| |  “I got a great deal on shoes —they were only $300!”
Honestly,as I interviewed the person it (the deal amount) was not what I expected. When someone says they got a deal on shoes,my mind goes to lower prices,say $50 or $60 dollars,but a deal is relative. A deal is within a price sensitivity range to the shopper. Therefore,it comes as no surprise that a deal for one person will be an exhorbatent amount for another. But the word “deal”goes much deeper for shoppers. It is a way to shop for some and a social deflector for others. A deal can be pennies in one category and hundreds of dollars in others. By honing in on the truth behind the different definitions for a deal we are able to understand shopper attitudes and behaviors to better market to them. Below are six different lenses to view a deal. The Deal Seeker
Many people seek deals,but not all deal seekers are the same. Two ways to bucket deal seekers are planners and hunters. The primary difference between the two is their approach to deal finding. The planner preps and identifies many of their deals prior to going to the store. They will use many deal tools like coupons,deal web sites and apps. Conversely,the hunters do very little prep and mostly confine their deal seeking to the retail environment. Within a store or mall they will seek deals,however,since they don’t canvas the market like gatherers it is questionable if they got the best deal overall. Sale as a Deal
Sales are always a deal,but deals are not always a sale. By definition if something is on sale it is a deal,however,it is not always the best deal. Since deals can be by category (shoes) or by brand ( e.g. Vera Wang,Jimmy Choo),the deal is relative to the percieved price and the shopper’s price sensitivitiy. If you want the cheapest shoes you could go to Payless or a discount store. If you want a deal on Jimmy Choo shoes you will need to do your homework,and most likely if the deal is too good to be true (say $600 shoes for $50) a shopper will question the deals authenticity. Deal Believability
This brings me to another topic:deal believability. Deal Seekers are a peculiar sort. While many seek deals,they question if a deal is to good to be true. Cognitive paralysis occurs when the deal is out of whack,making the shopper wonder what is wrong with the product. Examples can be found on NoMoreRack.com where you will find iPad 2 for $43.20 (98% off) or a 55″Samsung HDTV for $59.96 (95% off). These are extreme deals which make you wonder about product authenticity. You wonder about what is the hook,the flow,the catch. I am a user of Woot and often question the price of certain deals. Manuy times upon further review I normally find out the product is refurbished. The Deal with Passion
Passion is a lens that may distort a deal seeker’s normal behavior. We all have passions,and most people spend their discrentionary resources (i.e.,time and money) on their passions. Passion can result in an emotive spending where we shift from mind to heart. For example,I know a couple who I would classify as deal seekers —they are always finding ways to save pennies. Pennies they will use to spend on their passion,which in thier case is water skiing. While they maximize coupons and their membership to Costco,they have their eye on a new Malibu boat. The Price Blind
The antithesis of a deal seeker is a shopper who is price blind. The reason I bring them up is that many think they are smart shoppers or deal seekers,yet they are operate in the retail environment like they are price blind. One reason for this misconception is many buy on habit —a habit may have been initiated by a deal,but at this point they just buy the same brand or go to the same store,assuming they are getting the best deal. This is a common phenomenon with warehouse stores. Some deals at Costco or Sam’s Club are true deals,while others not so much. However,in the mind of the shopper they believe they are a smart shopper and are getting a deal on everything. After all,they wouldn’t pay a membership to pay more on products. Deal as a Social Deflector
The last lens I want to bring up is social. We live in a marketing world where social dominates the conversation. Groupon and LivingSocial are methods to group buy —get a great deal. The flip side of social is after purchase,especially when someone made a socially questionable purchase. An example today would be the purchase of a tablet PC. iPad dominates the market and then there is everyone else. Imagine a person who bought an Archos Arnova Tablet talking to a friend who owns an iPad. Instead of disussing the features of the product,there is a very good chance the person just says “I got a great deal.”  Social relevance is a desire to get into a person’s inner social circle —something worth sharing with friends. This is more than a facebook “Like”,which is an action requiring very little effort from both parties – consumers just need to click a button and their in,while markerters just need to create a page and watch the fans arrive in droves —or not.
