garryleigh

Archive for the ‘Cousumer experience’ Category

Martha Stewart’s Cost Of “Living” Large?

In Cousumer experience, Media, marketing on March 4, 2009 at 6:36 pm

mscover_medium

When ad revenues sharply decline what do you do with your magazine?  Make it more focused on the reader to increase circulation, word of mouth, demand and thereby ramp up revenue?  Of course not.  You do what everyone else in traditional media does today and change the product to better suit an advertiser’s message while hoping the consumer doesn’t feel used in the process.
Living is going where the remaining ad spending is for publications and will be adding new features to court those accounts like a health and beauty column, a fashion department and of course, an occasional travel piece for better ad proximity to editorial content.
Pages in Living are down over 35% this year so why not?  Will the reader notice or care?
Does this remind you of any other facet of media lately?  It reminds me of an episode of “30 Rock” which really brought home the product ramifications of catering to advertisers rather than viewers.
The real solution for traditional media’s dilemma might just be to go where the consumers are and give them what they want when, where, and how they want to consume it.  Rather than spending billions trying to push an audience to our house, how about we take our brilliantly targeted content to them in their environment in a form that is most usable to them?!
I know, this is the same message you’ve heard from Snafu Solutions for years, but when MARTHA STEWART gets dragged into the fray, it’s time to act or in the very near future her magazine may be adding a stock tips feature. Brought to us by Citi.

Garry Leigh     Snafu Consulting

Is Your Finger On The Pulse?

In Cousumer experience, Media, Radio, marketing on January 23, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Are you sure you know what she's thinking?

Are you sure you know what she's thinking?

The days of our programming departments spending TONS of money on audience research are pretty much over and now we have to fight for every bit of music testing we can get, so perceptual research and the usual strategic planning based on those volumes of information are pretty much left to local management to figure out now.  There are marvelous exceptions along the way, and you are the lucky ones, but for the most part we’re out digging up every bit of info we  find on our audience and what they want to hear right now.  Not last week or last month, but right now.  It’s actually a tall order and many Program Directors are screaming at their staff right now for saying something no-one wanted to hear.  Yes it is a part of the PD’s job to help the staff find hot topics and guide them on seamlessly integrating that content into their show, so as always, check with me anytime on an extensive list of sites which overview usage in their particular web niche.  Then we’ll try to focus them as tightly as you can on your market as the hot topics will very widely by geography, but this can help you get into the moment.

Garry Leigh      Snafu Consulting.com

OOOOOhhhhhh Shiney Beads! Me Me Me!

In Cousumer experience, Media, Radio, marketing on January 22, 2009 at 4:02 pm

When doing Hot Hits back in the day for Mike Joseph, at boot camp he always stayed in our face about each live break being referred to as “a relate”.  He never called them a break or whatever… only “a relate”.  Obviously, that meant whatever we said had damn sure better relate to the target audience in the moment or we’d never get out of boot camp and wind up back on our old stations somewhere.  You had to know and understand the target audience well enough to relate EVERY BREAK to build a connection to that listener one by one.  We had to earn their trust every day break by break.  There was never a throw away time n temp, never a simple call letters/title/artist… every break was a relate or you didn’t deserve to be in Hot Hits in a top 5 market.  Two boot camps and two different Hot Hits stations in two different top 5 markets, I still agreed with Mike on that and to this day that fundamental of the medium hasn’t changed for truly successful stations.  Lots of time and effort went into researching the audience and Philly was amazingly different from San Francisco, but the audience weren’t there to listen to me, they were listening to hear a reflection of what the station meant to them.  When I read this piece from Advertising Age this morning, it brought back that broadcast basic of making the connection with the listener every single break – oops – relate (sorry Mike).  Good reminder that it’s not just us, it’s a part of the fabric of life and our intercommunication at many levels.  See you in New Orleans!  Enjoy.         Garry Leigh      Snafu Consulting
Connect More, Advertise Less
What Mardi Gras Parades Can Teach You About Human Nature

Posted by Tom Martin on 01.21.09 @ 08:55 AM
Tom Martin
Here in New Orleans, the Christmas decorations have given way to the Mardi Gras decorations, which got me to thinking about an old blog post I wrote a few years ago about connections.
As I sat on the neutral ground one year during Mardi Gras helping my kids yell for and catch beads, toys, etc., I had an epiphany. Here we were, in the middle of what can only be characterized as organized chaos, and amidst the yelling, screaming music, an interesting thing happened — we made a connection.

As my 3-year-old (at the time), Hayes, sat slumped in his ladder, fast asleep (poor thing was sick), I was doing my best to keep him from being hit by a flying bead while also catching him a few trinkets so when he awoke he wouldn’t feel left out of the fun. And then a float stopped in front of us and on the top deck some 20 feet away a young woman (I think — not sure as riders are masked) made eye contact, gave a quick little frown and then reached down and launched a huge stuffed animal, but only after assuring she had my attention and that I realized she was throwing to Hayes. I caught it and waved a thank you to her and then she was off. Mission accomplished. I was a good dad.

Now if you’ve never ridden on a Mardi Gras float, you can’t fully understand how unique this situation is. As a rider you can’t hear anything but a constant swell of screaming and yelling. Hundreds, thousands of people screaming for your attention in hopes you’ll “throw them something mister.” Add to this the fact that you’re on a moving platform, it’s dark and maybe you’ve had a cocktail or two, and it is hard enough to pick people out of the crowd that you are looking for much less make a random connection. But it happens.

In fact, this same thing happened a dozen or more times as the parade continued to roll on. I didn’t know these people, they didn’t know me but they felt something. A connection. For a fleeting moment, a personal connection was made and the nameless rider put down the 25-cent plastic beads and tossed an item that costs them (Mardi Gras float riders pay for the stuff they throw out of their own pockets) not an insignificant amount of money.

Why?

And that has gotten me thinking. About this idea — connection — the simple human need to connect to others. Powerful. Powerful because it causes people to do things, feel things and act on those feelings. Powerful because connection lives beyond the transaction and creates feelings and memories that last. Powerful because in a world of hyperconnectivity, consumers have never been less connected to brands.

At first I thought it might just be me, but then one night I read a report of Anderson Coopers’ coverage of Mardi Gras that year — he rode in Endymion, a Super Krewe, the big parades that you see on TV. He remarked: “Rolling on the float late at night, I realized Mardi Gras is not about the beads or about Bourbon Street. It’s about making a connection, one person to another.” And it hit me. Anderson was right. He had captured the essence of Mardi Gras but more important he had captured this powerful human insight, one that I’m sure can be used to create more powerful and effective work. People really do want to connect. But as advertisers, we need to give them something worthy of connecting too.

So the next time you sit down to write a brief or review concepts, ask yourself if what you’re doing is advertising or trying to connect. If it is the former, try again. Who knows, you might just get rewarded with a nice prize for your efforts.

~ ~ ~
Tom Martin is president of Zehnder Communications, with offices in New Orleans and Baton Rouge. He can be reached at Tom.Martin@z-comm.com. Follow him on Twitter: @TomMartin .

Mass Communication – What?

In Cousumer experience, Media, Radio, marketing on January 21, 2009 at 5:07 pm

For years we’ve been discussing ways to take radio across boundries and make aspects of the local station brand not just available, but as a “go to” at the top of your daily digital adgenda. In fact, the very first blog in the archives relates to exactly this and I think Ketchum’s research is screaming we need to take another look.    Garry Leigh     Snafu Consulting

Legacy Media and New Media Meld: Mass Communications Succumb to Communications by the Masses

According to the third annual U.S. Media Myths & Realities survey by Ketchum and the Annenberg Strategic Public Relations Center, the melding of media means that content deliverables once owned by a specific medium are now found on nearly all platforms, creating a participatory and fragmented media landscape.
As Americans buy products, seek information, plan their social lives, and make personal and business decisions, the lines between media channels in the 21st century have become increasingly blurred, says the study report.

Along with a steep rise in the use of shopping Web sites among consumers, doubling from 2006 to 2008, 44% of those visiting shopping Web sites read consumer reviews and comments there, showing that these sites have transformed into virtual social gathering places and information destinations, rather than just a place to purchase goods.

Consumers are (frequently) placing more trust in the experiences of their online peers than they are on the retailer’s product descriptions. This participatory media landscape, says the report, means media audiences are having just as much influence, if not more, as the content providers themselves.

Nicholas Scibetta, Ketchum partner and director of the agency’s Global Media Network, concludes that “… not only are people posting their thoughts via consumer-generated reviews, but they are also responding to each other’s comments… (creating) pockets of social networks found all over the Web… conversations among readers, information seekers, and reviewers can be found from The New York Times and The Huffington Post, to YouTube, to the neighborhood blogger… with the widespread availability of such conversations, the lines that once separated mediums have now melded.”

Jerry Swerling, founder and director of the USC Annenberg Strategic Public Relations Center, says “.. it’s a transformative time in which we are seeing outlets move from single-media to multi-media… “

Consumers are using a wider variety of channels than ever before. Newer channels, such as blogs and social networking sites, are gaining more and more traction. The survey found that 26% of consumers use social networking sites, compared to 17% in 2006. The usage of blogs nearly doubled (24% in 2008 compared to 13% in 2006).

Among influential consumers, the 10% to 15% of the population who initiate change in their communities, 32% read blogs written by journalists (vs. 8% of the general population), and:

43% read blogs by non-journalists, compared to     16% of the general population
70% of influencers use search engines, vs. 57%     of the general population
43% of influencers use video-sharing Web sites, vs.     25% of the  general population
29% of influencers use specialty information     portals (such as WebMD), vs.16% of the general population
Influencers also use more new media such as     videocasts (19%), RSS news feeds (15%), podcasts (12%), and mobile media (9%)
The use of more established media channels continues to wane. 65% of consumers use major network television news as a source of information (down from 71% in 2006). Local television news saw a sharper drop – 62% in 2008 compared to 74% in 2006.

Swerling concludes “… we’ve watched traditional mass communications give way to communications controlled by the masses… the melding of media is… demonstrated in the actions of legacy media, which are continuing to embrace and implement the principles of new media. Conversely, the journalistic principles that underline news organizations… accuracy, timeliness, objectivity… move to other delivery channels.”

For more information about melding media, please visit Ketchum here.

