would certainly remember Microsoft’s final dance with Yahoo! It’s understandable if some smaller aspect of the marketing mix got overlooked.
But I think Microsoft may have taken the wrong lesson from the low attention level and pulled the plug too early on the rebate program.
Let’s think through the situation.
First off, some snarky web commentators likened Microsoft to a technology “john”, basically telling people that ifit couldn’t get traffic to its browser on its merits, it would be willing to pay for it.
Frankly, that’s just plain silly. Rebates are nothing new in the tech world, and slicing some piece of the marketing budget off to account for direct payments is a proven strategy. I think the opinion has a lot more to do with Microsoft’s overall positioning problem: It’s not as “good” as Google, and it’s not as “innovative” as Apple. It’s perceived, in popular culture although not in B2B, as a struggling giant who has lost its way.
I think the market share question is much more telling.
The graph above shows what everybody already knows: Google is the dominant player in search. The word “google” has become a verb. Bing? Not so much. Certainly, Bing was growing, but at the expense of Yahoo! market share, not Google, which wasn’t really a big help if they were going to be on the same team.
So the situation was clear: Microsoft needed dramatic action to reverse a decade or so of ingrained behavior and provide a wedge against its formidable competitor.
And in true Microsoft fashion, it biffed the implementation.
Issues abounded. First, you needed an account, and the sign-up process was a bit intrusive. I am not sure how much I buy that; if they are going to give away cash, it stands to reason people would put up with a little start-up time invested, but I’ll defer.
Second, the vendor list – although significant – was limited. In other words, online retailers needed to be part of the program or it wouldn’t pay out. So if you had loyalty to a particular online retailer, Bing would be asking not only a change in search behavior, but also a change in buying behavior. I can see that – a more inclusive list of retailers (or one that didn’t require the retailer to sign up) could have worked better.
Third, users claimed the “shopping experience” wasn’t as good as Google. Really? The shopping experience with Google is good? That seems squishy. I think that had more to do with resistance to change than it did actual user experience.
Finally, the delayed gratification of the rebate check was not worth a paltry 2%. In other words, the incentive just wasn’t big enough. I’m ignoring for a moment the dozens of blog commenters who wrote they saved hundreds of dollars using the system over its deployment period. I can see where – to the average online shopper – it seems like a lot of work for a little reward.
I am sure these arguments, and more, were on the table when Microsoft execs pulled the plug.
But I think they were wrong.
Google is not invincible, it is simply exceptionally good at the “yellow pages” function – getting you to what you want online. But getting you to the online buying experience is a different animal altogether, and a perfect strategic opening for Microsoft.
To be fair, Microsoft said they’d be back with something better, but I’m suspicious. If they thought it was that good of an idea, they could have simply rolled out the new incentive to replace the old one without downtime.
I am not sure Bing will have another, better shot at Google.
Related Links:
Microsoft stops paying us to use Bing
Bing Shopping Sites
Tags: Bing > Google > Microsoft
Toning Shoes: A triumph of marketing over science
Posted on | August 2, 2010 | No Comments
Author:
Jason Voiovich
Ecra Creative Group
Key Points:
1. So called “toning shoes” with rounded bottoms are designed to force muscles to work harder while walking and (purportedly) boost fitness outcomes.
2. Peer-reviewed studies disagree, and even show evidence that the shoe design can be harmful, but that hasn’t slowed sales.
3. As a new woman’s footwear “category”, toning shoes represent the first potential in years for a breakthrough product that could redefine the balance of market power.
Sorry mom.
My mother dropped by the other day with the ugliest pair of shoes I think I have every seen. Yes, far uglier than the Kangaroo shoes of my youth. These shiny new walkers struck me like some malformed orthopedic disaster.
But wait! my mother said. The “rocker bottoms” on these shoes toned muscles while you walked. Just by going about her daily routine, she could get the added benefit of a mini workout. And as she keeps reminding me, it’s the little things in life that make the biggest differences over time. There was even evidence (real data!) to support the salesperson’s pitch.
