As a senior college student awaiting graduation and, essentially, the jump start to the rest of my life, I can't help but wonder if the knowledge I have obtained in the past four years will stick with me. How am I certain that once I'm at my workplace developing PR/Social Media/Marketing Campaigns for clients that I'll remember all the concepts in my marketing tool box? Application is key, not memorizing. So, this post aims to add a few concepts to that tool box, hoping that in one, two, five years from now, I remember what I spent my four years in college learning about.
The first concept I would like add to my tool box is word-of-mouth (WOM). This is a broad term that consists of a complex and dynamic understanding. In the earlier years of WOM, it consisted of a friend talking to a friend about a great movie they saw over the weekend, but now, in the digital era, there is a whole new transformation of the WOM and it is called E-WOM (electron word-of-mouth). Face-to-face communication seems like a concept in the past due to the vast upbringing of social networking sites, mobile phones, tablets, etc. Consumers are not just talking to each other face-to-face, they are putting reviews online (good or bad) and consumers are reading and listening. An even more specific concept to add to my marketing tool box is the difference between personal WOM and impersonal WOM. I think the difference between these two concepts is important for marketers to realize. If a consumer participates in personal WOM, then they are at school or work talking to someone directly about a new product, restaurant, etc. This personal WOM generates an incredible amount of high credibility, which is something that consumers love. They want their information to be reliable and trustworthy. On the opposite side of the spectrum lies impersonal WOM. This is the E-WOM previously spoken about. Consumers are going online to websites like Yelp! to research certain products, services, or ideas. The downside to this is the low credibility. There is no face-to-face reliability and trustworthiness.
Another concept I think is important to add to the tool box is the mere exposure effect, specifically the impact familiarity has on a consumer. We spoke in class about this term in regards of outdoor advertising, but it applies to all areas on integrated marketing communications. The mere exposure effect basically states that consumers are more likely to favor a brand they have previously been exposed to, which leads to familiarity. People like things they are familiar to. People do not like uncertainty and we try our best to reduce uncertainty. So, products that consumers have seen before are more have a higher purchase intent.
The last concept I want to add to my marketing concept tool box is perceived risk. This is the risk consumers think about before purchasing a product. Obviously, the more risk, the higher the involvement the consumer has in their research and purchase. For example, gum from the checkout lane has no perceived risk, while a new car has very high perceived risk. The important thing to realize about perceived risk is that there are different kinds. There are financial risks, social risks and psychological risks. A product could be expensive, so the consumer could feel like their is a risk in losing a lot of money. A product could change the way the consumer wants to be perceived by others. Or a product could be detrimental to the consumer's own values and morals. Whether it be any of those three kinds of risks, marketers must realize that consumers go through a great deal of weighing in the negatives of a purchase and it is their job to minimize the risks and promote the positives.
I'm adding these three terms into my marketing tool box because I believe they play an important role in integrated marketing communications implementation. They all serve the purpose of spreading awareness, knowing what consumers like, and knowing what consumers are afraid of losing during their consumer decision journey.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Outdoor Advertising: Is it really worth it?
The concept of outdoor advertising is an interesting concept to me in the sense that the consumer is only exposed to the brand for, at most, 15-20 seconds. I sit here and try to recall some brand names I've been exposed to on highways and main roads and I cannot think of one. So, is it really worth the money marketers put into outdoor advertising? Are billboards and outdoor signage effective?
If there is one thing that we know about all humans is that they like being familiar to things. We like to be surrounded and exposed to things we are familiar to. This is when the mere exposure effect, a concept I learned from Professor Costanzo, comes into play. The mere exposure effect is a "psychological tendency that causes individuals to prefer an option that they have been exposed to before to an option they have never encountered." So basically, a consumer is more likely to favor a product they have been exposed to. But, how does this relate back to outdoor advertising? In terms of billboards, it seems that marketers want to target consumers who routinely drive on that specific highway. If those consumers are repeatedly exposed to the billboard, there is hope for brand recall. I feel as though marketers must be conscious of who their target market is when enduring in outdoor advertising. I do not think that a consumer who passes a billboard one time is likely to recall the brand name.
