Remember Hydrox cookies? Kellogg’s is betting that a lot of people do… and they’re about to put some money on that bet by bringing these dunkers out for an encore.
Reserve Brands is doing the same with Eagle Snacks (once owned by Anheuser-Busch, and named for the eagle in the A-B logo).
You’ll be able to wash it all down with another famous reprise: Schlitz Beer.
In an age when branding has become a very expensive proposition, some companies are eager to revive existing brands that are not so much dead as they are “comatose.” Aging boomers are often the target, as these icons conjure images of happiness and youth.
Implications: Does your company have a brand that could be dusted off for future use? Or, if your competitor has such a famous name waiting in the wings, how would you defend against a revival? Are there attributes within your existing products which have roots in a more heritage name plate… and if so, how could you exploit that bygone fame?
Mike Anderson
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
We're not gonna take it
Recently, I was standing in the self-service check-out line of a major retail chain. I was not the only one thinking about how retail has changed over the past several years; a few other customers were reflecting on the topic, too… in a manner you might consider harsh.
“If they’re saving overhead by not having to pay cashiers, they should give us an extra discount for going through this line and doing all the work by ourselves,” said one customer. “Or, they could use the money they saved on cashiers to hire more people to help in other areas of the store,” added another.
Think about this. I was standing in line, waiting for a chance to trade my money for this company’s products and services… and the customers behind me start a miniature rebellion, just before the point of transaction. It got me thinking: What if your customers started talking with each other?
They are. And they’re doing it publicly. Speaking with several retail and service company clients over the past few months, I’ve noticed an emerging theme. Online communities, chat rooms and social networks have given people a place to start spouting off. Frustrations which once had no forum now have a seemingly endless list of web addresses where they can be vented, virtually. And the ease with which customers can offer criticism online has emboldened them: People seem more likely to voice their opinion… on-location.
Implications: Your company might not have more critics today than it did a few years ago… but the critics you do have are much better equipped to start a word-of-mouth campaign. If they cannot talk to you about their frustrations, don’t be surprised if they start talking to everyone else. Entire chat rooms and Facebook groups are dedicated people who are angry about something. And that frustration could begin spilling into your store or showroom.
Do you employ customer service reps (or other problem solvers) whose job is to correct any difficulty a customer has with your company, product or service? Would giving your clients greater (or more convenient access) to these resources help mitigate their frustration, and therefore minimize their viral effect? Do your company’s advertising and marketing materials clearly communicate WHY your company has made a change (i.e., “self-service checkouts help us keep our prices lower,” or, “self check-out means less time standing in line”). And remember that word-of-mouth can work both ways: You might want to create a way for your raving fans to join voices, if you haven’t done so already. (Feedback form at your web site? Facebook page? Online comment cards?)
Mike Anderson
“If they’re saving overhead by not having to pay cashiers, they should give us an extra discount for going through this line and doing all the work by ourselves,” said one customer. “Or, they could use the money they saved on cashiers to hire more people to help in other areas of the store,” added another.
Think about this. I was standing in line, waiting for a chance to trade my money for this company’s products and services… and the customers behind me start a miniature rebellion, just before the point of transaction. It got me thinking: What if your customers started talking with each other?
They are. And they’re doing it publicly. Speaking with several retail and service company clients over the past few months, I’ve noticed an emerging theme. Online communities, chat rooms and social networks have given people a place to start spouting off. Frustrations which once had no forum now have a seemingly endless list of web addresses where they can be vented, virtually. And the ease with which customers can offer criticism online has emboldened them: People seem more likely to voice their opinion… on-location.
Implications: Your company might not have more critics today than it did a few years ago… but the critics you do have are much better equipped to start a word-of-mouth campaign. If they cannot talk to you about their frustrations, don’t be surprised if they start talking to everyone else. Entire chat rooms and Facebook groups are dedicated people who are angry about something. And that frustration could begin spilling into your store or showroom.
Do you employ customer service reps (or other problem solvers) whose job is to correct any difficulty a customer has with your company, product or service? Would giving your clients greater (or more convenient access) to these resources help mitigate their frustration, and therefore minimize their viral effect? Do your company’s advertising and marketing materials clearly communicate WHY your company has made a change (i.e., “self-service checkouts help us keep our prices lower,” or, “self check-out means less time standing in line”). And remember that word-of-mouth can work both ways: You might want to create a way for your raving fans to join voices, if you haven’t done so already. (Feedback form at your web site? Facebook page? Online comment cards?)