Touche.
However, I couldn’t escape the fact I’ve heard this kind of message before. I decided to look into it.
Essentially, while “normal” shoes are designed to reduce instability, “shape up” shoes actually seek to encourage it. By forcing your leg and core muscles to make the minute corrections in posture to maintain balance, they work harder. Not much harder with every step, but a little bit harder all the time, continuously toning the lower body. As another benefit, more work also equals more calories burned.
Win. Win. Win.
Studies from the manufacturers (Sketchers and Reebok are the big two) demonstrate the measurable impact over time. Bloggers, columnists, and several thousand buyers swear by them (my mother included).
The problem is, peer reviewed research studies by scientists without a vested interest show they don’t deliver on those results. In scientific lingo, they note “no significant difference” in their studies. What’s worse, they say, for older adults creating instability in the walking process leads to back problems, tendinitis, and strains.
But we so want to believe!
To understand why this is such a big deal, it’s important to step back and look at the market forces at work.
First, the average price of a pair of athletic shoes (especially walking shoes) has been trending downward for several years. Retailers including Kohl’s, JCPenney, and Famous Footwear have taught consumers they can get their favorite brand names at much lower prices – $50 or under in many cases.
The “rocker” shoes command a distinct premium: They retail at $100 or more, doubling the average price of their flat-bottom counterparts. Sales are expected to reach $1.5 billion in 2010. In the ultra-competitive $93 billion shoe market, a 1.5-2.0% swing like this is significant. It’s even more significant when you realize the shoe market splits by gender, and women buy the lion’s (lioness’?) share. For Reebok (Adidas) and Sketchers, competing at the margins with category-leader Nike is tough.
So they created a new category.
Brilliant stuff.
And the results? Stunning as well. The chart below summarizes athletic shoe sales by category. There’s no question where the growth is: For men, it’s hiking shoes. For women, it’s “walkers”. And look at the growth!
What’s even more impressive is the swing this new category is helping to make in the market when you compare sales by gender. While all categories are rebounding from recession, women’s shoes have come back the fastest – a 7% move.
For Reebok specifically, this new line represents $500 million in projected sales, making it the most successful introduction this decade, and a huge feather in the cap of the new bosses at Adidas.
But for all the marketing success, there is a risk. Will consumers think they’re being scammed by “corporate science” and fleeced into spending twice as much for a marketing gimmick? Nike, for one, has come out and said that it won’t risk its customers’ health and fitness with what it considers poor technology. They think their fitness partnership with Apple’s iPod is a better idea. They could be right, but if this new category ceases to remain a fad, will Nike stay out?
In the end, if the shoes help people like my mom feel more motivated to get out there and stay active, I’m all for ‘em.
Related Links:
American Council on Exercise: Study Finds Toning Shoes Don’t Work
Toning shoes shape up profits, but some studies suggest results don’t match up
Shape-Up shoes not worth it
Tags: easytone > reebok > shapeups > sketchers > toning shoes
Hello Ladies…would you please buy Old Spice?
Posted on | July 26, 2010 | No Comments
Author:
Jason Voiovich
Ecra Creative Group
Key Points:
1. Isaiah Mustafa (aka “the Old Spice guy”) has continued the reinvigoration of the once-moribund brand with a breakthrough advertising and social media campaign.
2. However, some of the first sales reports don’t look promising, with one report showing Old Spice down 7%. Then again, other reports say sales are brisk. It is simply too early to tell.
3. But asking one campaign to both “reposition” and “boost sales” may be too much to ask in a crowded segment. Patience is warranted here.
The newest Old Spice campaign could be the hottest ad campaign of the year.
It is arguably the best use of social media in an advertising campaign thus far, with spokesperson and former NFL player Isaiah Mustafa responding to several tweets via YouTube videos.