I have the perfect example of a lack in brand recall from a one time brand exposure from a billboard. My boyfriend and I were on our way to the Big E this past Friday. I decided to test his brand recall from a one time exposure of a brand on a billboard on the highway. I pointed out the billboard and said, "Oh, that's a cool advertisement!" This made him look at it and ten minutes later I would ask what the brand was of that outdoor ad. I asked and he had no idea. He couldn't recall the name of the brand, but he could recall the product. So, this example shows that outdoor advertising can be ineffective for one time exposures.
That example showcases how the mere exposure effect aims to do the opposite of one time exposure. The mere exposure effects strives to reach familiarity in the consumer. But, what happens when the consumer is exposed too much? Yes, I'm saying that to consumer needs to be exposed more than once for brand recall, but there's a potential problem that can occur when they are exposed to much. The problem is called the wear out effect. The wear out effect occurs when the consumers is so exposed to the brand that they tend to look past it after they're too familiar.
Outdoor advertising is a tricky thing. Consumers must be exposed more than once, but they cannot be exposed too much. So, is outdoor advertising really worth it? I think that it all depends on the company. For small companies, placement is important, but they probably cannot afford such placement. For bigger companies, I think if they can afford, why not? Outdoor advertising has its pros and cons, so I think it is up to the marketers to decide whether it is really worth it.
If there is one thing that we know about all humans is that they like being familiar to things. We like to be surrounded and exposed to things we are familiar to. This is when the mere exposure effect, a concept I learned from Professor Costanzo, comes into play. The mere exposure effect is a "psychological tendency that causes individuals to prefer an option that they have been exposed to before to an option they have never encountered." So basically, a consumer is more likely to favor a product they have been exposed to. But, how does this relate back to outdoor advertising? In terms of billboards, it seems that marketers want to target consumers who routinely drive on that specific highway. If those consumers are repeatedly exposed to the billboard, there is hope for brand recall. I feel as though marketers must be conscious of who their target market is when enduring in outdoor advertising. I do not think that a consumer who passes a billboard one time is likely to recall the brand name.
I have the perfect example of a lack in brand recall from a one time brand exposure from a billboard. My boyfriend and I were on our way to the Big E this past Friday. I decided to test his brand recall from a one time exposure of a brand on a billboard on the highway. I pointed out the billboard and said, "Oh, that's a cool advertisement!" This made him look at it and ten minutes later I would ask what the brand was of that outdoor ad. I asked and he had no idea. He couldn't recall the name of the brand, but he could recall the product. So, this example shows that outdoor advertising can be ineffective for one time exposures.
That example showcases how the mere exposure effect aims to do the opposite of one time exposure. The mere exposure effects strives to reach familiarity in the consumer. But, what happens when the consumer is exposed too much? Yes, I'm saying that to consumer needs to be exposed more than once for brand recall, but there's a potential problem that can occur when they are exposed to much. The problem is called the wear out effect. The wear out effect occurs when the consumers is so exposed to the brand that they tend to look past it after they're too familiar.
Outdoor advertising is a tricky thing. Consumers must be exposed more than once, but they cannot be exposed too much. So, is outdoor advertising really worth it? I think that it all depends on the company. For small companies, placement is important, but they probably cannot afford such placement. For bigger companies, I think if they can afford, why not? Outdoor advertising has its pros and cons, so I think it is up to the marketers to decide whether it is really worth it.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Make the Most Out of Your Unhappy Customer
For anyone that is working/worked in retail, you can directly relate to this post. We've all seen them, dealt with them, heard them and even cried from them (that's another story). Especially when the holiday season comes around, it seems like the nasty, bitter customers come swarming in for the best deals. How can marketers make the most out of their unhappy consumers? There's a fear that the unhappy consumer is posting a mean Facebook post as they're walking out of the store, so how can that be prevented? You have to make the most out of your unhappy customer.
I've worked at Kmart for five years now and I can rest assure that I have dealt with the best of the best customers to the worst of the worst. I've seen how a company can suffer from the worst of the worst customers. For example, on the wonderful and exciting day of Black Friday, a women wanted to put many pieces of jewelry on layaway. She was happy because she was saving hundreds of dollars on our Black Friday deals when there was a piece of jewelry she thought would be on sale and it wasn't. Long story short, the lady got upset, wanted to speak with a manager and get the deal. Now, this customer has no idea that for loss prevention causes, you can't just sell a $499.99 ring for $49.99 because that is what the customer wants. That just can't happen. So, she stopped all of her purchases and left the store. This is a case in which an unhappy customer caused a decrease in revenue for that day.