Mike Anderson
Opting out
Recently, a columnist for the New York Times praised the convenience of “automatic withdrawl” payments for sums that are due on a regular basis, such as monthly car payments, insurance, etc. The writer was envisioning an end to the drudgery of sitting down to write out bills every month.
What happened next is telling: Enough readers provided counter-point commentary that the author ran a counter-point story (NY Times, August 28, 2008).
Issues which collude against the idea of “automatic payments” include errors from the bank, over-charges from various service providers, and the idea that ending or altering such a relationship can be very difficult. (Consumers know starting an automated payment plan is easier than ending one; these days, they’re more likely to think about an exit strategy before entering into such a plan.)
Implications: It’s easy to see why any purveyor of products or services might want to get customers into an automated relationship. It makes the business very “sticky,” and reduces costs related to customer service. But now that consumers are a bit more experienced with these types of transactions, it might be a little more difficult to sell them on the idea. A “What’s in it for me?” mentality is beginning to prevail; and if they don’t see a benefit to opting in (greater than the avoidance of check writing), you might find it more likely that they’ll be opting-out.
Mike Anderson
What happened next is telling: Enough readers provided counter-point commentary that the author ran a counter-point story (NY Times, August 28, 2008).
Issues which collude against the idea of “automatic payments” include errors from the bank, over-charges from various service providers, and the idea that ending or altering such a relationship can be very difficult. (Consumers know starting an automated payment plan is easier than ending one; these days, they’re more likely to think about an exit strategy before entering into such a plan.)
Implications: It’s easy to see why any purveyor of products or services might want to get customers into an automated relationship. It makes the business very “sticky,” and reduces costs related to customer service. But now that consumers are a bit more experienced with these types of transactions, it might be a little more difficult to sell them on the idea. A “What’s in it for me?” mentality is beginning to prevail; and if they don’t see a benefit to opting in (greater than the avoidance of check writing), you might find it more likely that they’ll be opting-out.
Mike Anderson
Monday, August 11, 2008
Our impact on each other
A very good friend (and intelligent colleague) once gave me this definition of acculturation: “Changes which occur within one population, as a result of having come into contact with another.”
Our dialogue was stimulating, and had to do with the fact that immigrants to the U.S. are not only changed for having come here. Existing residents are changed as a result of having come into contact with their new neighbors.
I was reminded of this conversation when I read a recent story about the influence of “second generations” on the cultural (and culinary) landscape of America. The article, published by Media Post Marketing Daily, suggests that a second generation of immigrants will enjoy foods that not just native to their homeland or their new home… but a hybrid of tastes somewhere between the two. The piece cited a recent trend mapping report, published by the Center for Culinary Development.
Implications: A lot of companies are fixated on serving a wide variety consumers who have recently arrived in the United States from other parts of the world… including Hispanics of diverse origin, Asian, and Eastern Bloc Europeans. But in addition to serving these constituencies of immigrants… are you anticipating how to best serve their offspring? And have you considered how the culinary tastes, style preferences and product choices of your “traditional” American consumer might be impacted… as a result of what they’ve learned from the new neighbors down the street?
Get ready. Because “serving the global community” means more than responding to the preference of recent immigrants. It means recognizing changes which have occurred within “traditional consumers” as a result of having met some very interesting and worldly new friends!
Mike Anderson
Our dialogue was stimulating, and had to do with the fact that immigrants to the U.S. are not only changed for having come here. Existing residents are changed as a result of having come into contact with their new neighbors.
I was reminded of this conversation when I read a recent story about the influence of “second generations” on the cultural (and culinary) landscape of America. The article, published by Media Post Marketing Daily, suggests that a second generation of immigrants will enjoy foods that not just native to their homeland or their new home… but a hybrid of tastes somewhere between the two. The piece cited a recent trend mapping report, published by the Center for Culinary Development.
