With ethnic minorities predicted to become the majority across the GTA in the near future, mainstream businesses are looking to capitalize on the demographic shift. But ever since I've begun to counsel clients on multicultural marketing when I first immigrated to this country in 1990, I've always been skeptical about how long does it take for companies to realize it takes more than Google Translate to 'multiculturalize' a marketing strategy.

Data collected by Statistics Canada in 2006 shows the cities of Toronto, Markham, Brampton, Mississauga and Richmond Hill experienced a major surge in visible minorities from the previous census year (2001). Markham had the highest proportion of visible minorities in the country – they made up 65.4 per cent of its population. About half were Chinese and one-quarter were South Asian. In Brampton, the census subdivision that ranked behind Markham, 56 per cent of residents were South Asian.

Recently, grocery giant Metro purchased a majority share of Adonis, a grocer with a steady following of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern consumers. This came two years after its competitor, Loblaw, snatched up T&T, a major Chinese supermarket chain. Both deals give Metro and Loblaw access to suppliers and business strategies geared to reaching ethnic consumers.

While marketers realize that multicultural marketing is very different from using the same approach as preaching to predominantly white, middle-class consumers, very few mainstream companies are willing to dedicate manpower and budget to properly communicate and connect with multicultural audiences. As recently as 2006, major brands seemed to be missing the mark when it came to ethnic consumers. In a survey conducted that year by a Toronto-based research company, 52 per cent of the 3,000 visible-minority participants agreed with the statement, “I rarely see advertising messages intended for me.”

But there is good news after all these years. Though it still trails the steady growth of these populations, the industry is slowly gaining sophistication. Major businesses are co-ordinating ethnic merchandising teams and hiring ethnic marketing firms. With geographic information systems, they can learn which ethnic groups to target at various store locations. With loyalty programs, they can data-mine for consumption trends among their diverse customers. A year ago, Loblaw hired a senior manager of ethnic marketing. Scotiabank and Rogers have their own multicultural marketing managers. And in offices in Markham, North York, Mississauga and downtown Toronto are dozens of marketers who specialize in reaching Indian, Chinese, Filipino and other visible-minority consumers.

Most mainstream marketers fail to understand generational differences call for different ad strategies. The newcomer requires different treatment from the established family or the Canadian-born children of immigrants. Sterotyping visible minorities are not going to get you anywhere.

Is brand awareness enough to drive sales behaviour among multicultural consumers? Like their mainstream counterparts, the ethnic population shops around for prices. So, other than variety, pricing is also important because most of the new immigrants are smart shoppers. But being serious about understanding the diverse mix of new Canadians is an important first step in winning over the ethnic consumer.

Lina Ko

Recently TLC network launched a show called All-American Muslim to showcase average American Muslims who live in the community of Dearborn, Michigan. Kind of like the US version of our Little Mosque on the Prairie in Canada but more of 'reality' version.

Well sure enough one 'group' called the Florida Family Association (FFA) protested that Lowe's Home Improvement was advertising during this show and demanded that Lowe's remove all advertising. Surprisingly, Lowe's obliged the FFA and pulled all advertising while All-American Muslim was broadcasting on TLC.

Subsequently, all hell broke loose and Lowe's is in a very difficult situation. On one side you have people applauding and supporting Lowe's decision to pull the advertising. On the other side people who have been loyal customers are very disappointed in Lowe's decision. This one opinion piece from Time illustrates that the criticism of Lowe's actions has been fierce.

So Lowe's tried to calm things by directing people to this statement posted on their Facebook page earlier this week.

"Lowe’s has received a significant amount of communication on this program, from every perspective possible. Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lighting rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance. We strongly support and respect the right of our customers, the community at large, and our employees to have different views. If we have made anyone question that commitment, we apologize. Thank you for allowing us to further explain our position."

That should have been the end of the issue, right? Not quite. The aforementioned post on Lowe's Facebook wall generated over +3600 Likes and +18,000 comments many of which were very nasty. I don't have a problem with people taking opposing viewpoints on an issue as that is a hallmark of democracy and freedom of speech. I do have a problem with the disappearance of civilized discourse and debate.

And now the toothpaste is out of the tube and we need cleanup in all aisles. Lowe's is going into the critical holiday period as a retailer and many customers are now calling for a boycott of their business, returning purchases and/or cancelling their accounts. Many customers who are Muslim are in that key target market that home improvement retailer like Lowe's covets.

But the outrage isn't only limited to Muslim customers as Christians, Jews and even Atheists are condemning Lowe's for their actions. You really have to feel for Lowe's being in such an untenable position.