Let’s face it,social media is a weak play generating artifical bonds that can be easily erased. As marketers we need to try harder. Buzz requires relevance. Not relevance on the brand’s terms,rather a combination of our target’s relevance in a space true to the brand —a space the brand can own. Passion is key. If you want to be socialy relevant long term,the brand space must be something the target is passionate about. Successful social marketing lies at the crosshairs of relevance and passion. From a consumer perspective the easiest way to get to “me”is by embracing my passion,and Johnsonville Brats is inching their way into America’s weekend passions. To begin with Johnsonville has the big Taste Grill Semi traveling the country giving our free brats at major events throughout the country. This lives within a passion (and hits the spot),however,the semi is limited to one passion point per weekend. So,the brand needed to go deeper. It needed to go to Spartanville. Spartanville lives at Michigan State University. Johnsonville took over a part of Spartan Stadium with it’s brand in context of a passion shared by 75,000 fans during those fall Saturday’s. Spartanville lives at the crosshairs of the fan passion and the brand. For years Johnsonville has been running the “-ville”brand suffix campaign to reshape food genres (“Pastaville”),time (“Weekendville”),and consumers (Share your Ville video contest). Sometimes it seemed like the brand was talking to itself,other times it may hit home for some people in a relevant way. Relevance is tricky —the broader the relevance the more likely a brand can’t own it (i.e. think Valentine’s Day or ),and the narrower the relevance the more targeted and more costly the effort. Micro-relevance,like micro-conversations,is at the heart of social marketing,but are rarely done due to the logistics of time,cost and effort (and sometimes expertise).  It is the eve of National Thaw day,and many Americans like myself are wondering where they are going to buy their turkey. Some people will just go to their regular grocer and purchase their 18-pound tom turkey. Others are looking for the best deal they can get and grocers are obliging. Many grocery stores have turkey deals and some come at a price. The following are four local examples:
- Meijer offers a Meijer Tom Turkey (17 pounds) for 39-cents per pound with a $20 purchase.
- Kroger offers a River Tom Turkey for 59-cents per pound with a $10 purchase.
- VGs offers a Self-basting Turkey (12 pounds+) for 48-cents per pound with a $10 purchase.
- ALDI offers a Butterball Turkey (10 –20 pounds) for $1.09 per pound (no additional purchase).
So what’s the best deal? If brand does not matter,Meijer is the best deal on price with an 18-pound turkey costing $7.22,however,you need to spend at least $20 on other items to get the discounted price (probably not a stretch given all the other fixins needed for the holiday dinner). The next closest is VG’s at $8.64. Kroger is $10.62 and ALDI tops it off with $19.62 for their Butterball Branded offering. Seems like a slam dunk —not so fast. If you are a deal seeker,head to Meijer and you are good to go. However,you need to ask yourself:am I getting a quality turkey or a dry,tasteless bird like the one in National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation? I am not a turkey enthusiast so I did a little searching to see if there truly is a difference —and there is. The following is a segment from the Today Show a few years back discussing the topic: The Top Turkey Brands. While two of the three brands were obscure (at least in Michigan) and the third was Butterball,the turkey “expert”explained the difference on how a turkey is processed which effects taste. If you look deeper into the stores you will find out brand matters with price and possibly with processing. For example,Kroger’s River Turkey is 59-cents per pound,however,Kroger also sells a Honeysuckle White brand for $1.59 per pound or $28.62 cents for an 18-pound turkey. Re-looking at our four stores,ALDI seems to have the best deal on a branded turkey,Butterball,for $1.09 per pound. I guess a shopper’s final choice will probably fall somewhere between price and whether they believe there truly is a difference in turkey brands.  Netflix has got skills —listening skills that is.