Have a look at one of the most popular “responses” here:
This video, alone, has reached nearly one million views. And there are dozens of responses like it. Add to that the significant broadcast airtime and the viral nature of the original ads themselves (not to mention several very smart parodies) and you get a lot of exposure for the Old Spice brand and its now-instantly-recognizable spokesperson.
Here’s the rub: The ads don’t seem to be driving sales of Old Spice in the Health and Beauty aisle at your local Wal-Mart or Target. The latest national media news puts Old Spice sales down 7%.
The knee jerk reaction would be to claim the ads are more about the ad and more about the persona than they are about the brand, and that misdirected focus is pulling attention away from Old Spice and heaping onto Mustafa.
Other analysis points to the creative approach itself. Mustafa is talking to “the ladies” assuming they will be the influencer on the purchase of the Old Spice brand. Previous campaigns spoke directly to the men themselves. Perhaps men really are the buyers after all?
Further “explanations” point to the generational-skipping strategy P&G used when it took control of the brand – going directly to younger men and first-time deodorant buyers. Perhaps the younger men like the ads, but aren’t translating that to brand selection.
An even more obtuse perspective claims men feel a bit threatened by Mustafa’s portrayal of the “handsome man ready to whisk your woman away”. Do men really enjoy being emasculated by an ex-NFL player? Will they really want to emulate him?
If you believe all that, and you’re the brand manager for Old Spice, you’re faced with a decision: Kill the campaign now, before it does more damage, and switch to an activation-focused approach to drive incremental sales. Or stick with the approach and give it more time.
I’m not sure this is the right way to look at the situation, however.
First off, a few weeks is not enough time to evaluate any campaign, let alone one that is working to reposition a brand. A 7% drop in sales could be the result of several factors outside of anyone’s control, especially for the brand that holds the top spot with about 20% of the $1 billion men’s deodorant market. But not everyone agrees on the numbers. A recent AdWeek article showed sales of Old Spice rising sharply as a result of the campaign. Mixed results should not really surprise anyone; it is simply too early to tell.
Second, Old Spice has been on a long road of repositioning since P&H acquired the brand in 1990. At that time, Old Spice held the unsavory position as something your grandfather wore (mine did), lurking in an off-white bottle in the medicine cabinet. During that same time, the metrosexualization trend gained steam – men watched “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” for fashion tips, they headed to the salon in unheard of numbers, and started to wear skinny jeans.
P&G saw the opportunity to hold fast to the “classic” image of the man’s man – from the NFL-themed “Red Zone” line, to redesigned packaging, to the “swagger” ads, to snarky demos, to LL Cool J. Mustafa is just the latest in the series.
And by all rights, they’ve succeeded. During the last 20 years, Old Spice clawed its way ahead of Right Guard for the men’s top spot.
There’s no question youth-oriented brands Tag and Axe present a challenge, and organic/natural brands have gained traction, but I wouldn’t stick a fork in Mustafa just yet.
P&H can always run sales promotion-focused spots and FSIs – ideally using Mustafa to help drive home purchase decisions using classic price incentives.
But the real challenge is holding the positioning high ground, and that is precisely what Old Spice has done.
Related Links:
Old Spice Red Zone sales drop 7%, despite hot ads
AdWeek: Spice It Up
Old Spice’s Extreme Makeover
Tags: Isaiah Mustafa > Old Spice
Bad, ASPCA! Bad!
Posted on | July 19, 2010 | 1 Comment
Bad, ASPCA! Bad!
Author:
Jason Voiovich
Ecra Creative Group
Key Points:
1. Aggressive direct marketing seems a bit out of character for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA).
2. Part of the perceived need inside the organization to boost efforts could be driven by the successful publicity strategies of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
3. The ASPCA would be wise to promote its numerous assets, most notably the significant direct efforts to support its mission, than resort to direct marketing trickery.