Once a customer is unhappy and starts to get nasty it seems like there is no going back. But, there is a way in which companies can turn their unhappy consumers into their most loyal. All the company has to do is cooperate and make them happy again. This is a concept we touched up in Professor Costanzo's Promotional Strategy class. If you can please the customer and show them great customer service, then that can turn the whole situation into a positive Facebook post about your company's great customer service. The unsatisfied customer becomes your biggest ally in spreading positive WOM about your brand.
I've seen how an unhappy customer can hurt revenue, like the lady on Black Friday, but I've also seen how managing those customers can benefit the company. For example, one day during the summer I was working at the jewelry counter when this nasty, mean looking older man that had alcohol breath came in to make a payment on a layaway. When I say this guy was rude, that is an understatement. So, immediately I knew I had to adjust and manage this guy to make him happy. I realize that he was over six weeks late in paying off his layaway (you only have two weeks to do so). When I noticed that his layaway had been returned to stock, I gulped fearing the reaction I'd get from him. Instead of telling him what had happened, I contacted my manager and we dealt with the situation. We told him that his layaway had been returned to stock, however he can put them on layaway again with a reduced percentage off. This pleased him greatly, even to the point that he came back every month and made new layaways. This really showcased that if you manage an unhappy customer the right way, they can become a loyal customer.
Many companies may fear the bitter customer, but what they may not realize is that it is a time for opportunity. They have the opportunity to influence and persuade that customer into thinking that the company or brand does whatever it takes for its customer's satisfaction. They can spread positive WOM, tell others to visit your store and keep coming back because of your company's great customer service. So, the take away from this: Don't be scared of your unhappy customers. Make them your most loyal ally.
I've worked at Kmart for five years now and I can rest assure that I have dealt with the best of the best customers to the worst of the worst. I've seen how a company can suffer from the worst of the worst customers. For example, on the wonderful and exciting day of Black Friday, a women wanted to put many pieces of jewelry on layaway. She was happy because she was saving hundreds of dollars on our Black Friday deals when there was a piece of jewelry she thought would be on sale and it wasn't. Long story short, the lady got upset, wanted to speak with a manager and get the deal. Now, this customer has no idea that for loss prevention causes, you can't just sell a $499.99 ring for $49.99 because that is what the customer wants. That just can't happen. So, she stopped all of her purchases and left the store. This is a case in which an unhappy customer caused a decrease in revenue for that day.
Once a customer is unhappy and starts to get nasty it seems like there is no going back. But, there is a way in which companies can turn their unhappy consumers into their most loyal. All the company has to do is cooperate and make them happy again. This is a concept we touched up in Professor Costanzo's Promotional Strategy class. If you can please the customer and show them great customer service, then that can turn the whole situation into a positive Facebook post about your company's great customer service. The unsatisfied customer becomes your biggest ally in spreading positive WOM about your brand.
I've seen how an unhappy customer can hurt revenue, like the lady on Black Friday, but I've also seen how managing those customers can benefit the company. For example, one day during the summer I was working at the jewelry counter when this nasty, mean looking older man that had alcohol breath came in to make a payment on a layaway. When I say this guy was rude, that is an understatement. So, immediately I knew I had to adjust and manage this guy to make him happy. I realize that he was over six weeks late in paying off his layaway (you only have two weeks to do so). When I noticed that his layaway had been returned to stock, I gulped fearing the reaction I'd get from him. Instead of telling him what had happened, I contacted my manager and we dealt with the situation. We told him that his layaway had been returned to stock, however he can put them on layaway again with a reduced percentage off. This pleased him greatly, even to the point that he came back every month and made new layaways. This really showcased that if you manage an unhappy customer the right way, they can become a loyal customer.
Many companies may fear the bitter customer, but what they may not realize is that it is a time for opportunity. They have the opportunity to influence and persuade that customer into thinking that the company or brand does whatever it takes for its customer's satisfaction. They can spread positive WOM, tell others to visit your store and keep coming back because of your company's great customer service. So, the take away from this: Don't be scared of your unhappy customers. Make them your most loyal ally.
Monday, September 21, 2015
Social Media, WOM, Negative Publicity and the 2015 Primetime Emmys
This past Sunday was the 2015 Primetime Emmy Awards, in which all actors, actresses, directors and producers put on their custom designer gowns and tuxedos in hopes of receiving the coveted Emmy Award. Andy Samberg, cast member of Saturday Night Live, hosted and he was reported to have the best opening musical number the award show has seen in decades. But, Samberg made plenty unsatisfied and, with the help of Twitter and Facebook, these negative emotions of the 67th Primetime Emmy's was spreading like wildfire.