In a retraction from the previous “Qwikster”letter,Netflix has informed myself and other members to “never mind”and business will proceed as normal:no splitting of services;no two accounts;and no Qwikster. Now the PR misstep is over for Netflix,the question is what is next? How does Netflix regain the momentum –the competitive differentiation that launched them in the first place? I believe they need to continue to rethink their model based on their core competency:consumer convenience. Netflix’s logistical efficiency came at the right time for many movie renters who were tired of video store policies,rental limits,and late fees. Netflix struck a cord that resonated with many. So what’s next? A simple way to look at the problem is “Where is the movie renter angst?” You could argue lack of robust inexpensive streaming to the home. Streaming seems the likely opportunity,but the likely candidates to “own”streaming are the cable providers,because they own the robust entertainment pipe into the majority of U.S. Households. Sure,there is internet streaming,but that is a fragmented offering with Hulu attempting to lead the way. Finally,there are the movie companies,producers,and directors who impede the release of movies directly to streaming,and in some cases do not allow their movies to be streamed at all. So what’s next? Maybe it is a social play. Think Netflix mashed up with facebook —watch synched up movies with friends around the country with a social overlay. It builds on the trend of people texting each other during network television shows like American Idol,Grammy’s or Oscars. We are a communal species and like to share our entertainment. This idea may be just a novelty and maybe not. Question for you is what’s next for Netflix?  I guess the buck stops at the top,and in the case of Reed Hastings, Netflix Co-Founder and CEO, the buck stops with him,which is why I received an apology from him and Netflix on Monday.
Too bad it wasn’t just a simple apology. For Netflix members like myself,the email informed members,they are going from a single price video service to a dual purpose video service with streaming video and DVD on two different sites with two credit card entries all outlined in one apologetic letter. Oh yeah,and don’t forget about the recent price hike. Ugh. I imagine many Netflix members are left wondering what is the benefit to continue their relationship with Netflix,because the letter was primarily about Netflix business. For example,Mr. Hastings explains in the email,“So we realized that streaming and DVD by mail are really becoming two different businesses,with very different cost structures,that need to be marketed differently,and we need to let each grow and operate independently.” Why does a member care about a company’s cost structure? In a consumer-centric society that desires instant gratification this is a confusing move. Think about the primary benefit for a video service:the latest movies conveniently accessed for a low price. The email not only does not speak to delivering this benefit,in fact it confuses the issue by stating members will have to maintain two different profiles on different web site to continue their membership with Netflix,er,Qwikster. Autonomous to this email,Netflix already aggravated members by delaying the latest movie releases for weeks past their release date. In addition to the delay,members rarely found new releases available for streaming. So instead of dealing with some latent issues,Netflix decided to add to member’s aggravation without citing a customer benefit driving their decision (It is hard to believe the company needs to split to offer gaming downloads,which is one of the few reasons listed in the email). Netflix lacks a consumer-centric conscious —if they do it is not evident with their actions over the past several months. While I appreciate they don’t want to go the way of AOL Dial-up or Borders,they need to reflect on their roots on why they were successful in the first place:consumer focused benefit differentiating them from the competition. Their mail service redefined the industry and nearly drove Blockbuster out of business. I do agree streaming is the next logical step. A step that is already available from my cable provider at about $5 to $6 per movie. So if I can download the latest releases from U-verse or Comcast,how is Netflix streaming better through a Wii? It’s not. And while cheaper it is of a lower quality and lacks the latest releases. Word of mouth may be Netflix’s Achilles heal. Netflix has made their company the topic of conversations. I have had discussions with Netflix haters who will never go back. Blockbuster members touting how their service. Redbox lovers talking about the simplicity of the ubiquitous kiosk. An with other members who are questioning the value of Netflix’s decisions and current service. Will members quit the service? Some will. Some (like myself) may reduce their membership to one service,until something better comes along. For many the the future membership lies with Netflix’s next move: will it be industry defining or member frustrating?  Rituals. They are the consistent fibers of our life.