I am not a pet hater.
From from it. I would categorize myself as a “pet can’t haver”. Both of my kids are allergic, and anything with fur is banned from the house.
So it surprised me last week to open my mail and find a letter from the ASPCA (the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). No problem, of course, I get a lot of charity pitch mail. I guess being a supporter of Minnesota Public Radio somehow predisposes me to support other not-for-profits. The beauty of statistical correlations.
But this letter was different. I didn’t just get a pitch letter. I got a member card. With my name on it. And an assigned member identification. And stickers for my car window. And, without fail, a pretty strong pitch to send a fat check.
Like I said, I see a lot of charity pitches, and this one struck me as way off the charts into the “aggressive” category. In fact, it reminded me of the uninterrupted stream of printed garbage that comes courtesy of Capital One, whom my shredder has come to loathe.
I opt in to becoming a member of a charity, I do not opt out, thank you very much.
Forgive me if I seem a bit frustrated, but in an age of rampant identity theft, I am simply not comfortable being “signed up” even if the cause seems benign. Is this just an ASPCA marketing technique? (Probably) Am I now counted as a member? (Probably not, but even so) Will the ASPCA publish my name somewhere? (They had better not)
But before this little gem hit the shredder, I took a minute to step back and think about from the organization’s perspective. When an organization begins to get unnecessarily aggressive, it often is a signal that some problem is afoot.
And I think something bigger is going on. Let me share a bit of what I learned.
In the past 15 to 20 years, the ASPCA has grown alongside changing American attitudes regarding pets. What was once akin to a “kid’s toy” in the family has become an integral part of that family. Not everyone feels this way, certainly, but enough to create a market for advanced veterinary surgery centers, pet health insurance, pet trust funds, and pet memorial services.
The research (and a couple of clients I’ve worked with over my career) have told me it is the empty-nester baby boomer cohort that is driving much of the change. Once the children leave the home, the pets become a powerful emotional replacement.
We can see that popularity extend to an entire cable network (Animal Planet) and the proliferation of mainstream companion animal programming.
The ASPCA, founded in 1866 (surprised me!), is one of the nation’s largest not-for-profits with over 1 million members and revenue of more than $127 million in 2008. With a focus on animal cruelty prevention efforts, the ASPCA funds a significant number of “boots on the ground” operations – law enforcement efforts, pet insurance, poison control, adoption, and behaviorist assistance.
According to its three star rating on Charity Navigator, you could do much worse with your philanthropic dollars.
But there is also another side to “animal rights” organizations: Political activism. And that’s where I think the problem lies.
Other organizations – most notably the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) – have stolen the animal rights “banner” from their more conservative and long-standing neighbor and have been driving the lion’s share of media attention and new membership.
Whether one agrees with the strategies of HSUS and PETA or not, it’s easy to see why the techniques work – vivid political and media displays drive up the emotion level, drive up membership, and drive up contributions. HSUS boasts somewhere in the neighborhood of 11 million members. PETA tops 2 million.
Please understand, I am not passing judgment on any of the aforementioned organizations, but I think it’s safe to say HSUS and PETA are significantly more politically active than the ASPCA. As a consequence of that activity, they drive polarization.
From the ASPCA’s perspective, the problem is simple: HSUS and PETA are stealing the thunder. Charity research tells us that people get “donation burnout” when peppered from multiple, similar, organizations. They’ll support the one the best identify with, and that identification often comes from what publicity the organization has been able to get. When most people want to support a cause, they’ll support the organization they think best aligns with that cause. And if they don’t look into it too hard (the majority of donors don’t), they are likely to support the organization they’ve heard of.
Hence, part of the rational for the HSUS and PETA strategies.
But let’s take a look – objectively – at what the ASPCA has to offer from an operational perspective in order to make a case for it being the strongest advocate for animals.
Again, we can look to Charity Navigator for help.
