Can you imagine moving to Japan?
Can you imagine walking down the main street, and seeing a little vacant shop.
There are posters in the window which you presume is advertising the shop for lease. The phone number is represented in digits you recognise.
You don’t speak much Japanese. You are limited to: ‘Konichiwa. Watashi no namae wa Dennis desu.‘
But you have a friend who is a bit better and you get them to enquire about the vacant shop.
You end up not being to sure about the deal, but it is hard to compare since you know so few people and in the end you decide to give it a go.
Here are my questions for you:
- What will you sell?
- How will you sell it?
- How will you present it?
- How will you promote it?
Here is an example of someone who did it in reverse.
(Sorry Melbourne Central (@melbcentral) , hope you don’t mind me taking a photograph in your centre.)
Have a look at some pics on Urban Spoon.
More importantly download their menu and have a look at the products, prices etc.
I am willing to bet a lot of money that back in Japan you won’t find ‘Hot Nutella Custard’ as a menu option.
But what you have here is a classic example of an entrepreneur who figures out that it is NOT about them and it is not about their tastes or preferences. The store is in Australia. They figured out that Nutella is a much loved product in Australia. (The product originated in Italy, and as far as I can tell, it is unlikely to be popular in Asia and does not seem to be available.)
This is the first lesson of all marketing, including retailing: Figure out what the customer wants and give it to them.
As human beings we suffer from the need to rely on decision-making heuristics (shortcuts) to function in this world. You cannot avoid it, and it is not a matter of how smart or experienced you are.
These heuristics are often classified into three different categories: social-, memory error- and decision making biases. (See the list below – beautifully summarised from Wikipedia, where you can no doubt find out more if you are interested in any individual one. In a few days I will post a blog focused #108 – The Lake Wobegon Effect.)
TWO THINGS TO TAKE AWAY
- Each of these effects are potentially useful strategies for your marketing. Think about each - don't merely scan it and forget it.
- Recently there was a new website launched with the ideal of helping people think more clearly. They offer free online training in thinking skills. Go for it – just one of the services we offer here is to point people in the right direction.
Decision-making, belief, and behavioural biases
1. Ambiguity effect – the tendency to avoid options for which missing information makes the probability seem "unknown."
2. Anchoring or focalism – the tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.
3. Attentional bias – the tendency to pay attention to emotionally dominant stimuli in one's environment and to neglect relevant data when making judgments of a correlation or association.
4. Availability heuristic – the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events with greater "availability" in memory, which can be influenced by how recent the memories are or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be.
5. Availability cascade – a self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true")
6. Backfire effect – when people react to disconfirming evidence by strengthening their beliefs.
7. Bandwagon effect – the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior.
8. Base rate fallacy or base rate neglect – the tendency to base judgments on specifics, ignoring general statistical information.
9. Belief bias – an effect where someone's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion.
10. Bias blind spot – the tendency to see one self as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases in others than in one self.
11. Choice-supportive bias – the tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were.
12. Clustering illusion – the tendency to over-expect small runs, streaks, or clusters in large samples of random data (that is, seeing phantom patterns).
13. Confirmation bias – the tendency to search for or interpret information or memories in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.
14. Congruence bias – the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, instead of testing possible alternative hypotheses.
15. Conjunction fallacy – the tendency to assume that specific conditions are more probable than general ones.
16. Conservatism or regressive bias – the tendency to underestimate high values and high likelihoods while overestimating low ones.
17. Conservatism (Bayesian) – the tendency to insufficiently revise one's belief when presented with new evidence.
18. Contrast effect – the enhancement or reduction of a certain perception's weight when compared with a recently observed, contrasting object.
19. Curse of knowledge – when knowledge of a topic diminishes one's ability to think about it from a less-informed (but more neutral) perspective.
20. Decoy effect – preferences change when there is a third option that is asymmetrically dominated
21. Denomination effect – the tendency to spend more money when it is denominated in small amounts (e.g. coins) rather than large amounts (e.g. bills).