New Years With Bono And Frank

In Cousumer experience, Media, Radio, marketing on January 12, 2009 at 6:12 pm

I’m a BIG believer in ONE and had to pass this on so you don’t miss it. Fun. Garry Leigh at Snafu Consulting
New York Times
Opinion
Op-Ed Guest Columnist
Notes From the Chairman

By BONO
Published: January 9, 2009

Dublin

Once upon a couple of weeks ago …

I’m in a crush in a Dublin pub around New Year’s. Glasses clinking clicking, clashing crashing in Gaelic revelry: swinging doors, sweethearts falling in and out of the season’s blessings, family feuds subsumed or resumed. Malt joy and ginger despair are all in the queue to be served on this, the quarter-of-a-millennium mark since Arthur Guinness first put velvety blackness in a pint glass.

Interesting mood. The new Irish money has been gambled and lost; the Celtic Tiger’s tail is between its legs as builders and bankers laugh uneasy and hard at the last year, and swallow uneasy and hard at the new. There’s a voice on the speakers that wakes everyone out of the moment: it’s Frank Sinatra singing “My Way.” His ode to defiance is four decades old this year and everyone sings along for a lifetime of reasons. I am struck by the one quality his voice lacks: Sentimentality.

Is this knotted fist of a voice a clue to the next year? In the mist of uncertainty in your business life, your love life, your life life, why is Sinatra’s voice such a foghorn — such confidence in nervous times allowing you romance but knocking your rose-tinted glasses off your nose, if you get too carried away.

A call to believability.

A voice that says, “Don’t lie to me now.”

That says, “Baby, if there’s someone else, tell me now.”

Fabulous, not fabulist. Honesty to hang your hat on.

As the year rolls over (and with it many carousers), the emotion in the room tussles between hope and fear, expectation and trepidation. Wherever you end up, his voice takes you by the hand.

Now I’m back in my own house in Dublin, uncorking some nice wine, ready for the vinegar it can turn to when families and friends overindulge, as I am about to. Right by the hole-in-the-wall cellar, I look up to see a vision in yellow: a painting Frank sent to me after I sang “I’ve Got You Under My Skin” with him on the 1993 “Duets” album. One from his own hand. A mad yellow canvas of violent concentric circles gyrating across a desert plain. Francis Albert Sinatra, painter, modernista.

We had spent some time in his house in Palm Springs, which was a thrill — looking out onto the desert and hills, no gingham for miles. Plenty of miles, though, Miles Davis. And plenty of talk of jazz. That’s when he showed me the painting. I was thinking the circles were like the diameter of a horn, the bell of a trumpet, so I said so.

“The painting is called ‘Jazz’ and you can have it.”

I said I had heard he was one of Miles Davis’s biggest influences.

Little pithy replies:

“I don’t usually hang with men who wear earrings.”

“Miles Davis never wasted a note, kid — or a word on a fool.”

“Jazz is about the moment you’re in. Being modern’s not about the future, it’s about the present.”

I think about this now, in this new year. The Big Bang of pop music telling me it’s all about the moment, a fresh canvas and never overworking the paint. I wonder what he would have thought of the time it’s taken me and my bandmates to finish albums, he with his famous impatience for directors, producers — anyone, really — fussing about. I’m sure he’s right. Fully inhabiting the moment during that tiny dot of time after you’ve pressed “record” is what makes it eternal. If, like Frank, you sing it like you’ll never sing it again. If, like Frank, you sing it like you never have before.

If.

If you want to hear the least sentimental voice in the history of pop music finally crack, though — shhhh — find the version of Frank’s ode to insomnia, “One for My Baby (and One More for the Road),” hidden on “Duets.” Listen through to the end and you will hear the great man break as he truly sobs on the line, “It’s a long, long, long road.” I kid you not.

Like Bob Dylan’s, Nina Simone’s, Pavarotti’s, Sinatra’s voice is improved by age, by years spent fermenting in cracked and whiskeyed oak barrels. As a communicator, hitting the notes is only part of the story, of course.

Singers, more than other musicians, depend on what they know — as opposed to what they don’t want to know about the world. While there is a danger in this — the loss of naïveté, for instance, which holds its own certain power — interpretive skills generally gain in the course of a life well abused.

Want an example? Here’s an example. Take two of the versions of Sinatra singing “My Way.”

The first was recorded in 1969 when the Chairman of the Board said to Paul Anka, who wrote the song for him: “I’m quitting the business. I’m sick of it. I’m getting the hell out.” In this reading, the song is a boast — more kiss-off than send-off — embodying all the machismo a man can muster about the mistakes he’s made on the way from here to everywhere.

In the later recording, Frank is 78. The Nelson Riddle arrangement is the same, the words and melody are exactly the same, but this time the song has become a heart-stopping, heartbreaking song of defeat. The singer’s hubris is out the door. (This singer, i.e. me, is in a puddle.) The song has become an apology.

To what end? Duality, complexity. I was lucky to duet with a man who understood duality, who had the talent to hear two opposing ideas in a single song, and the wisdom to know which side to reveal at which moment.

This is our moment. What do we hear?

In the pub, on the occasion of this new year, as the room rises in a deafening chorus — “I did it my way” — I and this full house of Irish rabble-rousers hear in this staple of the American songbook both sides of the singer and the song, hubris and humility, blue eyes and red.

Bono, lead singer of the band U2 and co-founder of the advocacy group ONE, is a contributing columnist for The Times.

Is Your Company Run Right Or Left?

In Cousumer experience, Media, Radio, marketing on January 12, 2009 at 4:31 pm

Now that the left brain linear thinkers have come in and rewired all of your systems for maximum efficiency and cleaned out all of the right brain people who are impossible to valuate and are thus expendable, what is left for your ability to maintain the creative connection between your brand and your primary consumer?  Placing a real value on that creative link is very difficult without some hard metrics and I think we are now getting closer to having the numbers which justify right brain approaches and staff.  HBR has articles going deeper on the topic and this article from MediaPost really does speak to the absolute necessity of not only maintaining but growing this creative connection for your brand.        Garry Leigh at Snafu
Media Metrics: Hate to Burst Your Bubble
by John Gerzema, Monday, December 1, 2008, 12:00 AM

As if sub-prime mortgages, failing hedge funds and institutional bailouts were not enough for 2008, there is yet another crisis brewing on Wall Street. Only in this case the assets cannot be traded away or hedged against inflation. The financial markets think brands are worth more than the consumers who buy them think they are worth.

We examined brand and financial data from “BrandAsset Valuator” (BAV), the world’s largest study of consumer perceptions of brands. We’ve invested more than $ 115 million dollars and each year we interview 500,000 consumers in 44 countries. We’ve tracked consumer perceptions of around 40,000 brands since 1993.

And the numbers tell a story of Main Street offering a very different view of brands than Wall Street. While brand value increased 80 percent in three decades, among 2,500 brands we studied across 14 years of data: brand awareness declined 20 percent; brand quality eroded by 24 percent; trust in brands declined by a staggering 50 percent. And 85 percent of brands were either stagnant or declining in brand differentiation.

Looking outside our research, we saw signs of the Brand Bubble in other studies. Jack Trout and Kevin Clancy’s research for the Harvard Business Review found that 90 percent of 42 product categories had lost differentiation over time. Leonard Lodish and Carl Mela, also writing for HBR, reported that consumers are 50 percent more price sensitive than 25 years ago. Further signs of this worrying disconnect emerged as we examined the extent of the gap between business and consumer perceptions of brand value. Among Interbrand’s top 100 most valuable brands, 45 percent were actually declining in consumer perceptions according to BAV.

This isn’t a brand problem, it’s a business problem. Shareholder value is at risk. Today, brands account for 30 percent of the market capitalization of the S&P 500, or almost $4 trillion dollars. The 250 most valuable brands are worth $2.197 trillion dollars, which exceeds the GDP of France. Even the world’s top 10 most valuable brands are larger than the market capitalization of 70 percent of U.S. public companies.

Why does the Brand Bubble exist? I believe the changing nature of media and technology has caught brand management off guard, while at the same time the importance of creativity has risen among consumers, raising their expectations of brands.

Blowing Up

In the span of just six years brands have come up against a convergence of forces.

First there’s the fragmentation of everything – of channels, choice, modes and mediums. The highest rated show in America, All in the Family, had a 34.0 HH rating in 1972, compared to 14.6 for American Idol in 2008. This means not only are there a myriad of new competitors, it’s no longer possible to build a brand on the back of mass media, the way we did in previous decades. Brands must now aggregate audiences through micro-communities and tailor their appeals through bespoke channels.

Second, because of social media (collaboration, communication and sharing, social networks, applications and consumer generated media), consumers trust each other more than brands. A Mediaedge:cia study found that 76 percent of people rely on what other people say versus 15 percent on advertising, and 92 percent of people now cite word-of-mouth as the best source for brand information. Universal McCann found that 74 percent of global Internet users write reviews online, while 75 percent of people consult blogs before they buy, according to Bazazarvoice. Brands have nowhere to hide.

Third, personalization (of products, experiences, mass customization and micro-addressability) means there are no USPs anymore. A brand has a myriad of potential appeals and avenues to be personally relevant. This new paradigm is still difficult for many marketers to grasp, but micro marketing will be paramount to future competitive advantage.

And finally, portable content (RSS, podcasts, video, widgets/gadgets, mobile, slingbox) creates a redefinition of place. Enabled by unlimited storage capability, content is now instantly accessible and easily shared, meaning that consumers no longer distinguish an off- and online world. Marketers have not caught up to understanding this fluidity. Active listening and response is difficult in most organizations that are not yet “marketing nimble.”

All of these forces accelerate the decay in brand equity. As the power has shifted from institution to individual, brands are commoditized in compressed periods of time. Consumers are simply quicker to punish uninteresting and stagnant brands.

The Rise of Creativity

At the same time these forces have also unleashed a marketplace thirst for creativity. Today, consumers are not only citizen journalists, they’re amateur filmmakers, art critics, design mavens and content syndicators. In this creative renaissance, where consumers expect even inexpensive products to be “cheap chic,” they demand that brands continuously surprise and delight them. That’s why brands with what we call “energized differentiation” (continuous movement, momentum and direction) – outperform the S&P 500 by almost 30 percent in our modeled fund.

What’s interesting is these energized brands are blue chips like P&G, GE and Colgate, who are innovating beyond advertising, such as in product development, corporate social responsibility and sustainability. And there are low interest category killing brands like Geico, Simple Human and Method, who are effective at layering messaging and creating an ethos out of a seemingly commoditized product. There are high-energy brands effectively utilizing design and environments such as Pinkberry, Muji and Uniqlo. And there are brands like Zappos, Innocent and Ikea, for whom creativity in attention to corporate culture and core values resonate with consumers, who see them as more innovative and offering higher quality products and services.