As we can see, while the HSUS and PETA boast many more members, but are significantly smaller than the ASPCA. As a further reminder, for those dollars, the ASCPA maintains infrastructure for a law enforcement arm, a behavioral counseling service, pet adoptions, poison control center, and a pet insurance agency (to name just a few). The HSUS and PETA – by stark contrast – are primarily grassroots political organizations.
Again, please understand, I am not claiming one strategy is correct/good/moral/effective and the other is not, but rather, I am suggesting the basis on which the ASPCA should be making its case to prospective donors and members as the best option for a sustainable focus on direct, demonstrated efforts to accomplish its mission.
I had to do a couple hours of research to discover that.
I would have preferred the ASPCA told me, rather than trying a direct marketing gimmick.
Related Links:
www.aspca.org
www.aspcabehavior.org
www.aspcapetinsurance.com/
ASPCA Wikipedia Entry
ASPCA Charity Navigator report
When will Americans see the Tatas?
Posted on | July 12, 2010 | No Comments
Author:
Jason Voiovich
Ecra Creative Group
Key Points:
1. India’s Tata Motors is positioning itself for a run at the US market with the acquisition of Land Rover and Jaguar from Ford.
2. But it’s not those nameplates current players need to be worried about – it’s rather the $2500 Tata Nano.
3. The Nano is likely a game-changer in the market, offering US consumers the first legitimate sub-$5000 transportation option.
I just can’t resist the chance to talk about one of my favorite subjects.
Cars, of course.
With all the attention given General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, and Toyota these days, you’d be forgiven if something else came to mind when I mentioned India’s dominant automaker.
But with its recent acquisition of the Land Rover and Jaguar brands from Ford, Tata Motors is positioned to leave its home market behind and hit the world stage with a splash. The purchase gives the company the engineering chops and the street credibility it will need to compete in the American market.
Together, the Land Rover and Jaguar nameplates barely make a dent in the US auto market, having trouble (together) selling 100,000 units a year. However, Land Rover is the last surviving “4-wheel-drive” brand (alongside Jeep), and Jaguar retains a certain place in the luxury car pantheon (however tarnished its reputation might be at present).
One could make the case that Tata wants to use the brands as a foothold in the US market to bring in its other models. Specifically, the real game-changer: The Tata Nano.
If you haven’t heard of this little car yet, stay tuned. The Tata Nano is the least-expensive production car in the world, coming in at just over US$2500.
Yes, you heard correct. $2500.
That’s a car that goes on a credit card. I have a friend who spent more than that on an entertainment center last month.
Clearly, for $2500, you are not going to be getting a “Land Rover Light”. The Nano is the epitome of basic transportation – something you could envision weaving in and out of pedestrians on the crowded streets of Mumbai.
When it was first announced, the mainstream automotive press came to the collective conclusion that the American market didn’t really want a sub-$5000 car, especially one without the “features” US buyers have come to expect. They pointed to that other uber-cheap econobox – the Yugo – as an example of a tried-and-failed attempt to bring the ultra-cheap car into the US market.
But that was before the Great Recession.
And Tata is no Yugo Motors.
Yugo suffered from innumerable quality problems from the get-go, and could never shake its Soviet Block image. Tata, quite the contrary, couldn’t be more different. Instead of a tiny, recovering, Soviet satellite state-run enterprise, Tata is the largest automaker in the world’s second largest country. They make buses, trucks, SUVs, small cars – a variety that certainly rivals GM in the United States. And Tata is using its recent success to invest across the board in its product line.
It’s not a question of if the Nano will arrive on US shores, but when it will arrive. When it does, it is likely to hit the US auto market like a ton of bent sheet metal.
With its introduction, the Nano will effectively reset the bottom of the US auto market. If we look at the price continuum below, we can see the Nano clearly occupying the “low cost” end of the spectrum. Nameplates like Toyota, Ford, Honda, VW, Nissan, and GM still fit in the middle of the pack. Acura, Audi, Infiniti, and Lexus in the near-luxury group. BMW and Mercedes near the top.