22. Distinction bias – the tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately.
23. Duration neglect – the neglect of the duration of an episode in determining its value
24. Empathy gap – the tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either oneself or others.
25. Endowment effect – the fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it.
26. Essentialism – categorizing people and things according to their essential nature, in spite of variations.
27. Exaggerated expectation – based on the estimates, real-world evidence turns out to be less extreme than our expectations (conditionally inverse of the conservatism bias).
28. Experimenter's or expectation bias – the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.
29. False-consensus effect – the tendency of a person to overestimate how much other people agree with him or her.
30. Functional fixedness – limits a person to using an object only in the way it is traditionally used
31. Focusing effect – the tendency to place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.
32. Barnum Effect (See #101)
33. Frequency illusion – the illusion in which a word, a name or other thing that has recently come to one's attention suddenly seems to appear with improbable frequency shortly afterwards. (see also recency illusion).
34. Gambler's fallacy – the tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events, when in reality they are unchanged. Results from an erroneous conceptualization of the law of large numbers. For example, "I've flipped heads with this coin five times consecutively, so the chance of tails coming out on the sixth flip is much greater than heads."
35. Hard-easy effect – Based on a specific level of task difficulty, the confidence in judgments is too conservative and not extreme enough
36. Hindsight bias – sometimes called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, the tendency to see past events as being predictable at the time those events happened.
37. Hostile media effect – the tendency to see a media report as being biased, owing to one's own strong partisan views.
38. Hot-hand fallacy – The "hot-hand fallacy" (also known as the "hot hand phenomenon" or "hot hand") is the fallacious belief that a person who has experienced success has a greater chance of further success in additional attempts
39. Hyperbolic discounting – the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, where the tendency increases the closer to the present both payoffs are.
40. Identifiable victim effect - the tendency to respond more strongly to a single identified person at risk than to a large group of people at risk.
41. Illusion of control – the tendency to overestimate one's degree of influence over other external events.
42. Illusion of validity – when consistent but predictively weak data leads to confident predictions
43. Illusory correlation – inaccurately perceiving a relationship between two unrelated events.
44. Impact bias – the tendency to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.
45. Information bias – the tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.
46. Insensitivity to sample size – the tendency to under-expect variation in small samples
47. Irrational escalation – the phenomenon where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong.
48. Just-world hypothesis – the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just, causing them to rationalize an otherwise inexplicable injustice as deserved by the victim(s).
49. Less-is-better effect – a preference reversal where a dominated smaller set is preferred to a larger set
50. Loss aversion – "the disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it".
51. Ludic fallacy – the misuse of games to model real-life situations.
52. Mere exposure effect – the tendency to express undue liking for things merely because of familiarity with them.
53. Mirror-imaging – the analysts' assumption that the people being studied think like the analysts themselves.
54. Money illusion – the tendency to concentrate on the nominal (face value) of money rather than its value in terms of purchasing power.
55. Moral credential effect – the tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase subsequent prejudice.
56. Negativity bias – the tendency to pay more attention and give more weight to negative than positive experiences or other kinds of information.
57. Neglect of probability – the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.
58. Normalcy bias – the refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster which has never happened before.
59. Observation selection bias – the effect of suddenly noticing things that were not noticed previously – and as a result wrongly assuming that the frequency has increased.
60. Observer-expectancy effect – when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it (see also subject-expectancy effect).
61. Omission bias – the tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions).
62. Optimism bias – the tendency to be over-optimistic, overestimating favorable and pleasing outcomes (see also wishful thinking, valence effect, positive outcome bias).
63. Ostrich effect – ignoring an obvious (negative) situation.
64. Outcome bias – the tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made.
65. Overconfidence effect – excessive confidence in one's own answers to questions. For example, for certain types of questions, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out to be wrong 40% of the time.
66. Pareidolia – a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) is perceived as significant, e.g., seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hearing non-existent hidden messages on records played in reverse.
67. Pessimism bias – the tendency for some people, especially those suffering from depression, to overestimate the likelihood of negative things happening to them.
68. Planning fallacy – the tendency to underestimate task-completion times.
69. Post-purchase rationalization – the tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was a good value.
70. Pro-innovation bias – the tendency to reflect a personal bias towards an invention/innovation, while often failing to identify limitations and weaknesses or address the possibility of failure.
