Lairig Marketing

Reader To Reporter: “Please Raise The Bar“

The marketing trade press is mostly a conduit for warmed over press releases with no fact checking nor follow-up reporting. Lairig Marketing flags as many of the dubious items we can, and exposes them to our tiny but hot spotlight.

Why we are the only ones to do so is a mystery.

And why the ones that border on pure fiction are never called out is a mysterious enigmatic riddle.

Case in point #1: In April, Fast Company pumped (pimped?) an announcement by Barclaycard that its new “Ring” MasterCard was "the first social [sic] credit card to be designed and built through the power of community crowdsourcing."

Then the writer-at-large added his own words: “That sounds unlike any other credit card ever heard of.”

A little research, and he would have said this: “That sounds just like the new Priority Club Select Visa Card that Lairig Marketing told its readers about two full years ago. So, that means Barclaycard’s claim of being the first is fictional.”

You can get the truth from our story here (scroll to bottom of article), and straight from the horse’s mouth in much more detail here.

Case in point #2: eMarketer says 1 out of every 4 people ON THE PLANET will be “socializing on online networks” by 2014. It gets there by extrapolating from the number of current Internet users who claim to visit a social network AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH.

Fiction based on fiction. Fiction squared.

How does going on Facebook (or claiming to) just once over the course of a full 30 days qualify as being “social” ? This is like going to the gym once a month and calling that being “healthy.” It just might be the lowest bar for human interaction ever set.

Yet people eat this fiction up buffet style. Too distracted to see how low the bar on truth has been set.

Gen Y Gets A Bad Report Card

We don’t put much stake in the free flow of generational studies – Boomer this, Gen X that. Too broad-based to serve any useful purpose to a company’s marketing strategies.

But they can get readers’ blood boiling fast, leading to inter-generational bashing that’s fun to watch.

Much has been made already of a study released in mid-March by three poindexters, one nugget of which found that Millenials/Gen Y couldn’t care less about “Green” (which means that our “green is gone” call is, once again, right on).

But there is much more in the longitudinal study of millions of 18-year-olds than the lazy bloggers and journalists are letting on, probably because they didn’t go read the full analysis.

We tracked the study down (“Generational Differences in Young Adults; 1966-2009”) in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, slogging through stuff ike this: “In regression equations, the linear term was larger than the quadratic term for all items except…”

Here’s what we could extract, using normal English.

Look Out For The Narcs !
“…life goals related to narcissism are higher among Millenials than they were among Boomers.” The authors did note that this was a trend Gen X started, but as lazy as they are, couldn’t take it to the hol’ nubba lebel that Gen Y has.

There’s No “U” In Community
“…the overall trend in life goals between the Boomers and the Millenials is toward less community feeling…”

Political Catatonia
“All of the items measuring civic engagement…were lower among Millenials than among Boomers at the same age…”

As reinforcement, the authors debunk the theory that voter turnout among youth was accelerated by the 2008 Presidential election by noting Pew data that show turnout in 2009 and 2010 was pitiful.

Go Green = No Green
“Three times as many Millenials than Boomers said they made no effort at all to help the environment…”

It would be fun to blame all this on Facebook. But the latter is a symptom, not a cause. Still, we believe it provides an indicator on where our society – and our future consumers – goes from here.

Up next? Gen Z, born after 2000. How will they do?

To answer that, we have come up with the Lairig Marketing “Future Social Graph.” The FSG uses an inverse relationship between Facebook’s stock price and Gen Z’s ethos. To wit: if FB goes up, Gen Z will look more and more like Gen Y.

A new kind of see saw.

What Does The USA Not Get About Microsoft ?

If you read yesterday’s post – and shame on you if you did not – you would have been linked through to an older story in which we highlighted how Microsoft was awarded the #1 ranking in the Australia “Authentic Brand Index” for 2008. (The world – or Australians at least – are still waiting for the results to be released from the 2010 index research.)

What’s up down under, oi?

There must be something funny in the water in Canada too. In late January, Adweek and researcher Ipsos Reid released their first ever (and, based on the results, maybe last ever) “Brand Influence Index” covering Canadian companies. Guess which brand is the most influential up dair, eh?

• Tim Hortons? No.
• Loblaw? Not even top ten.
• The Ottawa Senators? No. And please lose game 7 tomorrow night, you bums!

Once again, Microsoft. Eh.

Eh?

Better than Apple? Better than Google? Why don’t we Americans hold Microsoft in anything near the same regard?

The Influence Index was based on consumers’ ratings of brands in six areas, including “Relevant,” “Leading Edge,” and “Engagement.” Again we ask, how could Microsoft rank higher than Apple? Or Facebook, for that matter?