Implications: A lot of companies are fixated on serving a wide variety consumers who have recently arrived in the United States from other parts of the world… including Hispanics of diverse origin, Asian, and Eastern Bloc Europeans. But in addition to serving these constituencies of immigrants… are you anticipating how to best serve their offspring? And have you considered how the culinary tastes, style preferences and product choices of your “traditional” American consumer might be impacted… as a result of what they’ve learned from the new neighbors down the street?
Get ready. Because “serving the global community” means more than responding to the preference of recent immigrants. It means recognizing changes which have occurred within “traditional consumers” as a result of having met some very interesting and worldly new friends!
Mike Anderson
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Gas prices fueling online education
None of us knows how high gas prices might go, but we can be pretty sure that they’re not going down anytime soon; at the very least, we can assume some volatility in prices at the pump. That issue is impacting education in a big way, as many students are avoiding the idea of “going to school,” at least in the physical sense: Instead, more students are obtaining their education online.
According to a recent story in the New York Times, as many as 79% of U.S. college students live off-campus. With gasoline at or over $4 per gallon, economics is the driving force behind a jump in the number of students who are seeking to make their college education more cost-efficient.
Implications: Think of education as a product that is bought and sold, like any other. (Including the products sold by your company!) In what ways might people choose to make their use of your products more cost-efficient? If you produce a packaged food product, are they making fewer and larger grocery shopping excursions (reducing the number of miles driven back-and-forth to the store, but increasing the quantity of items purchase with each trip)? If you sell a complex product—say, appliances or automobiles—might your consumer be doing more research online, rather than going to the driving expense of traditional comparison shopping? In what way should you alter the design of your web site—or the way your product is displayed in-store—in response to these behavioral changes?
Mike Anderson
According to a recent story in the New York Times, as many as 79% of U.S. college students live off-campus. With gasoline at or over $4 per gallon, economics is the driving force behind a jump in the number of students who are seeking to make their college education more cost-efficient.
Implications: Think of education as a product that is bought and sold, like any other. (Including the products sold by your company!) In what ways might people choose to make their use of your products more cost-efficient? If you produce a packaged food product, are they making fewer and larger grocery shopping excursions (reducing the number of miles driven back-and-forth to the store, but increasing the quantity of items purchase with each trip)? If you sell a complex product—say, appliances or automobiles—might your consumer be doing more research online, rather than going to the driving expense of traditional comparison shopping? In what way should you alter the design of your web site—or the way your product is displayed in-store—in response to these behavioral changes?
Mike Anderson
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
The new anti-establishment
In the previous story, I asked you to set your political convictions aside for a moment, and look at this years’ primary and election process with an objective eye. Think back to the original pack of politicians that started the primary season… and accept the idea that of all those candidates, we might just have the least typical Republican and the least established Democrat to choose from this November. (I hope I have made that point in the most non-partisan way possible!)
Implications: Do you offer all of the most typical products and/or services in your category? Do you offer anything that is not typical of other companies in your category? Does it matter that you offer the best products/services in that category, if people are fed-up with the category, overall?
Is your category at risk of being “fired” by the consumer entirely? (If you fly, think travel agents. If you have a bank account, think Prosper.com. If you’re a former Blockbuster customer, think Netflix.)
If your category is broken… is your company (or department) small enough to fix it? Or will you wait for consumers to fix it for you?
Early online activism can be evidence that dominating in a category can be irrelevant… if that category has failed to remain relevant. Little web sites great places for grassroots ideas to spawn, if you’re a consumer. If you’re a company, they’re great places to identify consumer needs that you may not have discovered yet the big, old-fashioned way.
Mike Anderson
Implications: Do you offer all of the most typical products and/or services in your category? Do you offer anything that is not typical of other companies in your category? Does it matter that you offer the best products/services in that category, if people are fed-up with the category, overall?
Is your category at risk of being “fired” by the consumer entirely? (If you fly, think travel agents. If you have a bank account, think Prosper.com. If you’re a former Blockbuster customer, think Netflix.)
If your category is broken… is your company (or department) small enough to fix it? Or will you wait for consumers to fix it for you?
Early online activism can be evidence that dominating in a category can be irrelevant… if that category has failed to remain relevant. Little web sites great places for grassroots ideas to spawn, if you’re a consumer. If you’re a company, they’re great places to identify consumer needs that you may not have discovered yet the big, old-fashioned way.
