Alberta Business Marketing

Part 3 in a series about Demographic vs. Interest Based Marketing
Part 1
Part 2

I love to golf. In fact, some have said that I am obsessed with the game. And, I’m a woman. While there are lots of women who play the game, reality is, it is still hugely dominated by men.

Golf is a prime example of a “product” where different demographic groups share a common interest. But marketers are still selling based solely on demographics. And they spend little to no effort to attract or retain women golfers. Why should they you ask? Consider the following (all data from recent studies):

• Women account for about half the workforce and are the single most powerful consumer group
• Women have always played golf. The LPGA Tour is older that the currently constituted PGA
• Women who play golf spend just as much on golf equipment and apparel as men do
• In 2006, almost two-thirds of all new golfers were women

But, even with all of this apparent interest, the percentage of women playing the game has barely budged since the 1980s, growing by only 1% from 21% to 22%.

Is this a neglected market? I say yes! Marketing golf to women is a prime example of an opportunity to use interest-based marketing rather than demographic-based marketing. Currently all golf marketing speaks to men. I had to search high and low to find messaging that speaks directly to women. And even then, it appeared as an after-thought. The Callaway website has a fairly robust section for women – even with a video! All TaylorMade does is provide a page for “women’s clubs” and I couldn’t help but notice that their newly introduced R11 driver is not available in a women’s shaft, nor is there any mention of when that might be available. In a Golf Digest for Women magazine, the Nike ad is completely focused at men. Hellooooo … we buy the same equipment and spend just as much money as men … talk to us too!

Marketing to us doesn’t have to be completely different. I would suggest that the inherent tone needs to become more gender neutral and a simple mention of equipment availability for multiple markets would help. I’ll bet the equipment advertisers will begin overtly mentioning senior styles soon with the changing demographic – would it be so difficult to also mention availability of women’s equipment?

And for those men reading this post that still think GOLF stands for “gentlemen only ladies forbidden”, let’s play a round. But first, we need to establish that a ‘mulligan’ actually means three off the tee. And of course, you’ll wait, like me, to relieve yourself if and when we ever find facilities on the course.

Seriously though, my point is that marketing to golfers is currently completely based on a demographic group vs. multiple groups who share the same interest and I think that is a huge opportunity lost.

Dawn Marchand, Chair, CMA Integrated Marketing & Customer Experience Council

Tags: Integration, Strategy
Posted in Advertising | | Comments Off

Part 2 in a series about Demographic vs. Interest Based Marketing

In our first post we began the conversation about interest-based marketing vs. demographic marketing. But we are having a hard time finding companies that are doing this in a meaningful way. But check out Google …..

In mid-2009, Google introduced ‘interest-based’ advertising on their partner sites and on YouTube. Basically, they consider a person’s web browsing history and cookies and with that information, select advertisements related to what you most commonly search. In addition, the web user can also identify the kinds of ads they would like to see using this Google service.

I wasn’t aware of this kind of ad targeting until I started seeing ads on Facebook that said “if you’re between the ages of 45 – 49, then this offer is for you.” As a marketer, I wondered why a company would take the chance at being so specific with their ad and wow, how lucky were they that I was actually in this age range. Duhhh! Also, on MSN, I noticed car rental and flight ads specifically providing me information about rates in cities where I had recently been (booked online) or had searched.

Google has stated that at no time throughout the process do they identify me as a person. They simply recognize a number stored in my browser and show ads related to the interest and/or demographic categories associated with my cookies.

I’ve read blogs from people that both love this service and hate it. As a marketer, I think it is great. As a consumer, I admit to being a bit nerved at the fact that my likes and searches are fed back to me but in the end, I believe that I will see more relevant ads based on my interests and that my ‘click through’ rate on ads will increase.

What do you think? Invasion or awesome?

Dawn Marchand, Chair, CMA Integrated Marketing & Customer Experience Council

Tags: Customer Experience, Integration, Strategy
Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off

Demographic-based marketing is so yesterday!