This really ought to signal the death knell for brand rankings. All of these attempts – Interbrand, BrandZ, Ipsos Reid, et al. – are just variations on a mash-up of objective and subjective “measures” that call for the loudest “So What?!!?” possible in response.

With these types of measures, a brand can only be compared to itself – a la “is our brand getting stronger and more influential over time”?

In other words, stop sweating over those brand rankings.

No Longer A Green Light For “Green” ?

Way back in the day, we wrote a post about “Green marketing,” whereby companies tout their products or their corporate selves as being concerned about, and active in, environmental matters.

At that time, near the end of 2010, pundits were sensing some consumer pushback. How could people NOT do business with “Green” companies, they wondered? Even pay a premium price to do so?

We posited that brands weren’t targeting the marketplace properly – instead of focusing on early adopters and having them help spread the word, they were blasting the entire population.

A year-and-a-half later, where are we?

A Boston agency by the name of Cone Communications just did a survey of 1000 adults, and found interesting nuggets like these:

- Only 44% said they believe marketers’ environmental messages…yet…
- More than 80% would believe a “green” symbol or certification of some sort on a product’s package…while…
- Only 25% care about the “green” details on how a product is manufactured

Which implies that marketers are overthinking this “Green” thing by half.

On the other hand, consumers aren’t. Cone also found out in its survey that 42% of people still won’t pay a premium just because a product claims it is good for the environment (or at least won’t damage the world).

That 42% is about what you would expect at this juncture. But we think that might be the peak. In our original post, we said the “Green” window of opportunity was small. It seems to be nearly closed now.

For illustration, how many of you knew this Sunday is Earth Day? For the scant few who knew, how many of you are observing it in some special way?

To make it less personal, let’s look at the greenest industrial company on earth – GE (see “Ecomagination”). Not a word about Earth Day on its website or its Facebook page.

Not even on Twitter. Which is ironic, seeing as how GE could have done it without wasting a lot of “characters.”

Seems Every Day Is Like Halloween

No, those aren’t lyrics from a famous mid-80s Ministry song (but one we will certainly feature as the “80’s Video of the Week” this coming Halloween). It is a reference to an earlier post, in which we slammed the National Retail Federation’s forecast for 2011 Halloween sales.

If you recall, the NRF predicted a 20% increase. TWENTY PERCENT. Hello? Sh&tty economy, much? Here’s a major point we made back then:

“Outside of Christmas, the numbers are insignificant, representing around one-tenth of one percent of annual retail sales. Plus, no one ever goes back to see how close the forecast compared to actual spending.”

As proof of the second sentence above, Google “Halloween sales 2011.” Pages and pages of results noting the forecast. Not a single group – NOT EVEN THE NRF – bothered to see what actually happened.

We estimate, via GDP and monthly retailer reports and same-store comps, Halloween sales in 2011 were probably “up” in the range of 0% to 5%. Not 20%. But we will never know. Never. Ever.

It just doesn’t stop.

Here we are – another major holiday. Get out there and spend with both hands, because here’s what the NRF predicts:

"Consumers are set to pull out all the stops this Valentine’s Day, with the average person shelling out $126.03, up 8.5% over last year…”

In fact, when you go to the NRF home page, the headline is written as if it has already happened:

“Valentine’s spending hits $17 billion.” Hits. Not “will hit.” Hits.

What a crock of hit.

The details are even funnier. (And remember, the data is from a survey of intent, from consumers given an incentive such as a bag of little Snickers bars).

For example, the NRF says 36% of the total Valentine’s Day spending will be on flowers. Yet only 18% of survey respondents said they plan to shop at a florist.

Another one: the percentage saying they will buy jewelry hit its “highest ever in the survey’s history” – 19%. If this is true, then we should see a spike in next month’s consumer credit data.

Here’s the best one: Men’s planned spending is twice that of women.

Guilt? Or just survey bravado?

CMO Council Survey #463: Social Insecurity

Gluttons for punishment, that CMO Council. Releasing another survey ripe for a Lairig Marketing smackdown.

This one is titled “Variance in the Social Brand Experience,” a clumsy turn of phrase for two reasons. First of all, “social brand experience” is nothing more than breast implants for “social media marketing,” but that’s a discussion for another day.

Secondly, the title implies that consumers are experiencing varying levels of satisfaction from what brands do on social sites. Not at all. This survey actually exposes a vast difference between marketers’ perceptions and consumers’ reality when it comes to social media.

To wit:
“According to marketers surveyed, customers like or engage because they want to be heard (41% chose this vaguely worded reason), or are looking for news or information about products (40%)…”
Versus surveyed consumers, who said they became fans of brands on social sites in order to:
“…Be eligible for exclusive offers (67%), interact with other customers (60%), play games and contests (65%).”