71. Pseudocertainty effect – the tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.
72. Reactance – the urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice (see also Reverse psychology).
73. Reactive devaluation – devaluing proposals that are no longer hypothetical or purportedly originated with an adversary.
74. Recency bias – a cognitive bias that results from disproportionate salience attributed to recent stimuli or observations – the tendency to weigh recent events more than earlier events (see also peak-end rule, recency effect).
75. Recency illusion – the illusion that a phenomenon, typically a word or language usage, that one has just begun to notice is a recent innovation (see also frequency illusion).
76. Restraint bias – the tendency to overestimate one's ability to show restraint in the face of temptation.
77. Rhyme as reason effect – rhyming statements are perceived as more truthful. A famous example being used in the O.J Simpson trial with the defense's use of the phrase "If the gloves don't fit, then you must acquit."
78. Risk compensation / Peltzman effect – the tendency to take greater risks when perceived safety increases.
79. Selective perception – the tendency for expectations to affect perception.
80. Semmelweis reflex – the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts a paradigm.
81. Selection bias – the distortion of a statistical analysis, resulting from the method of collecting samples. If the selection bias is not taken into account then certain conclusions drawn may be wrong.
82. Social comparison bias – the tendency, when making hiring decisions, to favour potential candidates who don't compete with one's own particular strengths.
83. Social desirability bias – the tendency to over-report socially desirable characteristics or behaviours and under-report socially undesirable characteristics or behaviours.
84. Status quo bias – the tendency to like things to stay relatively the same (see also loss aversion, endowment effect, and system justification).
85. Stereotyping – expecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without having actual information about that individual.
86. Subadditivity effect – the tendency to estimate that the likelihood of an event is less than the sum of its (more than two) mutually exclusive components.
87. Subjective validation – perception that something is true if a subject's belief demands it to be true. Also assigns perceived connections between coincidences.
88. Survivorship bias – concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that didn't because of their lack of visibility.
89. Texas sharpshooter fallacy – pieces of information that have no relationship to one another are called out for their similarities, and that similarity is used for claiming the existence of a pattern.
90. Time-saving bias – underestimations of the time that could be saved (or lost) when increasing (or decreasing) from a relatively low speed and overestimations of the time that could be saved (or lost) when increasing (or decreasing) from a relatively high speed.
91. Unit bias – the tendency to want to finish a given unit of a task or an item. Strong effects on the consumption of food in particular.
92. Well travelled road effect – underestimation of the duration taken to traverse oft-traveled routes and overestimation of the duration taken to traverse less familiar routes.
93. Zero-risk bias – preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.
94. Zero-sum heuristic – intuitively judging a situation to be zero-sum (i.e., that gains and losses are correlated). Derives from the zero-sum game in game theory, where wins and losses sum to zero. The frequency with which this bias occurs may be related to the social dominance orientation personality factor.
Most of these biases are labelled as attributional biases.
95. Actor-observer bias – the tendency for explanations of other individuals' behaviours to overemphasize the influence of their personality and underemphasize the influence of their situation (see also Fundamental attribution error), and for explanations of one's own behaviours to do the opposite (that is, to overemphasize the influence of our situation and underemphasize the influence of our own personality).
96. Defensive attribution hypothesis – defensive attributions are made when individuals witness or learn of a mishap happening to another person. In these situations, attributions of responsibility to the victim or harm-doer for the mishap will depend upon the severity of the outcomes of the mishap and the level of personal and situational similarity between the individual and victim. More responsibility will be attributed to the harm-doer as the outcome becomes more severe, and as personal or situational similarity decreases.
97. Dunning–Kruger effect an effect in which incompetent people fail to realise they are incompetent because they lack the skill to distinguish between competence and incompetence.
98. Egocentric bias – occurs when people claim more responsibility for themselves for the results of a joint action than an outside observer would credit them.
99. Extrinsic incentives bias – an exception to the fundamental attribution error, when people view others as having (situational) extrinsic motivations and (dispositional) intrinsic motivations for oneself
100. False consensus effect – the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them.
101. Forer effect (aka Barnum effect) – the tendency to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. For example, horoscopes.