Lots of research/insights exist when it comes to demographic- or generation-based marketing – how to use different media and messaging to reach and attract boomers or Gen Y's or Gen X's. There is less information however, about psychographic marketing – messaging and media that speak to groups based on attitudes and interests. Would marketers be more successful marketing to groups of people interested in the same product or service rather than trying to reach one demographic group? Consider cell phones for example – almost every demographic group needs or owns one. So how do marketers provide relevant messaging to them?

Can the same message speak to two distinct demographic groups who share a common passion or interest? What integrated marketing tactics work to transcend generational divides? In the world of social media, how can marketers benefit from conversations with people who have the same interests targeted by interest rather than age? How do we create rich brand experiences that appeal to a broad set of groups and still be relevant to our key target audiences?

Do marketers care and are we even trying?

Lots of questions but few answers! This is one of the areas that the Integrated Marketing and Customer Experience Council is focusing on in 2011, beginning with our first in a series of posts, below. Feel free to provide your thoughts and examples - let's start the conversation.

Generation E

We (CMA's Integrated Marketing & Customer Experience Council) propose that marketers forget about Gen Y, Gen X and Boomers and start speaking to Generation E – where ‘E’ stands for “EVERYONE”!

We are suggesting that brands that speak to and, more importantly, connect with people who share a common interest – regardless of their demographic or generation – will be the most successful. Sustaining a brand is much more about engaging consumers and connecting emotionally and less about straight-up advertising. We have found a few examples of companies trying to do this but not very many.

Consider Nike. It may market different styles of shoes to different demographic groups but Nike takes it further by setting up online communities of people who love to run. They encourage conversations between “everyone” who shares an interest in running. This means that if you and I are having a conversation based on our mutual interest of running, there is a good chance that I might even do Nike’s job and market my favourite product to you. That’s effective marketing!

Disney speaks to the kid inside us all. McDonald’s markets consistency of experience – whether that be a fun experience for a child or a positive experience for a parent and their children.

Marketers who are speaking cross-generation-borders are focusing on the experience. Hey, maybe Generation E stands for “Experience”!

What do you think? Should marketers be more focused on experiences vs. perceived needs of generational groups? Or does good ‘ol demographic segmentation marketing work just fine?

Dawn Marchand, Chair, CMA Integrated Marketing & Customer Experience Council

Tags: Customer Experience, Integration, Strategy
Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off

As the co-producer and co-host of The BusinessCast Podcast, I am fortunate to hear the thoughts and business insights of presidents, founders and CEOs of some of North America's most innovative companies. Across many of my most recent discussions with these leaders, I've noticed an important trend that is having a tremendous impact on all B2B marketers.

That critical trend: leaders' definition of marketing has once again evolved, or more accurately, extended into more areas within business including, Operations, Finance and Human Resources.

This isn't completely unexpected. After all, over the last few years, marketers have been stretched into taking on different roles and responsibilities. For instance, many of the nation's fastest-moving and most innovative companies call upon their marketers to be grouped within or tightly aligned with sales departments. In response to this re-framing, successful B2B marketers have modified their programs and campaigns to incorporate sales metrics targets, technologies and functions.

Now, with the tail of the recession still hanging on, leaders are increasingly demanding their B2B marketers be more closely aligned with the demands of their business' core operations. The result: B2B marketers are on the hot seat to bring new value to their companies by taking actions that identify operational efficiencies. This compels B2B marketers to demonstrate a real impact on the bottom line. One method for achieving this goal is for B2B marketers to gather (and make sense of) customer and prospect feedback -- from online and offline sources -- and identify opportunities for process improvement.

At the same time, B2B marketers are being increasingly expected to develop campaigns that accommodate the financial ebbs and flows of their companies. For example, B2B marketers must speak to issues that directly impact the income statement (e.g. when cash is realized) and issues that shape the balance sheet (e.g. whether investments in marketing technologies are better allocated as fixed or variable costs).

