Do it for love

With the elections nearing next week in Russia, Vladimir Putin’s campaign put out another ad, going for something riskier: targeting the election ‘virgins’ who had not voted before yet. The result?

Here is one of the ads with some subtitles:

Do it for love.

I don’t want to get political; we are just looking at the effectiveness of this campaign.

Everyone is talking about it, yes: “creepy”, “weird”, “disgusting”… you name it. However, it comes down to the ‘virgin’ voters of Russia to decide how they feel about this and whether they will play the Putin card.

Eastern culture is different. Low-budget ad, yet the fortune telling scenario is spot-on. The girls (and boys) can relate to it. Alluding to virginity in the campaign may be risky, but hey, there’s a first time for everything.

What do you think?

Chunky KitKat craziness

There are theories about the psychology of marketing; whole books have been written about the subject.  Marketing has been likened to propaganda, and people are wary of advertisers playing mind games and tricking them into making purchases.  But here is an example of a simple marketing campaign that seems to have worked, and worked well, and the ‘tricks’ are all there for us to see.

At the start of this year KitKat launched their “Choose a Chunky Champion” promotion: a competition between four variants of their Chunky product: white chocolate, peanut butter, double chocolate and orange.  The Facebook-based campaign, supported by ads and videos, called upon Chunky KitKat fans to vote for their favourite flavour.  Each flavour was championed by a different character (played by comic actors from various TV shows) who ‘campaigned’ for their flavour to succeed... and only one could ultimately win.  The winning variant, the one with the most votes, will be added to the KitKat line-up permanently; the others, presumably, will cease to be produced and disappear into our memories.  Voters were also entered into a draw to win a cash prize, as if we needed convincing...

I was amazed to watch as, not only have people been voting, and arguing, on Facebook for their favourite, but all the flavours have been selling like crazy in the shops, with the peanut butter variety especially selling out in most places.  A friend of mine put out a heartfelt appeal on Facebook, asking her friends to look out for the peanut butter version for her.  You could even buy them on eBay at inflated prices: I saw a trade box at a price that worked out as over £1 per bar, compared to the RSP of 60p.

The funny thing, is, the peanut butter version has been around for ages (since 2006 in the UK), but since the contest, it has been in greater demand.  People really have been clamouring for it.  I wonder: did KitKat reduce the amount they distributed to shops, to help create the sense of need?  Did they release equal numbers of each variety?

The winner, by the way, was Peanut Butter, with 47% of the Facebook fans’ votes.  And 100% of mine.

No question that this social-media based marketing campaign has increased awareness and purchasing of KitKat over this period.  Well done Nestle.

Are brands authority figures?

We are surrounded by so many brand names and logos each day, but to what extent do the slogans’ messages grab our attention? What are they saying? How are they saying it? Why are they saying it that way?

Are we submissive when it comes to our favorite brands because they are telling us to buy or because they are selling a lifestyle? What do people want?

I would like to compare our relationship with brands to the Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures. You may remember having studied about this experiment back in psychology class, but let me give you a quick reminder. Yale Psychologist, Stanley Milgram, measured the willingness of a group of participants when it came to obeying orders of an authority figure. The participants, given the role of teachers, were instructed to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience in order to measure how far they would go. Given a set of word pairs to teach, the teacher then had to test/punish learners with electric shocks when they gave incorrect answers; the strength of the shocks growing after each error. It is important to note that we are not talking about an authority figure as a policeman, but in this case an experimenter with knowledge in his field who stood by and kept telling the teacher to keep on going, there will be no problem. Of course, all learners were actors, who were not actually getting any electric shocks, only faking the pain. In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40) of experiment participants performed the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock. This rate was much higher than they had predicted hypothetically.

One of the main theories behind the analysis was conformity. How far are we willing to go to please and obey what we are told to do in order to fit in? Why did these people react in such manner when they supposedly knew that their actions were going against their moral values? Yale Finance Professor Robert Shiller argued another theme that arose during the experiments: the fact that we have learned that when experts tell us something is all right, it probably is, even if it doesn’t seem to be. This could suggest that we buy things because others are buying it as well, us wanting to be like them and that companies are telling us they are the best at what they do therefore we must put our trust in their hands. This is only hypothetical as well, as most companies will obviously claim they are the best in their field. Then come the slogans to differentiate them with a few words:

Let us rewind to the 60s. What were some of slogan trends?