Time Magazine coined the term "the spoiler awards" because Samberg revealed the endings to the series finales of shows like Mad Men, Boardwalk Empire, and Two and a Half Men. Twitter and Facebook were not happy, and with its power, it let everyone know how poorly the award show was (See below). With that being said, this year's Emmys drew the smallest audience on record. To put it into numbers, the audience was brought down nearly 4 million less than last year, which is about 20%! So, how does this relate back to marketing? Well, it showcases the power of social media. I'm not saying that social media caused the lack in ratings, but they do have a correlation. Twitter was negatively sharing information and there was also a decrease in ratings. It definitely could be a potential reasoning.
Social media directly relates to word-of-mouth (WOM). In the Emmys case, negative WOM could have potentially destroyed their ratings. So, your company/brand is experiencing negative WOM. How does the brand/company manage that? How can it be spun into positive WOM? Professor Costanzo covered a chapter on Public Relations and Publicity. Specifically, we spoke about how companies can manage negative publicity. They can either own up to it, deny it, avoid it, etc. Halfway through the show is when Twitter seemed to blow up and start bashing the Emmys. So, what did they do? What could the Emmys do to save their reputation as a great award show and not the "spoiler awards?"
The team of the Primetime Emmys caught wind of the rage going on the Twittersphere, so they adapted, changed Samberg's monologue, and owned up to their mistake. This showcases a concept I learned in Professor Costanzo's class, specifically when managing negative publicity. Samberg's new monologue shed some light on his "spoiler" monologue, hoping to please angered viewers. A key concept about Public Relations and Publicity is that you never really know how consumers will react to your ideas. In the case of the 67th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards, things went south within the first ten minutes, but they tried to salvage what they could. In my opinion, what they did was the best they could do. If they had avoided it, I think viewers would have been more enraged.
Time Magazine coined the term "the spoiler awards" because Samberg revealed the endings to the series finales of shows like Mad Men, Boardwalk Empire, and Two and a Half Men. Twitter and Facebook were not happy, and with its power, it let everyone know how poorly the award show was (See below). With that being said, this year's Emmys drew the smallest audience on record. To put it into numbers, the audience was brought down nearly 4 million less than last year, which is about 20%! So, how does this relate back to marketing? Well, it showcases the power of social media. I'm not saying that social media caused the lack in ratings, but they do have a correlation. Twitter was negatively sharing information and there was also a decrease in ratings. It definitely could be a potential reasoning.
Social media directly relates to word-of-mouth (WOM). In the Emmys case, negative WOM could have potentially destroyed their ratings. So, your company/brand is experiencing negative WOM. How does the brand/company manage that? How can it be spun into positive WOM? Professor Costanzo covered a chapter on Public Relations and Publicity. Specifically, we spoke about how companies can manage negative publicity. They can either own up to it, deny it, avoid it, etc. Halfway through the show is when Twitter seemed to blow up and start bashing the Emmys. So, what did they do? What could the Emmys do to save their reputation as a great award show and not the "spoiler awards?"
The team of the Primetime Emmys caught wind of the rage going on the Twittersphere, so they adapted, changed Samberg's monologue, and owned up to their mistake. This showcases a concept I learned in Professor Costanzo's class, specifically when managing negative publicity. Samberg's new monologue shed some light on his "spoiler" monologue, hoping to please angered viewers. A key concept about Public Relations and Publicity is that you never really know how consumers will react to your ideas. In the case of the 67th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards, things went south within the first ten minutes, but they tried to salvage what they could. In my opinion, what they did was the best they could do. If they had avoided it, I think viewers would have been more enraged.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Fear Appeals in Super Bowl XLIX
This year's Super Bowl, featuring the New England Patriots and the Seattle Seahawks, drew an audience of 114.4 million viewers, which made it the most watched broadcast in U.S. TV history, according to CNN. Besides football, food and beer, the Super Bowl is like Christmas Day for well-known brands like Doritos, Nike and Budweiser. With an average of $4 million for a 30-second commercial spot, its an advertiser's dream in terms of reach. So, what is the commercial that stuck with me the most nine months later? Nationwide Insurance.