The “danger zone” is aptly named for those nameplates who used to occupy the value-point niche. That includes the recent Korean imports, Kia and Hyundai. While Hyundai has made numerous moves (and probably should be placed in the mainstream market), the Kia brand is a world of trouble. Its hard to see buyers opting for a “slightly better Nano” for three times the cost.
But beyond problems for Kia as a brand, the Nano spells trouble for the entire small car segment – offerings from all of the major carmarkers attempt to compete in this segment as US buyers have expressed a renewed interest in low-cost transportation. Look at the comparison between (arguably) the top car in this segment – the Honda Fit – and an upcoming Tata Nano. Yes, the Honda is “more car” for the money, but is it $12,000 to $15,000 more car? I don’t think so.
What’s more, at about the same time Tata hits our shores, it can count on some pent-up post-recession demand from the US economy. College present? What about a Nano? How about a “buy a Land Rover for you, get a Nano for your college student” (ala “buy an Apple computer, get an iPod Touch”). I like it!
However, the auto business is not just about building the cheaper mousetrap. And that’s where Yugo went wrong. It didn’t spend the time cultivating an image in the mind of the US buying public – a “cult following” of sorts that the original VW Beetle was able to pull off 30 years ago. Yugo also didn’t spend the time and energy building the distribution network (read: Dealer network) it needed to compete during the “Saturday afternoon rush”.
Tata is far smarter than that. And even if it weren’t, it has far more money in its war chest than any current player in the US market. Along with some new Fiat introductions vis-a-vis Chrysler and perhaps a Chinese introduction or two, the US market may be very close to a micro-car invasion.
All that said, I think by 2013, we’ll need two definitions for “Tata” in the Urban Dictionary.
Related Links:
Tata Motors’ boss moves up a gear
Tata Motors Summary
Tags: Tata Motors > US auto market
Mobile Malware: The Worm in the Apple
Posted on | July 5, 2010 | No Comments
Author:
Jason Voiovich
Ecra Creative Group
Key Points:
1. To this point, the growth in mobile computing seems to have outpaced the growth in malicious software for those devices.
2. But the exponential growth in mobile-web-enabled devices will be an irresistible opportunity for malicious software.
3. Apple’s “ease-of-use” value proposition is especially vulnerable in an increasingly sketchy mobile online world.
I’ve been an Apple user since 1993.
It’s not that I have a poor opinion of its PC counterparts, it’s just that I’ve had great luck with Apple products over the past (almost) 20 years. In that time, I have owned four machines. Just four. That includes a bondi blue clamshell iBook (cute at the time), a 12-inch PowerBook (wrecked by a botched repair job), a 15-inch MacBook Pro (my current main squeeze), and an iPhone 3Gs.
Compared to my PC friends, that’s a pretty good return on investment.
Part of the obvious reason for longevity is a tight connection between hardware and operating system software, and a notoriously protective Apple developer program (I know, my firm is a certified Apple mobile developer, and it wasn’t easy to be one). That connection, along with a smaller user base for desktop computers, means Apple is rarely the target of malicious software attacks that plague so many on the other side of the proverbial fence.
But the landscape is fundamentally changing in the computing world.
Apple’s signature iPhone, RIM’s Blackberry, and Google’s Droid phones have created an entirely new class of mobile computing which, as of yet, has been comparatively free of malicious software attacks.
Clearly, the party won’t last forever.
It’s just that the adoption curve has raced ahead of virus writers’ ability to capitalize. To see what I mean, all we need do is explore a couple of charts.
The graph below shows the rapid growth in mobile internet access as compared to other internet access technologies. By way of comparison, it took AOL nearly four years to reach 20 million subscribers. It took the iPhone about one year to do the same. Of course, the two were born into to two very different market circumstances, but the rapid growth remains stunning nonetheless.
