August 21, 2012 · 8:53 am

Looking For An Untapped Market?

Have you ever taken an online survey? Many of them begin with some sort of demographic screening (after they ask you if you work for a research or marketing company). I always shake my head when I get tossed out of the survey (“Thank you but we are looking for respondents with other characteristics”) after I give my age. Once one is over 50, we disappear to most marketers and that’s dumb.

My thinking is confirmed by a study from the Nielsen folks called “The Most Valuable Generation.”  You can register and get the report here.  Some of the findings about we Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, are that we account for:

There are a number of other findings about our brand loyalty (same as other age groups), online shopping (we do a LOT of it), social media use (a bit behind but catching up fast) and premium travel (we’re 80% of it).  The reason I’m bringing all this up is the head-shaking number:

5%.

That’s the percentage of CPG advertising that’s geared to Boomers (who buy 50% of the product).  It’s a huge opportunity for someone.  As an article on the report summed up nicely:

Boomers are the most valuable generation in the history of marketing and they are too valuable to ignore, concludes the report. The numbers on Boomers are big, and they add up to something that is very compelling.

So if you’re a marketer, are you going to listen to the facts and take advantage of an opportunity or are you going to let some bad targeting habits continue?  Your call!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Helpful Hints

Tagged as , , , , ,

August 20, 2012 · 10:38 am

Racing To The Bottom

I was speaking with Don Antonio this morning.

English: digital hub Català: digital hub

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

He’s a media maven who’s an incredible resource to me both personally and professionally. We were chatting, as we do from time to time, about the state of affairs in digital media and the topic of pricing came up. One needn’t think very long about how buyers and sellers interact before the realization that there’s a horrible misalignment of goals out there.  No, after 30+ years in the media business I’m not shocked that agencies want to buy things less expensively while sellers want to grow their revenues and maintain “rate card integrity.”  But it feels different now – let me explain.

It’s always been about the client – the advertiser – and getting results.  The problem now is that there’s no reasoning with a machine.  Real time buying, trading desks, and other “innovations” just push down CPM’s (which is why a lot of premium sites won’t deal in this space).  Meanwhile, a well thought out integrated promotion can’t get sold and activated because it doesn’t fit any models.  Many newer buyers (and sellers) learn  the tools but don’t understand the business.

Another thing.  comScore in particular (they sell the software) and others in general are making a big thing about not counting digital ad exposures unless there’s proof the ad was in a visible part of the page.  Nice idea – why pay for an ad that the user never saw even if it was displayed.  The problem for me is this – no other medium is doing that.  Oh sure – TV and radio can prove an ad ran – now let’s see the proof that even though the set was on someone was in the room and paying attention.  Magazines do research this but I’m not sure it’s used in rate negotiation.

We’re racing to the bottom, as The Don put it.  We use tools that drive down CPM’s and we impose delivery standards that make us work harder than any other medium to get paid.  I know – complaining isn’t a pretty way to start the week, but what are we thinking?  Your thoughts?

Enhanced by Zemanta

2 Comments

Filed under digital media, Thinking Aloud

Tagged as , , , , ,

August 17, 2012 · 8:57 am

Your Name Here

Let’s end the week with some Foodie Friday Fun on beverages.

A logo used, and trademarked, by PepsiCo for M...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You might have seen an announcement that Mountain Dew was adding another product. They added something called Johnson City Gold, which is a malt-flavored addition (Olde English for the younger set?) to the line. However, according to Food Business News the Johnson City Gold product name may be short-lived. As part of the test market introduction, the company is running a contest to establish a new brand name. Sound familiar?

It should. There was another contest recently called “Dub The Dew” which elicited such fine names for a new green apple-flavored soda as “Diabeetus,” “Gushing Granny,” and “Moist Nugget.”  This is what can go very wrong in these days of a marketing department of millions.  A noted hacker group hijacked the contest (with pretty hilarious results) and Pepsi, to their credit, admitted in a tweet that “Dub the Dew definitely lost to The Internet“.  Ya think?

I admire the Pepsi folks for letting their customer at Villa Fresh Italian Kitchen (the local guys who actually ran the contest) give it a try.  I’m also a big fan of a well-executed practical joke.  This wasn’t the first time an internet-based naming program had gone terribly wrong.  It probably won’t be the last.  There’s a lot of good sentiment in wanting to listen to your customers, but remember that your customers in this case are a younger demographic, just the sort that thinks the creation of a new internet meme is way better than the creation of a new brand.

Maybe the promotion succeeded – after all, I’m writing about it as have many others.  Is any PR good PR?  Maybe so in this case – it’s all pretty harmless fun.  But it might be neither fun nor harmless the next time, and thinking about that balance between welcoming the crowd into the conversation and controlling the message is an important part of marketing these days.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, food, Helpful Hints

Tagged as , , , , , ,