I remember sitting down with great food and great friends, while watching our favorite NFL team dominate the Seahawks. We were all in the greatest of moods, cheering on the amazing Tom Brady, when it was time for a commercial break. Usually, I notice that people turn away from commercials. It is a time where people go to the bathroom, grab another beer or snack on some more food. However, the Super Bowl calls for an attention towards the classic commercials from Doritos and Budweiser. Not to mention, Professor Costanzo made it an assignment to study the commercials.
So, we're all in good spirits until the infamous Nationwide commercial comes on and I say the word "infamous" for a reason. Briefly, the commercial featured a deceased young boy who described his death and the cause. He told the audience how he died from something that Nationwide Insurance could prevent. This is the epitome of a fear appeal, which is a term frequently used in the marketing realm. I've seen fear appeals used for advertisements against smoking cigarettes, meth and other drugs. I have never seen a fear appeal used for Nationwide. Their first commercial that aired during the beginning of the Super Bowl used a humor appeal! So, they completely switched the game. Like I previously said, it is safe to say that the most of the 114.4 million people who watched the Super Bowl were most likely in a happy and fun environment. Once this commercial aired, the room I was in went completely silent. It had our full attention. Afterwards, we couldn't stop talking about it.
There are plenty of articles, blogs, tweets and Facebook posts shaming Nationwide for their depressing commercial, but look what it did. Look at the exposure it received from the biggest television viewing audience of the entire year. Look at me! Nine months later and I'm still talking about Nationwide Insurance. This is the perfect implementation of a fear appeal. The commercial directly influenced behavior and changed attitude. It was genius in my opinion.
Yes, it did a lot of good; It grabbed attention and created WOM all across the country. However, it wasn't necessarily positive WOM. Many people were sickened by the eerie and depressing commercial. I can see how this commercial could've damaged Nationwide's reputation, since they decided to air it on one of the most entertaining and happy broadcasts of the year.
As a result of all this, should fear appeals be limited to products, services and ideas that can handle such fear (e.g., cigarettes, drugs, etc.) or can fear appeals work for any products, like Nationwide Insurance? In my opinion, I think insurance is a strange idea to use fear appeals, but I think it worked. It got people talking about the brand. So, if the marketers can do it right, then fear appeals can be used for any product, service or idea.
I remember sitting down with great food and great friends, while watching our favorite NFL team dominate the Seahawks. We were all in the greatest of moods, cheering on the amazing Tom Brady, when it was time for a commercial break. Usually, I notice that people turn away from commercials. It is a time where people go to the bathroom, grab another beer or snack on some more food. However, the Super Bowl calls for an attention towards the classic commercials from Doritos and Budweiser. Not to mention, Professor Costanzo made it an assignment to study the commercials.
So, we're all in good spirits until the infamous Nationwide commercial comes on and I say the word "infamous" for a reason. Briefly, the commercial featured a deceased young boy who described his death and the cause. He told the audience how he died from something that Nationwide Insurance could prevent. This is the epitome of a fear appeal, which is a term frequently used in the marketing realm. I've seen fear appeals used for advertisements against smoking cigarettes, meth and other drugs. I have never seen a fear appeal used for Nationwide. Their first commercial that aired during the beginning of the Super Bowl used a humor appeal! So, they completely switched the game. Like I previously said, it is safe to say that the most of the 114.4 million people who watched the Super Bowl were most likely in a happy and fun environment. Once this commercial aired, the room I was in went completely silent. It had our full attention. Afterwards, we couldn't stop talking about it.
There are plenty of articles, blogs, tweets and Facebook posts shaming Nationwide for their depressing commercial, but look what it did. Look at the exposure it received from the biggest television viewing audience of the entire year. Look at me! Nine months later and I'm still talking about Nationwide Insurance. This is the perfect implementation of a fear appeal. The commercial directly influenced behavior and changed attitude. It was genius in my opinion.
Yes, it did a lot of good; It grabbed attention and created WOM all across the country. However, it wasn't necessarily positive WOM. Many people were sickened by the eerie and depressing commercial. I can see how this commercial could've damaged Nationwide's reputation, since they decided to air it on one of the most entertaining and happy broadcasts of the year.
As a result of all this, should fear appeals be limited to products, services and ideas that can handle such fear (e.g., cigarettes, drugs, etc.) or can fear appeals work for any products, like Nationwide Insurance? In my opinion, I think insurance is a strange idea to use fear appeals, but I think it worked. It got people talking about the brand. So, if the marketers can do it right, then fear appeals can be used for any product, service or idea.