102. Fundamental attribution error – the tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviours observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behaviour (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect).
103. Group attribution error – the tendency to assume that group decision outcomes reflect the preferences of group members, even when information is available that clearly suggests otherwise.
104. Halo effect – the tendency for a person's positive or negative traits to "spill over" from one personality area to another in others' perceptions of them (see also physical attractiveness stereotype).
105. Illusion of asymmetric insight – people perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers' knowledge of them.
106. Illusion of external agency – when people view self-generated preferences as instead being caused by insightful, effective and benevolent agents
107. Illusion of transparency – people overestimate others' ability to know them, and they also overestimate their ability to know others.
108. Illusory superiority – overestimating one's desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable qualities, relative to other people. (Also known as "Lake Wobegon effect," "better-than-average effect," or "superiority bias").
109. Ingroup bias – the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be members of their own groups.
110. Just-world phenomenon – the tendency for people to believe that the world is just and therefore people "get what they deserve."
111. Moral luck – the tendency for people to ascribe greater or lesser moral standing based on the outcome of an event rather than the intention
112. Naive cynicism – expecting more egocentric bias in others than in oneself
113. Outgroup homogeneity bias – individuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups.
114. Projection bias – the tendency to unconsciously assume that others (or one's future selves) share one's current emotional states, thoughts and values.
115. Self-serving bias – the tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to their interests (see also group-serving bias).
116. Spiral of silence – the process by which one opinion becomes dominant as those who perceive their opinion to be in the minority do not speak up because society threatens individuals with fear of isolation. The assessment of one's social environment may not always be correct with reality.
117. System justification – the tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged sometimes even at the expense of individual and collective self-interest. (See also status quo bias.)
118. Trait ascription bias – the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior, and mood while viewing others as much more predictable.
119. Ultimate attribution error – similar to the fundamental attribution error, in this error a person is likely to make an internal attribution to an entire group instead of the individuals within the group.
120. Worse-than-average effect – a tendency to believe ourselves to be worse than others at tasks which are difficult
Memory errors and biases
121. Bizarreness effect – bizarre, or uncommon material, is better remembered than common material
122. Choice-supportive bias – remembering chosen options as having been better than rejected options
123. Change bias – after an investment of effort in producing change, remembering one's past performance as more difficult than it actually was
124. Childhood amnesia – the retention of few memories from before the age of four
125. Conservatism or Regressive Bias – tendency to remember high values and high likelihoods/probabilities/frequencies lower than they actually were and low ones higher than they actually were. Based on the evidence, memories are not extreme enough
126. Consistency bias – incorrectly remembering one's past attitudes and behaviour as resembling present attitudes and behaviour.
127. Context effect – that cognition and memory are dependent on context, such that out-of-context memories are more difficult to retrieve than in-context memories (e.g., recall time and accuracy for a work-related memory will be lower at home, and vice versa)
128. Cross-race effect – the tendency for people of one race to have difficulty identifying members of a race other than their own
129. Cryptomnesia – a form of misattribution where a memory is mistaken for imagination, because there is no subjective experience of it being a memory.
130. Egocentric bias – recalling the past in a self-serving manner, e.g., remembering one's exam grades as being better than they were, or remembering a caught fish as bigger than it really was
131. Fading affect bias – a bias in which the emotion associated with unpleasant memories fades more quickly than the emotion associated with positive events.
132. False memory – a form of misattribution where imagination is mistaken for a memory.
133. Generation effect (Self-generation effect) – that self-generated information is remembered best. For instance, people are better able to recall memories of statements that they have generated than similar statements generated by others.
134. Google effect – the tendency to forget information that can be easily found online.
135. Hindsight bias – the inclination to see past events as being predictable; also called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect.
136. Humour effect – that humorous items are more easily remembered than non-humorous ones, which might be explained by the distinctiveness of humour, the increased cognitive processing time to understand the humour, or the emotional arousal caused by the humour.