The Brand Bubble is very real and yet, at the same time, it is avoidable. As researchers, economists and planners, our team concluded that brand value is dividing along the lines of creativity: A smaller number of highly creative and innovative brands are creating disproportionate value in our study. What’s their secret? Each is unleashing a continuous stream of marketing creativity, product and service innovation, design, advertising, social media mastery, media experimentation and CRM. They teach us that today, everything is marketing and only creativity matters if a brand is to hold its value in this rapidly transforming and unforgiving marketplace.

New Music Merchandising On Display

In Cousumer experience, Media, Radio, marketing on December 30, 2008 at 2:34 pm

OK, so we all are embracing new ways to expose new music and make it available for purchase at a time and in a way most convenient for the music fan.  I’m impressed that some of the oldest school companies on Earth are really getting creative in deploying assets to expose and monetize those exposures.  We should all be gathered around the conference table regularly brainstorming with “those people” to gain new momentum?  How about credit for just trying some new things and seeing what sticks?  Investing in new channels and giving them the time necessary for their viral spread to begin changing the users habits (parts of the program have been around a long time)!  By the way, when you get your sales reports weekly, do they tell you there was a huge AXE push with a particular artist and that may skew that figure?  Is there a way for you to now that and interpret the sales info from that perspective? Does it matter or is it just great for the industry that we are willing to experiment in these areas?

Take a look  at this AdAge article and let me know what you think….. Garry Leigh     Snafu Consulting

Walmart, Unilever Up Partnership in Retailer’s Music Site

Marketer Promotes Its Products on Soundcheck With the Likes of All-American Rejects, Nickelback

Published: December 29, 2008

BATAVIA, Ohio (AdAge.com) — As a means to sell more music and attract more visitors to its music microsite, Walmart has teamed up with Unilever for an entertainment- and shopper-marketing program that appears to be gaining momentum.

Bands like The All-American Rejects are featured alongside Unilever's products on Walmart shelves as well as the retailer's sponsored music portal, Soundcheck.
Bands like The All-American Rejects are featured alongside Unilever’s products on Walmart shelves as well as the retailer’s sponsored music portal, Soundcheck.

In the latest incarnation of the partnership, Unilever is merchandising its new Axe Hair lineup of hair-care products for the cheeky men’s brand in stores alongside CDs from All-American Rejects, Gym Class Heroes, David Cook and Nickelback, while simultaneously sponsoring Walmart’sSoundcheck microsite, which has been backed by the marketer’s personal-care brands since earlier this year.

Backed Beyonce’s new album
In similar fashion, Unilever backed the launch of Beyonce’s “I Am Sasha Fierce” CD last month with displays that promoted the album alongside Suave products, as well as promoting another release from Beyonce’s sister, Solange, who also had an exclusive interview on Soundcheck sponsored by Caress.

Unilever’s Suave also sponsored interviews and exclusive video performances by Beyonce on Soundcheck in November. And Axe sponsored a studio concert performance and a free MP3 download by All-American Rejects earlier this month.

For its part, Dove in October sponsored a “Women in Music” program on Soundcheck featuring videos of nine artists, including Miley Cyrus, Jennifer Hudson and Faith Hill, at the brand’s self-esteem workshops for girls.

Walmart’s Soundcheck initiative dates back to 2006, when it primarily focused on exclusive concerts played on the retailer’s in-store TV network operated by Thomson’s PRN. Procter & Gamble brands such as Gillette Fusion and Venus sponsored exclusive content on the microsite last year.

Program takes off
But the online program appears to have taken off considerably this year in terms of viewership and in-store merchandising support, as Unilever has featured it in programs with most of its major personal-care brands. Unilever and Walmart have gotten mentions about its promotions and exclusive content on Soundcheck in the blogosphere, using a giveaway of a Danity Kane CD and Degree products, for example, on one blog this spring.

URLfan.com now ranks Soundcheck in the top 1% of the 3.7 million sites it tracks in terms of blog mentions, averaging a mention about one every three days. A preview of Beyonce’s Suave-sponsored Soundcheck appearance last month has drawn about 844,000 views on YouTube, and a Soundcheck appearance by the lesser-known Danity Kane, sponsored by Degree deodorant, has garnered more than 400,000 YouTube views.

Newly In The Hunt?

In Cousumer experience, Media, Radio on December 23, 2008 at 8:31 pm

It amazes all of us as we watch business people take over and reformulate art.  How many songs have been written by a senior accountant?  How many number one broadcasts have been hosted by major shareholders?  Did they buy into an accounting firm or a living breathing changing evolving creator of in-the-moment entertainment?  Yea.  It will come full circle as the artists are allowed to connect with the customers in so many new ways either with or without radio.  For those looking for a new outlet at the moment, don’t confine your search to what has been, but rather what will be.  Good luck and don’t let any of this change your artist’s perspective.  It is who you are!

This post may help too….   Gar

Commentary
Dear Bev: What Should I Expect If I’m Unexpectedly Laid Off?
by Beverly Weinstein, 2 hours ago

This holiday season has brought an unwelcome surprise to unprecedented numbers of people in the media business – pink slips.

If you’re among the unlucky, you’re probably going through some predictable emotions. Noted psychiatrist Elisabeth Kubler Ross’s five stages of grief pretty much sum up the emotional roller coaster many of you may be riding right now.

Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. You may not experience them all and you may not experience them in rank order, but Ross says you can expect to experience at least two.

In my 12 years as a recruiter, I’ve talked to countless media executives that have lost jobs. I’d say denial and anger are the more common one-two punch with an overlay of depression.

Denial. Even with unemployment rates at an all time high and lay-offs occurring in every industry, we all can’t shake the “it won’t happen to me” delusion, until, of course, it happens. You’re crushed, left high and dry by the company you’ve been loyal to for years. Or maybe you were just unlucky enough to be part of the “last in/first out layoffs and it’s way too late to regret leaving that other job for a mere 15% to 20% salary boost. But the tears dry quickly as you move into phase two: Anger.

Now that you’ve had time to reflect on all you’ve done for the company, all the blood, sweat, tears, overtime, and lost weekends that went into producing the best work possible, you’re downright mad. And here’s where it can get tricky. Whether the anger is justified or not it is often rashly directed at the person who gave you the bad news.

Placing blame is easy in this state but burning bridges is something you will quickly regret once you’ve entered the acceptance stage. Avoid the temptation of trashing your boss or your company to anyone that will listen. If you have to complain, even if you’re justified, try to keep it to your loved ones and trusted friends that don’t work in media. And, this should go without saying but no angry e-mails, IM’s, Facebook postings or Twitters. In other words – no digital trail.

Once the anger has subsided, even if it hasn’t gone away completely, depression sets in. Feelings of hopelessness are normal, especially with daily announcements on the economy’s downward spiral flooding the news. But as with any break-up, you’ll find love again. So shove this phase aside and prepare yourself to move on. Who needed that job anyway?

Finally, the acceptance phase. You’ve come to terms with the harsh reality and now it’s time to reorganize and plan your next steps. Pull out your Rolodex and start planning your triumphant return, because they haven’t seen the last of you yet.

Editor’s note: If you’ve lost a job in the media industry recently, or are afraid of doing so, despair not. Beverly Weinstein’s column will reappear here regularly dispensing sound advice and practical tactics for managing your career in a volatile employment market. If you have specific questions about what you should do, please post them below, and Bev will help you out. Or if you feel uncomfortable posting your queries publicly, feel free to email Bev anonymously at bev@markhammedia.com

Marketing Lessons via Obama

In Cousumer experience, Media, Radio on November 17, 2008 at 5:13 pm

I mentioned the many marketing/branding/strategic/tactical lessons we could all be reminded of from this Presidential cycle and how to best employ thiem in our immediate marketing circumstances.  Here is a New Yorker story which takes us inside for a peek.    Gar

LETTER FROM WASHINGTON
BATTLE PLANS
How Obama won.
by Ryan Lizza
NOVEMBER 17, 2008

Obama’s strategy worked, with only minor alterations, throughout the campaign.

Last June, Joel Benenson, who was Barack Obama’s top pollster during his Presidential run, reported on the state of the campaign. His conclusions, summed up in a sixty-slide PowerPoint presentation, were revealed to a small group, including David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, and several media consultants, and, as it turned out, some of this research helped guide the campaign through the general election. The primaries were over, Hillary Clinton had conceded, and Obama had begun planning for a race against Senator John McCain.
There was good news and bad in Benenson’s presentation. Obama led John McCain, forty-nine per cent to forty-four per cent, among the voters most likely to go to the polls in November, but there was also a large group of what Benenson called “up-for-grabs” voters, or U.F.G.s, who favored McCain, forty-eight per cent to thirty-six per cent. The U.F.G.s were the key to the outcome; if the election had been held then, Obama would have probably lost.
Benenson, who is fifty-six, is bearded and volatile. He speaks with a New York accent, and in the movie version of the Obama campaign he might be played by Richard Lewis. He is considered the star pollster in the Democratic Party. Like several of Obama’s other top advisers—David Axelrod; Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois congressman who is his new chief of staff; Bill Burton, the campaign’s national press secretary—Benenson was deeply involved in helping Democrats win in the 2006 midterm elections, an experience that put the Obama team more in touch with the mood of the electorate going into 2008. (The top strategists for Clinton and McCain had not been involved in difficult races in 2006.)
The data from Benenson’s June presentation contained some reasons to be optimistic. The conventional wisdom was that Obama, as the newest of the candidates, had an image that was malleable and thus highly vulnerable to negative attacks. But that was not what the polling showed. As the presentation explained, “Obama’s image is considerably better defined than McCain’s, even on attributes at the core of McCain’s reputation,” such as “stands up to lobbyists and special interests,” “puts partisan politics aside to get things done,” and “tells people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.”
For Obama aides, who viewed McCain as the one Republican with the potential to steal the anti-Washington bona fides of their candidate, Benenson’s polling was revelatory. “Voters actually did not know as much as I think the press corps thought they did about John McCain,” Anita Dunn, a senior adviser to Obama, told me. “What they’d heard about McCain most recently, and certainly during the primary process, was that he was like every other Republican—fighting to sound more like George Bush.” Benenson said, “What we knew at the start of the campaign was that the notion of John McCain as a change agent and independent voice didn’t exist anywhere outside the Beltway.”

