Tag: advertising

Gap: Creating a Global Brand Strategy that Swings

Remember those snazzy Gap commercials with the khaki-clad 20-somethings grooving to swing music?

The “Khakis Swing” spot from 1998 made Gap a sought-after brand — and now the chain is trying to recapture some of that long-dormant excitement with a new global strategy. According to a recent story from Advertising Age, Gap’s campaigns have typically been created in North America for a Western audience. But, like many retail chains, the company is recognizing that significant growth potential lies in developing overseas markets.

The Gap brand is now available in 90 countries (up from 25 at the beginning of 2010) and has 459 stores outside North America. In February, Gap named a new global advertising agency (Ogilvy & Mather); replaced North American president Marka Hansen with Art Peck, formerly head of the chain’s outlet business, and named Seth Farbman as its first global chief marketing officer. Farbman told Ad Age that his efforts will focus on storytelling, social media and coming up with ideas that teams will execute on the ground in San Francisco, London, Tokyo and other regions.

At Gap and elsewhere in the retail sector, brand identities are changing as companies diversify to attract a global audience. At a Penn Fashion Week lecture in April, fashion designer Vera Wang and William Fung, managing director of Hong Kong-based trading company Li & Fung, both predicted that as countries like India and China emerge as major consumer markets, business strategies will no longer be limited to what styles will work in major U.S. cities or in Europe. “The world is going to be a smaller place,” Wang noted.

Fung, whose company sources and coordinates supply chains for about 30% of the brands found in the average American shopping mall, told Knowledge@Wharton that China’s increased buying power will likely lead to “a lot of innovation and design that’s specifically tailored for the Chinese market. When that happens, that will also influence the rest of the world,” just like Americans’ increase in consumption after World War II meant that many products were initially created for the American market.

Efforts to become relevant on a global scale aren’t limited to clothing companies. When Knowledge@Wharton interviewed Alan D. Wilson, CEO of spice maker McCormick, earlier this year, he talked about some of the ways his firm is trying to make its products accessible in overseas markets. For example, “the spice market in China is much, much smaller than you would expect because consumers are cooking with things like chicken powders and bouillons and those sorts of things,” he said. “Because of that, our product line is a little different in China. We are selling certainly spices and herbs, but we also are selling some Western products like ketchup, salad dressings and jams. But we are also selling chicken powders and chicken bouillons that are [in line with] the way people cook there. We have to keep adapting to what people do in their local market.”

When it comes to a global ad campaign, even the smallest detail counts in trying to send the right message, William Lauder, executive chairman of cosmetics company Estée Lauder, told Knowledge@Wharton. He recounted a story about pitching an ad campaign that included a white birthday candle to the firm’s Asia brand managers. Their initial reaction was total silence. “I said, ‘Guys, what’s up?’ … They said, ‘Well, you know, in Asia, we only burn candles like this when somebody dies,’” Lauder recalled. “It was a revelation to us…. Easy to fix, but that’s a cultural relevance piece. In other words, so there’s a consistency of the image, you just change the one thing that all of sudden says the wrong thing to the consumer. The most classic case is the Chevy Nova marketed in Latin America. In Spanish ‘nova’ means ‘no go.’”

Will Gap’s new ad campaign swing or stumble? We’ll just have to wait and see.

Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today, Marketing | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Can Hoover Give Soap Operas Another Life to Live?

Back in the days of radio, daytime dramas were called soap operas because of the household goods promoted on the shows. Procter & Gamble, Pillsbury and General Foods were happy to feature their products alongside the daily travails of Helen Trent, Ma Perkins and the Bauers of The Guiding Light because they knew that legions of housewives were listening.

Fast forward 70 years and we live in an era with more women working, a seemingly endless buffet of television choices and far fewer soap operas. In 1940, serialized daytime dramas made up 90% of all commercially-sponsored daytime broadcast hours, according to the Museum of Broadcast Communications. Today, American soap operas number at six and are dwindling following last week’s announcement that ABC will end All My Children in September and One Life to Live in January in favor of airing cheaper-to-produce lifestyle programs.