Some rituals are comfortable daily patterns we perform between dawn and dusk. Other rituals are infrequent,possible social events that we look forward to. For many Americans the fall is football time and time for many rituals from the wave,to dumping Gatorade on the winning coach,to tailgating before the game. Also,football is a ritual one can celebrate alone,with friends,and as a community. From high school games on Friday,to college Saturday,to pro games on Sunday,we discuss the nuances of the game. We celebrate the victories. We commiserate the losses. Win or lose we look forward to the next game,the next tailgate,the next ritual. Earlier this week I received an email from Buffalo Wild Wings. While the email was about a contest,my attention focused on the word “Tablegating”. I like the concept. Most fans tailgate at home games,and are left to find ways to socialize for away games. Why not “Tablegate”at a nearby restaurant like Buffalo Wild Wings. By hijacking tailgating with Tablegating BWW could build a ritual around the place to go when your team is out of town. While Tablegating is a nice hook,the current idea or contest doesn’t fully take advantage of the tailgating ritual. The Tablegating Challenge (by Coke Zero) is okay,but it is still only a contest. In my perspective,a contest (or sweepstakes) is like frosting on a cake —if the cake does not taste good,the frosting will have little or no effect. Buffalo Wild Wings should spend more time exploring the “Ultimate Tablegating Experience”. The concept has potential,but it has to be more than reserving a table to watch the game with your buddies or a contest. This experience has the potential of hijacking the tailgating ritual for away games. To highjack a ritual,you need to take the essence of the ritual and make it yours. For example: - Team Spirit: Normally the school or team colors fly everywhere. Logos abound. How can people add spirit to their table? Can they bring in their team flags? Or are there special flags one could adorn the table (similar to those afixed to car windows only bigger)?
- My Tailgate: People get to the game early to secure “their spot”. As with all rituals,many people have a preferred space to tailgate. Some people tailgate at the same spot for years. Is there a way to configure the restaurant to create unique areas? Is there a way to configure the tables to create more socialization for larger groups?
- Tablegate Streaming: The big game is a reason for friends from out of town to come in,however,I would doubt someone would commute for Tablegating. So,what about merging the physical and virtual worlds through a screen at the table —allowing people at the restaurant to text back and forth with friends anywhere.
- League Smack: Fantasy leagues abound,and one of the main activities is to talk trash. Building on the previous streaming idea,what about combining the streaming fantasy league scoring with Tablegate streaming.
- Pre-Game Games: Sure there is drinking,but there is also activities like bean bag toss,washer toss,or ladder golf. Can one of these games be used/adapted or is there another game here. Of course there is paper football,but thinking a little bigger —a little more special.
- Contest:Okay,now add a contest to bring it all together.
Buffalo Wild Wings has an opportunity to create a go to experience,a go to ritual,on game day. This is a logical and emotive extension from their current marketing. There are very few national restaurant chains that can own Tablegating (maybe Hooters). So the true ultimate challenge is how to take a contest idea and transform it into a ritual.  I was surprised by a commercial the other night —Toyota was comparing themselves to Ford,and only Ford. Of course,Toyota claimed superiority with every vehicle in the ad (not a big surprise). I find the Toyota commercial ironic,based on my recent history with Ford. Let me explain.
The Toyota commercial reminds me of a meeting at Ford about three years ago. Back then,I was working with Ford Strategic Research on a project,and we were reviewing the decline of Ford (and all domestics) over the past decade. In 1995,about 63% of new vehicle buyers shopped domestic manufacturers only. By 2008,the number slipped to 32% with 49% of new vehicle buyers exclusively shopping imports. In our discussion,the general sentiment was that it would take a decade for Ford to rebound. Well,fast forward three or so years and Ford is back in the limelight. Ford has many many rightmoves over the past several years,and as Jim Farley, Head of Ford Marketing, points out in Advertising Age,sometimes fortunate timing helps too. For example,the day in 2008 when Ford didn’t take money from Congress,the Big Three started to become the Big Two and Ford. There are many reasons why Ford rebounded,but I believe there are two major factors. The first is Ford had the product. Although they had many mishaps in the 1990s through about 2003,Ford had corrected their quality issues,invested in vehicle technology,and by about 2005 was poised to challenge the imports —but no one was listening. This brings me to my second factor —Ford’s social relevancy. The reality is up to the bailout Ford was pretty much irrelevent except for several vehicles: the F-Series pickups and Mustang. The remaining vehicles,most notably their cars,became a defensible driveway discussion for many new Ford owners (a.k.a “So,why did you buy a Ford?”