PepsiCo has said it is changing labeling on its Aquafina bottled water brand to include information that the source of the product is tap water. The label refers to the water source as “P.W.S.” (Public Water Source). The move comes in response to pressure from advocacy groups for bottled water marketers to refrain from misleading marketing practices. In the case of Aquafina, package graphics depicting a mountain scene creates an image that the product must come from a mountain spring. While PepsiCo has shown no signs of attempting to manipulate this brand association, it is a pre-emptive strike by consumer advocates to prevent such a tactic from being used.
PepsiCo should be commended for taking this action. It is not a grand act of social responsibility by any means, but acknowledging the source of the water removes any uncertainty in consumers’ minds and removes the possibility of being accused of misleading marketing practices. The market for bottled water is strong enough that PepsiCo or any other company does not have to walk a line between ethical and deceptive marketing practices in order to make the product more appealing to consumers. Link
Nike has temporarily suspended Michael Vick from its roster of product endorsers in light of his indictment stemming from dog-fighting activity on a property he owns. Vick’s indictment was a case of very bad timing for Nike as it was about to launch a shoe endorsed by the Atlanta Falcons star QB. Perhaps the timing could have been worse if the indictment came down just after the shoe had been released.
The sticky situation in which Nike finds itself is a reminder of the perils of associating a brand with a person or entity outside the walls of your organization. The rationale for hiring an endorser is to take advantage of the endorser’s brand associations with the expectation that his or her associations transfer to the brand. Unfortunately for Nike, the associations transferred can be positive or negative. A “morals clause” can be written into endorsers’ contracts to shield companies from situations like the one that Vick’s indictment presents for Nike, but there is still a risk that a brand can be damaged or at least embarassed by an endorser’s actions.
The exposure and popularity benefits a celebrity endorser can bring to a brand must be weighed against the loss of control the marketer relinquishes by associating with someone beyond its direct control. The consequences are even greater when the relationship between the marketer and endorser go beyond name or likeness association and products or entire product lines are developed around the endorser. Link
I read an interesting article recently that discussed results of a study about consumers’ preferences for mail as a way for businesses to communicate with them. In particular, the study found that consumers prefer receiving certain types of correspondence from businesses by direct mail rather than e-mail (e.g., info about products and bills/statements) and they are less likely to ignore direct mail than e-mail. These findings are eye-opening for firms that use direct mail, especially firms that may question whether direct mail is a relevant medium to reach their target market.
Now, before anyone abandons their e-mail marketing efforts and shifts those dollars to direct mail, we must consider the source of the study. The study was commissioned by Pitney Bowes. Yes, that is same the Pitney Bowes that offers many products and services to the direct mail industry. The company has a vested interest in the promotion of direct mail as a viable communication tool for businesses. While the research design was no doubt sound, one can’t help but fight the temptation to nod and wink that research sponsored by a supplier to the direct mail industry would find that direct mail enjoys high preference levels with consumers… especially when compared with e-mail, a medium that poses some level of threat to direct mail. Survey research findings help businesses make more informed decisions and have the potential to be framed in a way that can influence decisions and behaviors. But, we must be careful not to blindly accept findings presented to us. Link
The National Football League recently announced a new policy that requires photographers working the sidelines of NFL games to wear red vests. You may be wondering, “What’s the big deal about making photographers wear a vest?” The vest itself is not the problem, it is the logos of NFL sponsors Reebok and Canon that appear on them. The American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Associated Press have voiced their displeasure with the new policy. They do not want photographers to become walking billboards for NFL sponsors. The NFL’s weak response to criticism so far has been to point out that photographers have no problem exposing brand names and logos of their equipment or shoes that they wear, so why should they have a problem with a vest containing two small logos on it? Also, the NFL claims the logos are smaller than photographers covering other sports are required to display.