137. Illusion-of-truth effect – that people are more likely to identify as true statements those they have previously heard (even if they cannot consciously remember having heard them), regardless of the actual validity of the statement. In other words, a person is more likely to believe a familiar statement than an unfamiliar one.
138. Illusory correlation – inaccurately remembering a relationship between two events.
139. Levelling and Sharpening – memory distortions introduced by the loss of details in a recollection over time, often concurrent with sharpening or selective recollection of certain details that take on exaggerated significance in relation to the details or aspects of the experience lost through leveling. Both biases may be reinforced over time, and by repeated recollection or re-telling of a memory.
140. Levels-of-processing effect – that different methods of encoding information into memory have different levels of effectiveness
141. List-length effect – a smaller percentage of items are remembered in a longer list, but as the length of the list increases, the absolute number of items remembered increases as well.
142. Misinformation effect – that misinformation affects people's reports of their own memory.
143. Misattribution – when information is retained in memory but the source of the memory is forgotten. One of Schacter's (1999) Seven Sins of Memory, Misattribution was divided into Source Confusion, Cryptomnesia and False Recall/False Recognition.
144. Modality effect – that memory recall is higher for the last items of a list when the list items were received via speech than when they were received via writing.
145. Mood-congruent memory bias – the improved recall of information congruent with one's current mood.
146. Next-in-line effect – that a person in a group has diminished recall for the words of others who spoke immediately before or after this person.
147. Osborn effect – that being intoxicated with a mind-altering substance makes it harder to retrieve motor patterns from the Basal Ganglion.
148. Part-list cueing effect – that being shown some items from a list makes it harder to retrieve the other items
149. Peak-end rule – that people seem to perceive not the sum of an experience but the average of how it was at its peak (e.g. pleasant or unpleasant) and how it ended.
150. Persistence – the unwanted recurrence of memories of a traumatic event.
151. Picture superiority effect – that concepts are much more likely to be remembered experientially if they are presented in picture form than if they are presented in word form.
152. Placement bias – tendency of people to remember themselves as better than others at tasks at which they rate themselves above average (also Illusory superiority or Better-than-average effect) and tendency to remember themselves as worse than others at tasks at which they rate themselves below average (also Worse-than-average effect
153. Positivity effect – that older adults favor positive over negative information in their memories.
154. Primacy effect, Recency effect & Serial position effect – that items near the end of a list are the easiest to recall, followed by the items at the beginning of a list; items in the middle are the least likely to be remembered.
155. Processing difficulty effect
156. Reminiscence bump – the recalling of more personal events from adolescence and early adulthood than personal events from other lifetime periods
157. Rosy retrospection – the remembering of the past as having been better than it really was.
158. Self-relevance effect – that memories relating to the self are better recalled than similar information relating to others.
159. Self-serving bias – perceiving oneself responsible for desirable outcomes but not responsible for undesirable ones.
160. Source Confusion – misattributing the source of a memory, e.g. misremembering that one saw an event personally when actually it was seen on television.
161. Spacing effect – that information is better recalled if exposure to it is repeated over a longer span of time.
162. Stereotypical bias – memory distorted towards stereotypes (e.g. racial or gender), e.g. "black-sounding" names being misremembered as names of criminals.
163. Suffix effect – the weakening of the recency effect in the case that an item is appended to the list that the subject is not required to recall
164. Suggestibility – a form of misattribution where ideas suggested by a questioner are mistaken for memory.
165. Subadditivity effect – the tendency to estimate that the likelihood of a remembered event is less than the sum of its (more than two) mutually exclusive components.
166. Telescoping effect – the tendency to displace recent events backward in time and remote events forward in time, so that recent events appear more remote, and remote events, more recent.
167. Testing effect – that frequent testing of material that has been committed to memory improves memory recall.
168. Tip of the tongue phenomenon – when a subject is able to recall parts of an item, or related information, but is frustratingly unable to recall the whole item. This is thought an instance of "blocking" where multiple similar memories are being recalled and interfere with each other.
