Alberta Business Marketing

Statistics Canada predicts that by 2031, 63 per cent of the GTA’s population will be visible minorities with South Asians and Chinese leading the pack – that’s up from the 43 per cent in 2006. With the minority set to become the majority, the GTA has become the battleground for marketers from major retailers, banks and wireless providers trying to attract the ethnic consumer.

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

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

It's been said that one should never discuss sex, religion and/or politics. Be forewarned this post deals with at least one of those points.

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

Tags: social media, Strategy, Viral
Posted in Advertising | | Comments Off

It's been said that one should never discuss sex, religion and/or politics. Be forewarned this post deals with at least one of those points.

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

Tags: social media, Strategy, Viral
Posted in Advertising | | Comments Off

“A weekly 'marketing lesson' from Quizative on the heels of its participation as a 'Marketing Mentor" in the reality show Recipe to Riches airing on the Food Network. Previous episode write-ups here.

Recipe to Riches: Episode 7
Marketing Lesson: Pick a Positioning

In this episode, the two finalists were Robert Luft and his Pulled Pork and Eva Fong with her Lobster Mac ‘n Cheese. After Eva battled it out in the batch-up challenge she heard Jesse Palmer say, “and now you’ll brainstorm with one of the most creative marketing agencies in the country.” She then raced off to join our team at Quizative to help market her product.

After experiencing Eva’s recipe we quickly determined that she had one of two ways to go – either homey comfort or upscale. The challenge however was that by calling it Lobster Mac ‘n Cheese her product was sitting between two product positions. As stated by one of the judges early on, if you were buying Lobster Mac ‘N Cheese in a five-star restaurant you could pull it off as a high-end product, but at grocery it would be tough to convince a consumer that frozen mac ‘n cheese would be its equal. Eva had to pick either comfort, which would keep her in the mac ‘n cheese camp or she had to go upscale and focus on the lobster which meant dropping mac ‘n cheese form the name.

Wisely she chose upscale and decided to focus on the lobster and down play mac ‘n cheese. The name became “Three Cheese Pasta with Lobster.” We played up the luxury of three cheese sauce which added more taste appeal than simply saying cheese and then closed strong with lobster.

Eva’s sampling event was designed to inspire fine dining with a pop-up restaurant. There were linen clad tables, professional wait staff, serene music and other elements that you’d find in a fine restaurant. Her Three Cheese Pasta with Lobster felt right at home in this setting.

In the end, Galen Weston stated that they needed to decide “which of the recipes had the biggest market potential.” He also revealed that Loblaw’s had been talking about pulled pork for some time so, as it turns out, it was the right fit. Despite Eva’s product name being consistent with other product naming conventions at President’s Choice the judges believed that pulled pork had the biggest potential and Robert/Bobby went home with the $25,000 weekly prize. It seems timing really can be everything. Despite the judges’ call, Eva made the right strategic decision when she chose a defined positioning that was right for her product and the environment where it would live.

The lesson: Pick a Positioning and stick with it. If you try to be everything to everyone, chances are you’ll be nothing to anyone.

Adrian Capobianco

Tags: Strategy
Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off

Our consumer culture sure doesn't make it easy on the planet.

The most basic household items – food, beverages, cleaning supplies, personal care items – come packaged in every combination of metal, glass, plastic and paper. Coveted personal electronics become obsolete with the next high-profile release. Today’s must-have clothing, shoes, toys and other personal items are meant to be replaced next season. Take-out food and drinks come in throwaway containers.

It’s a culture of amass, use and discard – and it takes a direct toll on the environment, from the energy and raw materials required to produce, package and ship consumer goods to the final disposal of used or unwanted items. Some ends up as landfill; some is optimistically placed in the recycling bin with the vague hope that it will be usefully repurposed in a distant plant. Much is downcycled, the term used by William McDonough and Michael Braungart, authors of Cradle to Cradle, to describe using waste to create products of lesser functionality or quality, like blending used water bottles with lower grade plastic to manufacture speed bumps.

Brands and consumers share responsibility for continuing the cycle; consumers with our seemingly endless demand for comfort and convenience, and brands offering a steady supply of both.

And yet there is hope for the environment. A number of brands are at the forefront of addressing the environmental issues that our consumer culture creates. These brands are trying to better align their offerings with society's changing values in four key ways: choice editing, collaborative consumption, owning the lifecycle and vertical greening.

Here’s a look at the first two:

Choice editing

Helping consumers make better choices for the planet can start with what’s on the retail shelf. Brands can nudge consumers to sustainable behaviour in relatively painless manner simply by removing or replacing products that don’t support environmental goals, otherwise known as choice editing.

Ikea narrowed consumer options when it became the first North American retailer to eliminate incandescent light bulbs and replace them with compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that use 80% less energy and can last 6 – 8 times longer. This was ahead of American and Canadian legislation that phases out sales of incandescent lights from all retailers by 2012.

Another example is Loblaw, which has committed that all the seafood sold in its stores – whether canned, frozen, wild or farmed – will come from sustainable sources by the end of 2013. It's a substantial undertaking for Canada’s largest buyer and seller of seafood but it means that consumers no longer need to debate the merits of choosing sustainable seafood. The choice was made for them.

Collaborative consumption

Fueled by a down economy and embraced by a digital generation raised on file sharing, collaborative consumption allows strangers to share the costs and benefits of goods and services.

The cost-conscious can now swap used books through BookMooch, find a welcoming berth in a foreign land through CouchSurfing, rent out an unused driveway at ParkatmyHouse and enjoy the fruits of someone else’s garden at Neighborhood Fruit.

While there’s a clear benefit to the environment when people buy less and share more, collaborative consumption isn’t just for socially-conscious ventures – it can also be big business. Zipcar, a car sharing club with 605,000 members, is one of the more established brands with a business model premised on sharing. Another growing company is Bixi Bikes, a public bicycle system offered in cities across Canada and the US with subscription or pay-as-you-go access.

And, of course, examples abound in the virtual world. These include Airbnb, an online marketplace that lets vacationers rent spare rooms and other unique spaces, and Prosper, connects people with money to those who need to borrow.

In Part 2: Owning the lifecycle and vertical greening. A look at how Patagonia takes responsibility for its product long after its customer leaves the store and how Starbucks is addressing one of the defining sustainability issues of its category: the disposable coffee cup.

Stephanie Myers

Tags: corporate social responsibility, Strategy
Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off