FROM THE ISSUECARTOON BANKE-MAIL THIS
Another finding from this initial poll had clear strategic implications: the economy concerned the U.F.G.s more than any other issue, and on that question neither candidate showed particular strength. In addition, the U.F.G.s were fed up with Washington and, especially, with George W. Bush. Based on those insights, Benenson came up with some recommendations, among them “Own the economy” and “Maintain an emphasis on changing Washington.”
As a practical matter, this meant that, after the Democratic National Convention, in Denver, the campaign would do all that it could to focus attention on economic matters. It had no idea, of course, how fully both the economy and John McCain would coöperate with that goal.
here was an almost obsessive singularity in the way that Obama and his chief strategists—Axelrod and David Plouffe, the campaign’s manager—saw the contest. In their tactical view, all that was wrong with the United States could be summarized in one word: Bush. The clear alternative, then, was not so much a Democrat or a liberal as it was anyone who could credibly define himself as “not Bush.” Axelrod had a phrase that he often used to describe this approach: America was looking for “the remedy, not the replica.” The appeal of the strategy was that, with only minor alterations, it could work in the primaries as well as in the general election, and that, in turn, allowed Obama to finesse the perpetual problem of Presidential politics: having one message to win over a party’s most ardent supporters and another when trying to capture independents and U.F.G.s—the voters who decide a general election. Experience? That was George W. Bush. Hillary Clinton? She could be portrayed as polarizing and as a Washington insider—just like Bush. When Obama gave economic speeches during the primaries and caucuses—which continued over five months, in fifty-five states and territories—he lumped together the Clinton and Bush years as one long period of decline. And John McCain? Four more years of Bush, of “the same.”
“We were fortunate,” Anita Dunn said. Both Clinton and McCain were “Washington insiders, people who for different reasons you could argue weren’t going to bring change.”
The incessant repetition of Obama’s change message had its drawbacks, though, and Benenson described to me the ongoing debate inside and outside the campaign about whether the candidate should move away from that theme—for instance, during the summer and fall of 2007, when Obama’s poll numbers in Iowa were stagnant. “We had people in Iowa in the summer of ’07 saying, ‘All we’re getting asked about is experience! We’ve got to have an answer on experience!’ ” Benenson recalled.
Polling in the summer and fall of 2007 led the campaign to a choice between trying to win the debate that the Clinton campaign was eager to have—about Obama’s perceived lack of experience—and sharpening the debate about change in a way that could undermine Clinton. Once again, change trumped experience. “The much shorter path for us,” Benenson said, going into the jargon of political consulting, “was to eliminate Senator Clinton from the decision set as a change agent. We defined change in a way that Barack Obama had to be the answer.” Larry Grisolano, whose job was to oversee all spending on TV ads and mail, the largest part of the campaign’s budget, posed the question this way: “How do we talk about change in a way that makes Hillary Clinton pay a price for her experience?”
On October 10, 2007, less than three months before the Iowa caucuses, Axelrod, Grisolano, Benenson, and other members of Obama’s “message team” distilled several weeks’ worth of polling and internal debate into a twelve-page memo that laid out Obama’s strategy for the weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses. “The fundamental idea behind this race from the start has been that this is a ‘change’ election, and that has proven out,” the memo said. “Everything in our most recent research has confirmed this premise, as has the fact that other campaigns have adapted to try and catch—or survive—the wave.” The plan adopted by Obama was to raise character issues about Clinton that would disqualify her from employing Obama’s message. “We cannot let Clinton especially blur the lines on who is the genuine agent of change in this election,” the memo said. It argued that, in voters’ minds, Clinton “embodies trench warfare vs. Republicans, and is consumed with beating them rather than unifying the country,” and that “she prides herself on working the system, not changing it.” Obama raised all these issues with some delicacy; he framed the choice as “calculation” versus “conviction,” and was careful not to use Clinton’s name. But the campaign wanted to be sure that reporters got the message. “We also can’t drive the contrasts so subtly or obtusely that the press doesn’t write about them and the voters don’t understand that we’re talking about HRC,” the memo advised Obama.
The new strategy was unveiled on November 10th, at the annual Jefferson Jackson Dinner, the biggest event of the Iowa-caucus season. Candidates could not use notes or a teleprompter at the dinner, and, in the weeks leading up to it, Obama stayed up late each night memorizing a new speech based on the strategy memo. “The Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner ended up being a tipping point in the election,” Dan Pfeiffer, Obama’s communications director, said. “That’s when we took the lead in our internal polling in Iowa for the first time.”
Axelrod believed that the argument about change versus experience would also apply in a race against McCain, and he laid out his argument to Obama in a strategy memo in late 2006, when Obama was still planning his Presidential race. “I was assessing potential opponents,” Axelrod told me. “I got to McCain and said that the McCain of 2000 would be a formidable opponent in a year that was all about change, but that he would almost certainly have to make a series of Faustian bargains in order to be the nominee, and that would make him ultimately a very vulnerable candidate in a year when people were looking for change. And so we started the general election, and by then he had made the Faustian bargains, and he had turned himself into a Bush supporter.” Axelrod continued, “So we had a very simple premise about the general election, which is that these Bush policies had failed, that McCain was essentially carrying the tattered banner of a failed Administration, and that we represented a change from all that. There have been zigs and zags in the road, but that’s essentially the strategy that we have executed from the start.”
The campaign’s faith in the strength of such a simple message was constant. Not only was it the answer for an electorate exhausted with Bush; it turned Obama’s vulnerabilities into assets. “He was at that point a couple of years out of the Illinois Senate, and he was a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama,” Axelrod said. “You don’t have to load up the wagon with too many more bricks than that. But, in a year that was poised for big change, those things were less of an obstacle than you might find in a traditional year. As is often the case, your strength is your weakness, and your weakness is your strength.” Obama almost never delivered a speech from a lectern unless it was festooned with the word “change.” On Election Day, thirty-four per cent of the voters said that they were looking for change, and nearly ninety per cent of those voters chose Obama.
ike many campaign teams, Obama’s was young. The communications department—made up mostly of guys in their twenties and thirties—had a fraternity-house quality. On weekends, they would often drink beer together and play the video game Rock Band at a group house in Chicago’s Lincoln Park neighborhood. They had been brought up in Democratic politics in the previous two decades with an understanding that the people who worked for Bill and Hillary Clinton were the best operatives in Washington, especially when it came to dealing with the media. They had watched “The War Room,” the documentary about the 1992 Clinton campaign, which featured strategists like James Carville and George Stephano-poulos manically responding to every negative story and trying to win every news cycle.
Several Obama aides believe that a crucial moment came after a debate sponsored by YouTube and CNN in July of 2007. During the debate, Obama was asked, “Would you be willing to meet separately, without preconditions, during the first year of your Administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?” Obama answered simply, “I would.” Hillary Clinton pounced on the remark as hopelessly naïve, and her aides prepared to emphasize what appeared to be a winning argument. Obama’s aides had much the same reaction. “We know this is going to be the issue of the day,” Dan Pfeiffer, recalling a conference call the following morning, said. “We have the sense they’re going to come after us on it. And we’re all on the bus trying to figure out how to get out of it, how not to talk about it.” Obama, who was listening to part of the conversation, took the telephone from an aide and instructed his staff not to back down. According to an aide, Obama said something to the effect of “This is ridiculous. We met with Stalin. We met with Mao. The idea that we can’t meet with Ahmadinejad is ridiculous. This is a bunch of Washington-insider conventional wisdom that makes no sense. We should not run from this debate. We should have it.”
The episode gave Obama’s communications aides a boost of confidence. “Instead of writing a memo explaining away our position to reporters, we changed our memo and wrote an aggressive defense of our position and went on the offense,” Pfeiffer said. The aftermath taught them that they could take on the dreaded Clinton machine—“the most impressive, toughest, most ruthless war room in the world,” as Pfeiffer put it. “It was like we had taken our first punch and kept on going,” he said.
The anti-Washington message of their candidate started to influence the way that some staffers saw themselves. “We are, I think, as a group, different from folks in Washington in that we signed up for this campaign and moved to Chicago not knowing a clear path to victory,” Bill Burton, Obama’s press secretary, said. “But, at the same time, we are all still creatures of Washington in the sense that when something happens like that”—the back-and-forth at the YouTube debate—“it lends itself to us thinking, Well, maybe that’s something that we clarify, because the grownups in Washington were all saying you can’t do that. And those are the people that we came up listening to. The Clinton Administration people were saying, ‘O.K., kids, you can’t do that.’ ”
ampaigns are divided in two. On one side are the ad-makers, speechwriters, press secretaries, and assorted spinners, who manage a candidate’s image. On the other side are the field operatives, who find voters and deliver them to the polls. While the communications people operate almost exclusively in the world of perceptions, the field people operate in the world of hard data. David Plouffe, the Obama campaign’s publicity-shy manager, whom Obama praised as “the unsung hero” of his campaign in his victory speech last Tuesday night, comes out of the field side of campaigns. “Politics is about numbers,” Plouffe said to me a few days before the election.
Plouffe, who is forty-one, is thin and discreet, and his low profile in the press sent a message throughout the Obama organization that staffers were to be similarly reticent about attracting publicity. The catchphrase inside the campaign was “No drama with Obama,” and Plouffe channelled the low-key temperament of the candidate himself. “Barack went out and sought people who had a certain personality type,” Pfeiffer said. “They were people who had intentionally low profiles in Washington.” Of Plouffe, Pfeiffer said, “If he had wanted to spend the past five years of his life on ‘Crossfire’ and CNN, he could do that. He’s chosen not to do that.” When, in January, 2007, Pfeiffer interviewed for his job, Obama told him, “What I want around me are people who are calm, who don’t get too high and don’t get too low, because that’s how I am.”
Jon Favreau, a twenty-seven-year-old speechwriter who had worked for John Kerry in 2004, told me, “People were drawn to him and inspired by him in a way that you knew this was about electing Barack Obama. People had come from places where they were probably disappointed in politics. I was, after 2004. It was painful, and I didn’t know if I was going to do it again.” He added, “Even during tough times, everyone sticks together. There are not a lot of Washington assholes on this campaign.”
Alyssa Mastromonaco, the director of scheduling and advance, who had also worked for Kerry in 2004, said that she had some trouble getting used to the quieter vibe of the Obama operation. “When I first started on the campaign, at the very beginning of this one, I was one of the only people who had actually done a Presidential before,” Mastromonaco, who is thirty-two, told me. “And so we were on some conference call, and I was just completely irritated by something someone was saying. After the call, they came in and were, like, ‘Alyssa, this is a campaign where you need to respect other people’s opinions and you can’t be a bitch.’ I was, like, ‘Oh, my God, these guys are serious!’ ”
Obama, who is not without an ego, regarded himself as just as gifted as his top strategists in the art and practice of politics. Patrick Gaspard, the campaign’s political director, said that when, in early 2007, he interviewed for a job with Obama and Plouffe, Obama said that he liked being surrounded by people who expressed strong opinions, but he also said, “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.” After Obama’s first debate with McCain, on September 26th, Gaspard sent him an e-mail. “You are more clutch than Michael Jordan,” he wrote. Obama replied, “Just give me the ball.” Obama’s confidence filtered down through the campaign and gave comfort to his staff during the bleaker moments of 2008, such as when Obama learned that he had lost the New Hampshire primary. After that, he told his longtime friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett, “This will turn out to have been a good thing.” Jarrett told me, “You would think you would have a lot of other things to say before you might get to that.” Favreau said, “His demeanor when he won the Iowa caucuses and his demeanor when he lost New Hampshire were not much different.”
avid Plouffe’s field director was Jon Carson. When we spoke, five days before the election, it was at a cafeteria-style Italian restaurant in the food court of the office building that housed Obama’s headquarters. He wore a gray button-down shirt and khakis, and told me that we had exactly forty-five minutes. Carson has a civil-engineering degree and spent time in Honduras working as a water and sanitation engineer. He, like Plouffe, made me think of the focussed men in white shirts and narrow black ties who, in the nineteen-sixties, ran the space program. When Carson hired field organizers for the campaign, he said that he looked for people with unusual backgrounds—“I try to throw out all the political-science majors when I do hiring.” During a lull in the primary season, he set up a three-week “data camp” in Oregon for Obama staffers. “We had the best data operation of any campaign,” he said. “You can have the most inspirational candidate, you can have the best organizing philosophy in the world, but if you can’t organize your data to take advantage of it and get lists in front of the canvassers and take these volunteers and use it in a smart way and figure out who it is we’re going to talk to—I mean, the rest of it is all pointless.”
Carson was part of the team that made the important decision, during the race against Clinton, to target small caucus states where Clinton had virtually no presence. Carson and Plouffe realized that the cost-per-delegate in caucus states was very low. “I remember the day when we said, ‘Look at this, we could win more delegates in Idaho than in New Jersey,’ ” he told me. Obama’s original plan was to win the Iowa caucuses and use momentum from that victory to catapult him through the three other early states—New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina—and then on to February 5th, Super Tuesday, when twenty-four states voted. It was clear that the campaign would need a backup plan if Clinton and Obama split the first four states, which is what happened. Obama won Iowa and South Carolina, and Clinton won New Hampshire and Nevada.
As the campaign got ready for Super Tuesday, Carson called upon the volunteers—in particular, those he called the “super-volunteers,” people who had left their jobs or dropped out of school to help. He estimated that there were about fifteen thousand super-volunteers working full time for Obama. Carson recalled the moment when the campaign figured out what it would cost to put a hundred organizers out in the February 5th states. “It was the first time that we took an enormous leap of faith in our grass-roots network that was already out there,” he said.
On October 1st, a field organizer named Joey Bristol, a recent graduate of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School, who had delayed a career at the State Department and was working as an intern at the Chicago campaign headquarters, was sent to Idaho to organize the state for Obama. When he arrived, he learned that much of his work had already been done by a local group, Idaho for Obama. “When Joey gets there, a hundred people are waiting for him,” Carson said. “They’ve got meetings planned for him for the next month, they’ve got little subgroups by county all across the state, they’ve already gone to the state Party, gotten the rules of the caucus, figured out a plan.” On February 5th, Clinton won a net total of eleven delegates from New Jersey, which had a primary, and Obama won a net total of twelve delegates from the caucus state of Idaho.
