What do your products say about you?

When marketing a product, companies choose which demographics of people they would like to market to. Factors for demographics can include age, gender, race, education, income, family size, region, climate, lifestyle, and motives, to name a few. This made me wonder about the products I consume, and what target demographic they were originally intended for. Am I inside that target?

I looked at the larger products that I use very frequently: my computer, car, and phone.

Apple MacBook Pro:
According to this study, Apple Computers consumers are people between 18-34. Over half of the consumers say they are liberal, and most live in the city. Many want to be "perceived as unique and different to make my own mark", and consider themselves "late adopters". Lastly, many of these people are in creative professions.

I fit this target pretty well. I'm within the age group, would consider myself liberal, and I am in a creative profession (film and event production). I don't consider Keene a city, as it isn't very big. I also don't believe I'm a late adopter.

'00 Jeep Cherokee:
Currently Jeep is very popular with Gen Y age group, which is 18-27. The original marketing push was for upper middle class adults, age 44. While I can't find anything to support this, I believe that the targeted group is males, age 18-35, who like the outdoors, as well as families with 1-3 kids, with parent(s) over 40.

According to my own estimation of Jeep Owners, I really don't fit the target demographic at all. I would fit in the age groups however.

Droid X:
I found two very different accounts of what the target for Droid is, so I will talk about both. Droid users are predominately male, with over 73% being male according to one source, and over 54% in another. Users are between 25-34, and half of all users are under 35. Compared to its iPhone counterparts, the Droid appeals to those who have slightly less education, and those who are less wealthy.

I am also not a part of the gender demographic that Droid seeks. I do fit in to the age and income group. Since I'm currently attending college, I don't believe I fit into that group.

It seems that I would be a marketer's least favorite kind of person: the person that doesn't buy the products targets for me. I personally buy based on consumer reviews, and personal preference.

What do the products you use say about you? Do you fit into the demographics for those products?

In response to Tanya's post...

Tanya talked about the Playstation Vita, the latest portable gaming device released from the company. She asks,

Do you think it is risky to have such a high budget for a device that may not have all the features someone is looking for these days. Example - the Iphone can play video, talk, text, and play games.

Since Playstation has released portable gaming systems in the past, I'm going to base some of my answer on the previous handheld device, which is the Playstation Portable, or PSP. The latest PSP to be released was the PSP2 in 2011. The device is both 3G and Wi-fi capable, has GPS, Bluetooth, built in speakers and mics, two touch pads, and both front and rear facing cameras. It seems like it can do a lot of the same things that an iPhone or other smart phone can do, but with a better processor, graphics and memory, as it needs those to run games.

right: PSP2; left: Playstation Vita

When the PSP was released in 2005/2006, it sold 9.6 million units. Granted, that's not as impressive as selling more units a day than there are people born that same day (like the iPhone), but that's still pretty good. The sales figures for the next years are as follows: 13.8 million in 2007, 14.1 in 2008, 9.9 in 2009, and 8.0 in 2010. While that's declining, that's still not bad.

In my opinion, because the company knows the market they are advertising to, it's not risky at all to have such a high budget. These people are advertising directly to gamers where they are most likely to see it. The people who will want this don't care if it can text or call. In fact, I bet they don't even want it to. They want better screens, more memory (and different kinds), and support from the Playstation network. If someone wants an iPhone, they'll get an iPhone. If they want a gaming device, then that's what they'll get. By understanding their target demographic, Playstaion is making all the right choices.

My concern is that this has been done before. The Vita doesn't offer much that the PSP2 doesn't already have. There aren't many new features. But I'm sure as Apple can attest to, people will buy the new version of the same phone if you change the number, upgrade a few minimal things, fix a few bugs, and tell them that they need to have it.

Do consumers fall for marketing ploys when it comes to "new and improved" versions of technology? Are marketers and companies just trying to make money by constantly releasing products (like the iPhone, iPad ect), or is there real value to the new versions?

