"If society is ready to embrace a trend, almost anyone can start one. And if it isn't, then almost no one can."
So says network theory scientist, Duncan Watts, a firm believer that a trend cannot be willed into existence simply by harnessing the influence of certain "highly influential" people. Instead, explains Watts -- who was featured in the February issue of Fast Company and is shown in the video below speaking at a Fast Company event -- it's the prevailing context that really matters.
Marketing professionals and advertisers who bank on the premise that "infecting" a select group of cool, charismatic, social people can spark a massive trend have it all wrong. And if, in retrospect, a trend does happen to be traced back to a particular person or group of people, well these are "accidental influentials" – people who just happen to have stumbled upon a potentially explosive idea by chance.
Watts, currently a researcher for Yahoo, whose disarming Australian accent goes a long way in lending him some credibility (even if his theory is fiercely disputed by many), holds that for marketers, it should really be about gauging the public's mood. Just like only certain forest fires spiral to become massively out of control due to particular conditions like a dry landscape or a badly equipped forest department, trends too are entirely contingent on how susceptible a society is to them. In other words – it boils down to how influenceable people are, and not to how influential their persuaders are.
If Watts is to be believed, we live in an anarchic world in which trends occur at random – the success levels of the Madonnas of today mushroomed arbitrarily, not purely on merit. If you rewound the world back to when a trend first began, there's no guarantee that things would happen the same way again.
At Fast Company's recent Is the Tipping Point Toast event, held at the magazine's Manhattan headquarters, Watts discussed – and was called upon to defend - his subversive theory to a 75 person strong audience. Armed with confirmatory data pulled from multiple experiments, he rebutted audience questions about the influence of names like Tiger Woods, and claims about the far-reaching cultural impact of certain people.
His advice to marketing professionals and those wanting to spread the word about a product or idea? Think about influenceability, rather than focusing on influence. Instead of focusing on individuals, focus on larger scale structures. And come to grips with the fact that things are random – some things take off, while others just don't.
I was wandering around Coney Island one day not too long ago with a few friends when a scruffy, bearded guy who was trying to sell some equally scruffy stuffed animals stopped us. "Come on guys," he somewhat insolently bellowed at the two boys with us. "Buy some goods for your ladies. If you don't put out now… they won't put out later." Needless to say, the two boys did not put out, and we all hurriedly moved on, leaving Scruffy to try his luck on other couples.
His speech got me thinking about the impact that a monetary exchange can have on human interaction, particularly on a day like today. Valentine's day is supposed to be a time to express your feelings of affection for a loved one. But for those who, while in a relationship, are still unwilling to participate in this yearly ritual it can't be easy to withstand the pressure. Marketing messages are everywhere, and men in particular are under pressure to perform and "put out" to express their love. And yet, as an LA Times editor put it some years ago, isn't compulsory love an oxymoron?
In spite of all the controversy and ambivalent emotions surrounding the idea of a day to express your love, Valentine's Day is undoubtedly big business. This year is expected to be even bigger than usual.
Dreamy-eyed shoppers are expected to spend an average of $123 for the day. According to the National Retail Federation, more than half of consumers plan to celebrate their love with a special night out. About 48 percent will buy candy, 36 percent will splurge on flowers, and 12 percent will buy clothing.
Men are expected to spend $163.37 on gifts and cards, almost double that estimated to be spent by women.
The average 25-34 year old is the highest spender, shelling out $160, while perhaps more jaded (or just more frugal) 55-64 year olds are the lowest spenders, paying about $111.
While regarded by some as an occasion that makes singles acutely aware of their singleness, Valentine's Day attempts to portray itself as a feel good occasion for all, and people spend money on everything from their pets ($367 million) to their co-workers, so the day doesn't have to be exclusively for the partnered among us.
And it's also an important source of income for poorer countries such as Kenya, which managed to fulfill a demand for red roses in Europe this year, in spite of the recent vicious wave of violence in the African country.
All this taken into account, this year, Valentine's Day will bring US retailers a hearty (excuse the pun) 17 billion. Whether this stems from men who are pressured to put out to prove themselves or women who don't want to be left out, being in love is clearly good for business too.
The best thing that ever happened to organic tea company Honest Tea or a slow but controlled brand implosion?