Surprise! The Crest brand manager thinks you’ve become a fan of his Facebook brand page in order to learn exactly how aluminum hydroxide works, when you really just want $1-off coupons.

This discrepancy should be enough to knock every social media practitioner down a peg or two, but it’s hard to see how it will when a CMO Council spokesperson spins like this:

“The social brand explosion has created a wave of loyalty among social consumers who are eager to show their support and share their experiences with others online, but this loyalty comes at a cost—from savings to games—that consumers see as their social currency…”

Ugh. Gag me with a coupon. Here is a better interpretation, without the buzzwords and B.S. – “Just give ‘em free sh&t.”

Too bad, because there is a tiny bit of wheat with this chaff. Only 17% of marketers in the survey claimed to have integrated social media into their other marketing tactics.

Humble opinion, but achieving full integration is the ultimate hurdle for social marketers. The low-hanging fruit is just about picked clean.

With that, then, here is some free advice for Facebook, as it rushes to get its IPO done before either or both Greece and Groupon default. During the investor road show, pitch how you are going to help companies achieve the vision of fully integrated marketing.

Because social networks cannot live by banner ads alone.

Start Your Hmmmm File Folder For 2012 Now

Lairig Marketing is just one day from winding down for the year. That means, as of next Monday, you’re on your own as far as finding useful marketing and business information goes. So much garbage “research” and “analysis” and “advice” to sort through, most of it the same old junk, recycled for the hundredth time (“Five Surefire Ways To Be An Expert Innovator Like Steve Jobs” blah blah).

Here is a suggestion to help you churn through it all. Keep a separate folder somewhere in or on whatever it is you use to access “written” content on the Web – a laptop, an iThingie, whatever. Label the folder something that represents information that goes against the grain, opposed to the typical party line, interesting items that no one else seems to notice or know how to incorporate into his or her analysis. Use “Hmmmm” as a label if you can’t think of anything.

Save stuff into it like these tidbits we’ve collected over the past few months.

OK, Maybe All Kids Aren’t All Digital Savvy
“A study by Ypulse found that fewer than one in five students have ever used [QR codes] and nearly two thirds of students have no idea what they are.”

Don't Phone It In
According to PwC research fewer than 25% of survey repsondents “had an interest in watching premium video on smartphones. PwC said the lack of enthusiasm for mobile video is consistent with research it has done over the last 18 months.”

Like You? No, But I Love Your Discounts!
“The top reason for following or liking a brand, company or celebrity on social networking sites is to receive discounts and special offers, according to a recent survey of global online consumers conducted by Nielsen. North American consumers showed the strongest interest in using social media for deals (45%)…”

Build It Well And They Will Pay
"Condé Nast is the latest publisher to claim a boom in digital magazine sales from the launch of Apple’s Newsstand…the publisher says that new subscription sales, per week, across nine digital editions, was up 268%, with single copy sales up 142% compared to the previous eight weeks."

Influence On The Run?
“According to a Forrester study…the percentage of U.S. online adults who use geolocation apps has grown to 6% [ed.: WOW!!!]…early adopters are…twice as likely as the average U.S. adult online to share product information, but they are also more likely to share promotional coupons, discount codes, or the results of a game they’ve played.”

Save this one off as a reminder to look for future research, focused instead on the recipients of all this narcissistic pestering. Let’s see how much influence these influencers really have.

It’s Not The Tactic, It’s The Overall Value Proposition
“American blazed a path for the airline industry to switch to a la carte pricing for checked bags in 2008.” American is now (officially and financially) bankrupt. Southwest (no bag fees) is profitable.

Whether or not you ever go back into it, just the process of filling up your “Hmmm” file is going to make you a much better marketer.

Whether or not it will make you a more trusting person is hard to say.

Truth In Labeling – Who Cares ?

More government regulation threatens. If you damn people won’t stop overeating, the Feds are going to try everything in their power to make sure food-package labels make you think twice about reaching for those chocolate cream-filled cookies.

The current debate, as you might know, concerns the acronym “FOP,” referring to “front of package.” For those of you who get all Andy Rooney-like frustrated flipping the package round and round and upside down looking for the nutrition label, help is on the way.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and Food Marketing Institute (FMI) are trying to get ahead of what will surely be tougher specs from the FDA, and have proposed their own solution to listing essential nutritional information on package fronts.

Millions of anxious hours, debate, and money that shall all come to naught. Why?

Because most consumers wouldn’t bother to read nutrition information even if it came as a post-it note hanging from the box.