Buy nothing until you buy Vogue. (Vogue)

Come to where the flavour is. Come to Marlboro Country. (Marlboro)

Did you Maclean your teeth today? (Macleans)

Give her a Hoover and you give her the best. (Hoover)

Help him to get out and about again with Lucozade. (Lucozade)

Some cars fake it. These make it. (Chevrolet)

The slogans back in the 60s were more targeted towards the product and a specific action: buying. They are very straightforward and we are given specific orders. If the fashion expert, Vogue, is telling me I must not buy anything until I buy Vogue, what will I do? With a different set of values, back then I may have been attracted to such a slogan however now we act differently. If I would see a slogan as such I would question why the slogan is so forceful, I am a free person and with all the other magazines out there the choice is mine. Do I want to be a hipster or a prepster? I can choose my own lifestyle and no one can tell me what to do or what to buy. However, we must admit that these types of slogans worked back then. They have become global brands and they got their ‘message’ across, people bought and buy their products. But, was it out of people’s free will or were they ‘kindly’ led to doing so?

What about the brands of today?

There have been many replications of the Milgram experiment after the 60s. Some suggest that people are less inclined to act as they are told, yet some still have shocking results. It’s very hard to identify which ones of these are valid, as the ethical regulations in informing participants have changed so much since back then and more people are aware of the existence of this study, thus difficult to rule out the unwanted participants. The slogans of today speak for themselves though and show a clear shift in trends:

I am what I am. (Reebok)

Between love and madness lies obsession. (Calvin Klein)

Pleasure is the path to joy. (Haagen-Dazs)

Eat fresh. (Subway)

Power, beauty and soul. (Aston Martin)

What are you made of? (Tag Heuer)

See the change in trends when it comes to slogans? You could take one and apply it to any other brand in the same sector. How can they differentiate themselves? The slogans have become much shorter: we have less time to read and need more information quickly. A short phrase that must attract our attention; a short phrase that embodies us as a person.

In our era, amongst the vast choice of products and brands it’s really difficult to choose something solely because we are told to do so. People are switching brands at a higher rate; can merely telling them to buy your product work? We are looking to express ourselves and don’t want to be restricted to one specific brand name that defines our personality. You will obviously have your favorite brands, however you are buying a specific lifestyle rather than just a product. If you buy an Aston Martin you believe in power, beauty and soul. This not only reflects the car, but you as an individual. You have the power to make your own choices, the capability to acknowledge real beauty and the soul of the things and people that surround you. What if we invented a 60s style slogan for Aston Martin: “Beauty lies within an Aston Martin”. What are we focusing on here? The car itself and its sleekness; you must buy it in order to experience this beauty. You are still buying the ‘best’, however you are not expressing yourself with the same opportunities.

Are they really selling a lifestyle though? There are so many elements of conformity that we must analyse. With such a vast offer of goods, it’s even harder to conform and find the right products and services that will reflect your idealistic lifestyle.

Have a think about it… how much are you really obeying your brands? Why do you buy a certain brand? There may be moral and ethical issues that these brands may be inhibiting, yet we still purchase them. Are they trying to disguise something with these newer types of slogans? Are they disguising their power that was becoming way too dominant?

It may be harsh to compare a brand to an authority figure, however their actions form a clear link in their orders given to us and us being the followers; learners.

In each answer, there still lies the theme conformity and giving in to doing what we are told to do. In a more subtle manner. Yet slogans are shorter and shorter, will they disappear completely or is there a chance of reviving the 60s slogan trends? Perhaps it’s easier for some to be told what to do; perhaps some of us want to be told what to do.

Of course, one can argue this, and please do so…

Is the brand us or are we the brand?

Oh, Valentine's Day...

I was not going to blog about Valentine’s Day, but even one who is ambivalent to it is still surrounded by all the Valentine’s Day messages around them and you will have some form of opinion about it, be that positive, negative or neutral.

Surprisingly Valentine’s Day wasn’t so in your face this year. I think the trend of purchasing online has spread even more for Valentine’s Day. I wonder if this is one of the reasons why it wasn’t as aggressive in terms of advertising, in my eyes, this year. You can’t exactly compare Valentine’s Day to a holiday like Christmas. There are no specific set ‘traditions’ as for Christmas, so you have the freedom to make it whatever you like. Yes, of course it is all about marketing! It’s a day when you exchange presents, so we must observe the purchasing patterns. Stores don’t need to completely transform their decorations as the people seeking for the perfect present for their partner will look everywhere.

