Tom Asacker

Democrats prefer Popeyes fried chicken and bisquits

Did you know that when it comes to fried chicken, Democrats prefer Popeyes and Republicans Chick-fil-A?  Thats' right!  According to an article in today's New York Times, pollsters are using consumers' brand preferences to glean insights into voting habits, using a marketing practice referred to as microtargeting. For example, Dr Pepper drinkers tend to be Republicans, while those who prefer Sprite usually vote Democratic.

And that, my friends, is why I lie to all pollsters. :) Seriously, you can read the article at this link, and form your own opinion on the use and efficacy of such tactics.  And be sure to watch the debate tonight, where you can have fun deconstructing the candidates attempts to win the favor of democrats as they spin their responses to best incorporate the insights provided by their political strategists.  And if you don't notice any spin, that means that they're either real or really good.

What is branding?

If you really want to gain a solid understanding of the evolved concepts of "brand" and "branding" - the cultural challenges of creating expectations with customers - here are two revealing commentaries.  The first is a rebroadcast of yesterday's NPR radio program On Point about American Business in China.  Pay particular attention to the elucidation of branding in China by Tom Doctoroff, Northeast Asia Director for JWT.  The Chinese sound a lot like 1950s Americans.  Here's the link to the podcast.

The next is an AdAge article about Ford's new 'Drive One' Campaign, which is intended to shake up car buyers' perceptions of the automaker.  I've lifted key excerpts from the article, as well as all of the comments to-date.  To understand branding in the U.S., and how it's much different than branding in China, contrast the sentiments in the article with those in the comments:

Jim Farley's moment of truth came when he told his Santa Monica, Calif., neighbors he was leaving Toyota for Ford. They told him his move was "heartwarming," but added that they wouldn't buy a Ford.

"I realized they had gone past skepticism to apathy," said Mr. Farley, who is now group VP-marketing and communications at Ford Motor Co. "We have to break that pattern of apathy." In fact, he told reporters last week that not enough Americans "have a favorable opinion of our company."

Ford is out to change that perception with its new "Drive One" marketing blitz that began with a 60-second commercial during "American Idol" last week. The goal is to make believers -- and buyers -- out of Americans who aren't putting Ford on their shopping lists.

Ford wouldn't reveal ad spending behind the effort, but . . . said the brand, its regional dealer ad groups and individual Ford dealers collectively spend about $1.5 billion annually in measured media. Ford Division will account for about half the new campaign's media spending; the regional dealer groups the other half.

The essence of the advertising, as Mr. Farley sees it, is "one human being talking to another human being about Ford. That is the only chance we have to break this cycle of apathy." Mr. Felice told Advertising Age that the marketer will measure the campaign's performance on seven criteria, including building the Ford brand's image, improving customer consideration and increasing dealership traffic.

He said consumers see Ford as a maker of trucks and Mustangs, as an old-economy outfit for mid-America. But the automaker has a lot of untold positive stories, he said, which the campaign will popularize. "We're really trying to remake the image of the company." Mr.

Farley, who had been group VP-general manager of Toyota's Lexus division, cautioned not to judge the success of Ford's campaign this month or next. "The judgment on this will be five years from now."

Now read the comments to understand why mass media advertising has a very different effect in a mature, economy of abundance like the U.S.:

Choice architects are everywhere. Are you one?

I just finished reading "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness," a book about how behavior can be greatly influenced by small changes in the context in which people make decisions. For example, the design of a water bottle can have a major effect on brand selection. Duh?

There's nothing earth shatteringly new here. The subject matter has been exhaustively covered by cognitive psychologists, behavioral economists, and a whole bunch of bloggers.  However, I have become somewhat obsessed with a term used by the authors to describe people whose job it is to exercise said influence; namely, "choice architects."  Here's how they describe the term in a recent L.A. Times article:

"Those who design supermarkets and school cafeterias are engaged in what we call "choice architecture": the organization of the context in which people make decisions. Choice architects are everywhere. If you design the ballot that voters use to choose candidates, you are a choice architect. If you are a doctor and must describe the alternative treatments available to a patient, you are a choice architect. If you design the form that new employees fill out to enroll in the company healthcare plan, you are a choice architect. If you are a parent, describing possible educational options to your son or daughter, you are a choice architect. If you are a salesperson, you are a choice architect (but you already knew that)."

So here's what I think: I think everyone who works in the fields of branding, marketing, advertising, identity design, naming, digital experience design, social media consulting, et al. should start referring to themselves as "choice architects."  Perhaps then they'll be cognizant that their advice and actions are designed to influence customer choice.  Not awareness. Not recall.  Not sentiment. Not viralness. Choice. And once choice architecture becomes the new standard, businesses will begin making decisions based on what will strategically best influence . . . choice. 

Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that cause and effect can be precisely determined in a rapidly changing marketplace for products, media, technology, et al. There are so many factors that influence choice that the variables win against any attempt to isolate them; we really can't say what one specific thing "caused" a particular choice (The exception may be offers exclusively promoted and fulfilled through the mail.)  But considering the rapidly increasing level of "noise" regarding the aforementioned professions, I think it's a good place to start.  Don't you?

But did it move the needle?

