Tag Archives: Marketing and Advertising

October 2, 2012 · 10:08 am

Men Don’t Shop – They Buy

There was a great movie that came out in 1979 called “Starting Over.”

Cover of "Starting Over"

Cover of Starting Over

It starred Burt Reynolds as a newly divorced man and featured Oscar-nominated performances by Candice Bergen and Jill Clayburgh.  I thought of that film the other day as I read about a piece of research from the folks at  uSamp.  I’ll explain why in a second, but first the research findings, which you can read about here:

Men are more likely than women to buy a variety of products, including digital content and consumer electronics, on mobile devices.  30% of male respondents in uSamp’s study said they have bought digital content via a mobile device, compared to just 20% of women. The disparity is even wider when it comes to consumer electronics; 27% of male respondents said they have bought a consumer electronic via a mobile device vs. 8% of female respondents. Men seem to be more active on mobile devices after the purchase as well. 35% of male respondents (females: 28%) indicated that they have commented on a purchase via a mobile device, and 26% (females: 16%) have written a review of a purchase.

There is a scene in the 30-year-old movie which reminds me of why the above is no surprise.  After he gets kicked out, Reynolds’ character needs new stuff – a bed, etc.  He goes shopping by walking quickly through the department store aisles followed by a clerk pushing a cart.  He slaps items as he goes, which the clerk throws into the cart.  The point is that most men don’t look as shopping as an experience but as a task, and we all know that tech devices are great at helping us accomplish tasks more quickly and efficiently.  Men don’t “shop” – we buy.

Your primary target is something to consider as you’re thinking through the customer experience   The differences between male and female shoppers should be taken into account.  If you’re a sporting goods store,for example,  maybe spending more money on anything that makes the process more efficient (faster checkout, more visible information about products, huge store directories) is a better investment than in-store music, snazzy graphics, or clever displays.  One can carry that thinking to a web shopping experience, a sports app, or any other business.

See the movie if you get a chance, and remember the lesson even if you don’t.  Funny how research keeps echoing real life!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Helpful Hints

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

September 19, 2012 · 10:08 am

Should You Abandon Your Website?

I came across an interesting article on Marketing Profs the other day.  Called “Four Reasons to Jettison the Traditional Website and Go Social it advocates a point of view that I’ve discussed with clients and would like to throw out to you today.  The author puts it out there like this:

Everywhere around me now, I see companies dispensing with the traditional website in favor of integrating the most popular social networks right into the website and communicating with customers in real-time via tweets and Facebook posts. Big players like Skittles and Coca-Cola have completely bought into social, as have savvy small mom-and-pop shops.

He then goes on to explain why brands might not need websites any more, including reasons such as “it’s fresh, it’s affordable,” and others.  I disagree with his point of view.  First, brands need a home base.  As you might have noticed, the social world isn’t exactly a unified place.  Sure, Facebook is the main place consumers go, but they don’t really go there to interact with brands (and as we discussed a while back, brands haven’t figured out how not to behave like brands).  How many companies took a step back in their social effort when Timeline was deployed?  That’s an example of why you need to control the platform as well as the content.

The author also does a disservice to his readers with this statement: “Compared with the cost of building a website from scratch, plus maintaining it, establishing a business presence on a social network is ultra affordable.”   This perpetrates a mindset too many clients have about social – it’s cheap and easy.  Neither could be further from the truth.  Sure, anyone has access to Facebook for free, but many of the support tools needed aren’t free and you still need humans to support the effort.

The gist of his argument is that big brands are very focused on social and they don’t do anything without testing and retesting to make sure it works so you should do it too.  Putting aside the “follow them off the roof” mentality, I agree that everyone needs to be including social elements in their marketing although I don’t think we can simply say get on Facebook and Twitter and be done.  A well-designed and supported website can accomplish a lot more for your brand than can a social front door.

I won’t be advising my clients to shut off or redirect their web efforts any time soon.  What about you?  What do you think?

Enhanced by Zemanta

2 Comments

Filed under Consulting, digital media

Tagged as , , , , , ,

September 13, 2012 · 9:25 am

First Impressions

I almost called today’s missive “Don’t Shoot The Messenger.” As a person who has had hundreds of meetings in which the efficacy of advertising is discussed at length I’ve noticed an ongoing theme.  Clients (or their agencies) sometimes complained that they weren’t getting any sort of decent return on their media investment.  In their minds, maybe TV or the Web or (now) Mobile just aren’t worth the investments and perhaps they’d be better served trying something different.  My response usually involved a reminder not to shoot the messenger.

A “medium” (and I’m not writing about psychics here) is an intervening substance, as air, through which a force acts or an effect is produced.  TV is a medium, as are radio, the Web, and others.  Their job is to deliver the advertising message.  To be blunt about it, if the message – the ad – is crap, so will be the response.

In the digital world, there is a lot of literature on the size of ads – size, format, content, design and type – and not surprisingly they generally find that bigger advertisements are more effective in attracting attention which increases response.  On the other hand, other research found that design and content of the
advertisement have an impact on Click-Through Rate (CTR) and increases the interest in Advertising.  The reality is if advertisements, regardless online or offline, don’t catch your attention within seconds they are considered to have failed.  I’d add to that if the intrusiveness of the ad pisses off the consumer, it’s failed as well regardless of the brilliance of the creative.

There is a movement in the digital ad world to move towards a “Cost Per Viewable Impression” model which I’ve said before I think is dumb on web sellers’ parts to encourage unless TV, radio, and other media can fall into the same model (good luck with that).  Regardless of impressions or medium, bad creative equates to bad responses.

You agree?  What creative have you seen lately – good or bad – that really got your attention?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media

Tagged as , , , , ,