Coca-Cola announced today that it is buying 40% of Honest Tea, the nation's largest selling brand of organic bottled tea. Coke's decision to become a majority player in the organic tea brand is in line with earlier decisions to cast its net outside the traditional soda industry with brands like Minute Maid (bought over forty years ago now), Powerade, Nestea, Dasani and most recently vitamin water producer Glaceau.
Coke's decision to invest in Honest Tea, although unforeseen is unsurprising, given the company's strong growth rate and increasing popularity in recent years on the one hand, and a rising demand for beverages outside the traditional soft drinks/soda industry on the other.
"In terms of sales trends, you can see there's a large uptake in health food and beverages. In 2006 for instance, the soda, water, sports and energy drinks sector earned about 35 billion," says Daniel Fabricant, Vice President of Scientific and Regulatory affairs at the Natural Products Association.
In fact, this is a great time to be in natural foods in general -- the industry is experiencing exponential growth, having gone from $2 billion in sales in 1990 to about $55 billion at the end of last year. The explosive growth, fueled by more educated, health conscious consumers and a bigger distribution opportunity, is dragging companies like Honest Tea along with it.
Honest Tea's own acceptance of Coke's investment comes from a desire to reach a broader audience, according to CEO Goldman -- to go from being simply "important" to acting as a "agent of change" by leading "a national shift toward healthier diets."
"Despite our 66 percent annual compound growth rate (70 percent in 2007), we still aren't reaching all the people we want to reach. We want to see Honest be an agent of change, not just through the example it sets but through its own actions as well," he says.
With this deal, Goldman expects sales of Honest Tea to rise dramatically. He sees the venture as a good thing for anyone concerned with social responsibility. "The world of social responsibility should not be restricted to the smaller, more boutique companies. With things like this, more consumers will have access to social responsible products."
Being an agent of change and an advocate of social responsibility is a long-standing goal for Goldman, who writes a blog entitled The Mission Driven Business for Inc.com. The question is whether a small company that promises to be honest, to be in favor of economically disadvantaged communities, to have a commitment to social responsibility, and to strive for "authenticity, integrity and purity, in (its) products and in the way (it) does business" is hacking away at its own brand base by agreeing to an alignment with a beverages giant like Coca-Cola.
"If we could find an investor who will help us build our business while still honoring our style of business, then that seems like an ideal scenario," says Goldman. So is Coca-Cola really that investor?
When quizzed about the risk of doing business with a company like Coke, Goldman admits that while diluting the consumer base could be a legitimate concern, Coke is not acquiring the company, merely investing in it. "My team and I will, at least from a board governance perspective, retain control."
He points out that Coca-Cola is diverting from its normal route by investing rather than buying, and that the soft drinks giant "understands what we're doing and they want to buy into it…" Sounds like the idea is that Coke, while offering added resources and distribution, leaves the organic tea brand relatively untouched -- at least in terms of its fundamental ethos and mode of doing business.
According to Gary Hemphill, Managing Director, Beverage Marketing Corporation, a number of failed ventures by bigger corporations to swallow up smaller companies have made the former smarter. "They've realized that if they're going to acquire a smaller company whose big reason for success is its uniqueness and mission, it's really crucial to try to retain as much of that as possible in order for the company or brand to survive and thrive."
He cites Snapple as an example of a brand that was diluted – "they betrayed the core Snapple consumer" -- by Quaker, the company that purchased it in 1994, only to sell it a short three years later. He points out that Energy Brands however, which was acquired by Coke last May, maintains a fairly independent functioning, indicating perhaps that Coke really is capable of being a participant from the side lines.
Hemphill told Fast Company that he sees no reason why Coke's investment in Honest Tea should ruin the brand, as long as Goldman retains his position and people.
"We painstakingly built our brand with its attributes ingrained in it," says an impassioned Goldman. "I don’t want to sound naïve, but given what we've been through, every consumer owes it to us to give us the chance to fail. If we do then we can be held accountable."
Coca-Cola now becomes Honest Tea's biggest shareholder, after a long drawn out dealing process that began in the fall of last year.
When I overheard an excited murmur about how Chris Bridges was setting up a restaurant in Atlanta, I didn't think anything of it. Neither the name nor the act seemed worthy of much interest. A little while later the name popped up again – this time in the Atlanta Business Chronicle.