And what kind of online public relations nightmare would it be without user-generated content? A parody Lowe's Global PR Twitter account was created and a Republican Congressman from California started following it believing it was a real Lowe's Twitter account, tweeting them he supported Lowe's actions.

The actor Kal Penn of Harold & Kumar fame tweeted this 'video' (caution on language) of his parents having a meeting with Lowe's executives to his +100k followers on Twitter. He then asked his followers to sign an online petition demanding that other brands advertising on TLC do not follow the example of Lowe's.

So far the online petition has over 21k signatures but other brands like Green Mountain Coffee have taken notice and made it clear that they disavowed the actions of FFA. Russell Simmons has stepped up and bought all of the advertising slots on TLC during the show that were vacated.

It doesn't stop there either. Lowe's has now been threatened by the hacker group Anonymous which has has already gone after the FFA website and said Lowe's is next.

Some media pundits have suggested that Lowe's shouldn't have advertised with such a potentially 'controversial' television show in the first place. Lowe's should have shown better judgement while conducting their media buy. But 'controversial' by whose standards? So could the hit television-show 'Modern Family' being targeted and having its advertising pulled because it features a gay couple? It's a slippery slope for marketers fraught with danger.

Having said all that, my view is that any company (including Lowe's) has the right to advertise where and how they see fit. Just as I have the right to shop where I see fit and to share my thoughts with other consumers. I'll also state that I've been a long-time Lowe's customer as they have offered terrific service over the years.

One friend of mine wonders if Lowe's reaction to pull the advertising was honest or out of fear of losing customers who supported the FFA. Perhaps they gambled thinking that caving into the demands of one group wouldn't have mattered. Ultimately no one is a winner in this situation except for TLC who might get better ratings/awareness.

But the bigger issue for marketers and brands is this - if this can happen to Lowe's could it happen to you? Are you or your agency prepared for this kind of situation? Do you have contingency/engagement/crisis plans in place? If so, are they good enough? If you make decisions, is digital and social media considered as it relates to them? Can you be held hostage to the agenda of a specific interest group? If you were Lowe's what would you have done differently to avoid being caught in the midst of a public relations firestorm? If you make a decision are you prepared to stand by it and not backtrack even when it impacts your reputation/bottom line?

There are no 'all-in-one' answers like some tool found in aisle 12 but the aforementioned are just a few of the questions we must ask ourselves as individuals and leaders of brands and organizations. I can already see Lowe's as a case study that students in business schools will analyze for years to come.

Lowe's tagline is 'Never stop improving' perhaps we should all pause and take heed of those words.

Sulemaan Ahmed
Twitter @sulemaan

Recently TLC network launched a show called All-American Muslim to showcase average American Muslims who live in the community of Dearborn, Michigan. Similar to a US version of Little Mosque on the Prairie in Canada but more of 'reality' version.

One 'group' called the Florida Family Association (FFA) protested that Lowe's Home Improvement was advertising during this show and demanded that Lowe's remove all advertising. Surprisingly, Lowe's obliged the FFA and pulled all advertising while All-American Muslim was broadcasting on TLC.

Subsequently, all hell broke loose and Lowe's is in a very difficult situation. On one side you have people applauding and supporting Lowe's decision to pull the advertising. On the other side people who have been loyal customers are very disappointed in Lowe's decision. Time is one of many media outlets critical of Lowe's actions.

So Lowe's tried to calm things by directing people to this statement posted on their Facebook page earlier this week.

"Lowe’s has received a significant amount of communication on this program, from every perspective possible. Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lighting rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance. We strongly support and respect the right of our customers, the community at large, and our employees to have different views. If we have made anyone question that commitment, we apologize. Thank you for allowing us to further explain our position."

That should have been the end of the issue, right? Not quite. The aforementioned post on Lowe's Facebook wall generated over +3600 Likes and +18,000 comments of which many of which, were very nasty. I don't have a problem with people taking opposing viewpoints on an issue as that is a hallmark of democracy and freedom of speech. I do have a problem with the disappearance of civilized discourse and debate.

It appears the toothpaste is out of the tube and cleanup is needed in a few aisles. Lowe's is going into the critical holiday period as a retailer and many customers are now calling for a boycott of their business, returning purchases and/or cancelling their accounts. Many customers who are Muslim are in that key target market that home improvement retailer like Lowe's covets.

The outrage isn't only limited to Muslim customers as Christians, Jews and even Atheists are condemning Lowe's for their actions. You really have to feel for Lowe's being in such an untenable position.