“Um,ah,I got a great deal.”). The one brand action,not taking the money,gave Ford permission to be different. And they took advantage of it. Ford followed up with many initiatives to gain social relevance. Several initiatives worth noting were Fiesta Movement and Drive One for Your School. The Fiesta Movement was another well-timed opportunity. The “new”Fiesta had been available in Europe for years. So,to introduce the new vehicle,Alan Mulally announced Ford would bring 100 European Fiestas over to U.S. to be driven by 100 drivers who were innovative,interesting,and socially active online. The PR move became a powerful social undercurrent in Fiesta’s launch. The program generated significant awareness amongst the youthful target audience even before the vehicle launched — before the first commercial ever aired. Drive One for your School is lesser known than Fiesta Movement,but I would argue had just as much to do with Ford’s social resurgence. Ford and Team Detroit designed a program which combined Ford’s need to get people into their vehicles with a lack of school funding around the country. The program offered school associations $20 per test drive at the dealership typically on the weekend. Although a goal was to generate sales,it was just as important to get people to experience a Ford first hand. Ford was confident a multi-sensory experience would not only change their impression,it would hopefully encourage people to speak favorably of Ford when someone in their social circle was shopping for a new vehicle. Ford’s advertising also focused on changing social impressions of Ford. Different campaigns like Swap Your Ride or Town Takeover,placed competitive owners in Ford vehicles for an extended test drive for a week or so. This testimonial advertising became more and more believable as Ford’s social relevancy increased. Assessing Ford’s progress today is quite impressive. A combination of a demonstrative brand action,social emphasis,and savvy advertising returned Ford to prominence in years as oppose to a decade. Not a good weekend. The bottom of my french press split sending hot coffee and grounds all over me,the stove,and the kitchen floor. My wife had enough —stop the morning grind and brew and get another coffee maker. So,I turned to my social circle to see if they can find me a worthy replacement for my french press. I posted Monday (see below),and was surprised how quickly people responded. Of course,some of the responses were snarky,others were clever,and most were very helpful.  Eric Bowe: Okay,second day without morning coffee. My french press cracked and spilled hot coffee and grounds all over the kitchen floor (Ugh). So,now I am in search of a new coffee maker (my wife banned french presses).
Any thoughts for a coffee maker which makes a robust pot of coffee?
Are there any differences?
What features are worth paying extra for?
Monday at 11:58am
 David Bastedo A reusable bin for the coffee grinds,a timer to set for the morning,a pot that’s big enough for your needs that stays hot –carafe vs. heat pad –go for the heat pad if you want hot coffee –a coffee strength nob –not sure what this does or if it works. It’s HOT coffee that is important
Monday at 12:00pm
 Stephen Stepanek How about making it cowboy style –in an aluminum pot from the fifities –just pour the grounds and water in and heat over a campfire –heat till just short of a boil –then strain the grounds through your teeth? As far as keeping it hot –just keep the campfire going.
Monday at 12:06pm
 Jamie Frech hi eric  the interface for programming is a little wonky but this is the best coffeemaker i’ve had in years:http://www.hamiltonbeach.com/products/brewstation-coffeemakers-brewstation-summit-ultra-12-cup-coffeemaker.html makes a mean dark cup of joe.
Monday at 12:30pm
 Steve Walls simple Krups machine will last and last and just be no fuss http://www.krupsusa.com/NR/rdonlyres/42A6F5CA-5A40-48A7-B3A7-868B23534D20/18731/KT4065351x351.jpg
Monday at 12:34pm
 Michelangelo Cicerone For the wife,get this:http://www.sweetmarias.com/sweetmarias/coffee-brewers/filtercones/clever-dripper-with-lid.html (pour hot water,let it seep ,then let it drip)
For yourself get this:http://tinyurl.com/3k4tsl9
Monday at 12:44pm
 Laurent Stanevich Lifehacker actually did a really comprehensive / anal-retentive overview of different coffee-making alternatives to automatic drip:http://lifehacker.com/#!5778831/dropping-the-drip-how-to-get-started-with-better-coffee-making I would say that the Chemex press that Michelangelo recommended is definitely a good alternative to the French Press,but it may or may not meet spousal approval. 
Monday at 12:54pm
 Amy Daneke skip it &just go to commonwealth (across/ diagonal from paladuim). you’ll fall in love with coffee all over again!