There are plenty of people out there who grew up watching All My Children and One Life to Live, and plenty of now-adult young girls (and boys) who spent their allowance money on contraband copies of Soap Opera Digest and skipped college classes to watch Luke and Laura get married on General Hospital. But most would be the first to admit that they don’t watch much anymore. They grew up, and life got more complicated. Maybe they kicked the habit when O.J. Simpson’s murder trial preempted the soaps in 1994 and 1995. The Chicago Tribune reported that soap operas routinely attracted more than five million viewers per episode in 1996; today, only The Young and the Restless draws that kind of audience.

Despite those smaller numbers, there was still a sizable impact earlier this week when Hoover marketing vice president Brian Kirkendall — whose mother and wife are diehard All My Children and One Life to Live fans — announced in a Facebook note that the vacuum company would pull its advertising from ABC in protest starting tomorrow. And the company didn’t stop there — Hoover also set up a dedicated e-mail address where fans could make their case for a change of heart by ABC and promised to send those letters to the television network.

Will it work? Probably not, at least not on its own (see this K@W story for more on the effectiveness of boycotts). But Hoover won the hearts of millions of soap fans who are targeting everyone from advertisers to Oprah (and her fledgling cable channel) in an effort to save their shows. “It’s all about brand awareness, particularly with their target customers, who are women,” notes Wharton marketing professor Deborah Small. “Think about it — the company is supporting this cause and it’s something [fans] care deeply about, something that is personally very important to them…. That’s going to have some positive effect.”

So far, Kirkendall’s original Facebook post has drawn more than 700 “likes” and hundreds more messages thanking Hoover for taking a stand and pledging loyalty in return. Carolyn Hinsey, a columnist for Soap Opera Digest, even wrote a blog post asking fans to declare tomorrow “Buy a Hoover Day.” (For anyone considering actually doing so, Consumer Reports is highlighting its annual product rankings for vacuums.)

 

And Hoover may not be taking as much of a hit from this move as some might think. Advertising Age‘s Brian Steinberg notes that the vacuum company’s overall ad spending on ABC is relatively small, around $353,000 in 2010. He also argues that pulling the advertising dollars that support the programs is not the most effective way to keep them on air.

What would keep soap operas on TV? In a blog post for Fast Company, Sam Ford, co-author of the book, The Survival of Soap Opera, says advertisers, networks and producers have created a self-fulfilling prophecy for the genre by declaring it dead and irrelevant, rather than collaborating to create a long-term plan for its viability. Financial Times media editor Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson likens soap operas to other orphan brands abandoned by the consumer products companies that once depended on serialized dramas to make them household names. “In television terms, this means that shows that no longer pay their way on broadcast networks could profitably anchor a cable channel’s daytime line-up, with its dual revenue streams of advertising and cable system fees,” Edgecliffe-Johnson writes. “The Discovery-backed Oprah Winfrey Network, after a sluggish start, could be an ideal home for another daytime TV exile.”

In reality, this is a problem that all content creators, from television networks to newspapers, are struggling with: How do you keep old media viable in the eyes of consumers — and earn enough money to pay for it — in a new media world? That’s one soap opera that is not in danger of cancellation anytime soon.

Featured Professors:
Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today, Marketing, Strategic Management | Also tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Winning in the New ‘Marketing Democracy’

Imagine for a moment that you moved to a new home located right next door to a train station. It’s noisy at first. But after a while, you get used to the noise and barely notice it. That notion captures “exactly how consumers feel about marketing and advertising — as if it’s not even there,” said Tim Suther, chief marketing officer of Acxiom, the world’s largest processor of consumer data, at a recent Wharton Marketing Conference. Such consumer numbness has profound consequences: $112 billion in major brand advertising is wasted every year, while eight out of 10 online ads fail to reach their desired audience. “A truly awful, awful performance,” noted Suther.

With the right strategies, however, Suther said companies can successfully navigate this tumultuous world to reach their target customers. He cited a few of the most well-known strategies. For one, they should personalize their marketing to consumers instead of blasting them with broadly targeted ads. They should also identify those customers who spend the most money on their products and services, and invest more in marketing directly to them. Companies should craft a multidimensional profile of their customers, Suther advised, looking not only at what they are buying, but also what they are thinking and how they are behaving online. Moreover, companies should better coordinate their different sales channels to deliver a seamless experience for the customer wherever he or she chooses to shop.