n hindsight, it seems that the most important decision that Obama made during the campaign was to remove himself from the restrictions of the public-financing system. The decision held risks. He had, after all, promised to stay in the system, and his reversal had the potential to damage the reform image that Benenson’s polling showed was a vital advantage over McCain. But there were collateral benefits; namely, making the campaign more of a person-to-person enterprise, by keeping it tied to the Internet grass roots. Much of the intimacy that the campaign created with its supporters was driven by its need—its ravenous appetite—for money. Plouffe, who rarely spoke to reporters on the record, communicated with donors via amateurish videos in which he explained campaign strategy. “You can’t just ask for money,” Jim Messina, Obama’s chief of staff, said. “You’ve got to involve them. That’s why the famous videos with Plouffe were so important. People felt like insiders. They felt like they knew what we were doing.”
Some Obama advisers couldn’t quite believe that McCain decided not to follow them in opting out of the system. McCain, during the campaign, criticized Obama for going back on his pledge, but the issue did not seem to hurt Obama. The financial gap between the two campaigns was striking. Budgets that were drawn up in June at Obama headquarters were discarded in September, after the Conventions, when online fund-raising soared. “I spend the money, so everything’s gotta go through me to get spent, which is the best job ever,” Messina, the keeper of the budget, told me. “It’s like getting the keys to a fucking Ferrari.” Messina’s Ferrari got more turbocharged every week. “On my whiteboard in front of me, I have the money we added to the media and field budgets by day,” he said. “We ended up adding tens of millions to the media budget and twenty-five million to the mail budget over the course of September and the first week of October.” By the end of September, Messina said, the money for Obama “was just raining down.” Though McCain was aided by outside groups and by the Republican National Committee, his entire budget for the general election was the amount provided by the government—eighty-four million dollars.
One day in September, Plouffe asked Messina if he could find seven million dollars more in the budget—for a thirty-minute advertorial that was to air on the Wednesday before Election Day. He found it. (The Obama commercial attracted an estimated thirty-three million viewers, nearly twice the number for the top-rated “Dancing with the Stars.”) There was still money left over, so the campaign bought ads in video games, like Guitar Hero and Madden NFL 09, and scheduled some get-out-the-vote concerts aimed at the youth vote and featuring the rapper Jay-Z and the N.B.A. star LeBron James. “I mean, dude,” Messina said, “when you’re buying commercials in video games, you truly are being well funded.”
But television remained the key advertising medium. And the volume of TV ads that Obama was broadcasting in late October was unprecedented in a Presidential campaign. “In a battleground state like Virginia, we’re at thirty-five hundred points,” Messina said, by which he meant that an average viewer sees a spot thirty-five times a week. “I’ve worked on two of the closest U.S. Senate races in the country,” he continued. “I helped do Jon Tester last time in Montana,” he said, adding that, at the end of the Tester campaign, an average viewer was seeing pro-Tester spots twenty times a week. For Obama, he said, “we’ve been at two thousand points in Montana since the end of September.” Obama narrowly lost the state, but Republicans were forced to use resources to defend it.
McCain couldn’t keep up. “From the second week in September to the middle of October, we were doing two or three to one against McCain, and at least three to one in some of these battleground states,” Messina said. “Republicans couldn’t play in North Carolina. They couldn’t play in Indiana. They weren’t in Florida for forever, and so we’re up by ourselves just kicking the shit out of them.” Obama won all three states.
The Obama campaign became so flush with cash that one of its trickiest political problems was dealing with other Democrats who wanted Obama to campaign for them and spend money on their races. Pete Rouse, who was Obama’s Senate chief of staff and an architect of his Presidential campaign, spent hours handling such calls. “When we announced that we raised a hundred and fifty-one million in one month”—in October—“every Democratic senator in America called Rouse and had an idea how to spend it on winning the Senate, or whatever race,” one senior Obama aide said. Senator Charles Schumer, who ran the committee in charge of Democratic senatorial campaigns, was particularly aggressive. “The only Senate ad Obama did was in Oregon,” the aide continued. “Schumer rolled Barack. He just got him at an event and made him promise. Barack is really good about not making those promises, but Schumer was begging for money.”
ike being too rich, seeming to be too popular—as exemplified by the enormous crowds that Obama attracted—also vexed the campaign. “We had a rally problem during the primaries,” Anita Dunn said. “It was like he was on a pedestal.” As far back as the earliest primaries, the campaign went back and forth between embracing the crowds to show off Obama’s mass appeal and shunning them to emphasize his regular-guy credentials. Hillary Clinton’s campaign discovered that it could make Obama’s popularity work against him. “Once the Clinton campaign figured out how it wanted to run against Obama, she started doing these town halls,” Dunn said. “Her visuals were she was with people, she was working her heart out, and he’s floating into these rallies with all these adoring people.”
McCain’s aides adopted the same strategy in the general election. In July, after Obama toured the Middle East and Europe, and spoke in Berlin at a rally where two hundred thousand people came to cheer him, a McCain ad compared Obama to Paris Hilton. What seemed to outsiders like a trivial, even ridiculous attack had an enormous impact inside Obama’s headquarters.
“We’ve had a ‘presumptuous watch’ on since then,” Dunn said. Alyssa Mastromonaco, who was in charge of putting on all of Obama’s events, said, “After that, people started thinking that he’s like this celebutante. You have to make it pretty clear through your pictures every day that you aren’t, that this is not easy for you.”
The campaign kept Obama away from celebrities as much as possible. A Hollywood fund-raiser with Barbra Streisand became a source of deep anxiety and torturous discussions. The campaign was on the phone for days trying to make sure it was going to work, and almost cancelled it. In Denver, celebrities who in past Presidential campaigns would have had major speaking roles were shielded from public view. “We spent hours trying to celebrity-down the Democratic National Convention,” the aide said.
Two days before Obama’s acceptance speech, in Denver, Jim Margolis, a top media consultant to the campaign, went to inspect the stage at Invesco Field. McCain’s aides had successfully turned the Greek columns ringing the stage at the stadium into a story about how a godlike Obama would be speaking from a “temple.” But when Margolis arrived he realized that it was even worse than that. “I walked in and turned to look at the stage, and they had put in purple runway lights all the way around the whole stage, up across all the columns and it looked like a set from ‘Deal or No Deal,’ ” he said. “And in back of them, where he would walk out, there was a colored horseshoe that was lit that would have gone around him. And in back of that was a sixty-five-inch plasma monitor that would change colors. And for a guy who is being torpedoed every day about celebrity and Hollywood this was straight out of a Hollywood set. My mouth just dropped open.” Margolis ordered the producer and the set designer, who had worked for months on the design, to remove the screen and the purple lights and generally make the stage look less like a Hollywood production.
Obama’s rallies had a strategic purpose beyond their visual impact, and, by putting pressure on Obama to scale down these events, Clinton and then McCain were able to take away one of the campaign’s most useful organizational tools—a chance to capture personal information about potential voters and campaign volunteers, and, toward the end, a means of encouraging supporters to vote early. The battle between the communications staff, which was spooked by the Paris Hilton ad, and the field organizers, who needed the rallies to help identify Obama voters, was decided in favor of the organizers. “Finally, at the end of September we got back to saying, ‘Look, we’re gonna do this again because we need to push early voting,’ and if you’re gonna push early voting and voter registration you’ve gotta do big events,” Messina said.
In the closing weeks of the campaign, crowds of fifty, sixty, and seventy thousand people greeted Obama at every stop—almost as if there were a pent-up demand to see him. At Obama’s final rally, in Manassas, Virginia, the night before Election Day, ninety thousand people came to a dusty fairground. Traffic was snarled for miles on the main highway leading to the site, and people simply abandoned their cars on the side of the road so as not to miss Obama’s speech. Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, had died that morning. He seemed subdued, and when he finished his speech he did something unusual. He stood on the stage for what seemed like a long time, a solitary figure in a simple black jacket with his arms at his sides, as if simply absorbing the intensity of a crowd illuminated by high-powered spotlights. A man standing next to me pointed up at Obama. “Look,” he said. “He doesn’t want it to end.”
uch of the Obama campaign was consumed with making the candidate look Presidential. The theory was that the U.F.G.s wanted to be for Obama, but needed some help visualizing him as Commander-in-Chief. His aides had a term for the process of getting voters comfortable with a President Obama: “building a permission structure.” Bill Burton explained it this way: “There were a lot of questions about Senator Obama from the start. Who is he? What’s with the name? Is America ready to vote for a black guy for President?” There were four major moments in the general election—Obama’s trip to the Middle East and Europe, his selection of a running mate, his Convention speech, and the debates—and each was designed to add another plank to the permission structure. For instance, the foreign trip was designed to show Obama in meetings with world leaders, the strategy that the McCain campaign employed when it sent Sarah Palin to the United Nations to meet people like Henry Kissinger and President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan. “If he looks like a President, and you put him in Presidential settings, then people will get more comfortable with the idea that he could be President,” Anita Dunn said.
To Obama’s aides, the most important moment of the campaign occurred when Obama had to actually be President. It was not totally obvious how he would perform. Many who cheered for Obama from the moment he gave the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention have had reservations. Michelle Obama once talked to me about the doubts that would need to be addressed before people could vote for her husband. “It is a leap of faith,” she said finally. “We talk about it all the time. It is a leap of faith.”
No matter how much confidence one has in Obama, support for him is often based on such intangibles as his temperament and his intelligence, not on a real record of successful decision-making. The campaign helped affirm supporters’ faith in him, but running a successful campaign can’t predict whether someone will be a good President; after all, most Presidents, whether good or bad, have won a Presidential race.
The September financial crisis, which confronted Congress with the task of trying to rescue the economy from collapse, gave Obama’s aides the clearest indication that he might indeed be as good at governing as he has been at campaigning. It forced Obama to do something unusual and difficult for a candidate: he needed to separate politics and governance in the midst of a political campaign in which there was often no distinction. Obama’s aides say that that was the moment they won the election—the moment that any lingering doubts were erased.
The Obama campaign was organized around a series of conference calls, the most important of which was a nightly call involving Obama and some dozen senior advisers. There was always a mixture of the serious and the absurd. For instance, on October 10th the agenda included an update on the message for rallies in Philadelphia, an update on the collapsing economy, and, just as important then, an “Ayers update”—how to respond to attacks on Obama’s limited contacts with the former Weatherman William Ayers. On these calls, Obama’s advisers had a chance to watch their candidate grapple with complex economic problems. During one, Obama laid out the steps in negotiating the bailout package: he would call the Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, and consult with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Pfeiffer said, “We all got off the phone and I was, like, ‘You know what? That was the first call that felt like that’s what it’s going to be like if he’s President.’ That was the moment where he began looking like a President and not a Presidential candidate.”
Ever since the Benenson PowerPoint presentation in June, Obama’s aides had been looking for ways to show that McCain was just another Washington politician; this was the strategy that had helped defeat Hillary Clinton. At the start of the financial crisis, when McCain announced that he would “suspend” his campaign, Obama’s team knew that McCain had stumbled—and that it could highlight his mistake. “We tested right away as to whether people thought it was a genuine attempt to solve the crisis or more of a political maneuver,” Benenson said. “The numbers started out as even, maybe a two-point edge on ‘genuine intent,’ but, five days later, it swung against him, with a ten-point deficit toward ‘political maneuver.’ ” Obama was surprised by McCain’s move. Earlier that day, September 24th, he had spoken with McCain and asked him to release a joint statement about principles that both men wanted to see in a financial rescue package. McCain seemed interested but also told Obama about possibly suspending his campaign; he asked Obama to join him. Obama was noncommittal, but he ended the conversation with the belief that they had agreed about the joint statement and called Jason Furman, a top economic adviser.
“I picked up the phone, and he basically said, ‘Jason, I just got off the phone with Senator McCain and we’re going to come out with a joint statement to help move the financial rescue package forward, because it looks like it’s in a lot of trouble,’ ” Furman told me. “ ‘I know you know his economic adviser, and I’d like you to call him up and make it a really substantive statement.’ ” Furman, glancing at a television, saw McCain walking up to a lectern; a caption at the bottom of the screen said that he was suspending his campaign and might not attend the first debate. When Furman told Obama what McCain was doing, Obama used a salty expression to describe the move and hung up the phone.
As the financial crisis dragged on, Obama and his aides began to realize what it meant for their prospects. Staffers eagerly soaked up the latest polling, which showed a growing lead for Obama, and the conference calls at night only increased their confidence in the candidate. There was some pressure on Obama to come out against the rescue bill, a position that would have been more consistent with the campaign’s themes. “On a purely political calculation, it would have been easy to be against that bill,” Anita Dunn said. “If you look at all the polls, right? People were thinking, They made a mess and they’re trying to stick you, and they’re going to bail out Wall Street. I mean, what would have been easier?”
David Axelrod, who has known Obama longer than most of Obama’s other campaign aides, said that he had always wondered how Obama would fare at such a moment. “Barbaric and sometimes ridiculous as is this process of running for President, the thing that I love about it is at the end of the day you can’t hide who you are,” Axelrod said. “I’d known him for sixteen years, I have huge confidence in him, but you never know how someone’s gonna handle the vagaries and vicissitudes of a Presidential race, so you hope that they do well.”
lingering question about Barack Obama’s run for the Presidency was whether this inspirational figure—more so even than the candidate John F. Kennedy—would be transformed by consultants and a sophisticated campaign apparatus into someone no longer recognizable. “Most of us do this and then we go away,” Dan Pfeiffer said at the end of a conversation at Obama’s Chicago headquarters. “The first Wednesday in November, we’re off doing something else. We got the horse to the water, and someone else can make him drink. We’re about winning elections, not actually governing the country, and because he has not done campaigns—he has not run for reëlection five times; he’s actually really only ever had one hard race, this one—he doesn’t have all the bad habits of career politicians.”
It is already being said by the great army of bloggers and commentators that the Obama campaign was the best-run in modern history. Much the same thing was said about James Carville’s work for Bill Clinton in 1992 and Karl Rove’s for Bush in 2000. But campaigns can change a candidate, too. Axelrod said to me that, early in the process, Obama told aides, “I’m in this to win, I want to win, and I think we will win. But I’m also going to emerge intact. I’m going to be Barack Obama and not some parody.” At another point, in early 2007, Obama returned from a forum about health care knowing that he had not done well against Hillary Clinton. “She was very good, and I need to meet that standard, meet that test,” he told Axelrod. “I am not a great candidate now, but I am going to figure out how to be a great candidate.” One of Obama’s achievements as a politician is that he somehow managed to emerge intact, after navigating two years of a modern and occasionally absurd Presidential race, while also becoming a great candidate. On Election Night, as he once again invoked the words of Lincoln, he seemed to be saying that he was going to figure out how to be a great President. ♦
ILLUSTRATION: JOHN CUNEO

