New Media. Not Just For Youngsters Anymore.

Conventional wisdom assumes new media is for the young.  I really dislike conventional wisdom.  So I started Googling to see if I could find some statistics that would help me make my case that new media marketing can be significant for any age bracket. 

I started with mobile phone marketing.  Certainly the youth demographic is the most active in mobile phone usage.  That doesn’t mean, however, that more mature crowd is unreachable through mobile marketing.  According to the Mobile Marketing Association a 2006 survey of over 1,800 consumers aged 13 to 65 showed that, while younger respondents had the highest interest in mobile messaging, respondents overall are becoming more comfortable with mobile functionality. The study showed:

·         69% of respondents use text messaging

·         44% use mobile phones to communicate daily

·         Respondents preferred mobile marketing in the form of downloads, coupons, and alert-based services

·         Voting campaign participation increased from 8 percent in the 2005 study to 29 percent in 2006

According to research published in 2007 by InsightExpress, Baby boomers are not much different than consumers under 25 when it comes to adoption of mobile technology.  In addition to mobile technology, social networking and texting are becoming increasingly popular among the boomer population which is good news for marketers who are trying to reach older consumers in a new way.

 

The study showed that mobile phone penetration is not limited to the younger demographic.  Although Gen Y (18-24) is the highest at 85%, Gen X (25-44) follows closely at 82%, younger baby boomers (45-54) at 80% and older baby boomers (55-64) at 79%. 

 

Mobile marketing company HipCricket’s  Jeff Hasen, states: “While some believe texting is a young person’s activity, the average age of texters is 38…The fastest growth group is folks 35-54. The mobile phone is a personal device – and the ideal way to reach boomers who opt in for information, reminders and offers.”

 

Another surprising item is that Baby Boomers apparently enjoy social networking sites more than anyone thought they would!  Entertainment Trends in America, a study by The NPD Group, found that:

 

·         41% of baby boomers have visited social networks

·         61% have been to sites with streaming or downloadable video.

 

The good news for marketers is that this, too, is a new way to reach the older markets.  The bad news is that they haven’t been taking advantage of it in a meaningful way.  BMW used Facebook as a medium to promote its new 1-Series.   But they are the brave and the few of the mature brands doing so.  This is a real shame because a Forrester study found that only 14% of those 55 and over use social networking sites to actually socialize compared to 41% of 18 to 24-year-olds.  So Boomers are using these sites to get information.  Any place where people are going to get information is a good place to be if you’re selling something.

 

So a little bit of time spent on Google proved to be fruitful for me in my quest to disprove convention once again.  It’s tempting to assume that new technology s frightening to older people.  But it seems as though it is not exactly accurate to do so.

Working In The Data Mines…

It’s been discussed and debated around the world and the question still remains: Is data mining ethical?  For those who know me, my answer won’t be a great surprise.  I think data mining can be unethical but that is not inherently so.  The collection of information is a harmless act if the person whose information is being collected has given their consent and they are aware of the manner in which their information will be used.  And that’s where the controversy begins.

According to a study by Cyber Dialogue, 69% of American internet users were unaware that they had given their consent to be included on various email lists.  All one has to do is frame the question just so and add a default check mark in an unobtrusive place and *PRESTO!* you’re on a direct email list.  Hooray!  What is really disturbing about this kind of tactic is that an organization that is collecting email addresses in such a manner is doing such an ineffective job.  So what if they have an email list of thousands of addresses?  If 69% of those people don’t want to be on the list in the first place they aren’t likely to be a good sales lead.  And what’s worse is Return Path has found almost 20% of email marketers continue to send messages even after the receiver requests to be unsubscribed.  It, unfortunately, gives credence to the argument that those who make a living in marketing and sales have cloven hooves for feet and would sell their children for a buck.

On the other hand, data mining can be done in an ethical manner.  Firstly, more and more research is being done that will allow data collection while keeping the consumer anonymous.  Secondly, if consumers were educated regarding why ethical data mining could benefit them in the long run they may be more willing to cooperate.  Data mining can, amongst other things, can analyze buyer behavior.  When an organization uses information discovered using data mining they are certainly going to benefit from it.  But so is the customer.  In the example provided by Bill Palace, both parties had the potential to benefit from data mining:

 

“For example, one Midwest grocery chain used the data mining capacity of Oracle software to analyze local buying patterns. They discovered that when men bought diapers on Thursdays and Saturdays, they also tended to buy beer. The retailer concluded that they purchased the beer to have it available for the upcoming weekend. The grocery chain could use this newly discovered information in various ways to increase revenue. For example, they could move the beer display closer to the diaper display. And, they could make sure beer and diapers were sold at full price on Thursdays. “

Certainly the grocery store will benefit by not offering a discount on Thursdays but the consumer will benefit also by the convenience of having the two items they most often purchase together near each other.