Mike Anderson
Voting against political influence
We’re not even to the conventions yet, and this election offers lessons in public opinion.
Political preferences aside, a recent study indicates that the best way to wrestle influence away from PAC funds, lobbyists and special interests… is to put your money where your mouth is. Voters have contributed small amounts in large quantities during the recently passed primary season, and that generosity shows little sign of ending as we head into the general election.
But this isn’t just about cash. The BYU/Harris Poll report, published by the Center for Media Research, indicates that people who make small contributions to political candidates are more likely to be suspicious of candidates who accept large contributions from the usual sources.
Legislators have long tried to reform how politics is run in the U.S., but with little to show for that effort. (Not a terribly big surprise; those who were elected by a system are probably not the most eager folks to change it… and I mean that in the most politically neutral way.) But it appears the American voter might be more likely to take matters into their own hands… at the ATM, as well as at the ballot box.
Implications: It only makes sense that people are more likely to be passionate about a candidate if they have gone so far as to contribute to the campaign. But it seems that even non-contributors are at least slightly more inclined to think favorably of candidates who have declined funding from traditional PACs, lobbyists, corporations, etc. My point here is not focused on either candidate. My focus is purely on this shift in “where political funding comes from.” The big companies, lobbyists and PACs have to be asking whether…
Perhaps small is the new big.
Where I live, we saw Gen X put their fingerprint on politics in 1998 with the election of an anti-candidate by the name of Jesse Ventura. Having seen the race first-hand, I don’t think Ventura proved himself to be the best candidate a decade ago; he proved himself to be the least candidate-like of the other options. His performance as Governor of Minnesota aside, one important accomplishment of Ventura was to bring lots of people to the voting booth for the first time. In this election, who are the people voting—and contributing—for the first time? Why do you think that is happening?
Mike Anderson
Political preferences aside, a recent study indicates that the best way to wrestle influence away from PAC funds, lobbyists and special interests… is to put your money where your mouth is. Voters have contributed small amounts in large quantities during the recently passed primary season, and that generosity shows little sign of ending as we head into the general election.
But this isn’t just about cash. The BYU/Harris Poll report, published by the Center for Media Research, indicates that people who make small contributions to political candidates are more likely to be suspicious of candidates who accept large contributions from the usual sources.
Legislators have long tried to reform how politics is run in the U.S., but with little to show for that effort. (Not a terribly big surprise; those who were elected by a system are probably not the most eager folks to change it… and I mean that in the most politically neutral way.) But it appears the American voter might be more likely to take matters into their own hands… at the ATM, as well as at the ballot box.
Implications: It only makes sense that people are more likely to be passionate about a candidate if they have gone so far as to contribute to the campaign. But it seems that even non-contributors are at least slightly more inclined to think favorably of candidates who have declined funding from traditional PACs, lobbyists, corporations, etc. My point here is not focused on either candidate. My focus is purely on this shift in “where political funding comes from.” The big companies, lobbyists and PACs have to be asking whether…
Perhaps small is the new big.
Where I live, we saw Gen X put their fingerprint on politics in 1998 with the election of an anti-candidate by the name of Jesse Ventura. Having seen the race first-hand, I don’t think Ventura proved himself to be the best candidate a decade ago; he proved himself to be the least candidate-like of the other options. His performance as Governor of Minnesota aside, one important accomplishment of Ventura was to bring lots of people to the voting booth for the first time. In this election, who are the people voting—and contributing—for the first time? Why do you think that is happening?
Mike Anderson
Monday, June 30, 2008
Don't cry over spilled milk
Soon, fuel economy will be thought of as more than just a measurement of miles-per-gallon efficiency in a vehicle. The fuel economy could be an all-encompassing term for the way tight energy supplies impact companies and their consumers.
Recently, in an effort to reduce transportation and refrigeration costs, Wal-Mart and Costco embraced a new style of milk carton. The jug is square… which allows more of the product to be shipped and stored with less energy. (There was wasteful “air space” taken-up by the previous bottle design, because of the neck of the old-fashioned milk jug.)
How have the new cartons been received by consumers? There have been mixed reactions, according to this recent story in the New York Times. Some find them to spill too easily. But much of the push-back was calmed, when consumers began to understand why the change was necessary.