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/17/081117fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

What’s Your Target

In Cousumer experience, Media, Radio on July 8, 2008 at 6:18 pm

This might have gotten lost in your rush to get back up to speed after the long weekend, but is a very important exercise in the continuous reevaluation of your core target and how well you are engaging them. The areas for potential growth in the general audience may surprise you, but we all need to keep these figures in mind while formulating strategic decisions and planning for what moves are likely from competitors.
I am not a believer in generic, one size fits all solutions to any problem and am not saying that now. In fact, if anything these numbers speak to how poorly a non-localized formatic solution would address regional demographic and psychographic differences.
How are you different from a station with a similar format in other regions of the country? What are the things about your market that make your area different and how do those things resonate on your air? Does your imaging underline this localism without pandering? How do you work with the air staff on insuring their communication is maximizing this connection? Why the hell is he asking all of these obvious questions?
I really think we need to jump all over these topics when they come up outside of the quarterly strategic meetings because we can approach them from a non-structured place rather than from a corporate exercise. We all tend to tell stock holders, executives, national, regional, and upper management what they want to hear when in the confines of a measured environment while being in the moment with an open mind and encouragement to explore usually brings about fresh thinking and nontraditional answers to the same old questions.
Roll up your sleeves and break out a legal pad for some brainstorming points with your staff and let’s get into it. Gar

The Changing Face of the U.S. Consumer
What We Can Learn from Census Data, and Why It Matters for Brands
By Peter Francese

Published: July 07, 2008

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) — The marketing community, already dealing with a slumping economy and an increasingly consumer-controlled media marketplace, must confront another new reality: The face of the American consumer is changing dramatically.

It’s not news that the nation is aging, but the fact that the average U.S. head of household is just six months shy of 50 is a startling statistic.

Also factor in that regional demographics are diverging more than ever before. The young, multicultural West bears little resemblance to the old, largely white Northeast, where many communities are nearly childless. And that’s to say nothing of the rapid and economically vital influx of immigrants.

To examine what these demographic shifts mean for brand marketing, let’s take a look at some of the most prominent trends.

Growing old: Impact of aging households

The average U.S. head of household is now nearly 50 years old (49.5, to be precise). But here’s the bigger story: More than 80% of the growth in the number of households in the next five years will be among those headed by people 55 and older. That’s pretty scary stuff for the youth-obsessed.

The balance of household growth is projected to be among newly forming households headed by people 25 to 34. We can expect little or no household growth, and perhaps even a slight decline, in the highest-income and highest-spending household demographic: households headed by someone 35 to 54.

The chart above shows the profile of U.S. households by age in 2007, according to the Census Bureau. That chart explains a lot about why consumer spending has held up so well.

Two age groups — 35 to 44 and 45 to 54 (together about 47 million households) — have the highest number of dual-earner married couples, and they account for almost half (49%) of total U.S. consumer spending.