This tactic is marketing overkill that borders on the absurd. It is one thing for the NFL to regulate the brands that can or must be displayed by its teams, players, and coaches. It is quite another matter to require people not directly associated with the NFL to adhere to the league’s sponsorship policies. How far will this go? Will fans be barred from wearing Nike products to games for fear a camera shot could broadcast a non-sponsor’s logo across the airwaves? The NFL has enough problems with player conduct off the field that policing what photographers wear would seem to be a low priority. It does nothing to add value for fans, just sponsors. However, the NFL could suffer negative consequences if it allows its product to become too sponsor driven and fails to take care of more important issues such as the impact of player conduct on the NFL brand. Link
My wife and I took our three sons to a Harry Potter book release party at a local bookstore last Friday evening. It was the second Potter book release party we had attended, so I knew to expect a fairly large crowd and a lot of young people. Friday night’s event was as expected on those points, but I was surprised by the number of adults actively participating in events at the party, especially the costume contest. I have been familiar with Harry Potter books since the beginning of the series, but I always equated it with children and teens. However, the more I thought about it I realized that seeing a large contingent of young adults shouldn’t surprise me as twenty-somethings were reading earlier J.K. Rowling books in their teen years. Some parents got hooked into the Potter series by reading books with their children or reading them before allowing their children to insure the content was age-appropriate. It was surprising initially to see so many adults dressed like the many children gathered, but I realized quickly it should not be surprising at all.
The excitement and passion displayed for Harry Potter at the book release party was very enjoyable to observe. I couldn’t help but think how marketers would do almost anything to create a fraction of the passion and affinity among their customers that was exhibited by Potter fans. Brands like Apple, Harley Davidson, and Ikea can claim success in the ability to elict passion from the marketplace, but for most companies that idea is as much fiction as the adventures of young Mr. Potter!
P.S. – An interesting book about the passions held by people is Who Are You People?, by Shari Caughron. People with passions ranging from ice fishing to Barbie collecting are profiled. You’ll never see “fanatics” the same way again after reading the book!
I listened to a very interesting segment on NPR’s Science Friday last week about efforts to produce environmentally-friendly packaging. It was pointed out that in some cases attempts at green marketing may have unintended consequences. For example, a container for a television that uses less materials but does not adequately protect the product could lead to damaged goods that would not only create costs to repair, but it is possible that products would have to be disposed, thus creating waste when the idea was to save natural resources.
Another point raised about green marketing is that environmental policy that affects business is often politically driven, not scientifically driven. The case of ethanol as an alternative fuel for automobiles was cited as an example. Uncertainties exist about how widespread adoption of ethanol as a fuel might impact the food supply (specifically foods whose production relies on corn), but some policy makers are promoting ethanol as the alternative fuel. In addition to concerns about how much corn would be needed to produce enough ethanol to meet our fuel demands, ethanol is a less efficient fuel than gasolinein terms of energy production. Such limitations have not stopped some lawmakers from jumping on the ethanol bandwagon (or would that be a harvester?).
The importance of conducting business in a way that protects the environment cannot be overstated. It’s more than just the basis for an advertising campaign; everyone benefits when we use our natural resources responsibly. The temptation that must be avoided is practicing green marketing simply for the sake of being able to say “we’re green!” It must be driven by the aim of being a good steward of the environment, which can also lead to a potential side benefit of a competitive advantage.
A recent study by Carlson Marketing and the Peppers & Rogers Group provides insight into what consumers value from retailers. In the report, “Getting it Right at Retail,” respondents rated customer service and being “easy to do business with” as very important attributes in a retailer. These service issues, along with price and availability of merchandise, were of great importance to the consumers surveyed. Retailers should be concerned with another finding from the study: over 40% of respondents indicated they were as happy with other retailers as they were their primary retailer choices. In other words, many customers have little problem with switiching to other retailers when their primary retailers do not meet their expectations.