So, what do people give each other for Valentine’s Day? You can buy flowers or a diamond ring, it’s your choice. There’s no etiquette in overdoing it. You may be the kind of couple who goes away for a weekend, you may go out for dinner, exchange cards, presents, be part of the friends who are single and buy each other small presents or go out… or you may be the bitter single person who devours a bottle of wine by themselves; funnily enough you are making a Valentine’s Day purchase as well just like the rest of the consumers. If you are anti-Valentine’s Day, you are making a statement that no one cares about and actually promoting Valentine’s Day. At the end of the day, we are all involved somehow. And the more we buy, the better (well, for the marketers, not our pockets).

So my question is, if you bought anything this year for your partner or friend, did you buy it online?

This year’s online summary[1] suggested that gender related searches for Valentine’s gifts are much more skewed towards men than women. In the last four weeks, of all the gift searches 209% contained ‘him’ whereas only 8% contained ‘her’. The research would suggest that women find it harder to buy for men than men do for women, but the summary also suggested men might be ‘less organised than women and therefore have to do their shopping offline at the last minute’.

Judging by the statistics, more women are inclined to do their shopping online for men, however most of the time it’s all the websites for women that are more concentrated on Valentine’s Day with products and services targeted at them, to create this Valentine’s Day feel. What are the chances of a man having the patience to go through all these websites, overload of the colors pink, red and white, without giving up after 3 minutes and deciding to go and get some flowers and chocolate instead? Let this thought save the men from the statement above saying they do their shopping offline the last minute; there may be lots of different other reasons behind this.

The other theory: are women secretly treating themselves on Valentine’s Day? ‘Valentine’s lingerie is the fastest moving gift year-on-year showing a 10-fold uplift in searches since Valentine’s Day 2011. The most searched for lingerie colour is black, followed by red, pink and white.’ So the women are ordering presents for the men online as well as lingerie for themselves? Assuming the ‘her’ keyword was associated with women.

I personally don’t think it’s because men leave things last minute. I believe men are more inclined to purchase online, especially for such an event where they may not want to browse the stores (especially if they wish to purchase something they would rather not seek assistance for…). There should be more websites for men where they can find gifts for their female ‘friends’ without it being overdone, however we also need to meet the demand for women who may be seeking websites that are more focused on presents targeted at men, making it more user-friendly for a female, arranging it in a more attractive manner that will make them want to purchase.

---

[1] http://weblogs.hitwise.com/james-murray/2012/02/valentines_day_10_lovely_onlin.html

Intentional or not?

The other day I was browsing the Internet and I found this:

Most of you will probably have recognised one of the BT adverts. However, when I saw this picture I thought of that:

So what do you think? Did BT do it on purpose or not? Did you too think of Harry Potter / Daniel Radcliffe, Ron Weasley / Rupert Grint and Hermione Granger / Emma Watson?

Let eBay quench your creativity

When is the last time you tried to write something creative?

For our creative groups, we often use short activities to boost inspiration to the maximum. One of my current favourites is story writing. One might be put off by this quickly saying they are not good at writing; but you don’t need any specific skills in order to let your mind relax a bit and just write! You don’t need to prove a point, it’s just story writing. The weirder the better…

My friend tweeted this the other day: “eBay’s 'enjoy a great night in' suggestion list includes an Epson printer, a foot massager, and Two and a Half Men DVDs. Gonna go wiiiild!!!!!” This really made me laugh; it’s obviously not your typical night in, well, not for me at least. It reminds me of demographics detectors, they just get it all wrong. These funny suggestions have inspired me to write a story though, let me give these three words a go: Epson printer, foot massager and Two and a Half Men.

I often find myself daydreaming about Charlie Sheen. There’s just something about him. I know he is the bad guy and all, but what can you do. I don’t tell this secret to many people, at my age this is a bit embarrassing really. It’s 4pm already and I just can’t wait to go home, I ordered this new foot massager and it arrived this morning to the office. It will be quite difficult to drag it home, plus I’m not sure Larry will be too pleased with my new purchase. If I recall I may have ordered something similar a few years back. Where it is now? Who knows… He probably threw it out. Whatever, at least I can try out this new foot massager as I watch my program on TV.

***

You’ll never believe what happened. So I get home and there’s a huge box in the middle of our living room. I start calling Larry’s name but get no response… I call him on his cell phone to ask where he is, and most importantly, what the hell is that box??? He tells me he ordered an Epson printer and that I should not touch it, it’s the newest one out there. Out with his friends, back later. Winning! Well guess what I did? He won’t forget this one… Google is my best friend. I opened that magical box and set up the printer and printed off a bunch of colourful images of Mr. Sheen, folding origami as I watched Two and a Half Men before going to bed. Who cares about the foot massager? This was my dream night in.

Ten little minutes to get your mind working differently, not that difficult.