Monday, September 14, 2015
In-store Signage, Cash Wraps and POP Displays
In the eyes of the consumer, we walk through our local retail store with signs hanging down from the ceilings, displays surrounding us, just hoping to catch our attention and tell us the "next great deal." But, is it really the "next great deal" or are we being persuaded into thinking it is?
There is an empirical generalization developed by Yoram Wind and Byron Sharp that states, "In-store digital signage featuring 'newsworthy' information (e.g., news items, seasonal offers, promotions) has a markedly favorable impact on sales. The effect is stronger for hedonic (food and entertainment) products." I have worked in retail for almost five years now and I completely agree with this generalization, but I also have questions to consider.
When thinking about in-store digital displays, I immediately think of Professor Costanzo talking about point-of-purchase (POP) displays and their effectiveness. Why do marketers use them? Well, they demand attention by capturing customer's attention when they are in the mood to purchase, they're inexpensive, they highlight key features with catchy designs, and they draw attention to sales and specials. This is all true, but I do have a real life example of POP displays. I have worked at Kmart for the last five years, specifically in the fine jewelry department. Over the summer, I was instructed to place these displays of cosmetics and perfumes on the jewelry counter (located near the checkouts, which I'll speak of later). At first I thought, why put them here if it just prevents customers from seeing the jewelry correctly? But, I noticed how quickly these products were being sold. For example, we got these NFL sponsored sunglasses in. I put the display together and put them right on the counter near the checkouts and within a week, they were all sold. It really showcased the power of POP displays.
The next concept I linked to in-store signage is the term cash wrap, another idea that Professor Costanzo stressed about. A cash wrap is, essentially, the checkout lane. It is here that customers find inexpensive, low-involvement products (e.g., gum, chapstick). These relate back to in-store signage because I was placing low-involvement, inexpensive products on the jewelry counter right near the checkouts. So, when customers were getting ready to leave and saw the sunglasses, for example, they grabbed a pair and bought them. The sign was designed to catch the customer's attention right before checking out.
An important implication from the generalization is the emphasis on hedonic products. This means the products produces a type of value for the product versus utilitarian products. Utilitarian products serve the purpose of completing a task, like toothpaste. So, the generalization is saying that products who produce value are perceived as more effective in catching the consumer's attention. If a customer sees a POP display for back-to-school deals on clothes versus a POP display for microwaves, they are more likely to generate favorable attitudes towards the clothes because they have more value.
After working in retail and studying marketing tactics (POP displays and signage), I have become more aware of these things and, necessarily, don't "fall" for the marketing persuasion that in-store signage displays. But, for a consumer without any prior marketing knowledge, these in-store signages have proven to generate and impact sales.
There is an empirical generalization developed by Yoram Wind and Byron Sharp that states, "In-store digital signage featuring 'newsworthy' information (e.g., news items, seasonal offers, promotions) has a markedly favorable impact on sales. The effect is stronger for hedonic (food and entertainment) products." I have worked in retail for almost five years now and I completely agree with this generalization, but I also have questions to consider.
When thinking about in-store digital displays, I immediately think of Professor Costanzo talking about point-of-purchase (POP) displays and their effectiveness. Why do marketers use them? Well, they demand attention by capturing customer's attention when they are in the mood to purchase, they're inexpensive, they highlight key features with catchy designs, and they draw attention to sales and specials. This is all true, but I do have a real life example of POP displays. I have worked at Kmart for the last five years, specifically in the fine jewelry department. Over the summer, I was instructed to place these displays of cosmetics and perfumes on the jewelry counter (located near the checkouts, which I'll speak of later). At first I thought, why put them here if it just prevents customers from seeing the jewelry correctly? But, I noticed how quickly these products were being sold. For example, we got these NFL sponsored sunglasses in. I put the display together and put them right on the counter near the checkouts and within a week, they were all sold. It really showcased the power of POP displays.
The next concept I linked to in-store signage is the term cash wrap, another idea that Professor Costanzo stressed about. A cash wrap is, essentially, the checkout lane. It is here that customers find inexpensive, low-involvement products (e.g., gum, chapstick). These relate back to in-store signage because I was placing low-involvement, inexpensive products on the jewelry counter right near the checkouts. So, when customers were getting ready to leave and saw the sunglasses, for example, they grabbed a pair and bought them. The sign was designed to catch the customer's attention right before checking out.
