Alberta Business Marketing

In my third of four posts about which channels work best to reach and engage influencers, I take a look at the new kid on the block: social media.

Marketers are sometimes torn between doing what has worked most effectively in the past and testing out new technologies and channels that have the potential to be real game-changers in the future.

The bright shiny object of the last few years is, of course, social media, a channel that’s still not completely understood but that has, in theory, the potential to radically change the way we market.

Why? Well, to start with, based on our research, influencers are spending 7 hours per week in the US and 9 in Canada on social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and blogs. That’s already impressive but when you add to that the finding that influencers are connected, on average, to 108 (US) and 137 (Canada) people in their own social media network, that’s something that gets the attention of marketers – as it should.

While social media shares ease of use with the email channel, it’s this community or network that may hold the key to the channel’s true potential. These individuals have chosen to be connected based on an affinity for a particular community, and are actively engaged with others in it and outside that community too.

Bill McCloskey at ClickZ offers some fascinating examples about the potential power of social media, including this one:

“…look at Marvel Comics, which is one of the top performing ‘advertisers’ in the Twitter space. As of right now, Marvel has around 44,000 followers [63,000+ as I write this post]. But over the last few weeks, it sent out 151 Twitter offers. But more than that: 246 ‘influencers’ have directly rebroadcast that message to their followers. Add it all up and Marvel has exposed its offer to over 66 million eyeballs over the past few weeks!”

Those are some impressive numbers and just a hint of the potential opportunities social media offers marketers. However we do need to distinguish the difference between influencers: some will talk; others will pass along information (as per above) and of utmost value are those that truly influence others – by eliciting action. So whether on social media sites or via email or on the phone, you must understand what you are trying to achieve and ensure that you have designed appropriately.

One more thing bares repeating from my last two posts: even if some channels are better than others to reach particular consumers in particular ways, the fact is these channels work best for marketers when they work together.

For instance, email messages that offer a social-sharing option (like Twitter and Facebook) generate a 30% higher click-through rate than emails without it, according to a new study by email marketing company Get Response. And if the email includes three or more social-sharing options, that click-through rate jumps to 55%.

The bottom line? Social media offers a unique and advantageous opportunity to find, reach, engage and have a continuous dialogue with individuals – both within their social media communities and in their network at large. Just needs to be done right!

In the fourth and final part of this series, I’ll blog about the true answer to the question – which channel is most effective at finding, reaching, engaging and motivating influencers?

Gillian MacPherson

Tags: Branding, Customer Experience, Direct Marketing, Integration, PR, Research, social media, Strategy
Posted in Alberta Business | | Comments Off

When Stanley Pollitt and Stephen King created the notion of "planning" back in the 1960's, they began the journey to what is now a very discombobulated discipline.

Let's have a look at the first description of account planning - "The account planner is that member of the agency's team who is the expert, through background, training, experience, and attitudes, at working with information and getting it used - not just marketing research but all the information available to help solve a client's advertising problems." - Stanley Pollitt

In the 1990's, Jay Chiat evolved the definition of planning to add a splash of creativity and flare, yet still remaining true to the discipline.

Fast forward to 2010. This is where I face a split opinion.

Many agencies are not familiar with the discipline of planning and try to create a role to fill an unfulfilled need. This role usually includes a planning title; created with little or no knowledge of what planning actually is. This direction dilutes the discipline of planning and builds confusion both internally and with the client. We now have client planning, creative planning, research planning, just plain planning, strategist, account planning strategist and most recently, digital planning or digital strategist. I'm sure I've left out a plethora of others.

On the other hand, It's my personal belief that a good account planner can be all of the above as long as the consumer is at the core root. It's all a matter of managing expectations with the employer/employee and client. Good planners have the ability to bridge together their understanding of the consumer and how they relate to the client's brand and visa versa. Because communication channels continuously multiply, it is crucial for planners to stay ahead of how consumers are engaging with brands.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic.

Jennifer Morozowich

Tags: Get it off your chest, Strategy
Posted in Alberta Business | | Comments Off

Group think is the nemesis of qualitative research. The more senior you go in any organization, the more dismissive of focus groups managers become because of "group think." And, indeed, watching focus groups, as I have done innumerable times, it could appear that group think is impacting the dynamic.

Of course, one manager's group think is another manager's consensus. I mention this as an aside, but it is true that when 6 people in a group like the concept, this is a sign of a great concept. When six people in a group dislike the concept, it's clearly group think. Of course, if you hate the concept, then this works the other way around. Which leads to:

Bernstein's First Law of Group Think: The intensity of group think in any focus group is indirectly proportionate to the degree that the group reflects the observers innate bias.

But, I digress.