In short, it’s not data mining that is wrong.  It is the way the information is being used and the underhanded way many marketers are going about doing data mining that is labeling it unethical. 

What’s next? Advertising in the womb?

This week we’ve been discussing marketing to children.  This is a topic that needs to be examined in great detail by marketers because so much is at stake when it comes to the healthy development of our kids.  I’m all in favor of strict guidelines for marketing to children even though I am a marketer.  It seems ludicrous to me to get on the bad side of parents.  But there were a number of sites that we discussed as a class that left me with strong concerns about the willingness of corporate America to sell to children in an appropriate and responsible manner.

I found a great deal of information from various grassroots groups and organizations when I Googled the subject of responsible marketing to children.  The solutions varied from calling for government intervention to corporate collaboration in the marketing to children.  One group, Parents for Ethical Marketing, has come up with three simple guidelines:

Ethical marketing targets only consumers who can perceive and understand the persuasive tactics in commercials.

Ethical marketing promotes products that are not harmful to children.

Ethical marketing supports strong families by respecting parental authority in the parent-child relationship.

Most of these” rules” seem reasonable but I find the first one debatable.  I’m forced to point out the lack of objectivity in determining who can perceive and understand persuasive tactics in commercials.  Does that mean we should ban advertising for certain age groups?  My grandmother was 97 years old when she left us this past summer and she wanted everything she saw on late-night infomercials.  Did that mean Gramom just liked to shop or did she just not realize the persuasive nature of advertising?   Also, I often wonder if we were born to consume or were we created to consume.  I have a difficult time trying to convince myself that simply seeing something like an iPhone on a commercial is somehow persuasive in nature.  I confess I don’t really pay attention to the voice over of those commercials because I’m entrance by what the iPhone can do that will make my life easier.  That said, are marketers really swaying kids to want their offering or do kids simply see something that looks interesting and want it?

So I decided to go exploring on Parents for Ethical Marketing’s blog.  This is where I found some comments that further explained their agenda.  There was one entry that stood out for me:

“Meanwhile, the new American Girl Store in our own Mall of America is hiring Doll Hair Salon Sylists…See, you take your $100 doll into the store and get its hair styled.

One of the newest “historical character” dolls from Mattel’s American Girl line is this one from way back in 1974. [Ahem.] The doll comes with this $18 old-fashioned accessory — a popular toy back then — a Barbie head with hair you could style. Yourself.”

OK, so I agree with them.  I can’t think of anything quite as wasteful and ridiculous as taking an over-priced doll to a hairstylist.  However, I think the organization is not simply for responsible marketing but also against consumerism.  In that case I have to ask myself, where does corporate responsibility end and parental responsibility begin?  It’s true that there is more and more marketing targeted toward kids in sometimes disturbing ways.  But in the end parents are the ones who control when and how their kids are exposed to corporate messages and, regardless of the power they assign to Madison Avenue, they do have ultimate control over what their kids are eating, drinking, wearing, and playing with.

Hail To The Chief Marketing Officer

Now that the Presidential Election is over, I can’t help but think about how campaigns are run with a good healthy dose of marketing.  When a corporation has what they think is a great offering they do all they can to promote it so consumers want it.  Elections are absolutely the same concept.  The candidate is the offering and the campaign is run all with the goal of convincing voters/consumers that they want that offering.  I have never seen a campaign take advantage of IMC as the Obama campaign did.  And his use of internet advertising and email campaigns were brilliant.
Everywhere I went online it seems as though Barack Obama was following me.  If I was using Pandora Radio, he was there offering to find my polling place.  If I went to CNN he was there urging me to calculate my income to see what I could expect to pay in taxes under his economic plan.  John Quelch from Business Week observed:
“He leveraged his website, the blogosphere, and even user-generated content (remember Obama Girl) and video games to engage not just donors and volunteers but all citizens…Obama’s communications were professional without being slick, attention-getting without being in-your-face.”
Throughout his entire campaign Obama kept his message clear, concise, and on mark.  Some are now saying Obama was able to portray himself as a brand.  While people as a rand is not a new concept (think about fashion designers…my bag is Chanel or my shirt is Tommy) the likes of this have not been capitalized on in such manner in politics until now.  In an article entitled “That Brand Called Obama” on Fast Company’s site, Ellen McGirt examines this concept further:
“’Barack Obama is three things you want in a brand,’ says Keith Reinhard, chairman emeritus of DDB Worldwide. “New, different, and attractive. That’s as good as it gets.” Obama has his greatest strength among the young, roughly 18 to 29 years old, that advertisers covet, the cohort known as millennials — who will outnumber the baby boomers by 2010. They are black, white, yellow, and various shades of brown, but what they share — new media, online social networks, a distaste for top-down sales pitches — connects them more than traditional barriers, such as ethnicity, divide them.”
This is marketing at its best when one examines the results.  CNN exit polls show the following break-down of voters by age:

Age	Obama	McCain	Other/NA
18-24	66%	32%	2%
25-29	66%	31%	3%
30-39	54%	44%	2%
40-49	49%	49%	2%
50-64	50%	49%	1%
65+	45%	53%	2%

I fully understand that this election was not won on marketing alone.  But one has to have respect for a media plan that delivers that kind of ROI.  That said I think marketers have some lessons to be learned from this campaign.  It is the beginning of real proof of how powerful a consistent message and an effective communication mix can be.  I know this: I will be examining the Obama campaign in much more detail in the future in an attempt to apply some or all of the elements to future marketing campaigns.

Viral Marketing Goes High Tech

Viral marketing has become very popular in recent years.  So it was only a matter of time before some marketing genius decided to take it digital.  It made me wonder if the latest and greatest in interactive technology is attracting consumers and, if so, is there positive ROI.
According to a survey conducted by Feed Company, advertiser interest in viral video is increasing and 70% of ad-agency and media-buying executives plan to increase budgets for viral video marketing in 2009.  72% of media buyers say their clients are interested in using viral video as a central part of their marketing campaigns.  Also, a majority of advertising executives reported being pleased with the results of viral video campaigns.
This doesn’t surprise me at all.  What is surprising about the increase in viral video use is that respondents said metrics for viral video success remain unpredictable and subjective.  More than half of those respondents said that tracking and reporting needs improvement and 21% said it needs “a lot of improvement.”  When asked how many times a video needed to be viewed in order to be considered successful, an equal percentage of respondents selected 100,000, 250,000 and 500,000.  So it is obvious that there are very few hard and fast rules for viral video marketing as far as advertising professionals are concerned. 
I confess that when I read this article, I immediately questioned why media buyers would be more than willing to increase spending on a concept that they can’t concisely manage or even measure if it is effective at all.  It almost seems like marketers are willingly to try anything even if it may likely fail.  And then it hit me: someone has to try these theories so that it can be determined that it either won’t work at all or so that a formula can be recognized if it does work.
The article continues to say: “The survey shows that agencies recognize the value of viral video for their clients even as they call for improvements,” said Josh Warner, president of Feed Company. “We’re definitely seeing more of these campaigns because it costs less to produce and market viral video than many other types of traditional media – and that’s attractive to marketers during an economic downturn.”
Since this kind of campaign is less expensive to execute it easily lends itself to experimentation.  And that’s a good thing since it’s getting more difficult to reach the Millennials.  The Millennials already have an affinity for video so I thought it would be interesting to check out some numbers on another tried-and-true method that has gone to video. A study from iPerceptions, Inc. shows that the under 25 set are more likely to click online video ads of the 11% who are willing to click video ads at all.  According to the study, people are still most likely to click on text links.  Display ads are second most popular, with right banners significantly beating out top banners.
In the face of all of these figures it seems as though marketers are thinking way ahead of where consumers are comfortable going.  Since they are the ones that are attracted to it in the first place, I think as the population ages and that under 25 bracket has more disposable income, all of the newer ways to take advantage of what are essentially old tricks will become more significant.   It should be quite interesting to see where the internet takes us both as consumers and marketers.  But it seems, for now, high-tech may not be as important as we want it to be.