The second chart presents a slightly different picture. Essentially, it plots the number of computing devices per user by decade. Of course, the mainframe era saw very few machines per person, mini-computers (adopted mainly by large businesses) more, PC’s more still. But notice the left end of the scale – it’s logarithmic. By 2020, there will likely be 20 billion internet-enabled mobile devices in operation – a predicted 2.2 per person worldwide (however, the distribution, undoubtedly, will be skewed).
Put simply, that’s a lot of hardware.
And the opportunity for malicious intent – whether for notoriety, petty crime, organized crime, or espionage – will be irresistible.
For the time-being, those concerns are muted. Unless your iPhone is “jailbroken”, you are pretty safe. But let’s look ahead a few years. There is no question the wide scale infiltration of malicious software for mobile-web-enable devices is on its way. What will it mean to the Apple brand to have its (clearly dominant) device the target of malware on a global scale?
To answer, let’s examine the crux of the Apple brand: User-friendliness.
Of course, one could argue that the Apple brand is really about technical innovation (not really true – other devices are technically superior to the iPod), or emotional attachment (that one I can accept, but emotional attachment to what is the real question).
I would argue what has made Apple so successful with its consumer electronics products is that anyone – even the grandmother I saw at the pool last week with her family – could feel comfortable with a glossy new iPhone. It works the way the user would expect it to work. It doesn’t have too many options. It makes many of the decisions for you.
By ceding control of many of the mobile computing decisions, a large group of users who simply want their mobile experience to be easy and enjoyable have rewarded Apple with a commanding market share and silly-high profit margins on the device and astronomical profit margins in the iTunes store.
What happens, then, when the inevitable happens, and the iPhone operating system is the target of repeated and increasing vicious malware attacks?
That reality strikes at the core of the Apple value proposition.
Users will no longer be able to carelessly assume they are not at risk. They will need to be involved and engaged at a level they are not today. And with Apple’s dominance over both the device and the software, it will not be able to escape blame. Over time, a more complex user experience could erode the emotional connection of a large group of Apple users.
My prediction: Steve Job’s latest brilliant new announcement won’t be a new device, but new antivirus software.
Related Links:
The Truth About The iPhone Virus / Vulnerability Thing : It’s Fixed
iPhone virus discovered: be vigilant and seek advice
Tags: Apple > droid virus > iphone OS > iphone virus > malware
Has it become unethical to market tanning?
Posted on | June 28, 2010 | No Comments
Author:
Jason Voiovich
Ecra Creative Group
Key Points:
1. A recent U of M study seems to remove all doubt – tanning (in any amount) is strongly linked to the most dangerous form of skin cancer, melanoma.
2. A combination of FDA, FTC, FCC, and state regulations will probably restrict tanning services in a variety of ways, but are not likely to kill the industry altogether.
3. If tanning will still be sold (in some form), “informed consent” could be the most prudent path forward from an ethical perspective.
I am not sure why this was a surprise to anyone.
Researchers at the University of Minnesota recently published a studying in which they found that people who use any type of tanning device, for any amount of time, are 74 percent more likely to develop a melanoma.
Holy crap.
Melanoma is not the more-easily-treated form of skin cancer. Melanoma is the really bad stuff. Of course, this comes as no surprise to experienced dermatologists, many of whom report an alarming increase in melanoma – especially among young people. And even less surprisingly (and more sadly), they say, among mainly young women in their teens and early twenties who using tanning salons.
Yes, that could still be correlation rather than causation, but I think we’re past that nuance on this issue, aren’t we?
As I write, the Food and Drug Administration is reviewing recommendations from a scientific advisory panel that would ban or severely limit indoor tanning use for those under 18. And if the feds don’t act, many states are thinking of taking up their own legislation.
