You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Marketing' category.
While out jogging this morning I was listening to the DJ’s (are they still called that?) on the radio talking about the price of gas and how to find the lowest price. One of them said she was able to go to a web site on her new phone to find the lowest gas price in the area as she ran her errands. While it is of obvious interest that more and more people are using their phones to search web sites for information, it also demonstrates that consumers expect information immediately and the importance of keeping your web site relevant and current.
Keeping a site current is obvious, but what about relevant to drive more traffic frequently to your site? Here is a person that didn’t take the time to go to her computer before she left her house. She was out driving around, needed gas, claims she pulled into a parking lot to surf the Internet on her 
phone (highly recommended here at Tom’s Trails), and found the cheapest gas.
People want greater flexibility than a computer tethered to a wall, and Internet surfing on phones allows for that. So, what’s on your company’s homepage that a web surfer wants and needs while they are out and about? What can you put there to make them think of you and surf your site from their phone?
Do a usability study on your home page to make sure your audience can find what they need and want – but do your study using a cell phone. Evaluate your site for clutter and appearance. Find ways to make it attractive on the computer and phone screen. While using cell phones to surf is not commonplace yet, you have to get there before your audience is looking for it. It’s important to stay one step ahead of the consumer. They will try you once or twice, but if they don’t get what they need, you have lost your opportunity to get them hooked and it will be even harder to get them back.
On my post from March 28 regarding paid Internet clicks, I concluded with advice to marketers to stay focused on the brass ring – know how many customers your advertising is generating, not just the size of the audience you are reaching. Subsequently, my friend Rob Jewell (read his blog at PR on the run) passed along an article from BusinessWeek regarding Super Bowl advertising. Apparently research is showing that the average brand recall was at only 7% one week after the game. I highly recommend taking a look at the article, “Super Bowl Ads: A Big Fumble.”
A good marketing plan starts with exposure to a large audience, but two other elements are missing – repetition and relevance. Both of these are often overlooked as advertisers get blinded by the glamor of the Super Bowl (or other big events) spotlight. Think of these as a three-legged stool for marketing. Without one, you have no base.
To me, repetition is the most underrated of the three. Too often, by the time a campaign hits the market, the internal audience is tired of working with it. Their perception is that the campaign has saturated the market, when in fact it is still new to the public. Depending on the level of media buys, it can take significant time before the public is exhausted by a campaign. It goes back to basic psychology and memory retention. In today’s media clutter and fragmentation, few people have the unique ability to remember, comprehend and recall a 30 second message they receive once. Tell them, tell them again, and tell them again. Then do your research to see if they got the message.
So, does that mean don’t advertise at major events like the Super Bowl? Of course not, just make sure to do it wisely. Advertising at these events can do wonders as part of a strategy to build brand top-of-mind awareness. Just make sure that it is an event that your target market is watching and you repeat and reinforce the same message throughout your entire campaign.
Remember the days when your opinion and a quarter could actually buy you a cup of coffee? I still hold out hope that those days may return even though I don’t drink much coffee anymore. Apparently Starbucks, whose stock has dropped 40 percent in the last 12 months, is worried that a lot of other people aren’t drinking as much coffee as they used to either.
A current story in Reuters proclaims Starbucks is in a “tailspin” and quotes Starbucks Chief Executive Howard Schultz that there was no “silver bullet” for fixing Starbucks, but clearly they are trying to find one. Apparently changes include new coffee machines, a new coffee blend and frequent customer reward programs.
So, take your core product and change it. Does anybody remember the lesson that Coke learned when they changed their recipe? That’s why we have Coke Classic today.
While the economy is certainly a factor affecting impulse buying by occassional coffee drinkers, I would suggest that Starbucks, whose product admittedly is an “affordable luxury,” is at risk of losing their most loyal fans. I have to assume that using new machines and a new coffee blend is meant to change the taste of the product. Undoubtedly, some people will like it and some people will not, but I don’t understand why they would want to gamble with their core loyal customers.
Imagine if McDonald’s, soon to be a major competitor in the expresso drink market, changed the Big Mac – used a different bun, changed the special sauce. I buy a Big Mac with an expectation of quality and taste, that’s the brand I expect. If I want something different, I can go to Burger King. Likewise, I don’t see any research from Starbucks that their customers are going somewhere else, consumers are not dissatisfied with the product, they are just not spending as much on luxury items.
I can’t help but think this is a major blunder on Starbucks part. Basic marketing tells you to go back to your strength. Reinventing yourself is an act of desperation.
Gas prices have hit an all-time high draining consumer’s pockets at the pump and increasing the cost of transportation for the profit sensitive business community – adding further pressure to consumer’s pockets. At the same time, tree-huggers continue complaining about global warming (I want to talk to you people in particular about the two feet of global warming that fell on my house this past weekend, but I digress).
Throughout American history, modern ingenuity has always come to the rescue to meet our needs and improve our standard of living. Henry Ford with the model T and assembly line. Traffic lights. Seat-belts. Airbags. Starbucks. Radar guns. OK, I went too far with the last one, but there is a natural progression and you get the point.
Gas prices have been rising for years, affecting our wallets and our economy, yet we still don’t have a reasonable alternative. At the same time, global warming has been in the headlines for years with gas guzzling cars often blamed as the cause. One big problem shared by two influential groups of people. I just can’t help but think that if these two groups of people worked together, a solution could easily be found.
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that Exxon scientists, to help reduce our reliance on oil, have developed a plastic “separator” film that is a critical part of lithium-ion batteries for use in electric and hybrid cars. This is great news that a major corporation has made this investment, but it is not enough and not fast enough. Yet despite their mutual goals, I don’t expect Exxon to be teaming up with any environmental groups in the near future to share ideas and bring it to market faster.
It really is a shame, because I would love to be the marketer for the company with the practical electric car that was cheaper than a gas guzzler. Talk about selling like hotcakes! Maybe we just have to wait for the next Henry Ford or Bill Gates to build an electric car in his garage that we all want and will make our lives better, because the big boys just don’t get it. Still, I just can’t help but to think that if tree-huggers and for-profit lovers united, we could all be happier.