169. Verbatim effect – that the "gist" of what someone has said is better remembered than the verbatim wording
170. Von Restorff effect – that an item that sticks out is more likely to be remembered than other items
171. Zeigarnik effect – that uncompleted or interrupted tasks are remembered better than completed ones.
GANADOR: PEOPLE. PERFORMANCE. RETAIL
In March 2013 I wrote an article “How to lose sales quickly” on Inside Retailing and a commenter took me to task open my view and understanding of neuroscience. That debate was off-topic, but I felt compelled to debunk what goes for science in Neuromarketing a month later (April 2013) in this article.
You should be used to me being ahead of the curve by now (he writes with some self-satisfaction) but this explored in much greater detail in a July 2013 on Slate in an article questioning the science in Neuroscience.
The article concludes:
Despite the new user-friendly EEG technology, performing brain research is still a difficult endeavour. The challenge (as it has always been) is to perform well-designed experiments that are as unambiguous in their interpretation and conclusions as possible. This is not a trivial matter, and will be true no matter what new technologies are available for studying the brain. In the mad rush to commercialize the new EEG technology, the neuromarketing researchers are currently gleefully painting over the logical and technical cracks in their methods with glossy results graphs and 3-D pie charts. Those considering using these new research methods for their latest advertising campaign would do well to heed the classic commercial advice: caveat emptor.
And to that I say amen.
I will also say that, given our academic background and our personal interests, consumer behaviour is our ‘thing’ so we really make an effort to stay on top of it.
We incorporated Neuroscience (actually Behavioural Economics would be a better description) into our Retail Sales Training program. We felt ourselves qualified to do so, but we extensively adapted some of the insights offered by Behavioural Economics to fit with what we already know to work well in a retail environment and what the retail employees would realistically be able to incorporate into their workflow.
Much current research is conducted by commercial marketers and those insights are proprietary. The academically published work is largely based on experiments conducted on American College students, and this presents in my mind some serious limitations to the research findings.
Buzzwords come and go for a reason.
I am not suggesting that Neuromarketing is going to disappear overnight, but I am suggesting that ‘sound bites’ offered by gurus whose entire understanding of the subject is based on a few pop-psychology books should be taken with a forklift full of salt.
GANADOR: BUILDING A HIGH-PERFORMANCE RETAIL PRESENCE FOR BRANDS AND RETAILERS
What would YOUR logo look like if these principles were applied?
I googled this search term: innovation in "shopping center" marketing.
It came up with 821 results. Not 821 MILLION, just 821.
It listed 10 results on the first page – of which ZERO had to do with shopping centre marketing.
I repeated the exercise with ‘mall’ instead of ‘center’ and came up with just over 2000 results – of which NONE related to shopping centre marketing.
I did not think it was possible to still come up with a search term on Google that would yield – for practical purposes – a zero result.
That this zero result relates to such a large sector of our economy should set the alarm bells ringing. The fact that it doesn’t makes me want to weep.
Twenty one months actually to be fair. But counting the time it took to conceive and prepare my presentation for the Retail Conference in Melbourne on 14 September 2011, it would be pretty close to 2 years ago that I coined the term 'MUTUALISTIC ORIENTATION'.
I was proposing the next stage in the evolution of Marketing. (Extending Kotler's description of the evolution of Marketing, I asked the question: After product orientation and after marketing orientation comes... what? And my answer was as per this slide image:
On 25th June 2013 HBR published this article titled : To Overcome Your Company's Limits, Look to Symbiosis. In it they make similar claims I did two years earlier.:
It is a good read - do click on the link. (and you can watch the presentation HERE. - scroll to bottom of page.)
I wonder if anyone who was at the conference is reading this? Did you know then you were ahead of the game?
Aaahhh - a prophet is never recognised in their own country. - but we live in hope.
OK. Bragging spell over. Please continue. (Or GO HERE if you are really done.)
The Dove campaign has been featured here a few times as an example of 'authentic marketing' . This dates back some 6 or 7 years when I first introduced it to my MBA class. AT the time I noted that one big risk for this positioning strategy was that it was impossible to turn back and adopt a traditional positioning w.r.t. beauty.
They are certainly sticking with it...
PS: Remember that Google Reader is closing down the end of this month. If you are using that, we recommend email subscription or Feedly.