Measuring Success

According to Direct Marketing News, 20% of business to business marketers don't measure the effectiveness of their campaigns. Business to business marketing centers around selling a service or product to another company. For example, Xerox would sell its copiers to other businesses. It would make sure to highlight how having their copier would be a better choice than a competitor's copier.

Not for Xerox, but still B2B

I found this especially surprising, as I would have thought that everyone measures campaign effectiveness to some extent. While b-2-b marketing is much different than standard b-2-c (business to customer) marketing, it is still important to know if your advertising is working.

There are several different ways to measure the effectiveness of an ad campaign. Something as simple as tracking sales before, during and after a campaign can help you better spend your advertising budget. Most websites now can track from where and how many visitors come to the site. Offering media-specific incentives can also track where customers are coming from. There is a more complete list of measuring ad effectiveness here.

Many of the options on that list apply more to b-2-c advertising than anything else. When advertising specifically to customers and end users, it is much easier to track sales. Asking customers when they visit the store, using specific phone lines for orders and print coupons can all measure the amount of new sales generated by an ad campaign.

What is the importance of tracking these sales statistics? What other ways can companies measure the effectiveness of an ad campaign, especially for b-2-b companies?

In Response to Tim's post...

Tim posted about the current Rush Limbaugh vs Snadra Fluke scandal. For those that are unaware of the situation, Tim summarizes the situation very succinctly:

Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who was invited to speak to Congress by House Minority Leader Nanci Pelosi (D). Sandra had previously been denied the opportunity to speak at a committee hearing by Rep. Darrell Issa (R), who had invited all male religious figures to discuss President Obama's current push to require reproductive health needs to be covered by all employers. Rush called Sandra a "slut," a "prostitute," and a "feminazi," and suggested that she should make sex tapes "so we can all watch."

Since then, Rush has apologized for the way in which he said those things, but not actually for the things he said. Because of all this, sponsors have been running in the opposite direction. With that in mind, he asks:

What responsibility do sponsors have when choosing programming? 

This is an issue that I have been following very carefully, along with the entire birth control debate. In terms of advertisers, I believe they have a huge responsibility to choose to support programs that align with views as a company. That does mean that certain organization, like religious ones, will choose to support things that I may not agree with. However, I don't believe anyone should support any individual or group that actively promotes hatred, bigotry, or insulting people/ideas/groups/ect that are different or not fully understood.

This all honestly reminds me of the JC Penny vs One Million Moms debacle. JCP decided to have Ellen DeGeneres as their new spokesperson. The group One Million Moms (consisting of only 40,000 members) demanded that JCP drop her as their spokesperson or risk being boycott for abandoning traditional family values.

It really sickens me, personally, to see groups that are promoting a lifestyle that purposely seeks to undermine the rights of those. But those are my feelings.

What do you think about companies or groups that get involved with politics, especially unpopular opinions or hot topics? What about companies that lobby in Congress? 

Marketing to College Students

No one wants to be duped by marketers, taken in by promises of great things. Students especially pride themselves on being media savvy.  We are quick to make judgements on what marketing campaigns are cool or not, particularly in a time when when advertisers are trying to capitalize on the ever-changing internet trends.

Student Ambassadors helping move in freshman

So how can marketers target college-age students who don't want to be advertised to? By going the non-traditional route and incorporating students on campus as brand ambassadors. Students are far more likely to take product recommendations from their peers as opposed to older, out of touch executives who they believe have no interest in them aside from their money.

At the University of North Carolina, American Eagle hired students to help freshman move in. As the brand ambassadors carried bags and other things, they handed out coupons, water bottles, and pens, all emblazoned with the AE logo. They wear matching shirts and are generally helpful, nice, and welcoming. This marketing "For students, by students" has lead other companies to try to capitalize on student workers.

