This blog contains my reflections on things, events and incidents that I observe in my daily life, as I navigate through the omnipresent marketplace. I try to use different perspectives, outlined in 'The Culture Code' and 'On Paradise Drive', to get at the subconscious factors that drive marketing behavior.
Challenging the status quo often leads to some revolutionary products that set the norm for innovative design. For example, when the market was saturated with mp3 players, the iPod was introduced with a brand new user interface and it literally took over the entire market. There are numerous other products and services that challenge the status quo, thereby creating a competitive advantage for themselves. In the service industry, let us consider the rental car example. Enterprise challenged the conventional notion of going to a rental car facility to pick up one's car and created the "We'll pick you up" campaign, which was a remarkable success.
This post's motivation was a concept I saw on dvice.com as I was browsing today. We are used to seeing conventional desktop computers with their cuboid towers with multiple drives, a noisy whirring fan etc.
Conventional PC:
But take a look at the following deisgn by Dell - dubbed the "O project".
The sight of a small plant/grass growing on a computer grants a unique aesthetic to this product. It is a refreshing change from the traditional box occupying valuable space beneath the desk and susceptible to being switched off by mistake if you move your legs. More than being a computer, this product makes a statement about the owner. It might mean several things for several people. For some, it might be an indication of their love for the environment and preserving it. For others, it might be the cool new gadget they "have to" own.
Either way, it is proof that product design can be leveraged to make an impact on the consumers. By challenging the status quo, the design receives instant attention and if developed properly, could be a competitive advantage.
Even if you have never used a computer before, there is a plethora of quizzes online, that would tell you whether you are a PC or Mac (forget the fact that you're a human being) based on your answers to a few personality questions. I came across the following quiz on youthink.com.
There are a few simple questions about the type of headwear you prefer, your salary, favorite sport, tree, color, music etc. and when you submit your choices, you get the answer. I submitted my choices and this is what I got.
The interesting part is what it says: "You like to get value for money and you're much less concerned about how things look vs. what they do for you". It would be interesting to ask Microsoft's Director of Marketing whether he agrees with this universal definition of a Microsoft Windows powered computer. The scary part is - I am a PC. I mean, I would prefer a PC over a Mac any day. I tried rerunning the quiz, changing the parameters to what they were in various stages of my life - IT job in a big city with nice pay, or student in a small town with no pay - and the answer still was PC. The test was scarily accurate.
Since I had no idea about a typical "Mac", I reran the test by filling out the choices that I hated the most. Voila! The answer turned out to be a Mac.
The universal definition of a Mac, according to the test, is that Macs like to pay more to be in fashion and are more creative than "businesspeople". It is interesting to see how a brand capitalizes on loyalty shown by the consumer. The PC and the Mac are so ingrained in our daily lives that we have elevated them to a status much beyond what they were intended to be - mere accessories. We went above the step of considering them to be extensions of ourselves and started calling ourselves PCs and Macs. I am sure the marketing folks at Microsoft and Apple are having a hearty laugh at our expense.
The class discussion on brands trying to move upscale or downscale either unintentionally or intentionally prompted me to look for some recent ads based on this concept. In a tough economy like this, luxury brands are finding it more difficult to attract new consumers, whose lower disposable income means that they cannot afford to shell out a few thousand dollars extra just for a "brand".
Luxury brands like Land Rover and Lexus have been status symbols for a long time, even outside the United States. The fact that someone drives a Lexus is interpreted as if that person has "arrived" in life. The following ad shows how newbie Hyundai tries to capitalize on the recession and lure a potential luxury car consumer to buy a Hyundai, thereby elevating its status.
The ad shows how the Hyundai car beats the Land Rover in all functional aspects, except in the number of cup holders, insinuating that customers are paying thousands of dollars more on the Land Rover, just for the cup holders. The final shot also shows the Santa Fe in the foreground, with the camera rotating to hide the blurry Land Rover in the background.
A similar tactic is used by General Motors to renew consumer interest in its Buick brand (which suffered a big hit due to the Tiger Woods fiasco), by trying to assert its superiority over the Lexus.
GM follows a slightly different tactic compared to Hyundai. Instead of poking fun at its competitor, GM urges the consumer to take a look at both cars and compare the experience. This might be intended to make the consumer think twice about paying the extra dollars for something that is similar in many aspects.
How can marketers use this?
The idea of common brands competing against luxury brands applies to other products and services too.For example,going to the salon is perceived as a luxury, which people will cut down on with a decrease in disposable income. Unilever's Suave brand of hair products has successfully made this switch from being a discount store brand to a luxury brand, by tapping this need for a premium hair care product, at a low price. It used several promotion strategies to achieve this status. The "Suave Professionals" line of products cost a fraction of popular designer brands used in salons and used celebrities and hair designer to change people's perception of the brand over time.
Sales for the brand have increased dramatically thanks to this focused strategy. It also made use of the need for aspirational consumption by consumers hit by the recession. Seeing a celebrity use a particular brand changes the consumer's perception of the brand.
Yesterday's class discussion on marketers targeting specific subcultures like homosexuals, senior citizens, women, minorities, etc. prompted me to look for specific marketing initiatives focused on Indian Americans. Indian Americans are usually grouped under the Asian-American subculture, but people from South Asia (India, Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka) are very much different from their Asian brethren, in terms of ethnicity and also in terms of consumer behavior. They are relatively affluent and highly educated
The movie "Slumdog Millionaire", which was very popular in the United States, gave the Indian American audience something to cheer about. Marketers also tried to capitalize on the success of the movie by creating campaigns targeted at Indian Americans. State Farm Insurance Company was one of the first ones to respond, creating its "Bollystar" contest, to select two contestants to sing in an actual Bollywood movie.
It makes sense for State Farm to market to the Indian American consumer segment because, they are most likely to own cars, due to their high income and high education levels. Also, there is a large number of temporary workers from India in the United States working in the technology sector at any given point in time (I was part of this temporary segment - from 2004 to 2008). Since these people look to the Indian Americans for advice on what car to buy (used/new), which insurance company is better, etc., State Farm can get a word of mouth promotion due to its targeted campaigns.
Almost everyone from South Asia grows up watching and playing the sport of cricket. They are also highly family-oriented. State Farm makes use of these two issues close to the heart of the Indian American segment by sponsoring cricket tournaments, and highlighting these qualities in their advertisements. The following is an ad from State Farm targeted at the Indian American consumer.
The ad manages its visual imagery very effectively - showing a sister tying the ritual "rakhi" on her brother's wrist, to protect him from evil spirits (State Farm's "protection" is alluded to). The cricketing rivalry between India and Pakistan is portrayed ("everybody wins") and the birthday party with both the grandmother and the grandaughter present is shown, indicating family ties.
When you think of mobile telephones, the emphasis is on "mobile". In an ideal world, you should be able to carry it anywhere you want and still keep in touch with your network of contacts. Mobile telephone service providers, try to fulfill this customer need and spend millions of dollars establishing a network providing maximum coverage at an optimum cost. They also spend some marketing dollars to apprise the consumer of this important fact. I am sure it would be painfully obvious by now that I am talking about Verizon, the US telecom giant, famous for its ads featuring the "Verizon guy" and his hordes of followers (technicians, employees, etc.), which is a metaphor for the network.
The famous Verizon guy started out as a lone tester, who went to various dark zones of the world and cried "Can you hear me now?" into his mobile phone. Later on he started following people around with hordes of Verizon employees, technicians, etc. It is one of the most recognizable advertisements and the Verizon guy is an icon by himself. Now, imagine if you are walking about in the park and call your buddy on your Verizon phone and turn around to see "the Network". That is exactly what happened to one guy, as seen in the following video.
It is a brilliant piece of marketing by Verizon to take a metaphor to the next step. One can imagine the word of mouth cascading effect this move resulted in.
A few thousand miles to the east, India is a fertile battleground for two large mobile operators - Hutch (now Vodafone) and Airtel. Hutch, as the brand was known initially, was known particularly for its network coverage and it had brilliant ads that conveyed this competitive advantage. But they chose a different metaphor, as seen in the following ad.
Instead of using a "network tester" who later morphed into "the network" itself, Hutch went for the metaphor of a dog following his master around. Note that, by using a puppy, the ad does away with creepiness and brings an endearing element into it. Also, the ad above is applicable across cultures. Dogs have been man's best friends long before there were countries and cultural barriers. This is especially relevant in India where there are 15 official languages and 700 dialects spoken, and with hundreds of different subcultures. The same ad could be used for Verizon seamlessly, since it stretches across cultural boundaries. Also, the dog denotes "service", since the dog always tries to please his owner. This campaign was a runaway hit in India.
I found it very interesting to compare and contrast these two highly successful ad campaigns, where the message was the same, but the metaphors used were different.
At first glance, the above ad looks like it is designed to sell designer lingerie or perfumes. But a closer look reveals that it is sponsored by the Organ Donor Foundation, and the message is supposed to encourage people to donate organs. The ad not only uses blatant sexual imagery to capture the viewer's attention, it takes an additional step and taunts the viewer with its message - "Becoming an organ donor is probably your only chance to get inside her". But I think the ad fails on a few other aspects too.
First, with its blatant sexuality designed to attract a male audience, the ad alienates potential female donors. I seriously doubt the effectiveness of a similar campaign targeted at women. Second, it would be really creepy if someone donated organs just to get inside a particular person. So the question is whether an average male reader looking at this ad will be motivated to sign up for organ donation. My guess is - not very much. In my case, I barely remember the website mentioned in the ad. Of course I can google it, but I have other important stuff to do. So after ogling at the ad for a customary few seconds, I move on to the next one.
How could marketers use this?
Could the foundation have followed a different tactic to really motivate the reader to consider organ donation? What would be some of the factors that prevent one from being an organ donor? Maybe people are fearful or apprehensive about the actual procedure (even though it is done after death), or whether the donation would be meaningful. The marketing communication from the Organ Donor Foundation could have creatively addressed such topics as part of an ad, instead of throwing a picture of a sexy young woman and hoping people will pay attention.
The PETA-esque strategy of using sex to sell a social (arguably ideological) issue does not always work. So, for a serious issue, marketers can use sex to capture the viewer's attention, but then provide some data to create a sense of urgency. The following ad does exactly that.
The class discussions on "doorness" and the usage of doors in marketing messages and advertising, prompted me to extend the concept a little to windows. What does windowness entail and how could marketers use it?
A window represents many things to many people, but one common interpretation is 'test'. As kids, we eagerly look out the window to see if the weather is good enough to play, or whether our friends are out playing already. We 'test' the external environment, by looking through the window, while remaining in the safe indoor environment. The intriguing thing about windows is that they offer only a narrow scope of vision. There is only so much you can see through a window; if you want to see more, you have to step outside (or inside depending on the perspective).
Examples of "windowness" can be readily observed in the form of movie trailers and teasers. The ritual of airing new ads during Super Bowl has become so popular that marketers issue teasers for the ad itself, like the following teaser for a Snickers ad, which was a huge fan favorite.
Windowness works both ways - from the inside out and from the outside in. Shopkeepers and retail outlets have teams of people managing their window decorations, signage, etc. to lure the consumers in. This is embedded in our daily language in the form of the phrase "window shopping", where people look at shop windows, without actually buying anything.
Note that a physical window is not always necessary to evoke the feelings of windowness. When the voice over in the commercial goes "limited time only", the consumer automatically hears a "window of opportunity" open up. Similarly, when a trial version of software or a video game demo is downloaded, the consumer gets the feeling of looking through a window. That experience will then lead the consumer to step out/in the door and actually try the full product, the complete experience.
I came across this advertisement for KFC, which caused problems for KFC in the US, although it did not generate any controversy in Australia, where the ad was originally aired. Let me set the context to fully understand what this ad was all about.
The ad was aired during the cricket series between Australia and West Indies. The West Indies fans, hailing from islands all over the Caribbean, are known for their dancing and partying during the game. Also, the rivalry between Australia and West Indies on the cricket field is legendary. The ad shows an Australian (white) guy sitting in the stands with a bunch of West Indies fans. Caught in an awkward situation, he buys a bucket of KFC wings to gain the trust of the fans of the opposing team. This makes him part of the in-crowd and everybody is happy.
The Australians laughed this off as another funny ad. Thanks to Youtube, this ad got the attention of some consumer groups in the US, who started voicing protests against KFC for stereotyping African Americans by offensively portraying their love for fried chicken. They wanted the parent company, based in the US, to pull the allegedly racist ad. They even forced KFC to pull the ad from Australian television. This was met by some confused reactions from the Australians, where the offensive stereotype involving fried chicken and people of African origin, apparently does not exist.
This is a classic example of how a lack of understanding of the context could lead to completely different reactions from different groups. For Americans, who are not aware of cricket as a popular sport, and the rivalry between Australia and West Indies, the ad seemed to be racist. When the white guy in the ad talks about an "awkward situation". the Americans misinterpreted it to be a "civilized" white guy who just want to watch the game, caught amidst some rowdy black fans who are dancing around. But, any cricket fan immediately recognizes that the guy is wearing the Australian cricket jersey, and sitting among fans of the opponent team. It is like wearing a USC jersey in the student section at Notre Dame stadium. In fact, the Australians were furious when KFC pulled the ad because, they did not want to be told by some people in the US, what was and was not appropriate in their own country.
How could marketers use this?
This is a wake-up call for marketers, who spend countless hours creating targeted marketing efforts and communication focused on a regional segment, only to find that it receives global attention thanks to the pervasive nature of social media. The world is becoming flatter and multinational corporations should keep track of reactions from a global audience. But they also need to be relevant to the regional consumer. There is a think line separating the two and marketers should be aware of this and develop content that satisfies both sets of consumers.
I have been a fan of the Philadelphia Eagles, ever since I started watching the NFL in the fall of 2004. This "loyalty" continued even though I spent three years living in New York and Dallas, where the Eagles' divisional rivals played. I finally visited Philly during Christmas break last year, eager to buy myself an Eagles jersey.
I walked into a Modell's Sporting Goods store in downtown Philly to buy the jersey. But, I could not afford to spend $60-$70 on a football jersey. I was looking for something that would cost under $40. When I walked around the store, I saw jerseys of some of my favorite players, Donovan McNabb, Brian Westbrook, etc. But they were all priced above $40, the magic ceiling for me.
That is when I noticed that there were a bunch of Michael Vick jerseys, priced at $20. There I was, after 5 years of loyalty to my team, finally ready to buy a jersey to proclaim that I was an Eagles' fan. At $20, the authentic NFL-branded jersey was a steal. But I couldn't convince myself to buy it. From a virtue ethics perspective, I could not see myself wearing a Vick jersey. It was a simple sports jersey, but the name on the jersey evokes reactions from people, due to the on and off-field behavior of the player.
Could it be possible that the jersey was priced significantly lower because of this reason? It might have been just a promotion since Vick was new in Philadelphia, but the drastic difference in price made me think whether other customers also felt the same way.
How could marketers use this?
Marketers could expose ethical violations of their competitors' products to make consumers aware of the implications when they buy such products. NGOs could also do the same. A classic example is PETA's campaign against P&G's use of unethical testing methods for its pets product IAMS.
When a customer is browsing for pet products in the supermarket aisle and comes across an IAMS product, they might hesitate to buy it, if they are convinced by PETA's campaign. There will be consumers who are not affected, but the ethical implications behind a particular brand, or name, or company will continue to be factors in influencing consumers' purchasing decisions.
I saw this ad for Airtel, the largest mobile telephone operator in India, when I was in India a couple of years back. Born in a small town in southern India and growing up there, I was made aware of the lingering animosity between India and neighboring Pakistan, from an early age. Indian history is steeped with incidents and wars with Pakistan and depictions of Pakistanis as the jealous, poor cousins across the border. But there were always some news articles proclaiming that the hatred was at a higher political level, and normal citizens from both countries would get along just fine.
When I saw this ad for the first time, and every time after that, I literally get goosebumps when the boys in the ad enter the no-man zone and the flute music comes on in the background. And millions of Indians make the same emotional connection when they see it too. I decided to step back and analyze the reason for my reaction, as suggested by Marc Gobe, by thinking about the earliest memory that this ad triggered.