Watch this space for a major announcement on an APP you would be NUTS to ignore, but in the meantime, here is a quick guide to some tools and resources for Email and SMS marketing
Has an integrated suite that will allow significant growth into other areas including Live Chat etc if they run an eCommerce operation
Popular for people who actually SELL stuff via their newsletters, and it has a great Autoresponder.
I personally use Mailchimp and they have a great FREE option with few limitations. It is easy to use and costs nothing for the basic level. (And also have good support.)
This is an APP which puts Gmail on steroids, but it is a bit more about one-on0one prospecting and selling than mass marketing emails.
All three of the above providers have ‘RESOURCES’ sections where they can learn more. Additionally, there are some more resources here: http://www.subscribermail.com/learn-more/
I don’t personally use SMS marketing for obvious reasons. But two providers that I have looked at superficially for a client are:
I think that SMS is already being overtaken by in-app notifications, so...
As I said: Watch this space for a major announcement on an APP you would be NUTS to ignore.
GOOGLE READER is shutting down. Subscribe via email or change your reader.
Students of Marketing will be familiar with Kotler’s typology that identifies the transition from a product >>> sales >>> marketing orientation. That was a brilliant insight. He even foresaw the shift towards ‘societal' marketing:
1. The production concept (World War eras)
2. The product concept (Post WW2)
3. The selling concept (1950s)
4. The marketing concept (1960s onwards)
5. The societal marketing concept (now)
The fundamental assumption of this schema is that marketing is something that marketers do and the consumers are subjected to. Oh, how things have changed.
Consider the diagram below to understand the evolution of marketing. (You won’t find this in a text book, so if you are an actual student, don’t reference this as an absolute given – it is my interpretation of how marketing is shifting.)
We are all familiar with the early years of mass communications (radio and TV and the advertising that accompanied that era.) In Australia I gather this is the era of Louis the Fly.
The explosion of media including specialist magazines and local stations gave marketers the opportunity (or forced them) to became more sophisticated in choosing their channels and their messages.
Technology enabled real niche-marketing, which became viable because of global economies of scale. Entrepreneurs could start to leverage the long-tail opportunities.
Ubiquitous marketing of the message was also enabled by technology. You could see the same message on any device, on any channel, inside and outside the home. (I think Tom Waterhouse marketing is a good example of this. J)
Marketing that is embedded in the everyday experiences of people. This is become more prevalent in the online world (see this post), the emergence of The Internet of Things is going to make and break many marketers.
The march towards consumer empowerment finally culminates with the consumer being fully in charge. The only real ‘influence’ will be the social circle, and for the rest, the consumer will open themselves up to information about products as and when they need it.
The three key features of On-Demand Marketing are:
- Now (in the present)
- Simple (try 140 characters message or 9 sec video on Vine)
I am not suggesting for one minute that any organisation abandon TV/ Newspapers/Radio etc. Like with most things in life, the transition is a process that takes time and large numbers of people are still effectively reached via TV advertising. (You may reach me, but not my son, for example.)
What we need to do is to start the thinking processes to design our retail proposition to be future-proof. Unlike most other transitions, the final transition means that once you have lost out on the opportunity, you may have lost out permanently. The first-mover advantage will be enormous.
The starting point is to conduct a brand audit to really understand what it is AND how customers think about your business. This marketing evolution also drives home the point that you don't actually 'own' your brand - since your brand is what the customer thinks it is.
I would love to hear some stories in the comments about how you are already embracing these changes.
And a quick pop quiz: how many organisations are still stuck Stage 3 of Kotler’s hierarchy?
Future-proof your business with Ganador.
PS: I am preparing a presentation about these big picture shifts for a conference that I am doing for free, so I thought I will share the love around if you are interested in that sort of thing. See HERE for those interested. (No strings, but limitations apply, so be quick.)
GOOGLE READER is shutting down. Subscribe via email or change your reader.
BUYCOTT (an app) was launched recently that allows users to boycott the retail brand. Once you’ve scanned an item, Buycott will show you its corporate family tree on your phone screen, and if you don’t like the parent company for whatever reason, you can pick a different brand.(I haven’t downloaded the app because the Android app has been withdrawn because of a flaw. (The app is #10 in the App Store overall, and is getting 10+ new users every second. I also presume it is US only at the moment.)