As these two age groups shrink in the next five years (by as much as 1 million households), a larger share of future increases in consumer spending may have to come from those high-growth households headed by someone 55 or older — many of whom spend much more on services than they do on goods.

Picking up slack
Can these older consumers, whom many in marketing have ignored for so long, pick up the spending slack? Well, they’ve been doing pretty well lately. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports in its annual consumer-spending surveys that households headed by people 55 to 64 increased their total spending at almost twice the rate of all households (60% vs. 32%) in the most recent five-year survey period.

No other age group comes even close to that growth rate. One reason for the jump in spending was the 23% growth in older households. But the other reason was rising household income. The average household headed by someone 55 to 64 had $10,600 more to spend in 2007 than the average household in that age group five years earlier.

Lest we forget, the oldest boomers are starting to get their direct deposits from the Social Security Administration and, some pundits have suggested, will thus shortly bankrupt the nation. That’s nonsense, of course, but it’s a great story.

In the next five years, aging boomers will add more than 1 million consumers per year to the 65-and-older segment — increasing its number at more than twice the rate of the past five years. This boomer-driven growth will be highly concentrated in the 65-to-74 age group, where more than 80% of that near-term growth in the 65-plus segment will occur.

Growing old: Rise of the risk-averse

Something happens when that Medicare card comes in the mail at 65. It’s your government certifying that, no matter how young you may feel, pal, you are old. And actuarially you are also at high risk for a long list of nasty health problems.

Fortunately for marketers, the chances are rising that not many baby boomers will be retired by that age. But that doesn’t change the presence of that card in the wallet and the psychological effect it’s likely to have.

For one thing, it fosters more risk-averse behavior. It says to consumers: “Better be more careful with your spending, because you will never be as healthy or have as much money as you’ve had in the past.”

Risk-averse behavior can happen at any age. But for consumers, there is no doubt it increases with age and proximity to, well, you know what. From a marketing point of view, this will present several challenges.

Magic words
The first is to more fully understand the mind of the risk-averse. A risk-averse consumer wants to hear at least two of these three words: guarantee, safety and experience.

Risk-averse consumers are also very much interested in price (read: senior discount), but a low price by itself probably will not close the sale if there is any perceived risk of nonperformance.

The increasing number of such consumers suggests we will see greater use in advertising of product or service warranties, prominent displays of long corporate histories, exhibits of financial strength and testimonials from happy customers.

Once consumers of a certain age accept and/or embrace their grandparent life stage, age-denial messages (“60 is the new 40″) are not likely to get much traction among the newly or soon-to-be Medicare-eligible.

Growing old: Open vs. closed minds

One of the other consequences of aging consumers is that it becomes harder to change minds that are often closed to new ideas. Once an opinion about a brand or concept has been firmly established, older consumers can become quite possessive of their long-held attitudes and are loath to give them up.

One example is the negative attitudes so many consumers have acquired about U.S. motor vehicles. Overcoming hard negative perceptions built up over the years is vastly more expensive than attracting consumers who have no strong feelings about vehicle brand or country of origin.

As Barack Obama has found out, confronting older people’s strongly held beliefs and calling them out is a minefield to be traversed with great care. The reason: Resolutely opinionated consumers don’t want to admit that their minds are closed, and they resent it when anyone suggests they’re not willing to consider a new idea.

A frontal assault on a closed mind has little chance of success. A sly or somewhat humorous message using a nonthreatening spokesperson can sometimes open a locked mind and perhaps get a previously inflexible consumer to at least consider trying a product or service again.

Consumer-opinion websites — Epinions, for example — have been a principal enabler of hardening consumer attitudes.

Before the emergence of these sites, a few unhappy customers couldn’t do much damage. Now their unfiltered rants can be read by millions of prospects. And they could have a bigger effect on consumers who may already be tilting risk-averse. Those consumers might say, “Why take a chance when those two people had a bad experience?”

Critical ad role
This new world means marketers can not only lose control of their messages but also experience greatly diminished selling effectiveness because of a few bad reviews. That suggests a vastly more critical role for advertising research and testing, especially for products or services that have, shall we say, checkered pasts.

But advertising research is becoming trickier in a world where rising numbers of consumers have only cellphones and are not receptive to research calls.

Older consumers, however, are far more likely to have landlines than younger consumers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently found that more than one-third of young (under 30) households had no landline, compared with less than 10% of older (45-plus) households.

The increasing use of caller ID for screening out unknown callers and the rising number of older couples with second homes suggest a re-evaluation of research plans. There is no doubt that finding out what’s really on consumers’ minds is becoming more difficult.

This suggests a greater role for point-of-sale research. Brief face-to-face conversations with consumers at randomly selected retail outlets can provide valuable insights into their attitudes and the reasons for their product acceptance or rejection. Bottom line: We can do a lot better at overcoming a customer’s objections if we know more about the real reasons behind those objections.

Consumer chasm: Distance widening between consumer types

The emergence of the title of chief marketing officer elevated the marketing function to a level of importance equal to that of finance and the chief financial officer. Within the C-suite, we may see the creation of a new position under the CMO: consumer-segments communicator.

That person will be the one who keeps everyone in the firm up to speed on the different and fast-changing channels through which each segment of consumers can be most efficiently reached, queried and persuaded.

The online youthful and mostly wireless consumer inhabits a world far apart from the older consumer who subscribes to a newspaper and uses a telephone directory.

The college-educated consumer with a white-collar job in a wired office has much less in common and much less interaction with the high-school-educated, blue-collar worker than in the past. Their product and brand preferences can diverge just as widely as their views on issues such as free trade, gay marriage and global warming.

Escalade gulf
It’s hard to overstate the attitudinal gulf between a Prius-owning, environmentally aware consumer and the driver of an Escalade who thinks global warming is just a bogus scheme to take away his or her 3-ton tank. This suggests a revised look at the concept of target marketing and marketing efficiency.

In the past, target marketing focused mostly on what TV shows people in a segment watched or what radio formats they preferred or what periodicals they read.

To some extent, that type of targeting can still work. But precision targeting in the future will rely more heavily on ethnographic research into the culture, beliefs and activities of target consumer groups, as well as their media preferences.

Regional disconnect: Sharply diverging and diverse regional markets

There is often geographic as well as psychographic separation among segments. It is more common than ever for older people to live in places where there are few or no children. And the places where young adults choose to live are more often apart from where older people reside.

There are many towns in New England, for example, where only one in five households has any children, compared with a nationwide average of more than one in three. The six New England states are all among the 10 oldest states by median age, so the region leads the nation in terms of an aging consumer base.

Sometimes this is by design, such as in age-restricted housing developments. But more often it’s an unplanned separation by age or socioeconomic status. Whatever the reason, the geographic segmentation of consumer markets has become sharper.

The Northeast has one-fifth of the nation’s elderly, and that segment is projected to increase by at least 25% in the next decade. By contrast, the region has only 17% of the nation’s children, and no growth is projected for that segment. It also has 20% of the nation’s white, non-Hispanic population and the same percentage of Asians, but just 14% of Hispanics.

Younger West
By contrast, the Western region, which also has about one-fifth of the nation’s elderly, is home to nearly one in four children (24%). This region has just under a fifth of the nation’s white, non-Hispanics (19%) but is home to almost half of U.S. Hispanics (42%) and Asians (46%).

Women, 2007. Source: Census Bureau
One number that illustrates the widening differences among regions and subregions (Census divisions) is the median age of women (see chart). The higher that number, the fewer women in the childbearing-age range and thus the fewer heavy-spending married couples with young children.

According to the latest data from the Census Bureau, half the women in the six New England states are 40 or older. That’s five years older than the median age in the Western South subregion (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas). From a marketing perspective, those five years translate into huge differences in product preference and media behavior.

The Western states also have low female median ages, led by California, at 35.8, which (along with Texas, at 34.3) has one of the lowest of any of the big states . By comparison, the 2007 median age of U.S. women was 37.9.

By now it must be pretty clear that lower median age correlates with higher diversity. Conversely, a high median age means less diversity. The best examples are the nation’s two oldest states in terms of women’s median age: Maine (42.6) and Vermont (41.9). They are also the two least-diverse states: 95% of their residents are white, non-Hispanic consumers.

Two key variables driving states and regions apart as consumer markets are interstate migration and immigration. The latest population estimates from the Census Bureau show a net flow between 2000 and 2007 of 3.6 million people from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and West. At least half of those inter-regional movers were under 35.

Those same estimates show the arrival of 8 million immigrants in that seven-year period — two-thirds of whom went to the South or West. Whether the source is interstate or international, most people who move are young, and they either bring their children with them or have children later. The long-term effect is to make some states or regions older and others younger consumer markets.

New faces: Growing diversity of young adults, children and teens

A big share of future spending growth may come from the 26 million households headed by people under 35. A majority of these young households spend well in excess of their relatively meager incomes on a wide array of consumer goods, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys.

Source: Census Bureau
Households headed by people under 35 account for only a little more than a fifth of consumer spending by themselves, but they cause vast spending by others on their weddings and babies. There really should be a separate category in the national GDP figures for competitive grandparenting by baby boomers. They can be seen in any Hanna Andersson outlet buying armloads of pricey kids’ clothes.

Young singles and young families with children are more diverse, better educated, more environmentally aware, deeper in debt and more globally connected via new media than any previous generation.

Not too surprisingly, they are more open to new ideas, more tolerant than their predecessors, and more aware that they live and compete for jobs in a global economy.

These young adults are also the first ones many boomers and older people have predicted will not live as well as previous generations. Millions of young consumers have responded to that with a dismissive shrug. Perhaps it’s hard for them to take seriously predictions about themselves by a technically challenged crowd that doesn’t even send text messages.

But there is more that separates these young-adult consumers from their parents’ and grandparents’ generations than texting competence. One defining difference can be seen in the the chart to the left: Only one in five consumers over 65 is Hispanic, Black or Asian, compared with two in five consumers under 45.

Mobile teens
Hispanic women, in fact, have a median age 14 years younger than the white, non-Hispanic population (see chart).

1. Other includes other races and multiracial. Source: Census Bureau
There are about 25 million U.S. teenagers 12 to 17, and any casual observer would guess that 24.99 million of them have cellphones. These teens and their parents are among the most diverse consumer segments in the nation, depending on where they live. Three-fifths of families with teens live in the South (36%) or West (24%) while only 18% live in the Northeast and 22% in the Midwest.

The chart on the right illustrates the great variation in diversity by region. More than three-quarters of teens in the Midwest are non-Hispanic whites, compared with only about half in the West and South. Variations are even greater from state to state. In California and Texas, two of the largest states, more than half of household heads are Hispanic, Black, Asian or multiracial.