Apparently Chris Bridges aka, Ludacris (aha), is making his first foray into the restaurant business with plans to open three Atlanta restaurants in conjunction with Bay area restaurateur Chris Yeo, who already owns four California based restaurants.
The 30 year old rapper is reported to be expanding his entrepreneurial activity of late: a few months ago he paid $2.7 million for a building that formerly housed the restaurant Spice, in midtown Atlanta. He is the CEO of his own 8-year-old record label, Disturbing tha Peace Records, which has signed a number of prominent artists, including rapper Chingy.
Now this sounds terrible, but I have to admit I was taken aback at the idea that someone who I know only in context of his desire "to lick you from your head to your toes" and his overly-virile claims about having "a hoe in every area code," could be business savvy enough to be able to delve into the real estate business and make an attempt at being a real entrepreneur.
"I don't generally speak about it… I keep it to myself. I'm definitely into real estate. I'm a silent partner and an entrepreneur outside of music," said Ludacris in an interview with the Chronicle.
Apparently, Ludacris isn't the only rapper/musician who has dabbled in the restaurant business. Moby owns vegan restaurant Teany, Gladys Knight lays claim to Gladys and Ron's Chicken and Waffles, and Robert De Niro owns TriBeCa Grill in New York, Ago in L.A., and Rubicon in Sa. Youngbloodz own a Cuban restaurant at the Atlanta based Wyndham hotel, and Fat Boy Slim co-owns Greenwich Village based restaurant, the Spotted Pig.
More significant than the number of celebs who own restaurants however, are the number who have owned restaurants that have since gone under. Britney Spears's Manhattan based Nyla, closed its glitzy shutters and filed for bankruptcy a mere six months after launch. Wesley Snipes's Hollywood based China One, Puffy's restaurant Justin's, Jim McMahon's eponymous Chicago based restaurant, and J Lo's LA based La Boca del Conga Room, all went down, and hard.
You have to wonder -- why do so many celebrities open ventures that then close down a few months later? There can't be any shortage of publicity surely. Is it bad food, an over-priced menu, bad service, bad management, or some combination of all?
Being a successful entrepreneur is no easy feat, particularly in the already over-crowded market that is the restaurant business. Cities like New York and LA, which seem to attract the bulk of celebrity ventures, are teeming with restaurants, and bars with food from every corner of the world.
Customers are discerning, and while celebrity bling is a great catalyst for a new venture, it isn't enough to be the sole sustaining factor. Food in particular is a vulnerable business: the 'designer appeal' that often buttresses over-priced apparel, is unlikely to stand up when it comes to the hungry diner. So when it comes to the restaurant business, it’s not really that surprising that many, including celebrities, have ventures that nosedive.
With a business major from Georgia State University, some years of experience as a manager and a seasoned restaurateur to hold his hand, Ludacris is in a better position than most celebrities to try his hand in the restaurant business. How well customers warm to his entrepreneurial efforts remains to be seen.
I'm one of those people who don't appreciate commercials. They annoy me and, for the most part, I think they're a waste of money on the advertiser's part and definitely a waste of time for me. If there's a commercial on, I usually just change the channel. Print advertising can be slightly better, but that too I generally don't bother to even glance at.
I remember a statistic from a media class I took at the London School of Economics: only 2% of advertising has actually been found to have a demonstrable effect on consumer purchasing. Whether this statistic actually holds any weight or not, advertising can be damn expensive, and the returns often just aren't proportional.
What really flummoxes me is those advertisements that assume you know what they're for so that they offer you nothing but an ambiguous name attached to an esoteric image. Maybe they're banking on you to be curious enough to Google them as soon as you're near a computer. I for one always forget.
So, being the skeptic towards glib marketing efforts that I am, when there's a commercial or a campaign that I take notice of, it sticks with me. Quirky, powerful, containing an element of surprise or originality, and capable of eliciting emotion or a connection of sorts… That's what I think good advertising is.
A commercial for affordable dental coverage by the freelancer's union recently caught my eye. The ad shows a designer giving a presentation when her teeth begin falling out one by one. The tagline: "People pay more attention to the words coming out of your mouth. When teeth aren't falling out of it at the same time."
Another campaign, some years old now, that really grabbed my attention was a particularly powerful series of commercials aimed at getting smokers to quit.
