"One has to take calculated risks in business, but it's also important
to switch gears immediately if you think your decision was wrong. We
were doing this to win, and if we weren't going to win then we had to
pull out, especially since consumers were already asking for a single
standard."
Moving quickly on bad news is bold step, especially for Japanese CEO, many of whom might have postponed a decision even in the face of the inevitable, in order to save face. Building on this, the Wall Street Journal cited five management tips from the Toshiba CEO:
For those of you who are concerned about Toshiba's future, don't worry too much. CEO Nishida reminds us that HD DVD was one of 45 strategic business units or "areas of growth" and 44 still remain.
A number of recent articles, here is one, covered the announcement of Microsoft's partnership with MediaCart and Wakefern Foods (ShopRite) to deliver interactive shopping carts into ShopRite stores.
Working at a retail focused agency, it is always interesting to see investment in our arena by major media players, e.g. CBS buying SignStorey.
Along with the creation of Nielsen In-Store and P.R.I.S.M., these types of announcements bring increasing credibility to the industry and attention to the power of in-store marketing. Further, this represents a marrying of online technology (Atlas) and an in-store vehicle, which shows a very positive evolution of thinking.
However, all that excitement aside, I have a certain amount of skepticism about the success of this vehicle. I think for a select group of early adopters, it will be embraced. But for many shoppers, are they really ready for this?
Grocery shopping used to be simple; go to store, get cart, put stuff you need in it, sometimes there were signs that told you what was on-sale. Now, you can enter your shopping list online before you go, it'll download to your cart computer; and tell you about specials on a contextual basis when you hit the right aisle. As a marketer, again, think this is fantastic. Love the blend of technology and context to deliver truly targeted ads. However, I'm just not sure your average shopper will think they "need" all this, but that's just my opinion. Time will tell.
On a side note, (and I owe this to a colleague at another in-store company) what happens when carts are stolen? Your average shopping cart costs something like $150 (i looked it up). What happens $1,000 shopping carts start disappearing? How are retailers going to feel about losses in that arena on a daily basis? I mean this in all seriousness, and would love to hear how the deals are configured and if they account for loss like this.
Although this YouTube video is primarily focused on highlighting the paradigm shift in mass communications to 1-on-1 communication, the more important message here is about the opportunity to build a brand in a virtual, social environment.
Check it out:
Consistent with characteristics of a community, second life is made up of residents that create their world, their identity, and choose their friends. More importantly, they thrive on word of mouth recommendations. As viral communication thrives, Secondlife provides yet another platform for sharing.
Residents create avatars reflecting their personal identity in this virtual world. And many brands are already taking advantage of this. Avatars can visit the American Apparel virtual store to view the latest clothesline, buy Dell computers, and read news updates from Reuter.
And you thought is was all for online gamers, recently Secondlife became one of the cutting edge virtual classrooms for major colleges and universities including Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton. Administrators host lectures, inform students of projects and chat live outside of the traditional classroom.
The future of the virtual platform is at its infancy. At a virtual world conference in October 2007, IBM and Linden Lab announced plans to develop open standards that will allow avatars to roam from one virtual community to the next. The goal is let a person create a digital alter-ego that can travel to many virtual worlds, keeping the same name, look and even digital currency. And Secondlife isn’t the only opportunity to get involved.
If you’re not sold yet, there are hundreds of ad, design and marketing agencies dedicated to creating destinations and opportunities on Secondlife. If hundreds of companies are being created to simply service this platform, it’s definitely not a fad.
With the increase of clean-store policies, companies must build their brands out of store to influence that purchase decision before they walk in the door. And with consumers spending less time with traditional media and more time online, companies must shift dollars to reach them. Promo Magazine Industry Trend Report for 2007 reported that marketers are spending 32% of their promotional dollars online (only higher medium was Direct Mail) to generate promotional support.