Implications: Now, more than ever, change is inevitable. The cost of energy (and other raw materials) will impose the need for changes in product and packaging design in the very foreseeable future. The NY Times story cited above leaves us with some key questions:
Has your company considered every option (like the very carton) when looking for ways to reduce the carbon footprint or energy efficiency of your products?
Recently, in an effort to reduce transportation and refrigeration costs, Wal-Mart and Costco embraced a new style of milk carton. The jug is square… which allows more of the product to be shipped and stored with less energy. (There was wasteful “air space” taken-up by the previous bottle design, because of the neck of the old-fashioned milk jug.)
How have the new cartons been received by consumers? There have been mixed reactions, according to this recent story in the New York Times. Some find them to spill too easily. But much of the push-back was calmed, when consumers began to understand why the change was necessary.
Implications: Now, more than ever, change is inevitable. The cost of energy (and other raw materials) will impose the need for changes in product and packaging design in the very foreseeable future. The NY Times story cited above leaves us with some key questions:
Has your company considered every option (like the very carton) when looking for ways to reduce the carbon footprint or energy efficiency of your products?
Will your customers be ready to accept the changes you’re contemplating?
What can you do to mitigate, rather than aggravate, the frustration that consumers might feel as they adapt to changes in products, packaging and/or prices?
Could a solid education, public relations, or marketing campaign help people realize that the change demonstrates your response to an important issue, such as reducing energy consumption?
The fuel economy will force virtually every company to consider new efficiency options. While I cannot begin to suggest what might mean to your company, specifically, I am confident of this much: There will be no sacred cows.
Mike AndersonTuesday, June 3, 2008
What we have here is a failure to communicate
When you’re doing business with someone, how would you like to be contacted?
A recent Ipsos/Habeus study indicates that 67% of consumers prefer email, compared to only 29% who prefer the phone. (The study, published by the Center for Media Research, is definitely worth a read.)
I, for one, am not surprised by that statistic. For years, consumers have known the frustration of wasting precious time navigating a phone tree when calling a company for help… or getting solicitation calls from vendors during dinner. With a reputation for time savings, it makes sense that email and other alternate forms of digital contact are gaining ground, in terms of the way consumers like to communicate with their providers. People can sort, prioritize, act on—or delete—the message quickly. They have greater control over the communications process. And filtering software or services can help protect them from unwanted advances.
Implications: Telephones did not annoy consumers, businesses did. A wise company will keep that in mind as they decide how email, text messaging, and other new digital tools should be used. The goal is to empower the consumer, and facilitate the communication they want, when they want it. Digital messaging should reduce the number of steps required in the consumer’s search for help, not aggravate the process. It is not enough to simply migrate more of your corporate communications into a digital platform because that is what consumers prefer; you have to ask why they prefer it… lest you become a member of their “blocked senders” list.
Also, you must accept that one or two distribution platforms are not enough. In a world of email, text messaging, web sites, RSS feeds—and yes, even phone calls—no single communication plan will reach every consumer. Mind your research… and make sure you’re touching your most important clients through their most strongly preferred channels of contact.
Mike Anderson
A recent Ipsos/Habeus study indicates that 67% of consumers prefer email, compared to only 29% who prefer the phone. (The study, published by the Center for Media Research, is definitely worth a read.)
I, for one, am not surprised by that statistic. For years, consumers have known the frustration of wasting precious time navigating a phone tree when calling a company for help… or getting solicitation calls from vendors during dinner. With a reputation for time savings, it makes sense that email and other alternate forms of digital contact are gaining ground, in terms of the way consumers like to communicate with their providers. People can sort, prioritize, act on—or delete—the message quickly. They have greater control over the communications process. And filtering software or services can help protect them from unwanted advances.
Implications: Telephones did not annoy consumers, businesses did. A wise company will keep that in mind as they decide how email, text messaging, and other new digital tools should be used. The goal is to empower the consumer, and facilitate the communication they want, when they want it. Digital messaging should reduce the number of steps required in the consumer’s search for help, not aggravate the process. It is not enough to simply migrate more of your corporate communications into a digital platform because that is what consumers prefer; you have to ask why they prefer it… lest you become a member of their “blocked senders” list.
