Category Archives: Huh?

Full Of Beans

Our Foodie Friday Fun revolves around stupid food labeling tricks.  It’s hard to believe some of the things food marketers do.  Some are just silly; others are downright deceptive by design.

From Alphaila.com

The latter is what I want to talk about today.  You really wouldn’t think that any smart brand manager would try this stuff in a time of massive social interaction among consumers.  You’d be wrong.  In fact, a bill was introduced last year (the Food Labeling Modernization Act of 2013) which seeks to change food labeling requirements as well as dealing with package labeling and allegedly misleading claims about what foods are “healthy,” “natural” or “made with whole grain.”   Now given the state of affairs in Washington, it’s not unlikely this bill will become law (oops, no politics here!).  However, the fact that the issue of deceptive packaging and marketing  is on the minds of both state and federal legislators doesn’t speak well of the industry.

Just because a package can say “No Trans Fat” if there is less than half a gram in the product doesn’t mean “no trans fat.”  If there is a half gram per serving and you eat two or three servings (as if you only eat the amount of snack foods that’s a single serving…), you’ve ingested an amount that should be identified.  “Natural” is sold as healthy when it’s can be anything but (see “high fructose corn syrup“).  Telling consumers that high-sugar products are good for them (Nutella) or how they’ll protect a kid’s immune system (Rice Krispies) is more dumb than dishonest.  But food brands aren’t the only ones.

Since it’s that diet time of year, false weight-loss claims are in vogue.  So much so that the FTC has issued Gut Check: A Reference Guide for Media on Spotting False Weight-Loss Claims, which is an update of a 2003 booklet on how media should treat weight-loss advertising.  We still saw ads for wearing sneakers that can make you skinny.  Let’s not even get started on airbrushing models.  It’s nice that someone is charged with verifying advertising claims but it does raise a very basic question.

Why would you lie?  Labeling lawsuits are skyrocketing.  Maybe in part because we live in a litigious world but maybe because it’s much easier for consumers to get information and to communicate.  Why would you feel the need to lie given those things?  Why does it take a lawsuit or governmental intervention or a social media blow-up when all that should be required to fix this is a brand manager’s common sense? Your ad may be for cereal but it often turns out the box is full of beans (as my Dad likes to say about people who are full of something else…).

Consumers are smart and getting smarter every day.  Treating them any differently is dumb, which you’re not, right?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under food, Huh?

The Devil You Know

The folks at Forrester issued a study on marketing and customer experience the other day and it makes a number of interesting points.

Image representing Forrester Research as depic...

Image via CrunchBase

Maybe “interesting” isn’t the right word; maybe it could be more like “disappointing” or “confusing.”  Entitled The Convergence Of Brand, Customer Experience And Marketingthe study deals with the intersection of brand, marketing, and customer experience.  One might expect those three areas to be operating in sync.  One would be wrong.

Forrester found that 63% of Chief Marketing Officers consider customer acquisition their number one priority, while only 22% give precedence to retention. Kind of a silly choice, because there is a lot of  evidence that shows that generating loyalty and holding onto existing customers is better for a brand financially  than spending resources to bring in new customers.  In fact, the 22% statistic represents a decline in the focus on retention.  In 2011, the number was 30%.

What’s a little strange is that many of the CMO‘s do believe that they are, in fact, highly customer-focused.  The research found, however, that they are highly transaction-focused and are trying to foster conversions, not conversations.  Lifetime value is only a concern to a little over a third of these folks while two-thirds focus on segmentation studies to pursue new customers.

It’s almost as if there are two completely different experiences – one for prospects and one for existing customers – while it seems obvious that those experiences should be united into a vision that derives from the brand itself.  Otherwise, as the study found, there is customer confusion, dissatisfaction and departure.

No one likes to be treated like royalty when they’re being wooed only to be given short shrift once the deal is sealed.  Even worse, if a brand is a promise to the customer, no one likes to be confused about what that promise is or how it is to be kept.  Heck, even accounting recognizes that and puts something called “goodwill” on the balance sheet.  The disconnect cited in this study is disturbing and the trends it recognizes are even more so.

I’m a believer in “the devil you know” and the value of doing everything I can for existing customers.  I’m a believer in making the brand the source of strategic thinking about customers, current and future and expressing that thinking in a cohesive way.  Are you?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, Huh?

Is Creepy Dead?

I’ve had beacons on my brain lately.

Start Point Lighthouse, in the south of Devon,...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’ll explain what they are and why in a second but they raise a larger question in my mind, which is our topic today:  has the “creepy” factor left us?  Not long ago, the notion of someone, much less some business, tracking our every move and approximating what we’re thinking would be…creepy.  Have we become so immune to the fact that said tracking occurs almost constantly caused us not to even care any more?  Let’s see what you think.

First, why beacons and what are they?  Here is a good explanation:

Beacons are devices that communicate with a shopper’s smartphone in the hopes of improving the in-store shopping experience. When placed in a store, beacons use Bluetooth technology to detect nearby smartphones and send them media such as ads, coupons or supplementary product information. They can also be used as point-of-sale systems and to collect information on those consumers — particularly how consumers maneuver through stores.

Who you are, what you’re looking at, where you go and how frequently you shop there are all part of the equation.  Maybe not so awful.  A store with an attentive staff can generally say the same about any regular customer and the information delivered about a product should be more complete than any clerk can remember across hundreds of products.  Many stores use cameras to do just that.  Apple, of course, is in the forefront of this with their iBeacon.  It’s built into every device – iPhone or iPad – sold in the last few years.  They recently deployed the technology in all of their Apple stores:  what they set up uses the Bluetooth technology of the iBeacon to detect where a shopper is within a store so Apple can send location-specific product information to his or her Apple device.  Helpful or creepy?

That’s one example.  Combine the beacon with an app and it becomes simple to send targeted messages to devices.  For example, at a sporting event, you might get messages providing discounts on concessions and merchandise or maybe even seat upgrades if you’re a VIP.  Of course, in the process a lot of information about you is gathered.

So back to the question:  is it creepy or don’t we care?  If we use credit cards, our purchasing habits are known.  If we use an in-store scanner at the supermarket, how we wander the store is recorded along with what we buy even as we’re offered coupons and discounts.  Is the prospect of a better shopping experience worth giving up yet another remnant of our privacy?  Amazon and other retailers know how we wander their virtual stores via click-tracking.  Why should physical outlets be disadvantaged?  More importantly, when the online experience can be mirrored and continued by a retailer’s brick and mortar store, doesn’t the shopper benefit?

I don’t know how many iPhone users know they have this technology in their pockets already.  I don’t know how many people realize what they’re giving up when they opt-in to this technology.  Google has deployed something in newer versions of Android that will allow retailers to bid on serving ads to people conducting product searches and Google can then track the person via their phone to see if they visited the store.  I do feel that many wouldn’t be quite some comfortable if they knew all this.

Are you, or is creepy dead?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments Off on Is Creepy Dead?

Filed under Huh?, Reality checks, Thinking Aloud