From tracking consumer “IM” relating to your product to testing a new product before it hits the shelf, Secondlife provides research capabilities as well. These residents are early adopters and will champion new products if you give them the opportunity. Building brand loyalty takes time and trust, and Secondlife provides a highly-targeted medium to reach current and future customers.
Afraid of jumping in and taking a risk? You should be more afraid of getting soaked on the sidelines from your competitors' cannonball. It’s just a matter of time before your competitors announces their presence. Andrew McGregor expressed this in the YouTube piece, but I agree. “In five years, the brands with the most social presence online, will also be the most competitive in the marketplace.”
15,000 attendees turned out to the 2007 Cable Show in Las Vegas earlier this year, and more than a few must have been perplexed by this year's improbable show theme:
"Competition works. Consumers win."
For an industry many consider anti-competitive and consumer-unfriendly, the show theme seemed counter-intuitive, if not outrageous. Competition? Perhaps the idea was to pacify Day One's featured speaker: Kevin Martin, Chairman of the FCC.
The FCC under Chairman Martin has been publicly critical of the Big Cable. This chart, compiled by the New York Times, helps explain why. The cost of cable television in the United States has outpaced inflation by a significant margin. This fact seems to indicate that the cable industry - led by Comcast, the nation's largest cable provider - is taking advantage of a monopoly status to raise rates at will.
The cable industry strongly insists there is no monopoly. While Comcast is by far the largest provider of pay TV, they go head-to-head with other cable providers, like Time Warner, in many local markets. What's more, phone companies like Qwest offer the same bundled packages - phone, high-speed internet and pay TV (through satellite partners) nationwide. Comcast would point out that they lost 65,000 subscribers in the last quarter. There's plenty of competition, the cable industry contends. The cable industry has been deregulated since 1996 through an act of Congress, and that's just the way Big Cable likes it.
Chairman Martin has been pushing the other members of the five-member commission to invoke the "70/70" rule of the Cable Communications act: when 70% of U.S. households are cable-ready, and 70% of those households subscribe to cable, the government is empowered to regulate the industry in favor of lower prices and more diverse programming. In an agency meeting last week, the commission rejected the "70-70" finding, citing unreliable data, in a vote considered a blow to cable consumers in general and Chairman Martin in particular.
Despite this defeat, the FCC have recently affected other, smaller changes that benefit consumers and the competitive landscape. For example, as of last month, specific cable companies may no longer have exclusivity on apartment buildings; building managers must allow competition between rival cable companies and satellite TV.
But this represents only a minor victory for consumers. In the remaining 13 months of his appointment, Martin's goals are more ambitious:
Cable ownership limits, imposing a 30% cap on Comcast's share of the pay-TV market while preventing other giants like Time Warner from making substantial new acquisitions
A la carte legislation, allowing cable subscribers to pick and choose which specific channels they want, instead of paying for large bundles of channels that go unwatched
Increased diversity programming, lowering the price of channel access to minority and women programmers
Dual carriage, forcing cable operators to carry local TV signals in both analog and digital form until all cable subscribers have upgraded to digital reception equipment
Chairman Martin is drafting a revised proposal for a possible vote at the agency's next meeting, scheduled for December 18th. Consumer groups and cable proponents alike eagerly await the outcome. Is Big Cable too big? Does the pay-TV industry require government regulation? How will TV viewers benefit from greater competition? Stay tuned.
The recent Springwise newsletter shares a new breed of smart shopping cart that displays text ads on a small screen right on the handle. Its simplicity allows retailers to run messages for one store or for a whole chain, and the retailer can easily change messages for dayparts and clearance items. It's manufactured by Modstream, a New York based company that claims:
Modstream’s messages are so powerful that national retailers have
reported sales lifts of featured products up to 35%! These
extraordinary sales results are possible because Modstream requires no
change in shopper’s behavior.
No buttons to push or screens to
navigate — shoppers push their cart and see your messages! And, since
Modstream resides on the shopping cart handles, retailers and
advertisers have 30-40 minutes to engage customers every time they shop.