Also, you must accept that one or two distribution platforms are not enough. In a world of email, text messaging, web sites, RSS feeds—and yes, even phone calls—no single communication plan will reach every consumer. Mind your research… and make sure you’re touching your most important clients through their most strongly preferred channels of contact.
Mike Anderson
It's official: Fuel efficiency has gone from fad to trend
One of the challenges facing any trend watcher is trying to distinguish between what is a fad, and what is a trend. A fad is a short-term spike… something flares fast, but then passes relatively quickly (think Pet Rocks, disco and big hair). A trend is more of a tectonic shift; an indication that the landscape is being altered, and the way we’ve been navigating it needs to be re-considered.
When I opened the New York Times this morning, an event that had been foreshadowed by countless tremors finally hit the Richter scale with a thud. GM had announced the closure of four North American truck and S.U.V. plants. (Stay with me, here; sometimes, it is important to state the obvious.)
While this move is not particularly surprising in a period of skyrocketing fuel prices… it is a benchmark announcement. (Chrysler and Ford have also announced reductions in large-frame vehicle projection over the past two years.) Because we’ve been suffering from dramatically escalating gas prices for quite some time now… and still, just a couple of short years ago, trucks and S.U.V. sales remained an amazing—if not leading—profit center for most manufacturers. But it seems a tipping point has finally been reached, where people (and car companies) no longer believe that gas prices will return to a level that which consumers previously considered, “reasonable.”
Implications: To be sure, car manufacturers increased their output of fuel-efficient vehicles after the oil embargo of the 70’s, and in response to the gas price spike of the early 90’s. But now, in dramatic fashion, the industry is signaling that the days of the gas-guzzler-as-commuter-car may finally be over. It is official: Fuel efficiency is no longer a fad.
Can you save the consumer a trip to the store by helping them “buy big” during each visit? Do you offer online planning tools that require less driving around for comparison shopping? Do you offer delivery of products which the consumer previously hauled home in an oversized S.U.V…. a vehicle which they might no longer own?
Mike Anderson
When I opened the New York Times this morning, an event that had been foreshadowed by countless tremors finally hit the Richter scale with a thud. GM had announced the closure of four North American truck and S.U.V. plants. (Stay with me, here; sometimes, it is important to state the obvious.)
While this move is not particularly surprising in a period of skyrocketing fuel prices… it is a benchmark announcement. (Chrysler and Ford have also announced reductions in large-frame vehicle projection over the past two years.) Because we’ve been suffering from dramatically escalating gas prices for quite some time now… and still, just a couple of short years ago, trucks and S.U.V. sales remained an amazing—if not leading—profit center for most manufacturers. But it seems a tipping point has finally been reached, where people (and car companies) no longer believe that gas prices will return to a level that which consumers previously considered, “reasonable.”
Implications: To be sure, car manufacturers increased their output of fuel-efficient vehicles after the oil embargo of the 70’s, and in response to the gas price spike of the early 90’s. But now, in dramatic fashion, the industry is signaling that the days of the gas-guzzler-as-commuter-car may finally be over. It is official: Fuel efficiency is no longer a fad.
Can you save the consumer a trip to the store by helping them “buy big” during each visit? Do you offer online planning tools that require less driving around for comparison shopping? Do you offer delivery of products which the consumer previously hauled home in an oversized S.U.V…. a vehicle which they might no longer own?
Mike Anderson
Thursday, May 1, 2008
New Age Seniors
Once upon a time, people over the age of 55 were considered “upper demos” by most marketing and media companies. No more.
For years now, I’ve been asking folks to accept that longer life expectancies mean more than just living longer. People are living healthier longer, and they’re staying active longer. And they’ve behaving in ways that have huge implications for today’s marketer.
For example: Retirement funds have to last longer. (It’s a simple math problem.) So today’s senior is more likely to work, at least part time. They want an income so that they can tap the savings account later—or less often—and maintain a lifestyle rich with activity. Important note: The new job for a 60+ person is not just about earning fun money. We’re finding that more and more people are retiring from the job they’ve always had to have (for economic reasons)… to take the job they’ve always wanted to have! (If someone has spent 30 years as an accountant, in an interior office with no windows and little human contact… their “2nd life” job might involve working at retail, or at the zoo, or anywhere they can get something the previous job didn’t offer.)