“Einstein famously said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result,” Suther said. Likewise, companies need to begin thinking differently about how they do marketing, especially in an increasingly connected world. With the expansion of sales and media channels, consumers can shop online using their computers or phones, or make traditional bricks-and-mortar store purchases. This increased number of options presents marketers with tremendous opportunities to understand and reach the right audience — if they are savvy enough to do it correctly. “Those [consumers] who engage in multiple forms of media or channels are four to five times more valuable” than those who only participate in one, Suther noted — yet two-thirds of senior executives do not have insight into their consumers across all of these channels. For instance, while people spend 42% of their media consumption time online, advertisers shell out only 11% to 12% of their total advertising budgets on the web.

For marketers, the stakes have never been higher, especially in a world where, via the Internet, consumers can instantly judge a company and convey their opinions to fellow shoppers. This “consumer-to-consumer” trend is a “powerful force affecting the business of advertising and marketing,” and has created what Suther refers to as a “marketing democracy.” “Elections, if you will, are being held every day. Consumers are voting … and they are determining winners and losers. You’ve got to pay attention to this, because they will vote you out of office.”

To Read more, visit: Acxiom’s Tim Suther on Winning in the New ‘Marketing Democracy’

Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today | Also tagged , , | Leave a comment

The ABCs of Mobile Apps

As the use of smartphones grows, developers are increasingly flooding the market with a variety of mobile applications that can be downloaded onto the devices. But while the promise of mobile technology seems boundless, its execution can be more problematic, noted panelists at the recent BizTech@Wharton Conference.

For one, there is the issue of protecting consumer privacy, which has become especially critical in the face of the Federal Trade Commission’s “Do Not Track” proposal that would allow Internet users to block websites from collecting information about them. Companies that rely on ad-supported mobile apps, or websites designed for the phone, need to track consumers’ web use in order to target ads to them. Without targeted ads, growth of mobile apps would dry up, panelists stated, because the cost would then be transferred to customers who are used to downloading the programs for free. “I would argue that 60% of the innovations coming out of startups would go to zero if there weren’t ways of monetizing through targeting,” said panelist Omar Green, director of strategic mobile initiatives at software firm Intuit.

The challenge for companies is finding the fine line between providing helpful information and preserving privacy. For instance, if a patient searches for articles on depression, would it be appropriate to target him or her with ads about depression medication? Vishy Gopalakrishnan, director of industry solutions at AT&T Mobility, argued that it can be done tastefully. Facebook has shown that people are comfortable with revealing things about their personal lives to a certain extent, he pointed out. The trick is for the company to use that information in a helpful and subtle way and to “give some assurance — formal or informal — that you’re not going to share [personal data] with the whole wide world.”

Another challenge is the issue of compatibility. Mobile app developers have to write different versions of their programs for different platforms, such as the iPhone, Android and the BlackBerry. Consequently, the programs take longer to implement and are more cumbersome to update, speakers said. “If you want to win at mobile, you can’t just pick one. You can’t just say, ‘I need an iPhone app,’” according to panelist Eric Blumberg, founder of Smarter Agent, a Camden, N.J., mobile technology development company for real estate agents. “You have to do all of them.”

Perhaps the biggest riddle to solve, though, is monetization. Blumberg said Smarter Agent charges real estate agents and institutions, but is free to consumers. The app, which can be customized by individual real estate brokers, provides consumers with real estate listings. Along with a subscription fee, Smarter Agent also makes money through ads. The ads are not intrusive to people when they find them helpful, Blumberg suggested. For example, if a home buyer is searching for a house with hardwood floors but comes across a property that does not have them, the app can serve up an ad from Ikea offering a deal on hardwood flooring.

The key, panelists noted, is to make ads part of the mobile user’s experience instead of a disruption. “Advertising on the web is not advertising on mobile” Blumberg pointed out. “[Placing ad] banners on mobile [is] probably going to drive most people away because your screen is only so big and you’re putting a banner on it.” His firm tries to find ways to insert ads where people will not mind as much — for instance, on the blank screen that comes up while a phone is downloading information. (The ad disappears once the downloading is complete.)