Monday at 2:07pm
 Chris D’Alessandro http://www.keurig.com/shop/brewers/all-brewers?crcat=wsp-brewer%7Egeneral&crsource=adwords&crkw=keurig+coffee+maker&crcampaign=7207653306&cm_mmc=google-_-Brewer-_-keyword-_brewer&gclid=CKCOkd3epqgCFUMUKgodFWRiIQ
Monday at 2:54pm
 Jodi Bollaert Saeco and Cafe Beletage…you’ll be hooked for life!
Monday at 7:25pm
Based on this advice I did a few searches and I ended up buying a Hamilton Beach Brewstation based on Jamie’s recommendation (also,it helped that model number 47454 was rated the #1 coffee maker by Consumer Report). Although I would prefer to do my own research,leaning on the knowledge and experience of my facebook network reveals a wider perspective than my typical researching methods. Some companies have been playing with social shopping apps, yet none to my knowledge have gained critical mass. Some could be coming or it is just simpler to request help through a status update. Either way, FaceShopping is a sleeping giant waiting to be awakened.  Advertising 1.0 is dead.
Ad 1.o has been around about 100 years,but it has run its course. Ironically,many ad people are clinging on to 1.0 —going through some sort of denial that the glory years will be back. Well,they’re gone. Before I go on,let me define what Ad 1.0 is,and why it is dead. Simply put,Advertising 1.0 is the marketing to a single target. This is why I refer to it as “1.0″. The target can be a demographic,a psychographic,or an aspirational mindset. In Ad 1.0 the singular target is the fulcrum point for all advertising within a campaign,and all ads and media are geared to this target. How did we get to Ad 1.0?
Without rehashing advertising history,the idea of one target is an efficiency play,a channel play,and a simple play. Advertising began in a far simpler channel landscape —for the longest time television ruled the roost and everything was good. Also,this was BPC (Before PCs) and analytic capabilities today put the 1960′s NASA projects in the dust. Ad 1.o is not a bad idea and it made all the marketing sense at the time. When ratings were high,the competitors were limited and the only long tail you would find is on a monkey at the zoo. But something happened in the 1990′s. Sure the Internet was a part of it,but marketing became a lot more sophisticated APC (After PCs). Both marketers and consumers became a lot smarter. The rapid evolution continues today with the mobile culture about to put Ad 1.0 on its place. Why is Ad 1.0 dead?
In a cluttered brand and media landscape a single brand message,a single brand experience is not enough. First of all,creating an ad that will resonate with everyone (and sell your product) is extremely difficult. Probably the easiest way to appeal to most is through humor (e.g. Super Bowl Ads). It works. It’s memorable. But did it change consumer behavior? I remember seeing a media presentation a few years back. The media person was lauding the efficiency of the buy. They had a graph of 100 people and highlighted 10,just ten,because this was their core target, and it was an efficient use of media. This media savvant was telling the client,they are hitting a bulls-eye (the ten percent) and receiving a bonus:90% additional coverage. The problem with this logic is that the ad was designed for the 10%,not the 90% bonus coverage. Logically,it is very difficult to create one ad that will appeal to a product’s entire consumption target. That is why a marketer should not. Instead in today’s marketplace it is more about creating effective touchpoints for multiple targets. This is counter to Ad 1.0 logic,because it is not efficient,not scalable,and not done in a single ad. What killed Ad 1.0 is not this blog entry,rather it is the myriad of experiential and messaging opportunities in social,mobile,and the web. A campaign must shift from a 1.0 world of a series of messages to a more progressive view where the campaign is a brand sandbox containing messaging,experiences and conversations. To do this we need to move to Ad n.x. What is Ad n.x?
The next generation of advertising is not 2.0,rather it is n.x. - ”n”is the number of targets for your product.
- ”x” is the relevant touchpoints for each target.
“n”is diverse. It includes a population of consumers who have never heard of your product,shoppers currently buying within your competitive set,and people who own or have used your product. Each of the three sets of people (product naive,shoppers,and owners) are also motivated differently: - Breaking through the product naive consumer in their daily life will most likely require more than 30 seconds.