Furthermore, what kind of online public relations nightmare would it be without user-generated content? A parody Lowe's Global PR Twitter account was created and a Republican Congressman from California started following it believing it was a real Lowe's Twitter account, tweeting them he supported Lowe's actions.

The actor Kal Penn of Harold & Kumar fame tweeted this 'video' (caution on language) of his parents having a meeting with Lowe's executives to his +100k followers on Twitter. He then asked his followers to sign an online petition demanding that other brands advertising on TLC do not follow the example of Lowe's.

So far the online petition has over 21k signatures but other brands like Green Mountain Coffee have taken notice and made it clear that they disavowed the actions of FFA. Russell Simmons has stepped up and bought all of the advertising slots on TLC during the show that were vacated.

It doesn't stop there either. Lowe's has now been threatened by the hacker group Anonymous which has has already gone after the FFA website and said Lowe's is next.

Some media pundits have suggested that Lowe's shouldn't have advertised with such a potentially 'controversial' television show in the first place. Lowe's should have shown better judgement while conducting their media buy. But 'controversial' by whose standards? So could the hit television-show 'Modern Family' be at risk and have its advertising pulled because it features a gay couple? It's a slippery slope for marketers fraught with danger.

Having said all that, my view is that any company (including Lowe's) has the right to advertise where and how they see fit. Just as I have the right to shop where I see fit and to share my thoughts with other consumers. I'll also state that I've been a long-time Lowe's customer as they have offered terrific service over the years.

One friend of mine wonders if Lowe's reaction to pull the advertising was honest or out of fear of losing customers who supported the FFA. Perhaps they gambled thinking that caving into the demands of one group wouldn't have mattered. Ultimately no one is a winner in this situation except for TLC who might get better ratings/awareness.

But the bigger issue for marketers and brands is this - if this can happen to Lowe's could it happen to you? Are you or your agency prepared for this kind of situation? Do you have contingency/engagement/crisis plans in place? If so, are they good enough? If you make decisions, is digital and social media considered as it relates to them? Can you be held hostage to the agenda of a specific interest group? If you were Lowe's what would you have done differently to avoid being caught in the midst of a public relations firestorm? If you make a decision are you prepared to stand by it and not backtrack even when it impacts your reputation/bottom line?

There are no 'all-in-one' answers like some tool found in aisle 12 but the aforementioned are just a few of the questions we must ask ourselves as individuals and leaders of brands and organizations. I can already see Lowe's as a case study that students in business schools will analyze for years to come.

Lowe's tagline is 'Never stop improving' perhaps we should all pause and take heed of those words.

Sulemaan Ahmed
Twitter @sulemaan

Recipe to Riches: Episode 5
Marketing Lesson: Even the Experts will Disagree

In this emotionally-packed episode, the two finalists were Sonya Walos with her gluten-free cookie and Donna Feir with her breakfast cookie. Donna joined us at Quizative to help bring her product to market.

Donna’s recipe was inspired by her love of Stampede breakfasts. She had creatively managed to combine the flavours of pancakes, bacon and maple syrup into one neatly packed cookie! With all the different flavours and ingredients it was hard to believe there was still a cookie in there. The inspiration of the Stampede and the distinctiveness of bacon led us to the name “The Bacon Stampeder” and the tagline “may contain traces of cookie.” Donna loved it! With the name as inspiration we set about helping her plan a full-fledged rodeo in the city!

The team at FUSE Marketing Group worked with Sonya and arrived at “Smart Cookie” to name her recipe which everyone found tough to believe was actually gluten-free. Sonya thought the name was brilliantly simple. In the end, more consumers preferred the taste of Sonya’s cookies. The benefit of being on trend and gluten-free tipped the scales in her favour and she took home the $25,000 prize that day.

In the final segment as the judges debated the merits and weaknesses of both products, they really tended to dislike the names. Despite the love of the names from the contestants, Quizative and FUSE, the judges felt that “The Bacon Stampeder” was confusing. They also didn’t think that “Smart Cookie” was an accurate claim - and they didn’t like that gluten-free was dropped from the name. In fact, one judge, Tony Chapman, said that whoever won had to agree to change the name! Now apparently between filming and the packaging of the winning product something changed because the name of the product on shelves at Loblaws is still “Smart Cookie.” The point however is that even experts will disagree with each other from time to time.