Need more proof about how dramatically different today’s senior is behaving? Visit this story from the New York Times. You’ll realize just how much muscle this market has!
Implications: Remind your HR department that some of their next “best recruits” might be “2nd Life Seniors.” If you’re in retail, consider offering “Experiential Value-Added,” rather than just a discount, for seniors. But above all… take another look at the market of New Age Seniors. They’re not your parents’ grandparents.
Mike Anderson
For years now, I’ve been asking folks to accept that longer life expectancies mean more than just living longer. People are living healthier longer, and they’re staying active longer. And they’ve behaving in ways that have huge implications for today’s marketer.
For example: Retirement funds have to last longer. (It’s a simple math problem.) So today’s senior is more likely to work, at least part time. They want an income so that they can tap the savings account later—or less often—and maintain a lifestyle rich with activity. Important note: The new job for a 60+ person is not just about earning fun money. We’re finding that more and more people are retiring from the job they’ve always had to have (for economic reasons)… to take the job they’ve always wanted to have! (If someone has spent 30 years as an accountant, in an interior office with no windows and little human contact… their “2nd life” job might involve working at retail, or at the zoo, or anywhere they can get something the previous job didn’t offer.)
Need more proof about how dramatically different today’s senior is behaving? Visit this story from the New York Times. You’ll realize just how much muscle this market has!
Implications: Remind your HR department that some of their next “best recruits” might be “2nd Life Seniors.” If you’re in retail, consider offering “Experiential Value-Added,” rather than just a discount, for seniors. But above all… take another look at the market of New Age Seniors. They’re not your parents’ grandparents.
Mike Anderson
The increasing need for evidence
It seems like everyone is selling something “green.” Products made from recycled this or recyclable that, or companies whose behavior is alleged to be environmentally friendly in some way. Making these claims might seem as easy as hiring a clever copywriter. But some consumer groups—and the FTC—are beginning to think of many of these claims as just another puff of greenhouse gas.
According to a recent story in Marketing Daily, the FTC last considered the topic of “green marketing” in 1998. (And back then, as the story mentions, consumers hadn’t even heard of “carbon footprint.”) But the commission seems intent on reconsidering the definitions for “green marketing,” and further scrutiny of both packaging and advertising claims related to those terms.
The FTC isn’t the only point of inquiry. Consumers, themselves, are increasingly apt to investigate whether environmentally-friendly claims have merit, according to the Center for Media Research. They recently published a story asserting that only 12.1% “always” believe green advertising claims. And 41.6% of consumers at least occasionally research the claims made in green advertisements.
Implications: It is not enough for a company to craft advertising slogans or positioning statements with a green theme. Consumers are less likely to believe in such boasts, and indeed, more and more likely to go online and investigate details about a product's environmental impact. If you don’t have a legitimate claim to being environmentally responsible, advertising such is likely to do more harm than good. If you DO have a bona fide product or process which is eco-friendly, don’t just claim, demonstrate it. Provide the information and transparency that some consumers will demand before buying-in to the claim you’re selling.
Mike Anderson
According to a recent story in Marketing Daily, the FTC last considered the topic of “green marketing” in 1998. (And back then, as the story mentions, consumers hadn’t even heard of “carbon footprint.”) But the commission seems intent on reconsidering the definitions for “green marketing,” and further scrutiny of both packaging and advertising claims related to those terms.
The FTC isn’t the only point of inquiry. Consumers, themselves, are increasingly apt to investigate whether environmentally-friendly claims have merit, according to the Center for Media Research. They recently published a story asserting that only 12.1% “always” believe green advertising claims. And 41.6% of consumers at least occasionally research the claims made in green advertisements.
Implications: It is not enough for a company to craft advertising slogans or positioning statements with a green theme. Consumers are less likely to believe in such boasts, and indeed, more and more likely to go online and investigate details about a product's environmental impact. If you don’t have a legitimate claim to being environmentally responsible, advertising such is likely to do more harm than good. If you DO have a bona fide product or process which is eco-friendly, don’t just claim, demonstrate it. Provide the information and transparency that some consumers will demand before buying-in to the claim you’re selling.
Mike Anderson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