Do you ever wonder if Dove's "Campaign for Real Beauty" caused a subsequent increase in the sales of Dove branded products?  I wonder about that a lot.  But I'm wondering a little bit less today, based on my reading of this post at Reveries.com:

"You can have extremely relevant information and content but if no one is seeing it, what's the point?" says Unilever's Dove marketing director Kathy O'Brien in a Wall Street Journal piece by Suzanne Vranica (4/10/08). Kathy is explaining why Dove is rolling out its new online community for women, Dove.com, on Microsoft's portal, MSN.com. She hopes that the MSN connection will give the brand "accelerated access" to its target audience. But the larger goal is to do for Dove what its wildly successful, "Campaign for Real Beauty" hasn't yet totally achieved through ads and viral marketing alone -- connect the brand itself to its mission "to promote self-esteem in younger women."

In other words, even though Dove's campaign was the subject of discussion on shows including "Ellen" and "The View," that exposure didn't necessary "incorporate actual Dove items." And even though "tens of millions of people viewed Dove's 'Evolution' video online, "the video wasn't surrounded by any product mentions." As MSN's Gayle Troberman points out: "It's challenging when you put things out on YouTube to engage that consumer with the product messages ... The video provoked debates ... but how do you get the product message in there." The brand also "spent $188 million on ads in the last year, according to TNS Media Intelligence."

So, the hope is that this new site will bridge those gaps on Dove.com with a mix of "entertainment, blogs, advice and advertising." Content includes "Fresh Takes," a Dove-produced mini-series of three-minute episodes starring Alicia Keys, "that follow the life of three young women." Also featured is "advice from a doctor on skin care and even chitchat about how beauty is portrayed in today's popular culture," in many cases with "some type of Dove ad message surrounding the content." Dove.com faces competition from sites like Glam Media and iVillage, as well as "more than one online community aimed at women," such as Capessa, via "Unilever's main rival, Procter & Gamble."

What's your take on this?

Do you have a perfect logotype?

Call me crazy, but this reminds me of something from The Colbert Report.
.

George Loewenstein on the mind

"The Platonic metaphor of the mind as a charioteer driving twin horses of reason and emotion is on the right track—except that cognition is a smart pony, and emotion a big elephant."

If you're still not a believer in the irrational behavior of homo sapiens, check out Dan Ariely's new book and blog, Predictably Irrational.   

Why a brand is NOT a promise.

USA Today reports that the British grocery chain Tesco has been aiming to change the way Americans shop with its small Fresh & Easy markets, but the combination of quality foods at low prices, especially presented in a very basic store decor, seems to confuse U.S. shoppers.

"They're about the size of a Trader Joe's with lots of Whole Foods-type natural foods and prices that can seem Costco-esque.  But the unfamiliar combination — and a rather sterile store décor — seem to have left American shoppers confused about just what the chain is. As a result, Tesco is finding it harder than expected to make its mark on the nation's $500 billion grocery business."

Promise: Fresh and easy quality foods at low prices.  Expectation: ?

You Are Getting Thirsty

That's the headline, and lead article, of the most recent issue of Brandweek magazine.  Here's the subhead:

Volvo, Kraft and soft drink firms are hiring hypnotists to probe consumers' minds.  Do they need their heads examined?

Well, do they?  Volvo commissioned hypnosis sessions to dig beneath the surface responses it was receiving from focus group participants; namely that Volvo equals safety.  After being put under, the conversation reached a deeper, more emotional and truthful place, where many participants revealed that Volvo equals middle-aged.  Was that insight worth $75,000?  I could have told them that for much, much less.  Ahh, but they need evidence!

Which brings me to this new piece of research: Dogs on the street, Pumas on your feet: How cues in the environment influence product evaluation and choice.  In the paper, Wharton marketing professor Jonah Berger makes the case that what you see in your everyday world can influence your choices as a consumer. When subjects in his experiment were shown repeated images of dogs, they recognized and liked the Puma brand more than those who had not seen the images of dogs.  Confused? It turns out that dogs are associated with cats, and cats are associated with Puma.

According to Berger, "We think of advertising as a way to remind people of products; putting up more ads should increase sales. But we should also think about linking products to the environment and let the environment do the work for us."  Berger offers the example of Mars Bars, which saw an increase in sales after NASA landed the Pathfinder spacecraft on Mars on July 4, 1997.  He also offers the example of Tide detergent. The conventional thinking is that the more Tide ads consumers see, the more likely they are to want to buy it. Perhaps, he said, seeing waves on the beach (think ocean tides) may work just as well to stimulate consumer interest in Tide detergent.

What do you think marketers?  Should we be spending money trying to understand and influence the subconscious minds of our audiences?  For what types of products and under what circumstances?

Update: AdAge reports that  Apple is suing the Big Apple. The computer company filed a formal complaint earlier this year with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office opposing an application by New York's official travel and tourism organization to trademark a "GreeNYC" logo featuring an apple.  I guess Apple doesn't believe professor Berger's premise.

New Article - Perception Is Not Reality

Happy April Fools Day!  William Blake wrote, "The fool who persists in his folly will become wise." And so, I persist.  You can read my latest thoughts about reality and perception in the marketplace for products, services, people, causes and ideas in my new article: Perception Is Not Reality.

Please let me know your thoughts by posting a comment below.  Also, if you're interested in receiving notification of new articles by email (along with some random statistics, news and interesting links), you can sign up by entering your email address, clicking the submit button, and then confirming your subscription from Aweber.  Thanks! And please note: You'll only receive about one email a month, and I will never use your address for anything else.  Promise.  I'm not fooling. :)