Much of discussion in the marketing field as it relates to tanning will undoubtedly revolve around how to get young people to stop using tanning salons. Much like the “Truth” campaign to attack teen smoking, any anti-tanning efforts are likely to focus on dangers of tanning, what skin cancer looks like, and how it can kill you – not years down the road – but quickly.
Not that the messaging will be easy, or that it is not a professionally interesting problem, but I’d like to look at the issue from the other perspective for just a moment.
I’d like to pose the following question: How will tanning salons continue to market themselves? And if they do, is it ethical to do so? If it is, under what circumstances?
The knee-jerk reaction might be to say “shut them all down”, much like some would like to do to the tobacco industry. But that’s not only a mental copout, it’s also unrealistic. So long as tanning salons have a legal right to exist, and so long as they do not violate FCC guidelines on deceptive advertising, they have every right to communicate with their audience.
Let’s start with the first question, which speaks directly to target audience. Whether it is the FDA who lays down the law, or the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) who does it, or the states, the industry should count on being severely restricted in marketing to those under the age of 18.
That’s not as easy as it sounds.
The tobacco industry struggles with this as well, as does the liquor industry. If you advertise, say, in Cosmo, you would be reaching (primarily) an adult female in her late 20s to early 30s. But about 16-18% of your audience will be under 18. How do you select a media that will not reach who it is not intended to reach? (And let’s assume good intentions, that the industry does not want to reach younger people – which certainly is not a given – but that’s a topic for a different time).
Needless to say, this can get complicated fast. The chart below summarizes the coming maze of potential restrictions the tanning industry could face as it continues to communicate with its customers.
Needless to say, the tanning industry will need to get much better at selectively reaching its audience, and much more careful (creative!) regarding its messaging. The problem is, the tanning industry is highly fragmented. Unlike the barriers to entry in tobacco which consolidate the industry into a few very large players, even the “good guys” in tanning will need to compete with a huge pool of smarmy ones.
But beyond the legality lies the much more complicated ethical argument.
Assuming a combination of FTC, FDA, FCC, and state regulations will effectively remove the “under 18″ ethical issue, the tanning industry still will need to address the increasingly undeniable fact that it markets a dangerous product.
One argument would couch ethics in terms of the legal lay of the land. So long as the industry does not violate society’s written rules, it has every right to exist and market within that framework.
Another argument might ask the industry to weigh the benefits of tanning (self-esteem, enjoyment, etc) against the drawbacks (a risk – but not a guarantee – of skin conditions, including its most dangerous cancer). If the risks outweigh the benefits, so the argument goes, ethically you must cease.
A third path might raise the issue of “informed consent”. If the consumer enters the tanning salon with full knowledge and grasp of the risks, and choosing to partake anyway, then there is no ethical issue. The burden would be placed on the industry to educate its customers in order to make sure they can make the choice demanded of them eyes wide open.
I’m conflicted.
As a professional persuader, how could I use my abilities to help convince someone to engage in an activity I know could harm them – especially younger people? There is not only the question of a life cut short, but also the cost to society to care for very sick people when it could be avoided.
On the other hand, I am not sure I want to live in a world where someone (a government agency?) decides for me what products or services I can or cannot use. Of course, that already happens on a large scale, but how much more control do we want to cede?
My father had a way of thinking about things like this that I think will help us here. He reminded me to be careful of having too strong an opinion on anything. The world is full of millions of colors, only two of which are “black” and “white”.
I think he’s correct. Neither position is acceptable. Salons should be able to market their product, but it needs to be controlled. Balance may not make everyone happy, but I think it’s the best answer we’ve got right now.
Related Links:
U of M study links tanning beds to higher risk of skin cancer
Tags: FCC > fda > FTC > tanning
About
Jason Voiovich
Ecra Creative Group
Phone: 651.209.2778
Principal and co-founder of Ecra Creative Group, a Minneapolis, MN based creative services firm specializing in brand development, reputation process management, naming/trademark, and product launches to drive measurable business results.