Locating teenagers and young adults is, of course, not enough. Speaking to them with words and images they can relate to is a major challenge for senior — and I mean senior — marketing executives. Young consumers can sniff out condescending pander from boomers like new moms detecting a dirty diaper two rooms away.

Speaking of new moms, their educational attainment is at a record high. Nearly half (45%) of women 25 to 39 have a college degree, compared with just one-third of women 30 years older (55 to 69). More education means more-independent, savvier consumers with greater ability to evaluate product or service claims and decide for themselves which represent the best value for them or their children.

Claritas/Nielsen projections of households headed by people under 35 suggest that growth in the next five years will be pretty minimal. Their income may increase, but their relatively small numbers suggest they are not going to replace baby-boomer household spending anytime soon.

The immigration imperative

For the past seven years, 40% of U.S. population growth has come from immigration. Five large states (New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Connecticut and Illinois) would have seen dramatically shrinking work forces and total population declines were it not for the millions of immigrants who moved to those states.

Yet anti-immigrant rhetoric on talk radio and factory roundups by Immigration and Customs Enforcement have created the impression that immigrants are a scourge on our nation.

According to the Pew Research Center, 42% of Americans think immigration is a “big problem.” A not-too-well-informed woman on a TV talk show with me said flatly: “They’re drinking all our water.”

In her book “Bet You Didn’t Know” (Prometheus Books, August 2008), Cheryl Russell writes that Americans have become increasingly agitated about immigrants. Most upset, it seems, are people who live where there are the fewest immigrants.

“People most affected by immigration are least concerned about it, evidence that fantasy — not reality — is driving the narrative and stoking the immigration debate,” Ms. Russell reports.

Fortunately, cooler and much-better-informed heads are analyzing the situation and coming to sensible conclusions. Dowell Myers, writing in Communities & Banking (a quarterly publication of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston), concludes his article “Immigrants’ Contributions in an Aging America” with this paragraph:

Immigration opportunities
“The future of America will be formed at the intersection of two great demographic forces. With the inexorable aging into senior status of the giant baby-boom generation, immigration may be the best way to get needed workers, taxpayers and home buyers. … The best thing to be done for America’s future is to think ahead and optimize the intersection between aging America and immigration.”

He might have added shoppers to the list of things we need as boomers move out of their prime spending years, 35 to 54. We could certainly use more immigrant families to bulk up the smaller Generation X and repopulate our base of consumers.

The rapidly aging Northeast region could certainly use more immigrants as well to care for its large and growing multitude of retirees.

Perhaps the best thing forward-looking marketing folks can do is to become more fully engaged in the national debate about immigration. It’s bizarre that we permit and encourage global movement of consumer goods, services and money, but not workers. Given our aging population, we clearly need to permit higher levels of immigration to feed our future labor-market needs.

At the very minimum, we should stop treating immigrants so shabbily. After all, they are the only ones likely to bail us out of our heavily mortgaged future.
Change agent

What Peter Francese says you need to know — and do — to reach the changing consumer

1. GENERATION AARP
THE TREND: The average age for a U.S. head of household is 49.5— just six months shy of getting a sign-up pitch from AARP. The first boomers will turn 65 in less than three years.

MARKETING CHALLENGE: Older consumers tend to be more risk-averse and less open to new ideas.

WHAT TO DO: Don’t pander (“60 is the new 40″). Play up messages suggesting advantages such as guarantees, safety and experience.

2. CONSUMER CHASM
THE TREND: The gulf is widening among consumers when it comes to attitudes and behavior. The online- and wireless-centric consumer lives in a different world from the older newspaper reader.

WHAT TO DO: Rethink strategies for target marketing. Put more emphasis on ethnographic research into the culture, beliefs and activities of the target consumer

3. REGIONAL DISCONNECT
THE TREND: One nation, but hardly united or homogeneous. The Northeast is older, largely white with fewer children; the West is younger and more diverse. Two thirds of recent immigrants have settled in the South or West.

WHAT TO DO: For products aimed at older consumers, consider looking north and east. If you want younger consumers, pick your regions and then make sure the message resonates with a multicultural audience.

4. NEW FACES
THE TREND: The median age of U.S. Hispanic women is about 28—14 years younger than the median age for white, non-Hispanic women. Two in five consumers under 45 are Hispanic, Black or Asian (vs. one in five for 65- plus). More than half of household heads in California and Texas are Hispanic, Black, Asian or multiracial.

WHAT TO DO: If you want to be the choice of a new generation, embrace the cultures and voices of that generation.

5. IMMIGRATION IMPERATIVE
THE TREND: In the past seven years, 40% of U.S. population growth has come from immigration. Five big states (New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois and Connecticut) would have seen their work forces and populations shrink were it not for new immigrants.

WHAT TO DO: Marketers need to engage in the national debate about immigration. Immigrants, after all, are a source of labor—and a prime source of new consumers.

click here to link to the adage article with graphics. click here for another snafu.

Are We User Fiendly?

In Cousumer experience, Media, Radio on June 24, 2008 at 1:20 pm

We’ve talked about this for years and the question remains, do listeners enjoy interacting with us on many levels and what do we do to make that interaction a better experience?  Do we even utilize the lines of communication we have open now, or do we just “play whatever Jack wants” and forget interaction ending up in a long term SNAFU?  What is your goal in growing your brand and what is your plan to accomplish deeper tsl and usage?  Additional points of entry always help and making sure the entry is clearly marked and inviting would rank right up there in fundamentals.  Here is an example from Ad Age today:

How Apple Is Blurring the Line Between Marketing and Service
Pete Blackshaw Explains Why Consumer-Facing Brands Can Benefit From Better Customer Interaction

By Pete Blackshaw

Published: June 23, 2008

Pete Blackshaw

“How can I help you, and where would you like to go?”

In this simple greeting, there’s a huge question: Are the greeting and the experience that follows marketing or service or both?

In the last couple of months, Apple has boosted the number of “concierges” who greet and direct shoppers as soon as they walk in the door of its retail stores. Apple has always had employees at the front, ready to help, but this time it is positioning an eager-to-please offensive line a few steps from the doorway.

These employees don’t wait until you look utterly confused to ask you what you need. They intercept you — though not intrusively and always with a smile. The concierge in the orange shirt, Apple writes in its popular website, “is your guide to the Apple Retail Store, ready to answer your questions and point you in the right direction.”

What’s going on here and what can we learn? First, it goes without saying that Apple is redefining and reshaping the retail experience via the company’s growing roster of stand-alone stores. But there’s something even bigger going on here, akin to how online show retailer Zappos.com is turning the traditional rules of e-commerce upside down.

Things once considered the dark side of Apple, such as tech support, are on the verge of becoming strategic assets, with the Apple Store’s geek-stocked Genius Bar able to tackle just about any issue or concern your have. And the process of planning that interaction is more akin to scheduling a haircut or spa treatment than calling those inaccessible tech-support lines.

In my most recent interaction, which centered on a broken video iPod, it took me about 15 minutes to get to my seat at the bar. After multiple rapid-fire tests, the Genius helper concluded my well-exercised MP3 player was toast and laid out a rather simple replacement process. Along the way I tossed in a few unrelated questions, which he gleefully, patiently answered.

Whether explicitly acknowledged or not, there’s an unmistakable “service is marketing” mantra pervading every aspect of the Apple Store. And that’s something every brand, even those not as shiny as Apple’s, can learn from. The opportunity to solve problems, find solutions and even address “the darn thing doesn’t work” emotional pain-points all lead to a higher impact-marketing and sales proposition. While not every marketer has a Steve Jobs-inspired vision, every consumer-facing company has problems that can be converted into opportunities to inspire loyalty.

In the case of the “service concierges,” they are not waiting for problems. They assume you arrive at the Apple Store looking specifically for something, and in most cases they are right. And even if serendipity is your cup of tea, they’ll help you navigate that experience as well. What’s important about this front line is not just the help these employees provide, but the halo of service they create. They are there if you need them, a reality that brings more confidence to the overall shopping experience.

Joey Dunn, a University of Cincinnati video-production student who enthusiastically helped me out in the front of the store, noted he’s not driven by sales commissions or even pressure to credit a sale to the particular store. “As long as it’s helping Apple,” he noted. He did acknowledge that employees receive discounts on products, although he refused, with state-secret mystique common to Apple culture, to say just how much. “Let’s just say they take care of me.”

More important, their presence reminds consumers that the Apple brand has authority, expertise and, of course, a certain level of geeky yet accessible passion that lures fans to the brand.

“They hire people who are extremely familiar with the product,” explained Pat Henry, a Ford engineer and iPhone-equipped Apple enthusiast who I interviewed outside the store. “They then use that knowledge and expertise as leverage in the sales process. By doing this they can actually sell more effortlessly.”

It’s no coincidence that other brands are paying attention. Sony is borrowing many of the same tactics in Sony-only stores — and others may be well-served by doing likewise. Henry, with characteristic Apple evangelism (or bias), called out a host of “opportunities” for Best Buy, for instance. “The employees simply work off spec sheets and simply don’t know what they are talking about,” she said.

Now in fairness to the Apple-aggrieved, the brand is not perfect and there’s no shortage of tough-love from consumers about Apple 1-800 lines and other dimensions of online tech support. As an Apple user myself, I do think those have improved, but not to the level of excellence that exists at the Apple Store. I’d also be lying if I didn’t profess my disappointment, even dismay, over having to actually pay a premium for faster-response (and more patient, I presume) phone support.

Still, Apple is introducing some important new lessons and questions for marketers:

Service is marketing. As marketers struggle to “engage” consumers, service may well be the easiest and most gratifying starting point — and one with high sales conversion potential.
Problems are opportunities. Tech support is an emotional experience — so why not capitalize on that insight by openly and enthusiastically solving problems, giving reassurance and showing compassion for the pain and frustration. A satisfied consumer might just buy something else while making the trip.
Employee authority and passion aids selling. When employees “walk the talk” in using the product they sell, credibility goes up — and credibility drives persuasion. Passion and evangelism also move the needle.
Should we all take a bite of out of this Apple? Even a nibble might help.

~ ~ ~
Pete Blackshaw is exec VP of Nielsen Online Digital Strategic Services and author of the forthcoming book, “Satisfied Customers Tell Three Friends, Angry Customers Tell 3000″ (Doubleday). He’s a former co-leader of P&G interactive marketing, the founder of PlanetFeedback.com and co-founder of the Word-of-Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA).