|
Rondette posted:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/gap-dress-normal-campaign-fails-to-lift-sales-9907025.html Not only do they sound super bossy they were built on the assumption that normcore was a thing that gaps consumers knew or cared about. 37 dollars for a shapeless oatmeal colored sweater is not something the majority of consumers rush out to buy. The AdAge article discussing it sounded like their advertising/product planning team was totally stuck in their bubble and couldn't see that they were designing for a nonexistent trend.
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
Dont forget Dr. Pepper 10 which was aimed exclusively at men and had a facebook page where if you listed yourself as a woman it would decline your like. I haven't looked at what happened to that product line but I remember within a month or two of it coming out it was already primarily a female purchasing audience.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Maggie Fletcher posted:I just saw one of their commercials yesterday. They're no longer doing "it's not for women!" anymore, now it's just some weird lumberjack looking guy in a canoe in the Rockies or some poo poo. That ad campaign and its character Fizzly Adams (I hate that I know that) was part of their shift away from the super aggressive not for women advertising that bombed. What I meant was I don't know what the gender purchasing split is anymore. In general companies tend to get weird sticks up their butts about the gender of who buys their products which can range from the simple like ballpark hotdogs recent men first realignment to the completely goddamn disastrous like whatever idiot in the Bic pen company came up with the "for her" line of pens.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
So here is my favorite fuckup of advertising this year and boy is it a doozy. Oglivy India ran a campaign for Kurl On mattresses and I guess the wanted to show how rejuvenating and bouncy the product was. So what better to depict than a cartoon Malala Yousafzai getting shot in the face (with blood) fall on the mattress then bounce back up ready to work? Article here with some additional information.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Darth Freddy posted:Kind of want to play this game now. It is not even remotely 1/10th as fun or interesting as its campaign. Much like Lost Planet and its promotion featuring iceblocks that slowly melted with the game inside or the Gun promotional ARG where winners eventually got to play a poker game in a graveyard they are way, way better than the game their promoting. Here are some Calvin Klein ads pulled in the 90s because boy having an ad campaign that looks and sounds like a person filming the start to an underage porno/snuff film is awesome
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:I like how they talk about how fresh the ingredients are, as if they weren't making a frozen food product. It was part of an attempt to get millennials on board. No really the basis of that campaign was research indicated millennials like better quality food/variety of ingredient. The fact that hot pockets in their nature aren't that didn't seem to click with them so here we are. Millennial brand shopping habits have a lot of companies making GBS threads their pants (see mcdonalds and their hilariously out of touch campaigns recently) so there's a lot of dumb flailing about.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
So following up McDonalds. In addition to the aforementioned campaign there was also their Q&A session hosted by Grant Imahara that rapidly devolved into customers either asking "is your food actually meat?" or some variation of "why is your food so terrible?". According to ever useful things like "Brand Index" they're up 25% with millennials. 25% of what over what nobody knows, its advertising baby! But that's the past and this is the now. "I'm Lovin It" is staying but they'll be featuring the phrase "Choose Lovin'" in their commercials that will features things like Republican and Democrats hugging and Joker and Batman doing the same presumably because they're going to choose lovin. Sweet, sweet Smurf and Gargamel (yes that's another named pair because you gotta get characters popular from 1985-2000) lovin. In addition like I mentioned before Millennials eating at restaurants where you can pick ingredients is terrifying them so 2,000 locations in 2015 will be updated to provide a customizable menu called "Create Your Taste" while the cut the actual number of options on the menu
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:APparantly corporate marketing is a real bitch of an industry. If you've ever worked directly with a client for even 15 minutes you learn that some really, really not-qualified people get the purse strings to way, way too much money. And I don't mean "doesn't understand media math/terms/ad sizes" I mean like "pulled their children from public school because Obama got elected president."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Picnic Princess posted:Is it normal for reasonably successful musicians to team up with Wal-Mart like this? They must have paid him a lot. Because seriously, Wal-Mart. You will not believe the cash thrown around. It cost Papa Johns a shitload of money (in the multiple million dollar range) just for the privilege of being able to sell Taylor Swifts album with their pizzas. Campaign was a massive disaster in case you were curious.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
joats posted:Wait seriously? I would think that it would be the other way around. Swift should have to pay Papa John a million bucks to force out her garbage. It depends on the crossover of the brands. In this case as Taylors camp pointed out they didn't have any real reason to believe that Papa Johns pizza would boost her album sales but that it would be possible her album would boost their pizza. The CMO of Papa Johns at the time was super, super gung-ho on Taylor Swift so he gave the ok even when in order to get the deal they had to cut local TV spots which if memory serves right included local broadcasts of sporting events which. The damage to the bottom line resulted in the rebound to "HOLY poo poo FIRE THIS GUY AND BUY THE NFL"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I like to play a game of trying to work out what is being advertised within that five seconds. It's surprisingly hard. Most of them also seem to really fail at incentivising you to not skip. You've got to show something within those five seconds that tells me why I should listen to the rest of your ad, and most of them just don't. I don't get it. So a lot of this ties back to companies getting too smart for their own good. When pre-roll videos started companies didn't think about the first five seconds so you'd get a weird ad that was just the first 5 seconds of a TV spot making it both annoying and usually not great branding. Well pretty soon they realized, hey, people are skipping these so all these impressions I'm paying for are hot garbage since nobody is finishing these ads. So for many companies they try to pay based on completed (usually at least 50% of ad watched) pre-roll rather than just raw total pre-roll. So this payment incentive means advertising agencies want to be intriguing to stall you to get to the cutoff point where they get paid rather than rush out to beat you clicking skip. Of course a lot of that is moot as companies are now just paying for unskippable pre-roll and therefore know a) they aren't being bypassed and b) exactly where in the video you click close in disgust.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
So Boeing and other manufacturers its 3fold reasons typically. The first is you're richer than hell so you blow money saying hey random consumer we still exist and absolutely rule; please continue knowing our existence. Tied with this is the second which is you have to reach all the people involved in the decision making process and when your dealing with contracts this valuable often involving tons and tons of people across the whole process why not smother tv with ads. A week of national tv probably doesn't represent 1% of a contract. The third is good ol prestige. Even when it doesn't make any sense ceos/owners/founders loving love seeing their product on tv and trust me getting a call that a spot they were watching for didn't run is an absolutely soul sucking moment. As for sonic having known people working on the account its that its way more efficient to buy national spots than it is to buy market select for them and higher level people know that in markets where there are no Sonics people who travel by them are way way more likely to pick a sonic because its worked into their brain and I guess whatever money that makes and the prestige that it causes them joy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I don't think it's supposed to be to distinguish between pepsi and coke, though, since such a distinction isn't difficult. It's to get people to say that they prefer cup B, which turns out to be pepsi. It was the same logic as Prego and Ragu which did the same advertising campaign. Interestingly in that case Prego always outperformed Ragu but Ragu always sold better. Ragus internal team spent tons to figure out why and the answer they came to was that in a one off test with no paired food people preferred the sweeter taste of Prego. Once they cooked with it for a full meal the sweeter taste didn't pair as well leading people to be more open to trying a new pasta. It should also be noted that Pepsi isn't (or at least last I checked isn't) second to Coke its third. It goes coke, diet coke, Pepsi.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
FuhrerHat posted:So was there no class-action suit against McDonalds for that monopoly bullshit? They didn't knowingly commit fraud is pretty much the start and end of why it wasn't an intentional defrauding of the customer. Oh and in case yall are curious the average spot for the just completed College Football Championship Game already hovers at the million mark and the ratings for the previous game (Ohio v Alabama) is the highest rated cable program of all time so get hyped for TV slowly turning into sports all the time. For comparison the Super Bowl (aka; as your marketing team I will kill you if we're doing a spot, oh god we are, aren't we) goes for 4 million and the Final Four hovers at around 1.5 million.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
kazil posted:....That's not how advertising works. You spend money, and the advertisement makes you more money. I doubt Budweiser, Doritos, Pepsi, Coke, etc. are all going broke by advertising during the Super Bowl. Sure they aren't but even for them who are large general market advertisers its a woefully ineffecient spot. A good example of who shouldn't be at the superbowl are companies that do one and dones and have no other advertising throughout the year due to prestige. Chipotle for instance did this and completely changed strategy the next year because its such a bad idea. On the note of terrible superbowl ads there was a shoe company whose ad was basically two white guys in a truck running down a black guy. It was their only major tv spot, made them look racist, and cratered their business to oblivion.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
From the research side the reason you see so many flavored Vodkas is because white spirit drinkers (which honestly, basically just means Vodka drinkers based on marketshare) share two traits. 1) They are flavor experimenters 2) They are surprisingly brand loyal compared to other types of alcohol . What it means is every Vodka company worth their potatoes produces all sorts of various flavors in an effort to both keep its fans in house when trying new flavors and trying to lure other brand's drinkers to theirs to try flavors they can't get. Hence you get really weird flavors like cinnamon cake or skittles or...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
If a spot is banned you will not be seeing it anytime soon. For instance, I worked at an agency that received a formal letter from NBC saying they in no uncertain terms would not air the spot the agency created. Good luck finding a single shred of footage from that thing online.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
This whole thing reminds me of Friendlys death spiral where they wanted their servers to get 5 million hifives from customers and their business imploded faster because they didn't realize the majority of people have negative interest in interacting with server especially pressured physical contact
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Beachcomber posted:This is a month old, but I would like to know more about this. So you're in luck because Campbell has been like the poster child for this issue and they just launched a massive, massive overhaul of themselves because of this and their failures to staunch the bleeding. Basically, it boils down to something very simple; top brands for Millennial consumers in category after category are not the brands that have been dominant in those categories since 1950 onwards. Go to examples of panicking brands include the recently mentioned McDonalds and Budweiser who are desperate to right the ship. It's due to a lot of different factors. In the food space its been the incredibly strong push towards custom order, higher quality, and unique flavors. In slower moving industries like financial, insurance, and banking its been a really hard push towards mobile and online services and a move away from branches and brokers. In cars its been a decline in spending income combined with just flat out declining number of miles driven (23% less miles driven, in fact). You get the gist but basically about 3-ish years ago it started to sink for a lot of big brands that not only did Millennials not have an interest or recognition of them but that the company had no idea how to actually target them properly and that Millennials in many cases already had a new brand which catered to them that they aren't switching from. So back to Campbell Soup. Campbell soup has been since like 50s King poo poo of Soup Mountain. I mean fuckin Andy Warhol painted them for an art piece that helped launch him into the stratosphere. Well about 3-4 years ago Campbells absolutely abysmal sales among Millennials started to worry them so like any good company they sort of looked at the trend and just went "yeah we got this." Thus was born Campbell Go featuring duck faces and big glasses and multiethnic faces having wacky fun on a soup pouch with interesting flavors although made of the same junk quality garbage they always used. These single serving things cost $3 a pop and were promoted using pop-up fake-artisanal local soup stores. This of course, went over like a lead balloon. This brings us to last week where Campbell, after quarter after quarter after quarter of declining sales, has now announced a massive overhaul of its brand so complete that soup isn't even the forefront of the products they want to promote. Soup isn't even a unique division anymore! I mean sure, they've still got the incredibly gross idea to make soup in your Keurig machine they're kicking to shareholders but they're trying to promote their other, previously more obscure brands and shifted their fresher and better ingredient foods into their own division. tl;dr Millennials product desires did not align with previously established brands old brands did not realize this until Millennials were long gone at brands that came into existence to cater these desires.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
For all of you worrying about McD's Lovin plan Qdoba is going to give you a second burrito for free if you kiss someone else for them. In addition for those of you wondering about the pay to win mobile games on TV expect to see shitloads more adds because based on their internal reporting new signups increased 10-fold after their ad campaigns ran. Millennials are different because they expect benefits of web culture (instant information, variety offerings, rapid response, do things any time) from traditional products and have massively depressed spending income so they're also generally penny-pinchers/value seekers. Otherwise they are mostly just more ethnically mixed than previous generations while when controlling for ethnicity holding similar opinions except in my favorite stat are the first generation since monitoring to report that they felt connected to their parents/understood their thoughts/wanted them to live nearby etc. Barudak has a new favorite as of 03:38 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
So Coca-Cola had a twitter it ran where you would send it hateful messages add #makeithappy and it would make a "feel good image" out of the text. Sounds misguided but innocuous right? Welp, Gawker decided to test if it had any limits to what it would repost after seeing an image made out of the infamous 14 words and it turns out Cokes twitter will make pictures out of line by line tweets of Mein Kampf. It has, of course, since been pulled.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Wandle Cax posted:The trick to advertising to "millenials" is to get them to do their own advertising. If you have a distinctive or notable product, awareness can spread like wildfire through social media etc. The key is making the product worth talking about, giving it a hook, and starting the fire, so to speak, on the internet. Rather than bombarding the audience through traditional means, this way they will not feel like they are being sold to, but actually part of a trend they will want to buy into. Not exactly feasible for, say, Bariatric Surgery or $10,000+ Koi Fish* or Retirement Planning. What is and isn't a socially relatable or transferable message is often difficult to discern and hard to motivate. Obviously, companies absolutely should design products that speak to their customer needs but in many cases everyone is doing that. Also I really feel like its important to stress Millennial is a garbage term used in advertising exclusively when talking to people who ask questions like "but if we target based on people who have already bought our product everyone we'll reach won't buy one since they already have it!" *There is actually a rather, to me at least, absurd amount of competition in this space.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
jidohanbaiki posted:Doritos Taco Bell tacos is unappealing to me, but I don't doubt it was successful with the target demographic. Was it? What other mashups would work well? It did insanely well for them. I had to sit through a nearly 30 minute meeting about it. It was almost but not quite as bad as the meeting where a middle-aged white man in a suit had to hype me on Hub network and their upcoming show "She-Zow"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
So for everyone curious why Spotify ad targeting sucks its because Spotify wont let it be good. No, seriously, when you negotiate a deal with them they wont let you have any data about who it ran against and don't allow retargeting so when you buy Spotify ads your limited to a hope and a prayer that it targets who your trying to reach. The reason you primarily only hear ads for pop and other general market stuff is because those are the only people comfortable with leaving Spotify in charge and having little data to back it up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Boat posted:So....why? Wouldn't they be able to charge a lot more for adspace if they could, you know, use the mountains of user data they have to actually target the ads? Isn't that the whole point of social media/user tracking/selling adspace? I honest to god wish I had an answer. In December Spotify announced that it was killing off app support and the general advertising reaction was the assumption they were doing so to prevent anyone else from having their data. Why exactly they horde this data they have seemingly no idea what in the high-hell to do with nobody knows. Most likely some higher-up knows data is valuable, doesn't want to give it away, but they aren't currently collecting enough useful stuff so they're still blasting away in the dark until they have some sort of working in-house controlled targeting platform to sell to advertisers. Another thing that Spotify absolutely won't do that Pandora does is that Spotify does no in-house ad work. Pandora, conversely, puts in a lot of effort to help advertisers curate playlists, make creative, and manage their campaign and talk down clients who want ads to run every other commercial break while Spotify just kind of goes "whatever, here are some policy guidelines you have to follow but PS they change constantly, have fun!" Given that on top of poor data and support Spotify listeners tend to be younger and make less money and be less responsive to ads a lot of advertisers avoid Spotify.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I don't get this story at all. The bot converted negative tweets into happy pictures. So what does it matter that people were tweeting excerpts of Mein Kampf? The image was constructed out of the words in the negative tweet. So the twitter bot was churning out hundreds of images made out of the text "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children" and other similar white power speech repeated over and over and over again and since the bot was non-stop spamming it GOTTA STAY FAI posted:"Whatever. Name it...let's see...it's on the computer, so...how about CYBER DRIVE ILLINOIS DOT COM" I love this website because it feels like a scam while dmv-Illinois.com and other more sensibly named websites have to have warnings that they are private and not affiliated with the state.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Update on the McLovin campaign: Despite small % increases in consumers talking about McD actual consumer attitudes didn't budge and in some cases declined.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
So remember how Pizza Hut unveiled a bunch of new flavors like Sriracha* and such and encouraged you to try it you adventurous flavor tryer millennial you? Yeah sales went down 3.5% over the quarter and management is backpedaling real hard with choice quotes like "customers will love it, they just haven't tried it yet" while attempting to assuage a deluge of franchisee complaints. *gently caress the marketer concept of a sriracha
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:That makes me think of back-of-the box recipes. Does anyone know how much they are just straight up marketing? They're 100% marketing; they're on the back of the box. That doesn't mean they're bad recipes, mind you, and typically they're actually really good mixtures of the product since if you do make it they want you to love it enough to keep buying their product to make it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Since I work in advertising and am a millennial I feel like I should mention the vast majority of higher UPS especially in the companies who actually have to sign off on advertising are not millennials. Their is currently a shift on going where people who just shout the millennial buzzword are slowly being phased out in favor of people who can understand their target demo isn't every adult between a college student and a 35 year old (Christ I hate that age bracket) but rather a subset just like every other target they've ever had.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
In addition to the moxie cola example for something more recent Hillshire Farm after being spun off went dark for about a year and lost almost half of their market share and got pushed out of grocery stores which resulted in massive amounts of layoffs and a brutal uphill climb to get back into the stores. So yeah, going dark kills you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:As far as banner ads go 'we sell this, have a coupon code' is how I think everyone should do it. Thanks to programmatic creative that will be true for you in the coming future! If you want to discuss frighteningly intelligent look no further than using charitable donations to get doctor information to peddle your drug or doing education campaigns for health risks that only promote locations where you're product can be found.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
I have made so many goddamn decks, one-sheets, research documents, and povs on millennials its disgusting. The biggest issue in my opinion is with everything else higher ups are comfortable going "adult women 35-44 with 100k or higher household income who live in warm coastal states and enjoy running" is our target demo. Suddenly millennial gets tossed out and the insanity of "a 35 year old person who is married with a kid is completely the same as a college freshman" suddenly permeates everything. The idea of generations homogeneously being similar and marketable makes my job much harder and literally just writing a slide noting that millennial is a generation not a target customer got applause and bombardments of request to share across my company and the client who is one of the biggest advertising spenders on the globe. Btw if you want to have a great time seeing how this stuff used to sound check out Rifftrax's new short "in the suburbs" which is literally a pitch video from Redbooks historic relaunch where they announced their intention to target the hip young couples of their day, boomers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
For everybody curious; Gen Y is Millennials. What age range a millennial are is really, really poorly defined. Most people use born from 1980-2000 aka born before the millennium, but some big players use more esoteric breakouts like 1977-1994 (laffo) and 1985-2000. Because of the sloppy accounting for the size of millennials they are "THE LARGEST GENERATION IN HISTORY" but lets all agree to leave stupid marketer speak in marketer land. Gen Z is the upcoming generation, they'll get some other stupid name eventually. They are typically defined as being 2000 to present so they have yet to start entering college. The major difference between these two imaginary groups is that Gen Z uses smartphones for internet even more than millennials. People 12-17 73% own smartphones compared to about 64% for the general populace. If you want to laugh till you cry people have already started trying to do research on Gen Z but getting quality data from people aged 0-15 can be really tricky. My favorite is someone did an interview of children I think 8-15 and said "do you think you're going to own your own business?". This high number was then compared to current millennials 20-37 (remember that stupidity of what age a millennial is?) and wowee-zowee Gen Z is gonna conquer the world because millennials just don't have the same entrepreneurial drive!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:Good grief. This sounds like someone with a Salary of 7 or more digits and a double digit IQ, forced some poor gently caress to research children's spending habits. This is my career; forever pushed around by a person so disconnected from reality yet so well placed that they can demand invites to Cannes only because they think it overlaps with the film festival and then send angry emails to their agency when they find out that is not the case once they arrive. I literally once worked with an alcohol-prescription painkiller abuser who couldn't remember what she had and hadn't approved for more than a year and she not only kept her job but was able to jump ship to a new, better job. Another example: Millennials love Taylor Swift so clearly people who order our pizza will want to pay extra to get Taylor Swift's CD. What's that, you think nobody wants to pay $22 dollars for a pizza and a cd? And Taylor Swift's people know it isn't a good fit for their brand so in addition to cuts of the CD sales they want Papa Johns to pay multiple millions of dollars up front? Do it anyway! What's that, this plan failed miserably and we lost millions on the deal and sold seemingly 0 more pizzas than we would have otherwise???? The guy who approved that campaign had a fascinating career as a bridge burner starting with that. Barudak has a new favorite as of 18:29 on Jun 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
So this is a twitter failure story that segues into what I think is the single most brilliant twitter advertising I have ever seen. So cars.com recently decided to run a campaign that was such a failure I can't find the hashtag name anymore and it was barely a month ago so lets just say it was #checktoturnoff. This campaign was for one single day to launch their new mechanic finder service. Makes sense, right? Well despite the name and the focus, they weren't allowed to hire or have a diagnostic person on staff for the account. So you could only "share stories about your check engine light experiences". If you think it was a failure, boy howdy was it. 2 acceptable tweets out of 9 total tweets in a day for a campaign that required live human beings in a room to monitor the twitter feed. Back of the sheet math says it probably cost north of 30k for this. Here is the brilliant advertising. One of those unacceptable tweets was targeted at those people in the room. I can't remember the exact words but it was something like "Stuck monitoring live twitter feed? Check out porn at [website]" It turns out there is a twitter bot of some sort that hunts out campaigns that have live-monitoring and targets at those people in the room aka the only people likely to actually read a goddamn ad on twitter. God bless you, porn bot. ToxicSlurpee posted:Plus marketing just looks superficially at millenial culture and think that the internet is made entirely up of skinny white hipsters drinking craft beers, expensive lattes, and eating only the best organic ingredients. Whereas in the past "hire a celebrity to say nice things about your product" was a good advertising technique it's been used for so long people see right through it. Plus like has been said time and time again if they actually went out and asked millenials what they wanted it would mostly be stuff like "I want a loving job" or "I want my student loans paid off." If you're curious as to why food people are so obsessed with Millennials its because by and large, Millennials eat out like two or more meal occasions a week than older people. Part of this is heavily skewed by college kids but as they make up less and less of the total group its becoming pretty stable and I'd be confident saying, yes, younger people really do eat out more. The issue marketers haven't really figured out is a) The people eating upscale poo poo are not the majority of millennials nor does that account for the majority of their meals and b) Millennials in general are pretty loving cheap. Sure they spend more than $50 bucks a week on food out (compares to like $34 everyone else) but they're stretching that out over more meals. The other thing is one of the few things Millennials by and large respond well to, unsurprisingly, are companies that put money where their mouth is and actually do things that support what they want their brand to be. Chipotle for instance gets away with relatively high prices because when things happen like "we can't get enough of the steak" they raised prices and limited steak access instead of lowering quality/using meat that goes against their perception. Edit: Also if you think the only investor idiot bubble ongoing is in apps home delivered meal companies like blue-plate have market valuations of over $5 billion based on total revenues less than $40 million. Barudak has a new favorite as of 19:25 on Jun 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
So certain curated programs work really well. Birchbox is like the go to example wth its monthly shipment of random beauty products. Conversely very similar programs for say snack foods have bombed out. The issue is there is sort of a trend were you get random stuff in the mail but it has super narrow scope and for lots of things what consumers want in something curated means is pick from a set of four options rather than pick a set of four options for consumers to get one from randomly. Everything I've ever done with the word curated has failed except my resume
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
bucketmouse posted:My personal favorite is seeing people wearing them on cardio equipment at the gym. Hope you like your earpads smelling like canned rear end forever. Sat through an interesting meeting on music consumer behavioral groups and yeah, most likely, that person does as long as you saw them with those. They are also really likely to own a second pair not for the gym.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Karma Monkey posted:Hey I've got a question about income brackets in marketing. I know there are some people who post here who work in, or are familiar with, marketing research. I've noticed that a lot of marketing surveys tend to put income into fairly wide brackets. I wonder what is the usefulness of this information? For example, the question is usually something like "What is your annual household income?" And the option will be something like Having used most of the demographic/psychographic/behavioral marketing data out there typically those are the more general and therefore useless brackets while there is also much narrower, 5/10k at a time brackets going up to around 250,000k. Neither set is necessarily super useful in and of itself. For an example; you may make 200,000k+ but if you fall into "has less than $1 million in investible assets" you're still a hard pass by a lot of investment groups. Conversely, some refinance companies get that there do exists markets of heavily leveraged mid-incomes and look for things like property ownership and loans owned to determine if you're the right person to reach out to. As for age, typically brackets go 18, 19, 20, 21-24, 25-29, 30-34, etc etc etc and you only start lumping in age groups together to build larger pools of people. So its not that 35-50 is a bracket that is measured itself but currently its a common age range for certain goods. It can be interesting to see the movement of products through age brackets over time, things that were popular with a specific generation may keep that same 15 year spread but the age of the people in that spread keeps rolling on. Target segmentation often feels a bit like being a criminal profiler, especially when you start including behavioral data into the equation.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
AlphaKretin posted:I don't know how it is in the rest of the world, but for a couple of months here I've seen Lift (Coke's lemon squash in case it's not a global think) rebranded to Lift flavoured Fanta. Now all of a sudden, some - but not all - bottles are back to being just Lift. What is/was the point? Not a global thing, but available in various markets around the globe. I've no answer as to why its going back to Lift mind you, or why it changed only in Australia to the Lift Fanta branding. Cross-market product names are a funny thing and often subject to byzantine internal struggles at a company. For instance, McDonald's Quarter Pounder uses the McRoyal name in some European markets (but different McRoyal names in those markets), has a different measurement name in Brazil, and in China uses an outdated non-imperial and non-metric measurement system to weigh the patty.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 08:31
|
|