On one hand you had the competitors and two very experienced agencies who loved the names. On the other hand you had a panel of qualified judges who didn’t. If you were stuck in the middle and had to make a decision what would you do? The answer is simple. Test it. In the show, with only 24 hours there was no time for testing or even second guessing, but in the real world, put it to a test. Survey your customers and target audience, test sales in control markets, conduct research and see what your customers have to say because ultimately they’ll vote with their dollars.

The lesson here is that there will come times when the experts disagree. That’s normal. If you’re the one making the decisions do what you can to test your alternatives with actual customers. Do it right and you can make an informed decision.

Adrian Capobianco

The easiest (well not real easy) way to get people to read is to send something that is personal.

I never cease to be amazed at the people who use the standard Linkedin "I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn." with no additional comment. Adding a simple, "Jim, we met at such and such show..." would go so far in making me click the connect.

Recently I have been promoting a book I contributed to called "Entrepreneurial Effect". I have been sending dozens of emails saying "Sue - I would appreciate your help by tweeting this...." (that is a blatant hint, please tweet it for me) And if I have something personal like "How is your son", I add that too.

So why is this not easy? It is, but is takes a lot of time. Personal emails often evoke personal responses that again need action. And just the time to personalize them can take a minute each so it is tough to do that to a 10,000 person list.

Being personal has a secondary advantage. I tend to develop and keep relationships with people that I personally correspond with.

The mail equivalent of this is the simple hand written note on the mailing. This is a highly effective technique for getting things read (and improving your handwriting muscles).

This is the age old marketing dilema. Quality (the personal touch) vs Quantity (worst case would be straight spam). Quality gets response (I get 80-90% of the people I send a personal email to, to respond) where just sending emails to a list often evokes only a 1-2% response. Personal can be 40-90 times as effective.

For true results - try personal.

Jim Estill

A teaching moment for marketers

The Occupy movement is different and could potentially become a teaching moment for marketers. As you see in the video below, produced on the one month anniversary of Occupy Wall Street, most protesters don’t know where the movement is going or what it should achieve. And yet they are united by common themes and beliefs.

According to posts on Wikipedia, "The original protest began on September 17, 2011, and by October 9, similar demonstrations were either ongoing or had been held in 70 major cities and over 600 communities in the U.S. Internationally, other "Occupy" protests have modeled themselves after Occupy Wall Street, in over 900 cities worldwide.

A catchy 1% and 99% slogan certainly helps (My favourite- "The 1% have Addresses. The 99% have Messages"). There is even a claim that the protests were initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters.

Elevating the conversation

One lesson that resonates with me is the importance of elevating your conversation with consumers. Find a big theme that is above a specific need, want or desire. The theme represents a deep insight about a belief that needs to be unearthed. It is rare that campaigns dig that deep. Most focus on insights, benefits and product features. Our research indicates that campaign ideas that have withstood the test of time are based on basic beliefs that connect a group of consumers.

Merril Mascarenhas

None the less, getting a post secondary education is the best option leading to employment for most youth today. The 2012 Canadian University Survey report, distributed through the Globe and Mail recently, says that future employment ranked the highest of eight reasons to earn a degree – with 43% of survey respondents citing preparation for a specific job. The report goes on to say that earnings of Canadian University graduates were 70% higher than those coming out of high school or trades training and 63% higher in country members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. It further makes the point that those with an undergraduate degree will earn on average $1.4 million more over a lifetime than others without a post-secondary degree and $1 million more than college students.

Making the most out of the undergraduate/college experience by participating in a range of activities while at school is a sure way to open doors and opportunities. McMaster University’s Degroote School of Business is just one of the many schools that offer a compelling opportunity - specifically for business interested students. Its Canada’s Next Top Ad Exec competition is cultivating talent for the marketing/advertising professions through its rigorous case competition, just launched last week.

In short, students across Canada compete in teams of two for the title of Canada’s Next Top Ad Exec, the current competition involves developing a marketing campaign on a budget of no more than $5 million to launch the all new 2013 Chevrolet Spark (in the fall 2012). The winners each get a 2013 Chevy Spark, there's other awards and scholarships, and all the top finalists get the prestige associated with their participation in a top-notch competition. Win or not, the experience and personal growth from competing will give students an edge. Business undergrads, undergrads completing a business minor and MBA students are invited to compete. Check out the competition and submission details here . To enter the competition, a registration form must be submitted by end of day January 23, 2012.

Now back to the Canadian University Survey report - 33,000 current undergraduate students took the survey, answering about 100 questions. Some of the results are presented by school size in the report. McMaster is one of 13 schools in the large size category. It ranked in the top three for a number of measures, including campus atmosphere, instructors teaching style, work-play balance, student-faculty interaction, and most satisfied students. Just the right kind of environment for a national competition to take hold.