Group think is the inevitable result of recruiting homogenous groups of people. Why are we surprised that people who are in the same targeted age group, same target education level and use the same products with the same frequency, share the same opinions about the brand, product, category, and so on. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if there is no group think, then the recruiters have done a lousy job. And, perhaps even more controversially, the reason why professional respondents (i.e. those who attend many focus groups and don't absolutely fit the criteria) are generally more interesting than actual respondents (those who do fit the criteria and have little or no experience withfocus groups) -- they are, in fact, not the same as everybody else in the room and are therefor are more likely to have different opinions!

Think of it like this:

In her brilliant (must read for all marketers) book, The Art of Choosing, Sheena Iyengar points out three aspects of personhood that help clarify this issue:
1. People are more alike than they think
2. What people believe about themselves (or what people would want other people to believe about them) does not vary much from person to person
3. Each person is convinced that he or she is unique

So, if this applies to all people, imagine how much these lack of differences are magnified in a homogenous group. Group think is not group think in the sense of people following a leader in spite of their own personal opinions. Group think is simply group agreement.

So what?

Couple of things.
1. The next time a client complains of group think, stick your finger in your ears and hum loudly
2. Don't recruit homogenous groups to focus groups. Try recruiting different people, try mixing the cohorts -- mix frequent users with terminal rejecters; mix 35 to 49 with 18 to 29; mix males with females; mix high income with low income. In any case you are better off doing two groups of mixed A and B than one group of A and one group of B
3. Read "The Art of Choosing" and get back to me .

And, for your added enjoyment, check out our new web site.

Laurence Bernstein

Tags: Customer Experience, Get it off your chest, Research, Strategy, This and That
Posted in Advertising | | Comments Off

Referring back to our previous post, we received some interesting comments on what your experiences were like in marketing to Gen Y. With this blog posting, we delve further into the subject and offer some insight as to which events we think have helped to define this generation.

There is a tendency for Gen Y to actively seek out unique businesses, particularly those who produce hand-made items or market themselves as an ethical practice. Think of local boutiques or businesses like Lululemon and the Body Shop. This generation is willing to pay a premium for their products. Why? Perhaps it is that Gen Y is very aware of socially responsible activities and they want to hold companies responsible...by voting with their dollars.

We also stated in our previous post that Gen Y is socially connected all the time - simply because technology enables them to do so. With that social connectedness comes a greater interest in word of mouth peer reviews and viral trends. This generation is exposed to more ads and brands at an ever increasing rate. As a result, Gen Y is extremely media savvy and out of necessity, they have quickly learned to filter out to the content that THEY want to see. This in turn has led to websites focused on content which is customized to what Gen Y wants. Think of personal Facebook newsfeeds where you can control what kinds of stories show up, Twitter streams where you can choose to follow who you want, or blogs that you can decide to subscribe to. As we move to customizable content, the greater the expectations to cater to the individual.

What are your own ideas as to what has helped form the unique characteristics of this generation?

Patricia McQuillan

Tags: Branding, Strategy
Posted in Alberta Business | | Comments Off

The Globe and Mail reported that according to a new research published during the week of June 21, there is compelling evidence that some people are predisposed to take on characteristics embodied by brands, while others are harder nuts to crack. In “Got to Get You Into My Life: Do Brand Personalities Rub Off on Consumers?”, two University of Minnesota researchers said that there’s a tradition in consumer research that identifies the fact that people use brands as signals of who they are. “In looking at the body of literature, one thing that fascinated us was no one had actually done strong experimental work to figure out whether or not, after people use some consumer brands such as Harley Davidson, are they really successful in feeling better about themselves,” said Deborah Roedder John, the chair of the marketing department at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management and a co-author of the paper.

It is the opinion of another academic, the University of Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck, that people think of themselves in one of two contrasting ways. One school of thought believes personal qualities are fixed and cannot be changed through direct effort to improve, learn or grow. As a result, they look for opportunities to signal their positive qualities to both themselves and others. “They sort of believe that they can’t do it on their own. They have to have something, such as brand names, to help them signal that they are a better person,” said Professor John. The second school of thought believes people can enhance themselves only through learning and hard work. Signalling their positive qualities to others or themselves by touting a brand has little or no effect on their sense of self.

According to Professor John, there’s already a belief among marketers and advertisers that brands have this type of feel-good power, and that consumers respond positively to that. “But there are other people – although they like these brands and they pick them and they use them – it doesn’t quite have that power over them.”

Professor John’s research also suggests that brands might actually play a therapeutic role in people’s lives. In one of the studies described in the Journal of Consumer Research paper to be published in early 2011, undergraduate students were given a math quiz. Regardless of their actual answers, each was told they had performed poorly. But students who were given an MIT-branded pen to use for 10 minutes fully recovered from the psychological slight, while others did not. “What we found interesting from that study was, brands really allowed people to feel more positive about themselves. It was sort of an empowering thing that they got from using that particular brand,” said Professor John.

For a change, maybe marketers should not always be portrayed as ‘evil’, figuring out ways to subconsciously make people do things that may be bad for them, or make people buy things they should not be buying?

Tags: Strategy
Posted in Alberta Business | | Comments Off