An important implication from the generalization is the emphasis on hedonic products. This means the products produces a type of value for the product versus utilitarian products. Utilitarian products serve the purpose of completing a task, like toothpaste. So, the generalization is saying that products who produce value are perceived as more effective in catching the consumer's attention. If a customer sees a POP display for back-to-school deals on clothes versus a POP display for microwaves, they are more likely to generate favorable attitudes towards the clothes because they have more value.
After working in retail and studying marketing tactics (POP displays and signage), I have become more aware of these things and, necessarily, don't "fall" for the marketing persuasion that in-store signage displays. But, for a consumer without any prior marketing knowledge, these in-store signages have proven to generate and impact sales.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
The Reality of IMC Implementation
I sit in a class from 50 minutes a day, three times a week, jotting notes down from a lecture that is, essentially, how the "perfect" IMC implementation should go. I am taught the ins and outs of what goes into planning the "perfect" IMC campaign. I have all of the tools and knowledge stored in my brain, but I seem to forget that marketing never goes as smoothly as I think it would.
I have this preconceived notion that the marketing world is this place that works in a cohesive manner and produces the best of the best campaigns. However, I've recently learned that this marketing "utopia" doesn't exist. The reality of IMC implementation is that there are barriers occurring and IMC organizations are struggling. What are some of these barriers? They all fall under a term known as the managerial cognition. The first problem found in this managerial cognition is the organizational structure. Basically, the IMC organization isn't function as a cohesive unit and silos began to develop, eventually causing a lack of communication. Next is the organizational culture. Here, there is a collision of cultures between the headquarters and other branches of the organizations. Another barrier is information technology. Although it is reported that information technology can remove some implementation barriers, it can greatly impact the free and timely flow of IMC-relevant information. I only mentioned a few, but if the organization as a whole isn't communicating effectively, then how is a IMC campaign going to successfully get their message across to consumers?
There's also many mental models that affect how an IMC organization operates. Different people think differently, which could cause just another barrier in the communication between the organization. Some people may think through an efficiency model, which means they are quantitative people who conduct their work without creativity. Then, there are people who think like the effectiveness model. They tend to have a more strategic coordination and aim for optimal effectiveness. People could think in a quality model manner. These people are more focused on the creativity of their work. Lastly, someone may think like the impact model. These people focus on feelings and actions. Since all of these people think differently and set different goals for themselves, it makes sense as to why barriers exist in IMC implementation. Certain people want to produce creative work, while others may want to create effective work. I believe the campaign that can understand and work through those barriers, are the ones that succeed into big brand names.
It is interesting to understand that even though I see an effective advertisement on any media outlet, that there was most likely many issues that led up to it. So, the next time I see an outstanding Nike "Just Do It" advertisement or a Taco Bell "Live Mas" advertisement, I will know to think that there were barriers affecting the implementation of those campaigns.
I have this preconceived notion that the marketing world is this place that works in a cohesive manner and produces the best of the best campaigns. However, I've recently learned that this marketing "utopia" doesn't exist. The reality of IMC implementation is that there are barriers occurring and IMC organizations are struggling. What are some of these barriers? They all fall under a term known as the managerial cognition. The first problem found in this managerial cognition is the organizational structure. Basically, the IMC organization isn't function as a cohesive unit and silos began to develop, eventually causing a lack of communication. Next is the organizational culture. Here, there is a collision of cultures between the headquarters and other branches of the organizations. Another barrier is information technology. Although it is reported that information technology can remove some implementation barriers, it can greatly impact the free and timely flow of IMC-relevant information. I only mentioned a few, but if the organization as a whole isn't communicating effectively, then how is a IMC campaign going to successfully get their message across to consumers?
There's also many mental models that affect how an IMC organization operates. Different people think differently, which could cause just another barrier in the communication between the organization. Some people may think through an efficiency model, which means they are quantitative people who conduct their work without creativity. Then, there are people who think like the effectiveness model. They tend to have a more strategic coordination and aim for optimal effectiveness. People could think in a quality model manner. These people are more focused on the creativity of their work. Lastly, someone may think like the impact model. These people focus on feelings and actions. Since all of these people think differently and set different goals for themselves, it makes sense as to why barriers exist in IMC implementation. Certain people want to produce creative work, while others may want to create effective work. I believe the campaign that can understand and work through those barriers, are the ones that succeed into big brand names.