Some University of Minnesota researchers did a study to compare shoppers’ claims to their behavior when it comes to reading labels. As you might expect, claims were higher than actual behavior. By a lot.

In the study, nearly one-third of consumers claimed to look for label information on calories, fat content, sugar, etc. Yet eye-tracking data in the study showed the actual viewing of this information was in the single digits.

Since the University of Minnesota study was conducted using computer simulation, with the nutrition “label” served up to the consumer, this finding is sort of astounding, and implies the results would be still lower in a “real life” shopping experience.

Which says FOP is FUBAR.

It makes me wonder about all the other useles drivel companies cram onto a label. How much of it ever gets read?

There are about twenty touch points prior to when the consumer reaches for the box or can (or whatever) on the shelf. If you’ve done your marketing job properly, the package just needs to have your name and the product picture on it.

Which will leave plenty of room for whatever else the FDA thinks should be on there.

AdWeek Still Weak

Michael Wolff tried. We even told you how optimistic we were about the “new” AdWeek. Alas, slightly offbeat, cultural-centric articles about the advertising industry hold no flame to the repetitive daily tripe about social media, search engine marketing, and mobile apps.

AdWeek will plod on, with its “journalists” attempting to mimic Wolff's style. Such as the article posted yesterday by Erin Griffith. A backslapping, suck-up pean to Coupons.com that told us nothing we didn’t know – yes, it has attracted lots of VC money; yes, it is valued at $1 billion; and yes, it will go IPO. So?

“Coupons.com is the silent, cash-rich killer of the once-fat Sunday paper ad section.”

Killer? That would be news to the FSI industry, which still commands 85%+ of coupon distribution in the U.S. [source: Valassis]. As Joe Jackson would sing: “You can read it in the Sunday Papers.”

Wolff’s style, sans facts.

“Redemption rates on old-school paper coupons [sorry to interrupt – but see the 85%+ share for “old school” above] have fallen from a sad [Wolffish] 1.6% to an even sadder [Wolffish] 0.6%...Coupons.com’s rate is more than 18%.”

Since the article included a faux interview with Coupons.com's CEO, there was no way to validate this crazy number, I guess.

Allow us.

Here’s how newspapers do it. Count all the 350 billion coupons printed and distributed per year. Denominator. Take the 2.1 billion coupons collected at retail. Numerator. Presto = 0.6% redemption.

What would be the equivalent calculation for Coupons.com? Take all the coupons posted on its site, regardless of whether a site visitor looks at all of them. Denominator. Same process as the numerator above.

The only way to get 18% is to seriously undercount impressions – by claiming only the coupons a user downloads (which would be equivalent to “clipping”) – or by claiming downloads as redemptions.

Net net: The 18% coupon redemption rate for Coupons.com is complete bullshit.

We’d welcome Erin Griffith into our Research Hall of Sham, except she didn’t DO any research.

We could start a Journalism Hall of Sham instead. But that would be redundant.

A Hollow-Ween Trick

I am always amused when the marketing trade press jumps on the spending forecasts for each of our country’s “major” holidays – Valentine’s Day, Mother’s/Father’s Day, July 4th, et al. Outside of Christmas, the numbers are insignificant, representing around one-tenth of one percent of annual retail sales. Plus, no one ever goes back to see how close the forecast compared to actual spending.

So I was not to be disappointed, nor unamused, when the National Retail Federation released survey data from BIGResearch regarding this coming Halloween. Basically, a straight line was drawn from the prior two years to forecast another 20% increase for 2011.

A TWENTY-PERCENT INCREASE DURING A RECESSION.

Interesting, because in the run-up to the Great Recession Part 1, Halloween spending was flat in 2007. After a 13% increase in 2008, it dropped nearly 20% in 2009.

More interesting is the per-person spending data point. According to BIGResearch, 100 million people are going to spend $72 each on Halloween costumes and such. That is one out of every three Americans. Really?

Much more interesting is the data point on pet costumes. Part of that $72 will turn into over $300 million that will embarrass way too many cats and dogs.

And much, much more interesting is the intended spending of $470 million on Halloween greeting cards. And here I thought that business sector didn’t even exist anymore.

This is what you get from a random online poll of consumer intent. A survey that was probably too long for gnat-like attention spans, forcing people to choose anything just to finish and qualify for a prize.

Maybe, though, the forecast isn’t off by, oh, 20%. After all, Halloween is now a holiday that has nothing to do with kids tricking or treating. They are costumed up and kept indoors for fear of being kidnapped or poisoned. It is really for adults, who dress up in pirate costumes and drink themselves into a stupor. Probably around $72 worth of stupor.

All so that they can salvage some amount of economical fun from what continues to be a very economically unfunny year.