A Conversation with Craig

While newspaper seemed to be the medium of death for the majority of my classmates, I wrote about the demise of radio.  I admit that I was not kind to radio in my assessment but I firmly believe that the effectiveness of advertising with a medium will have an impact on its viability.  As such, radio is already at a disadvantage in my opinion.
After I posted my contribution to our class discussion this week I wondered if I was a bit too harsh.  After all I’m not as emotionally attached to radio as I am to TV.  So I sought the opinion of someone who is attached to radio and has been for some time.  Craig Cohen is the Director of Programming at WITF in Harrisburg, PA.  While his current responsibilities include selection of television programming as well as radio, Craig’s background is radio intensive.  He was kind enough to give me his opinion on the future of radio via an email “conversation” on Friday, October 31, 2008.
AJ: “Will “radio” – in some form – be around 50 years from now?”
Craig: “Absolutely.  It just may not be delivered or sound like it does now.  When television was first invented, experts sounded the death-knell for radio – they were wrong…Every time there’s a technological advancement, some become convinced that it’s “the end of radio.”  It’s not.  Because technology is not the same as content.  It’s merely a delivery system for that content.  As long as the content is meaningful to people, and as long as its delivery is most effective in audio form, radio will exist, in some way.
Internet, satellite and HD radio, while threats to terrestrial radio, are also opportunities.  The smart radio stations realize they have the infrastructure in place to provide a quality product, and can utilize these and other technologies to meet listeners where they are, through the devices they use. The not-so-smart stations don’t put any resources into these technologies (particularly if they think they can’t make a lot of money right away), and…they’re watching their audiences dwindle.
But that drop in listenership is not merely about technology. The not-so-smart stations haven’t made any real significant change in their programming in the last 20 years – they’re talking to the same listeners, who are getting older, and in some cases, dying out.
Meanwhile, young people (the so-called “Millenials”) don’t pay much attention to traditional radio. They don’t listen to it the way you and I did growing up.  They don’t care about the DJs all that much. They have their i-Pods, so they listen to their own playlists, and swap mp3s with each other. Still, I don’t think that means they won’t ever listen to radio…they’ll “graduate” into it, just maybe not via the same device or distribution systems.”
AJ: “What formats will last longer than others?”
Craig: “I think there will always be a desire for live, local information and conversation delivered via audio, so those news/talk stations that commit to locally-produced programming will succeed.  Sports radio’s going to be around for a long time – it’s one of the few subjects (like politics) that can energize a group of otherwise disparate people.
Music formats are harder to predict – who knows what music we may all want to hear 20 or 30 years from now?  Plus, again, we can all gain access to most any music we want, any time we want, so what can music stations offer us?  They can offer surprise, by featuring artists we don’t know, but might like.  They can offer context for the music – what the artist was thinking, what makes a song special.  Mostly, though, they can offer an emotional connection to it.  The formats that are in the most trouble are the “hit” music stations – those trying to appeal only to a very young demographic through terrestrial radio only.”
Where is it all going in the next 50 years?
“From a technological standpoint, I’d say the most likely eventual replacement for terrestrial, over-the-air radio will be Internet radio – audio transmitted via the web, though accessed through eventually cheaper, easier to use, and more effective portable devices.  I don’t think satellite radio’s going to last – or if it does, we’ll look back in 10 years and say it peaked right about now.  I know a lot of people who, fed up with its limitations – dropouts and lack of local “stationality” in particular – decided not to renew their subscriptions.”
It’s fair to say Craig gave me a great deal to think about from a completely different perspective.  I don’t disagree with his opinion from a technological point of view.  Nor do I have any issue with his judgment with regard to content or formats.  So I am willing to modify my thought process in regard to radio.  If the medium does go online as Craig suggests it’s likely to, then my tireless rant of the expense and limited amount of exposure radio offers as far as marketing is concerned was in vain.  If we transfer what is an audio medium to a visual medium it then has the possibility of being more visual than it was before.  Media survives, largely in part, because of the advertising revenue it can generate.   The changes that radio may experience could allow it to reach more consumers in a more significant way.  If that is the case then the changes are worth the loss of authentic over-the-air radio because it will ensure a better quality product that is much more viable.