Finally, B2B marketers are now expected to be knowledgeable about aspects of human resources. For example, it is increasingly common for B2B marketers to have a hand in shaping and measuring recruiting methods since widely used recruitment tools (e.g. LinkedIn, websites, Facebook, etc.) and core messages are associated with marketing.

Over the last several years, B2B marketers have made great strides in being included at the Executive table. With leaders expecting B2B marketers to have a vastly expanded range of business expertise, now is the time for B2B marketers to demonstrate that they do indeed bring value at the most strategic level.

Andrew Brown

Tags: Digital, Integration, Strategy
Posted in B2B | | Comments Off

Do you remember the days when innovation was a big part of most major companies? You think about 3M, Xerox, IBM, GE, Disney as leaders in that field whether it applied to products, services and/or marketing.

Today when I think of innovation I think about companies such as Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook and others. Yes, it just happens to be coincidence they are all on the Fast Company Top 50 Innovation list also.

But I wondered why many other large scale companies don't have such an emphasis on innovation anymore. You hear about lots of companies that "value innovation" and want to "be innovative". I can't recall how many times my friends told me the CEOs of their companies boldly proclaim to their staff "We need to be like Apple" during employee meetings.

Recently at an alumni reception from my alma matter, I chatted with a venture capitalist and it was her view that companies no longer invest in innovation because of cost. Plain and simple. Due to short-term financial pressure, organizations focus on quarterly results, therefore they can no longer "afford the luxury of internal innovation". She further stated "It would be naive to think shareholders would not freak out if guys in white lab coats were allowed to run around concocting ideas that didn't generate immediate ROI". It was her view that larger corporations perceived acquiring start-ups (and the innovations they bring) much more cost-effective than to build them in-house.

She pointed to the example of Google despite its own roots as a start-up as they now have acquired many firms over the years.

But what about here in Canada? Last time I checked Google was based in Mountain View. Indeed it appears large corporations in Canada are also acquiring smaller companies from a strategic perspective and have been doing so for quite some time. Whether it be Torstar or Transcontinental. So the trend certainly doesn't appear to be declining. However one could argue that some corporations are looking further towards the long term such as the case of Rogers Ventures which specializes in investing in technology start-ups right here in Canada.

So what does this all have to do with marketers? In Business Week a few years ago it was proposed that marketers bear some responsibility for this trend of lack of successful innovation in companies. Marketers you ask? Yes. The premise is based on three criteria.

(1) Successful innovations need more than a great idea. Indeed great ideas are a dime a dozen but execution is what really matters. Too many marketers only view their job as coming up with the idea. The execution rests with someone else be it in production, IT, distribution and/or sales. The biggest reason for this? Plausible deniability. If the concept fails marketers can point the finger at someone else.

(2) A lack of talent. Some people are great at generating ideas. Others are great at the execution of them. Very rarely are there enough people within large corporations that are talented at both. Or they are not being brought together at the right time to achieve a common goal.

(3) Fatalism. Marketers go into new initiatives (half-heartedly) expecting it to fail. So when they do there is no major surprise. Then the finger gets pointed at the executive suite for lack of support, resources or other departments for creating roadblocks or fighting over turf.

I'm not sure I totally agree entirely with all of these criteria but it certainly gives one pause as a marketer. In my experience the challenge for marketers/innovators is that it's harder in a larger corporate environment than a start-up one to be innovative - unless there is a specific culture that fosters and embraces innovation. One where employees are encouraged to contribute new ideas but are also recognized for them via both extrinsic and intrinsic motivators.

Lastly, it becomes important that an over-emphasis on short-term performance is not at the expense of long-term success. Perhaps then we just might see more colleagues at large companies wearing white lab coats again.

Sulemaan Ahmed

Tags: Get it off your chest, Integration, Research, Strategy, technology, This and That
Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off