Target sponsored a late-night shopping trip at the same university. They bused students to the store, and gave away snacks, and provided the students with an opportunity to purchase those last minute items that you didn't bring. A student won a fridge and a year's supply of Coke. One student, who declared himself loyal to Wal-Mart, was less sure of where his loyalties were after the Target shopping night.

Marketers are eager to tap into the college age group, as they see them as a bridge. With strong connections to home and their family, they are more likely to take what brands they love at college back home. Even more important is the need to establish brand recognition and loyalty that will carry on past the college years.

With their budgets being slashed, colleges are looking for ways to provide the same student activities that they have in the past. Some are seeking sponsors, as with this Target shopping night.

The greatest issue is how colleges control this. UNC officials knew nothing of the American Eagle ambassadors.What do you think of brands advertising on campus, through student ambassadors or sponsored activities? Should colleges allow this sort of thing, or should campuses be kept as ad-free as possible?

Article source
Photo source

In response to Jaycelyn's article...

In her article, Jaycelyn talks about the Apple ad campaign, specifically about the "Get a Mac" campaign, starring the personifications of the Mac and PC. She asks:

Do you think that Apple's ad campaigns make their products sound better than they are? Or do you think that the iPhone is better than say the Droid and the Mac is better than a PC?

Personally, I'm quite biased when it comes to computers. I have a Macbook Pro, and couldn't imagine having anything else. I deal with PCs regularly, but do not like it as much. When it comes to mp3 players/music players, once again I pick Apple. Windows introduced the Zune, but there was little success there. However, when it comes to smart phones, I own a Droid X. I bought it off my mother's coworker who was going to be getting a new phone and wanted to sell his old one. Given the choice, I might have chosen an iPhone, but now that I've used a Droid, I wouldn't switch back.

In reference to the Apple ads, Jaycelyn also mentioned how the company uses the ads to showcase the new features that their products have. That's a really smart use of their advertising budget. Not only are they putting their product out there, but they are giving you the selling points in a fun, comedic way, and also putting down their rival in a non-insulting way. I say non-insulting because they aren't directly calling PCs names or anything like that.

On to Jaycelyn's first question: I do believe that Apple's commercials do make the products seem better than they are. No where in those commercials do they mention the high initial cost and repair cost or how easily materials like aluminum and glass scratch, dent, or shatter. I don't believe that Apple is being dishonest in their ads, but I do believe that they show their products as a virus-proof, life changing piece of technology. Many Mac users boast about how their computer, and Macs in general are virus proof and can never get viruses, and that the solution to your slow, apparently virus-ridden PC is to "get a Mac". The reason that there aren't many Mac viruses is because people who make viruses are going to target the operating system that the majority of people have. There is no point in only targeting a small fraction of the population. Mac viruses are more and more common these days because more people have Macs.

What do you think about the Mac vs PC argument? Are the Apple ads really sugar coating the products?

Good vs Bad attention in Marketing

Two weeks ago, I talked about Facebook marketing and its effectiveness. This week, I came across an article talking about good vs. bad attention.

In the article, author Christopher Carfi defines the two types of attention generated by marketing. Like good and bad profits, there are two opposite types of attention. Good attention is gained through "going above and beyond" and "delighting someone, surprising them, amusing them, or triggering an empathetic emotion". This positive response can also lead to good profits, which stem from the same place. Bad attention is "interruptive... bad and inefficient". The author uses pop up ads as an example.

Ads like this are used all the time. The only time anyone ever clicks on them is by accident. So how much are companies spending to place these ads on the side of webpages, in the hopes that someone will click them? When an pops up saying, "Congratulations, you've won!" or "You're the 1,000,000th visitor!" everyone knows not to click those. In reality, we've all developed blinders to that type of ad. People find those ads annoying, and we make sure not to click them at all. This type of ad gains bad attention.

Getting back to the Facebook ads, I believe they fall under the same category. People are frustrated by the stupid attempts at targeted ads that Facebook employs, or at least I am. So why do companies bother with these ads at all? Do the Facebook ads garter negative attention for the advertisers? Are they worth the money?