This innovation seems a bit like Google text ads to me. Low-tech text - but located where it counts. As both a supporter and critic of new media placements in our lives, I am mixed about this one as usual. But as long as it's quiet and shoppers can choose to ignore it, Modstream could be a win-win for both shopper and retailer.
Compare Modstreams' cart to one at the opposite end of the spectrum: the beautifully redesigned shopping cart with ad space on the side. It looks exactly like a Volkswagen Beetle - if the Beetle were wrapped in a giant ad. It's called the MarkitCart.
Two polarized examples in the evolution of mobile shopping containers.
What do you think? Are cart handles like the Internet search dashboard - best used for fast and readable low-concept messages? Does Modstream's technology hit the sweet spot somewhere between interruption and engagement? Does the MarkitCart take it too far?
Leading up to the 1994 Winter Olympics, Tonya Harding's ex-husband, Jeff Gillooly, tried to break competitor Nancy Kerrigan's knees, and the incident pitted the two against one another like Good vs. Evil: Nancy, tall and beautiful, dressed in white, vs. Tonya's thin-lipped trailer-trash demeanor. Nancy went on to win Silver that year and an all-American heroine was made. Then she stepped in it, insulting her $2MM sponsor Disney when she said, regarding a promotional appearance she was obligated to make, "This is dumb. I hate it. This is the most corniest thing I have ever done." America was shocked. Nancy retired from competition. David Letterman quipped, "what if it turned out that Nancy was the evil one after all?"
During the PC wars of the 80's and 90's, Microsoft and Apple were similarly pitted: Windows for PC black boxes, closed technology, apparently run by malicious, greedy men who wanted nothing less than to crush the competition and dominate the world; and Apple, brave, noble, enlightened, light-colored, toiling to free mankind from software bondage. To many Americans, the rivalry was on the level of Darth Vader vs. Luke Skywalker.
Fast forward to present. Bill Gates, alongside wife Melinda and Bono, TIME’s People of the Year. A visionary, a great man, the most generous philanthropist the world has ever known. Who could have predicted it? Things change quickly.
Google recently announced that its phone will be based on open-source technology, right down to the OS. Any programmer will be able to create applications, from social-networking applications to photo-share programs to multi-player games.
iPhone by contrast? Closed technology. Applications by Apple. Look at the thing: there's no apparent way to open the device short of smashing it. What happened to the Apple of 1984?
What if it turned out that Apple was the evil one after all?
Apple's reaction to Google's announcement remains to be seen. Will they break down the walls? Or will Open- vs. Closed-source be the key difference between these new competitors? Do the best programmers Apple has stand a chance against a worldwide legion of independent developers?
Whether Apple prevails or consumers choose an open-source platform like the Google Phone will be revealed early next year, at the cash register.
A recent NY Times articled feature P&G's latest branded entertainment efforts with Crescent Heights and Tide.
Living solely online, the show will consist of 3 minute episodes about a recent college graduate, Ashley, who moves to Los Angeles from
Wisconsin to start a career in public relations, and her emerging
circle of friends and romantic interests. While product will be integrated to a degree, the larger connection as P&G sees it is with people and their clothes.
"We want to speak to people about more than just laundry,” said Kevin
Crociata, Tide’s associate marketing director. “We provide benefits to
the fabrics she wears on daily basis. They have much more meaning."
Tide media (TV spots, print ads, etc...) will be tagged with a drive to the online property. While many branded online TV efforts have failed of late, ie Bud TV, it will be interesting to see if P&G can reconnect with its Soap Opera roots in a new way with new consumers.
In recent months it has become clear that large
traditional media companies are embracing digital in new and creative ways.
NBC, for example, has popped up a couple times in the press, or
we've observed through regular viewing, as taking advantage of new ways to engage young
audiences.
This Mediapost story covers how NBC is using Mediaport Kiosks, an ATM style machine that allows
users to download music, to feature content around their news and late night
line ups. Mediaport allows customers to
create custom compilations which can be burned to CDs or downloaded to various
digital devices.