It is interesting to understand that even though I see an effective advertisement on any media outlet, that there was most likely many issues that led up to it. So, the next time I see an outstanding Nike "Just Do It" advertisement or a Taco Bell "Live Mas" advertisement, I will know to think that there were barriers affecting the implementation of those campaigns.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Do Marketers Want Active Loyalists or Passive Loyalists?
Whether consumers are either emotionally attached to a brand or are just too plain lazy to switch to another brand, the term loyal is something that marketers strive for. However, what is it that they actually want? Do they want active loyalists or passive loyalists?
A perfect outcome in the realm of launching a brand, creating brand identity and equity, marketers want a loyal band of followers that will stick with their brand. I was in CVS the other day with my Father getting allergy symptom relief. We walked over and the brand Claritin was sitting next to the CVS brand. The only difference between the two? The CVS brand was about $5 cheaper. Surprisingly, my Father chose the Claritin. Perfect example of an active loyalist. My Father has used Claritin for years and has an emotional connection towards it, so he'll keep buying the Claritin instead of the cheaper version.
Obviously marketers dream of their brands gaining followers who love the product, but the term loyal does not always mean that is the case. A passive loyalist uses the product just because it's easy and switching brands is too difficult. My boyfriend's cell phone carrier is Sprint, which leads to frequent lost calls and text messages that don't send. He could easily switch carriers, but it is a hassle. So, he stays with Sprint.
Yes, it is true that active loyalists are expected to speak about the brand through word-of-mouth to friends, family or co-workers. They try to influence the purchase of the brand they're loyal too, but if they try to influence others, does that mean they are easily influenced? If they are easily influenced then maybe there could be a time that the active loyalist is persuaded to pursue another brand. Vice versa, the passive loyalist is lazy in terms that they'll never switch brands. So, back to the original question I asked at the beginning; Do marketers prefer active or loyalists?
A perfect outcome in the realm of launching a brand, creating brand identity and equity, marketers want a loyal band of followers that will stick with their brand. I was in CVS the other day with my Father getting allergy symptom relief. We walked over and the brand Claritin was sitting next to the CVS brand. The only difference between the two? The CVS brand was about $5 cheaper. Surprisingly, my Father chose the Claritin. Perfect example of an active loyalist. My Father has used Claritin for years and has an emotional connection towards it, so he'll keep buying the Claritin instead of the cheaper version.
Obviously marketers dream of their brands gaining followers who love the product, but the term loyal does not always mean that is the case. A passive loyalist uses the product just because it's easy and switching brands is too difficult. My boyfriend's cell phone carrier is Sprint, which leads to frequent lost calls and text messages that don't send. He could easily switch carriers, but it is a hassle. So, he stays with Sprint.
Yes, it is true that active loyalists are expected to speak about the brand through word-of-mouth to friends, family or co-workers. They try to influence the purchase of the brand they're loyal too, but if they try to influence others, does that mean they are easily influenced? If they are easily influenced then maybe there could be a time that the active loyalist is persuaded to pursue another brand. Vice versa, the passive loyalist is lazy in terms that they'll never switch brands. So, back to the original question I asked at the beginning; Do marketers prefer active or loyalists?
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Introduction
Hello, everyone!
My name is Natasha Gavilanez and I am a senior Communications major (with a concentration in Public Relations) and a minor in Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) here at Western New England University!
Within the last year, I have had the amazing opportunity to obtain two PR/Marketing spring and summer internships that taught me the ins and outs of integrated marketing communications tools, media relations, social media and event marketing. I am eager to learn even more about consulting and campaigning for clients through my campaign planning and management class.
As senior year progresses, I plan on taking advantage of the useful tools surrounding me to prepare for the exciting year to come!
My name is Natasha Gavilanez and I am a senior Communications major (with a concentration in Public Relations) and a minor in Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) here at Western New England University!
Within the last year, I have had the amazing opportunity to obtain two PR/Marketing spring and summer internships that taught me the ins and outs of integrated marketing communications tools, media relations, social media and event marketing. I am eager to learn even more about consulting and campaigning for clients through my campaign planning and management class.
As senior year progresses, I plan on taking advantage of the useful tools surrounding me to prepare for the exciting year to come!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)