Diaries of a Starbucks traveller

This year has been a nice start for Starbucks with quite a bit of news for both the United States and Asia (hey, is there any thing in store for us, Europeans?). The first piece of news we got was that Starbucks will be selling wine, as well as beer in parts of the United States, then the opening of shops in India that are meant to happen around August (aiming to open 50 outlets by the end of the year). These steps are quite risky I think, but you’ve got to be daring to succeed. They clearly did their market research, but you always have to be cautious with your strategy. I’d like to add some insight from my point of view…

I can’t recall the first time I had Starbucks, but I must admit I really like it. I like it, but I don’t love it. I’m not one of those Starbucks junkies who need their skinny latte on a daily basis (I do have other coffee resources; I often get jars of coffee whacked onto my desk at work). Anyway, let’s take a mini Starbucks tour in four countries:

INDIA Starbucks clearly want to stay competitive globally and follow what Costa has been doing, however it may have been a smarter move to delay their expansion a little longer and see what comes out of that before they make a move. I remember being in New Delhi and paying the same amount for ‘good’ coffee as I would pay for say a scarf. Obviously that would not be normal around here, but it is there. The ‘no name’ coffee shops charged prices that were sky high, Café Coffee Day and Barista being the current largest coffee chains. I’m really interested in what Starbucks’ pricing strategy will be in India. Reuters says that Starbucks has not said anything yet about what they will charge in India, so I guess we will have to wait and see. They will have to keep their prices high enough for there to be a return on their $81 million dollar investment, so I doubt this would be the first case when they try to adapt to the country better. They know they will have fewer sales so the need for high(er) prices are necessary in this scenario. They’re trying to lure in the young professionals, but what they will also do is drive out the businesses with the same Western coffee drinking spirit as the middle class who will be able to afford these drinks will be encouraged to promote their wealth and status with a global brand. What will happen to Café Coffee Day and Barista? Surely the young professionals are also aware of their emerging economy and would want to promote their own brands. Will Starbucks succeed to call them to the dark side?

HUNGARY Once again: the price. Starbucks is considered extremely expensive in Hungary, you can get around 2 cups of coffee for the price of what you are paying for one in Starbucks. This is another reason why I am a bit worried about India. I’m also surprised they have opened more outlets in Hungary lately. Whenever I go to one back home, it is usually packed with foreigners or people who share a cookie amongst two people. It’s not a place where you go to grab coffee; you stay there to show off that you can afford it. I feel really uncomfortable purchasing something there, because they are TOO nice. The whole thing reminds me of the 90s back in Budapest: we used to have Dunkin’ Donuts. You may be thinking: “What the hell?” You are right; their relationship with Hungary did not last long at all. It’s not because we don’t like donuts, it’s because it cost a friggin’ fortune. I see a similar future for Starbucks unfortunately. The facilities are super clean though, so they definitely get brownie points for that, but it’s not a reason for them to be successful.

FRANCE I think Starbucks completely achieved what they wanted in France, the yuppie audience totally bought the whole Americanized coffee ways: “On se prend un Starbuck?” is a phrase you will hear often, suggesting to go grab coffee. Completely different from Hungary, I find the stores to be dirty, but who cares? You just go and get your coffee. The service is also average; you’re not going there for the experience, but for the coffee. It’s all about the brand here and the logo. You are oh so cool if you are walking around with your takeaway coffee. Hell, don’t ever drink coffee in their shops! That’s why if you do decide to stay and have your coffee there, you will see that there is always a free spot where to sit. People go back for coffee here, unlike in Hungary where it’s more of a special occasion.

UNITED KINGDOM Perfect, but there should be more! People can obviously afford it. I want to see a Starbucks around every corner like in the US. Why didn’t they focus on this first?

I just feel Starbucks is trying to amplify too quickly. I know it’s not a solution to wait too long for something to happen, but sometimes you need to be more careful with your strategy. In my point of view, Starbucks is not delivering the same quality in each country as they should be, regarding the service that is. The service provided has been affected by their similar pricing globally, which has created huge gaps in the customer experience and the way it’s perceived. Of course, this will vary on cultural factors as well, but there are elements that they can control.

Take McDonald’s as an example. Their market-oriented pricing is what has led them to succeed globally, being truly ‘global’. Starbucks is trying to expand quickly, yet they need to reconsider their pricing strategies to stay competitive. Their efforts and statistics may pay off in the short run, but it’s not a long term strategy.

There seems to be no coherence in their service across the world, which has created distorted images of the experience they are actually selling. What is the experience again?