Some companies offer free apps but charge customers for access to internal features, noted Ryan Charles, who leads the mobile efforts for Zagat, a well-known restaurant review provider. For example, FarmVille is a game that lets users manage a virtual farm by planting and harvesting virtual crops, and raising virtual livestock. Players earn virtual money to pay for plants and animals as they gain experience, rise in game levels or by paying actual money. Another app, Smurf Village, is free to download but there is a charge for additional in-app content. For example, adding a wagon of “Smurfberries” can cost as much as $100. Charles called it a “free model with an in-app purchase.” This strategy of monetizing mobile apps will not work with everything because consumers “might not be addicted to a certain section of The New York Times as much as they are to upgrading their Smurf Village.”

The bottom line is that companies have to find methods of making money from mobile, and they are experimenting with ways to do it creatively. Without monetization, all the innovation will be wasted because the app will not be sustainable. But the ads must fill a customer’s needs. “If ads really help you do things … then they’re not really ads, they’re things that help you,” Blumberg said. “If I’m moving and Home Depot is giving me 20% off my next purchase, is that an ad or is that a benefit of using the app? Advertising isn’t a dirty word, but how you implement it can be.”

To read more, see: From FarmVille to Bangladesh: Mobile Apps Try to Fulfill Their Potential.

Posted in Managing Technology | Also tagged , | 2 Comments

Marketing Keds to a New Generation of Feet

If you were a kid anytime in the past century, you probably owned a pair of Keds. The ubiquitous canvas sneakers are undergoing their latest makeover in an effort to build buzz among a different constituency — 20-somethings.

To do that, a 32-foot trailer designed to look like a shoebox is hitting the road for stops at U.S. college campuses. The “How Do You Do?” campaign invites students to design their own shoes at a touch-screen kiosk and purchase them. Each stop will feature shoes inspired by that city — for example, the March stops in Austin, Texas feature shoes in denim, chambray and twill with Western details.

“As people go through identity crises, so do the brands,” Kristin Kohler Burrows, president of Keds Group told The New York Times. She said one of the goals of the campaign is to “awaken people to the fact that [Keds] is an iconic brand.”

Keds were first introduced in 1916. By 1930, the company had unveiled a line of high-heeled shoes — dubbed “Kedettes” — in an effort to appeal to women. The shoes have adorned the feet of Marilyn Monroe, Jackie Kennedy and Katherine Hepburn.

And this wouldn’t be the first time that Keds have been a trend among young people. In the 1980s and 1990s, they had a place in the closets of many teenage girls, alongside babydoll dresses, slouch socks and lace-trimmed bike shorts. Keds also tried to attract a similar audience in the mid-2000s, when actress Mischa Barton — then starring on young adult-centric mega-hit The O.C. — became the shoes’ spokesperson.

Now the company is trying to appeal to the millennial demographic by featuring artists and young people giving back to their communities in its ads. Keds is also running a design contest, and adopting a campaign Twitter hashtag. “We really feel that what’s important to this consumer is to engage with a brand” and experience it firsthand, Kohler told the Times.

Maintaining the “cool” factor of any product is a tricky proposition. In a past Knowledge@Wharton story, marketing professor Jonah Berger noted that fashion is fertile ground for fads because clothing is a way to communicate something about a person’s identity and style. “Styles often start with one group, and then another group starts to use it because they want to look like that first group,” Berger said. But when that second segment adopts the trend, “the meaning may be lost.”

He and other faculty said it is critical for brands to understand the potential value of a product before pouring money into keeping it current. The Times story reported that Keds spent $1.68 million on advertising from January to September of last year, compared to $450,000 during that same time in 2009. “You should only invest in things where you can do a credible job of forecasting that the perceived value of your offering compared to your competition will be sustainable,” Wharton marketing professor Leonard Lodish told K@W. “You need to understand the factors that will make that happen.”

Featured Professors: ,
Posted in Marketing, Strategic Management | Also tagged , , , | 2 Comments