Results of the study are interesting, but are they really surprising? Consumers want to be treated fairly and and have their business valued by retailers. I doubt companies like Wal-Mart, Auto Zone, and Macy’s that scored low with consumers in this study have set out to create bad experiences for their customers. It’s all about execution, or lack thereof. For example, another finding from the study is that many times retailers that have well conceived loyalty programs do not effectively implement them as front-line service employees are too often ignorant of these important customer programs. This problem is not new for retailers; employee turnover in retail organizations has been high for years. A mixture of low salaries, being put in stressful situations dealing with difficult customers, and the saturation of retail outlets that necessitates filling more positions (that are low paying and stressful) has contributed to the customer service woes experienced in this country. Retailers willing to invest in employees in terms of training and compensation are poised to develop a competitive advantage, assuming other elements of their strategy are in place (e.g., merchandise mix, pricing, and presentation/experience). Link
Wireless communication provider Sprint recently made headlines when it announced that it was terminating the service contracts of approximately 1,000 customers. Subscribers in the affected group were identified by the company as being unprofitable because of their numerous calls seeking customer support. The customers’ frequent interaction with Sprint support personnel was viewed as a drain on resources that could be used to serve other customers more effectively.
It takes courage for a business to “fire” a customer. Maybe it’s human nature or at least traditional marketing thought that we want to be liked by everyone. We want our customers to like (if not love) us, and if someone is unhappy with us we should not rest until they are happy. The customer is always right, you know! Perhaps that slogan should be modified to read “A profitable customer is always right.”
I applaud Sprint for taking the step to end its relationship with customers it has been unable to serve to their satisfaction. It is not easy to give up on customers, especially when you consider how hard it is to acquire them. However, it seems ironic that a company that has no trouble binding its customers to a long-term commitment is walking away from its commitment to customers when the relationship is less than perfect. Wouldn’t it be refreshing for companies like Sprint to create a two-way street and allow customers that are chronically dissatisfied to end a contract! Not likely to happen any time soon, but you never know. Link
A study by researchers at Iowa State University reveals that women wield a great deal of power in the home. The study’s researchers were quick to point out that their findings go beyond the amount of communication initiated by wives, such as the popular notion that wives talk more than their husbands. Rather, it is the significance of the issues being communicated and the finding that husbands are often receptive to going along with the ideas communicated by their wives.
These findings are counter to the traditional view of the “lady of the house” having a lesser role in making household decisions. The marketing mindset has been to focus on reaching the male head of household given that he is often the primary provider for the home. The assumption has been that the leadership role of the male wage earner extends to taking the lead on deciding how money is spent by the family. However, it appears that in today’s household consumption decisions are often a joint venture between husband and wife, with many decisions made based on the wife’s influence.
So, rather than believing wives are relegated to handling certain household purchases (food, clothing, and home furnishings), marketers must consider every purchase situation and seek to learn more about the dynamics of the buying decision process in the household. Whether it be complex purchases such as health care services and automobiles or more mundane purchases such as casual dining and entertainment, the “traditional” role of wives in making these decisions no longer applies in many households. Marketers that respond to the more proactive role of women in the household could reap benefits from their efforts. Link
A study by Washington University researchers published recently in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society on the relationship between age and humor has implications for creative design of advertising messages. Researchers found that adults over age 65 have more difficulty getting the punch lines of jokes than young adults because of age-related changes in processing abilities. Link The researchers point out that their findings do not mean that older adults do not respond to humor, but rather that the reasoning and cognitive skills used to process humorous messages change with age. These findings are similar to those of a Canadian study published in 2003 that found humor comprehension among older adults is less compared with young adults. These researchers also point out that their findings do not suggest older adults aren’t funny or don’t appreciate humor. Link
So, what does these findings mean for marketers? Ad agencies involved in the creation of brand messages must take into account this phenomenon when developing messages aimed at senior consumers. Obviously, any copywriter or creative person would take into account characteristics of the demographic being targeted. But, these results suggest that it’s more than just recognition of age differences in the processing of humorous messages. When marketing to seniors, encoding humor into messages is still a viable option, but the approach taken to developing a humorous message must be different than that used to create humor for younger audiences.