Whenever I see this ad, I am reminded of a childhood memory, when I visited the India-Pakistan border in Amritsar, in the northwestern state of Punjab. Every day at sunset, the gate at the border is opened and the Indian and Pakistani guards conduct a parade to take down the flags (which by rule cannot stay up after sunset). Hundreds of people watch the ceremony from both sides equipped with stadium seating. I remember watching the parade with a sense of pride, proudly singing the national anthem. When the gates were closed after the ceremony, people from both sides gathered near the gate, denouncing each other with derisive slogans. I was very young back then and thoughts of political diplomacy and open communication were too far from my mind.
This advertisement makes the connection very effectively by using the voice over, which says 'There is no war or barrier that can keep us apart, if only we talk to each other'. A telecom company, urging us to 'talk' to each other. I cannot think of a more perfect way to deliver this message, considering the context. I find myself thinking back to that moment on the border, mere yards away from Pakistan, wondering if things might be different today.
What influence does it have on marketing behavior?
The ad caught my attention, lodged itself in my memory, and I was able to connect the message to the company 'Airtel'. But did it actually translate to a purchase? Surprisingly, I did not want to switch to Airtel, just because it put forth this great message. I was a customer of Airtel's competitor for a long time. but watching this ad and making the emotional connection was not enough for me to switch over to that provider. Could Airtel have done something different? I think I will have to deliberate on it further. I will update this section in a few weeks, with some new insights.
'The Cove' is a documentary released in 2009,lauded as a remarkable example of investigative journalism, which brings to light a large scale massacre of dolphins near the fishing town of Taiji in Japan. In a shocking revelation, the Japanese government itself is said to have authorized the killing of dolphins, upto a maximum of 20,000 each year. My first reaction when I looked at some photos from the footage was shock. Dolphins, widely regarded one most intelligent animal species, being killed brutally on such a scale provoked public outcry worldwide. Thanks to a good marketing effort by the producers, the 'dolphin cove' received much greater attention than the annual seal killing in Canada, undertaken for similar reasons. I then decided to interpret this event through the lens of a culture code as explained by Clotaire Rapaille.
Upon reflection, I hypothesized that the culture code for dolphins in Japan is either 'FOOD' or 'COMPETITOR'. Japan, an island nation, is heavily dependent on fish as a source of food. Being a volcanic land prone to earthquakes, there are very few alternative food sources. Just like their Scandinavian brethren, the Japanese consume dolphin and whale meat (in spite of the high mercury content cited) in large quantities. So they regard dolphins as food, or in the case of people who do not consume dolphin meat, they are considered competitors for the scarce resource of marine fish. By killing a certain number of dolphins every year, the Japanese ensure adequate food for their own people. We can compare this to the indifferent attitude from people all over the world to the way in which chicken, cows and pigs are killed every year in large numbers, for food.
On the other hand, for people from other countries who are not heavily dependent on fish for food, dolphins represent something entirely different. For Americans and people from other countries where dolphins are seen only in aquariums, water parks etc., the culture code for dolphins is 'PET' or 'FRIEND'. The therapeutic use of dolphins for children afflicted by genetic illnesses, only enhances this view of dolphins as pets/friends. For someone who has grown up watching dolphins perform tricks in water parks, their natural 'smile', and the way they interact with their trainers, killing dolphins is equivalent to killing dogs and pets, which are endearing to children in particular. An analogy could be the situation in South Korea and Taiwan where dog meat is a delicacy, whereas in the US such an act would be most likely met with disgust.
How could marketers use this?
I found an excellent ad by British Airways, which makes use of this culture code of a dolphin being treated as a pet/friend.
The ad shows a young girl watching outside the window of an airplane longingly as she travels to an unknown destination. The clouds move in the shape of dolphins, giving the girl a sense of companionship as she travels alone. The flight attendant places a stuffed dolphin toy next to her, as the voice over says 'Your holiday should begin before you arrive at your destination', while the song playing in the background fades slowly (fittingly the name of the song is 'Leaving on a jet plane'). British Airways makes excellent use of the 'dolphin effect', to connect to the viewers and give them a sense of comfort and companionship associated with the airline.
Other examples include Southwest Airlines painting its aircraft like the orca (also known as the killer whale, a cousin of the dolphin), to promote Seaworld in San Antonio, TX - one of its key markets.