Death of a Newspaper

This week we discussed which types of traditional media would not survive the next 50 years.  Newspaper seemed to be the most popular choice amongst my classmates.  I agree with them to a certain extent.  Will we have tangible paper copies of The New York Times or The Washington Post as we do today in 50 years?  I think absolutely not.  As many traditional forms of media, newspapers have already started to go digital and will totally do so within the next 50 years.  In fact, the Christian Science Monitor recently announced plans to go completely electronic in April of 2009.
An article published in the August 24, 2006 issue of The Economist entitled Who killed the newspaper? provides some sobering figures regarding newspapers:
“According to the Newspaper Association of America, the number of people employed in the industry fell by 18% between 1990 and 2004. Tumbling shares of listed newspaper firms have prompted fury from investors. In 2005 a group of shareholders in Knight Ridder, the owner of several big American dailies, got the firm to sell its papers and thus end a 114-year history. This year Morgan Stanley, an investment bank, attacked the New York Times Company, the most august journalistic institution of all, because its share price had fallen by nearly half in four years.”
However, does the impending death of tangible newspapers indicate the demise of good, responsible journalism in general?    The Economist asks “In future, as newspapers fade and change, will politicians therefore burgle their opponents’ offices with impunity, and corporate villains whoop as they trample over their victims?”  I must wholeheartedly disagree.  The evidence for my statement is the article itself.  It was originally published in the print edition of The Economist and was then published online at economist.com.  What is to prevent these journals from simply eliminating the step of printing a physical copy?  I can’t think of any reason why a digital version of most newspapers can’t realize a profit from online advertising or even establishing a subscription fee for premier content for that matter.
For those who insist that an online version of a newspaper is not authentic I can sympathize.  How does one drink their coffee in the morning without the crumpling noise of the paper as you turn the pages or the distinct smell of the ink that is left on your hands afterwards?  Unfortunately, as with many things, we will simply have to remember that feeling because the future is digital and there is no stopping it.

Too sexy for a website?

I absolutely admit to being behind in my postings.  I have a chronic issue when it comes to writing: it’s all in my head just waiting to be written down.  So here I am writing the first week’s topic, finally!

The class was tasked with deciding which new media type is the most effective as a marketing communication tool.  I, and many others, stated that websites were still the most effective.  Think about it.  A well-designed website can offer a visitor a great amount of information about a company: its mission, its products, location and hours, fees, schedules, images, video…I could go on!  Not only can that kind of information be found but the design, color, and layout of a website strongly suggests the corporate culture of an organization as well.

And websites are still a valid form of information for consumer despite the fact that there are “newer” varieties of new media.  Jack Neff states in a 2006 article in Advertising Age magazine:

                “Corporate and brand websites – once derided as “brochureware” in a digital marketing world that quickly moved to sexier applications – are getting a rehabilitation of sorts as their traffic numbers vie with those of many consumer sites in the web’s long tail.  Such package-goods marketers as Procter & Gamble Co. and Unilever don’t sell many products directly online. Their low-cost, low-involvement brands tend not to generate much search. Yet the websites of P&G and Unilever now reach nearly 6 million and 3 million unique visitors, respectively, in the U.S. each month…” *

This serves as a valuable lesson for marketers.  Just because there are newer, flashier ways to catch the attention of our target market doesn’t mean we should utilize them.  I firmly believe there is a such a thing as “over the top” and it can detract from the product we are selling.  I recall what my high school chorus leader always told us: “Even too much ice cream will make you sick.”

If I had to choose second most effective I would say social media.  However, according to a BuzzLogic-sponsored study, I would be wrong!  Apparently when social media is compared to the blogosphere as a marketing communication tool, blogs have more influence.

According to Marketing Charts, “the study aimed to uncover changing behavior around blog discovery and consumption, how blogs factor into consumer purchase decisions, and the nature of blog influence on buying behavior.”  Some of the findings of the study are very significant for IMC practitioners:

Frequent blog readers say they trust relevant blog content for purchase decisions more than content from social networking sites, the study found.

• 50% of blog readers say they find blogs useful for purchase information.
• 25% of frequent readers say they trust ads on a blog they read
• 19% say they trust ads on social networking sites.
• Blogs have influence on many aspects of the purchase process:

1. Decide on a product or service: 21%
2. Refine choices: 19%
3. Get support and answers: 19%
4. Discover products and services: 17%
5. Assure: 14%
6. Inspire a purchase: 13%
7. Execute a purchase: 7%

• 40% of blog readers have taken action as a result of viewing an ad on a blog:

1. 17% read product reviews online
2. 16% sought out more info on a product or service
3. 16% visited a manufacturer or retailer website

So go forward with the knowledge that blogs are not always just an online version of someone’s journal where they post vacation pictures and complain about whatever happened to them that day.

 

* Neff, J. (2006, December 4). Media owners take heed: P&G’s staid old website has you licked. (cover story). Advertising Age, 77(49), 1-38. Retrieved November 1, 2008, from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.