“The partnership is an ideal way for
us to reach digital-savvy 18- to-28-year-olds," said Frank Radice, an
executive with the NBC Agency. "Media kiosks have a promising future and
present an exciting new channel for us to reach and influence these target
groups."
Further demonstrating their commitment to
things digital, during the premieres of their Monday line up
(Chuck, Heroes and Journeyman), they encouraged viewers to go online and chat
live with the shows producers, directors, etc… Co-media usage, which used to be
feared in TVLand as it implied a less engaged audience, is now being
capitalized on to provide a richer brand experience to viewers.
Add in their use of Twitter to
promote their new series Chuck, andit is clear that rather than viewing the digital world as a threat to their viewing audience, they are using these new channels to better distribute their brands and engage audiences.
The more we read and hear about the retail space, the less clear it
sometimes is about where things are headed. PRISM hopes to simplify the media
aspects of it, while retailers are becoming more interested in custom customer specific
programs as well as now customer/shopper specific efforts.
There was an interesting article in the Hub about shopper
marketing which raised questions for us about the myriad forces at work in
retail marketing. The article written by Chris Hoyt and Gail Peterson of Hoyt
and Associates basically outlines the shift by retailers to better shopper
segmentation and what it means to anyone selling goods at retail. Check
it out here.
The net net is that retailers are aiming to better serve
their shoppers by customizing stores (product selection, layout, etc...). The
hope of the more "shopper relevant" store is, as always increased
sales, but also increased loyalty. "This store understands me" seems to
be the general response that retailers are looking for.
This is smart and makes complete sense, but will change what
agencies are going to be tasked with in the future. The challenge will no
longer be to create customer specific programming across a client's top 5 or 10
retailers (for example) but is going to grow geometrically as each customer
specific program will have 4 - 8 "shopper segment" twists. This,
however, is a challenge worth stepping up to as it this will inevitably lead to
more targeted programming which means more effective and successful work.
So as planning looks to become more targeted and customized,
in working with the PRISM consortium, we see the science side of in-store
looking to generalize and simplify. This then raises the question, as stores
differentiate further, what does this mean for attempts to create uniform
measurement and planning?
One could argue the measurement factor can remain less
affected as "eyeballs are eyeballs" in the world of media
measurement. An impression in prime time TV is added on top of an impression in
Time Magazine and then added again to a Yahoo impression is terms of overall
plan delivery. Yes, the levels of engagement are different, but that's a
separate consideration as a part of the planning process. As far as Nielsen
is concerned, they are measuring "opportunity to see"; again eyeballs
are eyeballs. (It’s the same song for TV, Print and everything else measured.)
So, this leads us to the part which is affected by all
these shifts in retailer/shopper specific planning. While thanks to PRISM we
will know how many people will see our in-store pieces, how to interrupt
and engage
will become a more important art. Encouragement on the part of retailers for
more specific programs around shopper segments in particular store formats
provide an opportunity to create more relevant creative.
This opportunity raises some very interesting questions from
a creative insight standpoint. How do we drive relevance across different
store- and shopper-types? What are the vehicles that allow the flexibility to
creative these types of campaigns? What kind of creative measurement do we
establish to test what works where and for whom? How can PRISM’s science help in development
and measurement of the more artistic side of planning?
The POP Times recently wrote about Maybelline's conveyor belt media test. Conspicuously absent from the article is any mention of the clutter factor or any shopper point of view.
It's got me wondering whether this kind of in-store is truly necessary, helpful or welcome by the actual target audience.
And one could argue that the harried checkout experience is more about last minute impulse purchases and simply checking out, than it is a place for brand messages. Not to mention the fact that loads of groceries will be piled upon the belt.
The reality is that as long as the retailer and advertiser feel they are reaching shoppers with impact the program will move forward. It will probably test well in terms of reach, frequency and recall. But will we truly hear the shopper's point of view?
