Search results matching tag 'marketing spend'

Goodbye Men, Hello ladies

2085942 — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:10:00 GMT

Jerry yang, Yahoo’s ex chief exec announced that the advertising industry was facing the toughest downturn in decades. The age of extravagance is gone. The age of the hangover is here. No more big marketing budgets with money to trial and test cool ideas. Its about ROI. Its about bold, strong brands having a clear positioning. Tough times need solid, focused leadership, a lesson that Woolworths learnt the hard way.

Napoleon declared the essence of strategy is sacrifice. Never has this been more true than in the current climate. And the sacrifice should be allocating marketing spend to men- a well saturated market. Lad's mags are already pregnant with tech-brands competing for their attention. Women are the financial opportunity and Jupiter estimate marketers are missing out on £0.5billion by not marketing to women.

Out of every 10 gadgets, 4 are bought by women. And no before you ask we are not talking about fridges and washing machines. More women than men play games between the age of 24-35 than men now And we are not just talking the Sims. World of Warcraft now has 50% female players.

The research I conducted with Jupiter highlighted (now Forrester), ownership is on a par with men in most categories. Couple that with the fastest growing segment on social networks is married women with children. And according to an N-vision survey, December 2008, approx 40% of women are transacting on the Internet (ie spending money rather than just using the Internet for communication, information and entertainment) compared to 30% of men. Hence, Women are no longer a niche audience - they are the budget-holders and drivers of growth.

The editor of marie claire is right when she says:

"When it comes to tech brands and women, technology companies are in the same place the cars industry was 20 years ago."

With the exception of Nintendo and it's Wii, Apple, no other brand is talking the female language. I agree with Hilary Chilura when she says:

"Like nervous teenage boys at a junior high-school dance, tech marketers haven't figured out how to talk to women".

Ask any family who was in charge of buying the Christmas gifts, and you'll find out its women not men. Women are not only buying technology for themselves, but as the Chief Household Officer, are buying for kids, husband, gran and friends. Women are in charge of the house, but more importantly are in charge of the living room (see Battle of the Living Room) where many of the technology lives: PVR, console, HD TV.... In my house, its my husband who lives in 'his' world but its me who lives in the 'real' world. I am deciding what we should cut back on, how much we can save and what we will buy when it comes to technology.

If tech brands want to be successful, they should focus on women at the expense of men. Women are no longer 'the Second Sex. ' Rather the most profitable sex.

Agencies could be paid for adding value if they could agree with clients what value they add

695124 — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:07:25 GMT

I have just caught up with an interesting research report from the US into value-based pricing – the latest candidate to break the default setting of people/hours fees.

In August the ANA (ISBA equivalent) and AAAA (America’s IPA) jointly published something called the Agency-Advertiser Value Survey, which was derived from parallel surveys among their respective memberships.

Just two sets of results. First, how the clients defined the dimensions of value that agencies add:

   1. Fresh and unexpected creative ideas
   2. Integration
   3. Collaboration
   4. Developing ideas that work in multiple communication channels
   5. Best agency people on the account – and agency management available when needed
   6. Driving awareness, consideration and purchase intent
   7. Guidance on new media and technologies

Now for the agency point of view. Here is their batting order:

1. Clear, well-supported strategies
2. Interesting and relevant consumer insights
3. Marketing solutions for reaching consumers in new and innovative ways
4. Fresh and unexpected creative ideas
5. Marketing initiatives to drive client’s business
6. Ideas that work in multiple communication channels
7. Constantly thinking about client’s business, and providing ideas without being asked

I found it fascinating that there was common ground on only two dimensions. Is it surprising that value-based pricing is a long way from being adopted, despite enthusiasm on both sides of the fence? Should ISBA and IPA replicate the survey here? I think so. Meanwhile we are stuck with a payment system based on inputs, not outcomes and outputs. It is also a method of remuneration that any trained procurement specialist can drive a coach and horses through – simply by clipping 5% here and 10% there from the agency’s estimate of individual timeburn. And that’s before they start challenging profit mark-ups and overhead factors.

Nostalgic about the future

695124 — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:55:23 GMT

Some mistake surely? We normally talk about being nostalgic about the past, or worried about the future. No, after attending the Adforum Worldwide Summit in Amsterdam this week I’m nostalgic about the future I had thought we were all looking forward to.I’ve been crazybusy at an international of intermediaries – or maybe a conclave of consultants. There are two Adforum Summits a year for people like me – agency search consultants from all over the world. In the spring we gather for two days somewhere in Europe, and then in the autumn for five days in New York. We meet agencies, who tell us about themselves and the future. And we hold internal workshops to consider research and reports prepared by colleagues. Since these ‘colleagues’ are effectively competitors, it is quite collegiate. Also, from time to time, scary. I may have a rail pass these days, but I have not been negative about the future for our business. I have been prepared for fast growth in digital, and lots of integration and branded content. But we are supposed to be pundits, and when the vision of the future, as presented by respected agencies and colleagues, is so far ahead of what you have been anticipating, it is really unsettling. In The Beautiful South’s album ‘Blue is the colour’ there is a number called ‘Mirror’. It’s about a prostitute’s dream for a better future. There is a haunting line in it: ‘a mirror bigger then the room it is placed in’. Just a few of the questions troubling me after Amsterdam:

Has the agency talent that brought the business to the bank of this mighty river, got the ability to cross it and make a useful life on the other side? Is communications planning going to take over from creativity as the killer app?
Can clients cope with the extent of change?
Will the famous Big Idea still work in an open source world, where the consumer is controlling the dialogue, and the agency working with dozens of communication partners?
More particularly, will opportunities to see become a redundant metric, as the consumer demands fresh stimulus all the time?
Digital is only 6% of marketing spend now, but it is already at the heart of everything we do. How are agencies and clients going to work together, when that figure reaches 16%, 26% and so on?
Is search, which already dominates digital advertising, going to spread to the offline world to the effective elimination of the interruption model?
And is data going to be the battleground? Or is it going to be the ability to interpret data and mine insights from it?

And to think that we used to believe the advertising business was all about people and ideas.

Is marketing spend an investment or a cost?

695124 — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:33:49 GMT

I was struck by yesterday’s front page headline in Marketing: ‘Woolworths pares back spend as sales fall away’. Isn’t it supposed to work the other way? Don’t brand owners spend to increase sales? Just asking.