In a twitter conversation, the person who first tweeted the link and I had a conversation, and her point of view was:
And my view is that, yes, I am more afraid of the leaderless, faceless mobs of the twittersphere than of the (predictable) power-elite.
I have written previously about the power of social to do harm. Some examples of community-powered change are:
- The Arab Spring.
- The Syrian Uprising
- Alan Jones
- Kyle Sandilands
These are all examples of how people power made the ‘authority’ bend the knee to the people.
You may agree or disagree with these ‘causes’, but once the mob had mobilised, there was not stopping it.
Recently there was the example of how Bernie Brookes from Meyer ‘caused a social media stink’ with his comments about the NDIS.
Again, this was a classic case of misguided zeal that led the mob to propose Meyer boycotts. In fact, a local retail consultant actively instigated this initiative under a cloak of self-righteous indignation. Obviously it has now become dangerous to express an opinion, or in Mr Brooke’s case a fact, that the mob might take offense too. I have no doubt Mr Brookes supports the NDIS; as do I and every person who has a heart. Supporting the NDIS (or not) was not quite the point, but the full story cannot always be redacted to 140 characters and reason therefore does not always prevail in a tweet.
(I suppose the point was lost on the ‘consultant-activist’ that such a boycott would actually hurt all the innocent shareholders, employees, suppliers and all their employees and so forth.)
And one more about Abercombie & Fitch to show the power of a CEO to make – or break – a brand can never be overestimated – even in an interview that took place 7 years ago.
(Apparently the mob does not condone target marketing any more.)
And there is more.
IT’S NOT the first time that everyday people all o
ver the world have decided to reclaim the streets, and it surely won’t be the last. In the face of discontent and apathy about politics – in response to the democratic deficit between citizens, politicians and financial markets – citizens will always look for better alternatives to the existing political structure.
Global Noise is about making ourselves heard. In a democracy, the government should be by the people and for the people. The reality is that we are asked to cast a vote once every three years, watch our elected representatives change all their policies and just shut up. The world is facing a great variety of issues that perpetuate conflict, poverty and political apathy.
This is the story of how ONE reader sent Victoria’s Secret scurrying for cover.
But because one person was particularly offended by this particular item, and found a ready echo chamber at a web site dedicated to issues relating to race, and then the online ‘news’ sites like Huffington Post and The Daily Mail reported it as a controversy, the product disappeared from Victoria Secret’s site.
That’s not evidence of peer-to-peer collaboration or effecting meaningful change in the world, is it?
Most brands are realizing that there’s someone out in the ethersphere who will be offended by something it does. Online tech gives everyone a soapbox (again, I’m all for it) and makes anyone a potential rabble-rouser. And then it stops…right there…since very few people are actually equipped to propose real things, inspired to lead one another, or willing to take the time and effort effecting real change takes.
Still, so much marketing gets away with selling us impossible ideals of beauty, happiness, and success, even in 2013.
Corporations and governments should be scared shitless of the day when we of the huddled masses figure out that we can use the Internet to change the things they offer us.
These words are going to prove prophetic indeed. And all people (not only early adopters) will eventually realise the power they have.
Whilst we recognise in principle that power is being returned to the people – the wildcard in all of this is technology.
It will amplify the trends and consequently the potential to do good and the potential to do harm.
On the negative side, there is a risk of mob-mentality and combine this with self-righteousness and half-truths, you have a cocktail for disaster.
And the mob will come for you at some stage. The little guys may only warrant little mobs, but don’t bank on that. The main thing is whether you are prepared for the inevitable; because the full force of these faceless masses unleashed on a business can be sufficient to spell the end of your business. You better have a social-savvy PR firm on your side to help you navigate.
Good marketing will slowly build your business. Bad PR will destroy it all instantly.
And finally, which is why I reckon: Long Live the Trolls. (Eventually they will help save the self-righteous mob from itself.)
Future-proof your business with Ganador