- A consumer’s shopping cloud includes numerous variables from price to expert opinion to risk to routine to brand reputation to social pressure.
- Owners/users seem like the easiest to target to convert,yet many marketers invest in “filling the funnel”not retaining the people passed through the funnel.
“x”is everywhere. Sorry to be so nebulous but brand communication is a fluid part of our everyday. The consumer reality of a person’s day includes: - Intrusive media trying to pry our attention to our everyday life.
- Information we discover on our own, either through a daily task or researching a product.
- Social input from friends and family —whether we ask for it or not.
- Product trial is an important ingredient in swaying future purchase habits,but how do we induce trial?
- And prior ownership is a positive predictor of future ownership —for better or worse.
Given the dynamics of today’s marketing,you can see why solving for “x”is not easy. A campaign must address all aspects of persuasion. Do I have x.n figured out? Nope. However,I believe it is the right path for the future of advertising. It is not easy,because for a marketer it is very complex. For an agency it is doubly daunting,because most agencies either live in the 1.0 world or in a channel specialty. The future agency will figure out how to think x.n. To generate ideas in x.n. And to deliver ads in x.n.  This is another blog in my journey to crack the code of consumer motivation. An answer I believe lives in the consumer’s mind – in a motivational cortex of sorts. A mindset deciding which marketing impulse to act upon,and which to ignore.
Although this is not a new concept,consumer mindsets are rarely used based on my personal experience,discussions with peers and research (btw if you have done work in this area,I would love to talk with you). My belief is the consumer’s mindset combined with their life scenario are the triggers to marketing reality. To illustrate this point consider the following mindset overview. I would like to preface this discussion with the the fact I am talking in general terms —the reality is each product category would have a more specific set of shopper mindsets which define consumer actions within the category. For example,Maritz’s New Vehicle Customer Study defines ten shopper psychographic segments for new car buyers. For the purposes of this blog I am presenting a general mindset or psychographic platform. The following list of core mindsets are prevalent in all of us to a certain degree. Like our DNA,some are dominate mindsets and others are recessive traits that lie beneath the surface,but still effect our behavior. Also,a consumer’s dominate mindset may switch by product category —more on this later. The six core mindsets are as follows: - The Me:This is an ego-centric mindset which perceives the product as an extension of self —an extension of their persona. Product categories where The Me is prevalent include fashion,cars,and personal tech devices like mobile phones.
- My Passion: This mindset is passion-centric and is best described as someone identifying themselves within a larger community related to a brand,a product category,or passion point like foodies,techno-thusiast,and many lifestyle activities.
- The Value: This mindset thinks through purchases assessing personal value. In the simplest terms they are tirangluating value based on cost,perceived quality,and convenience. Perceived quality is from their perspective (not the brand),and this could include many different variables like reliability,dependability,or safety.
- My Wallet: This frugal mindset isn’t necessarily cheap,rather they spend time to save money. While many people in this mindset may be on a strict budget,others will save money is some product categories to purchase products they care more about (think The Me and The We).
- My Time: This mindset is about efficiency —limiting time spent on a purchase activity. This mindset will more likely relate to the retail environment (e.g. buying online,convenience stores) ,than to a product purchase.
- I Belong:This person’s thought process centers around a membership to a brand or service. CostCo,BJs and Sams Club members are the most obvious examples,however,many loyalty programs like Speedy Rewards, Delta Miles,or Best Buy Rewards.
These core mindsets are directional and absent of a product category. In some product categories,there may be more mindsets like the ten automotive mindsets I referred to earlier,and some may have less or different variations on these. For example,based on my experience in the fuel category,there are three core mindsets: Ingress/Egress (My Time);Loyalty Member (I Belong);Penny Pincher (My Wallet);and My Car,My Gas (The Me). Also, consumers are chameleon-like in many respects,meaning a dominate mindset may be present in some decisions,but absent in others. This is why you can not look at mindset in a vacuum —purchase scenarios play a large role in altering natural consumer behaviors. An example of this is buying a new car where about 50% of purchases are multi-decision maker. Buying on your own vehicle is a far different scenario than buying a car with your significant other. Please provide any feedback or thoughts. Thanks. | |