CMA is a proud media sponsor of Canada's Next Top Ad Exec competition

Sandra Singer

Intro and Episode 1 here
Episode 2

Recipe to Riches: Episode 3
Marketing Lesson: What’s in a Name? Quite a bit!

In this week’s episode, the final two came down to energetic Diana Petrini with her Olive Lapedonasi and the gentle giant John Grass who joined our team at Quizative. Right off the bat John stepped up with his presence. His sheer size and giant handshake dominated the room but he didn’t dominate conversation – he was open to our feedback and direction all the way.

Much of the marketing-related conversation this week centered on the product names and whether they were good, bad or just plain confusing? John came to Quizative with his “Chicken Grenades.” When it comes to naming a product or company, many times we balance the dual challenge of making it descriptive vs.distinctive . Take for example iTunes vs. Google. The name iTunes is descriptive and tells you that you’re likely dealing with some form of digital music. Google on the other hand tells you nothing about what it is or does, but it stands out. Google’s name is distinctive.

The name “Chicken Grenades” is actually a bit of both. You know there’s chicken but frankly his recipe also included the ever popular bacon, plus cheese, jalapenos and spices. By adding “grenade” to his product name he instantly became distinctive. True naming exercises go through many rounds of revisions, many iterations, much debate and often extensive research (feel free to ask me about the process and strategy behind naming our agency Quizative!). In working with John to name, design, market and sample his product in less than 20 hours there was none of that - just experience and instinct. He liked the name, the team at Quizative liked the name and we ran full steam ahead with it.

Diana on the other hand went with the traditionally accurate name “Oliva Lapedonasi” – it is descriptive, but downright confusing. She made a great pitch to the judges on other food categories that had tough names which have become renowned, but in the end they felt it was still confusing. Throughout the show they had to refer to her product as generic “stuffed olives.” Imagine someone walking in to a grocery store that couldn’t remember her product name and asking for “those stuffed olives.” What are the chances they’d end up with her product?

When it came down to it, the instinct of the judges also agreed with the distinctive Chicken Grenades. Tony Chapman said he liked it. Galen Weston said, “… it was a blockbuster of a name.” At the store level and in homes across the country the judges could imagine families asking for “those grenades.” In the end, John took home the $25,000 weekly prize based on a combination of his product, the taste and yes – the name!

The lesson learned here is that when it comes to naming, if you can be distinctive, do it!

Adrian Capobianco

Intro and Episode 1 here

Recipe to Riches: Episode 2
Marketing Lesson: The Value of Endorsement

In this episode, the two finalists were Melissa Lam with her Banana Chocolate Cake and Jacqui Keseluk with her Peach Bliss. After hearing that they were the two finalists they raced off and Jacqui joined us at Quizative. We immediately saw the opportunity! She stood out and we knew that we could market with HER, not just her product. She was bold, friendly and very tattooed. In Episode 1’s blog I said that “… in the world of marketing, different is good” and she fit the bill. We immediately tied her persona as “Cake Girl” to her product and made them one and the same. She was bold, different, and stood out from the crowd.

Our first objective was achieved; we made her product stand out. But a bold, tattooed woman doesn’t necessarily make for a credible cake chef. We needed to make her and the product believable. We needed to help her prove that her cake was great. We needed to do that in less than 20 hours. We needed someone to endorse her.

One of the most common forms of endorsement is celebrity endorsement, but many argue it doesn’t work. For example, a recent Adweek/Harris Interactive poll says that only 4% of people are swayed by celeb endorsement. This of course assumes that consumers want to admit and/or consciously know that they’re swayed. But either way the numbers are pitifully low.

However, endorsements by subject matter experts are a whole different game. If you have a few factors working in your favour, subject matter endorsement can be effective. Here are four R’s to keep in mind for effective endorsement:

1. Recognized: Is the person known?

• They don’t need to be widely famous, just known to the target audience

2. Relevant: Is the person relevant to the product or service?

• In this episode, Chef Ren weighing in on a recipe is absolutely relevant

3. Realistic: Can the person credibly provide an opinion on the matter?

• It needs to be believable and backedup with credentials

• Are they known to be critical or discerning? Do they only selectively endorse products, or do they put their name to anything like this guy?

With Jacqui and her Rockin’ Peach Bliss endorsed by Chef Ren of the private member Spoke Club, we’re hitting 4 for 4 on this list. Ultimately it helped her take home the $25,000 prize, and put her in the running for the $250,000 big prize.

Adrian Capobianco