Pretty much everyone I've asked remembers this commercial: it's a series of shots of body parts sticking out of garbage cans. The commercial is so effective because it isn't afraid to be a hard hitter. Initially the viewer is both horrified and puzzled – there's no logical explanation for what this could be a commercial for (unless it's by the disgruntled Department of Sanitation.) And so you stay, riveted, until you're provided with an explanation at the end: "Every month tobacco kills more Americans than there are public garbage cans in New York city."
A recent public service campaign by the New York University Child Study Center that aims to raise awareness about "the silent public health epidemic of children's mental illness" also grabbed my attention.
Controversial "ransom notes" say things like: "We are in possession of your son. We are making his squirm and fidget until he is a detriment to himself and those around him. Ignore this and your kid will pay – ADHD," and "We have your son. We will make sure he will no longer be able to care for himself or interact socially as long as he lives – Autism."
The campaign's primary premise is that 12 million children are "held hostage" by a psychiatric disorder. The advertisements, which appear in NewsWeek, New York Magazine, on billboards and other places around the city, have stirred up enough controversy to ensure that their message, although contested, cannot be ignored.
Critics say that the campaign is harmful and misleading, reinforcing negative stereotypes about autism, ADHD and other conditions. The Center's defense for its decision to continue running the advertisement: politically correct and uncontroversial were getting them nowhere-.
I for one think that the campaign is already something of a success. Yes it's controversial to depict a child with ADHD as a "hostage" of his condition, but it's attention grabbing, it raises awareness and it’s making people sit up and listen.
If you haven't been around forever, you don't have as much money as a companies like Coke or Pepsi (who bombard consumers with brand messages so hard and consistently that it's a wonder the subconscious hasn't caved under attack), distinguishing yourself, making people care, and making them remember who you are can be tough. Before you agree to pony up thousands for a pretty face, a catchy tune or just the services of one more run of the mill advertising firm, make sure you think about how effective your portrayal of your brand message is within the already over crowded space that is the consumer's mind.
We're all familiar with market research strategies – companies are desperate to know what makes consumers tick; they'll data mine to any sanctioned lengths (and sometimes further) to find out.
Mindful that the promise of demonstrably effective market research can loosen corporate pocket strings, one restaurant is capitalizing on this hunger.
Based in Holland, The Restaurant of the Future keeps track of its customers' every move: what they choose, how much they eat, even what facial expressions they make during the meal.
Enjoying your salami sandwich more than your broccoli? They take note. Apparently the length of time for which you chew is indicative of your enjoyment of the food.
Does your heart beat increase when you take a spoonful of that chocolate mousse? They know if it does -- your chair measures this.
Grimace a bit as you shovel that squash into your mouth? Facial recognition technology tracks your expressions.
Like the candles or fresh flowers at your table? Your attention to the ambience is noted as they track your eyes.
Reportedly, the overall reaction from diners is positive. In spite of the fact that certain obtrusive mechanisms -- such as a weighing scale that customers are asked to step on in order to determine the co relation between weight and diners' eating habits -- are in place, most customers told ABC News that they did not feel like their privacy was being infringed upon.
My first reaction was surprise that anyone would voluntarily choose to go to a restaurant that in ABC's words is "one giant laboratory" and the diners "human lab rats." Why would you voluntarily pay to be a market research tool? (People sign a consent form agreeing to be watched.)
While this appears be met by little resistance in the land that spawned Big Brother, I'm curious as to whether such a concept would be passively accepted here in the US. It's an original concept, and could certainly provide valuable data, but I personally wouldn't want someone tracking my feeding patterns.
I read a BBC article yesterday on how 'Ugly people in Argentina are striking back.' A man named Gonzalo Otalora has been "ugly" all his life and he's taken it upon himself to bridge the gap between the beautiful and the ugly so to speak. He sees beauty as a "natural advantage," and is determined that beautiful people be taxed in order to offset the inherent advantages they have over ugly people such as himself.
My first thought upon reading this? Wow. That's some strong feeling. The guy candidly admits to the BBC that all his life he has been a victim of his looks. "I was a child with thick glasses, spots and braces," he said. "The kids made fun of me at school… Later the girls rejected me in the discos. And then when I was looking for work, I felt so ugly and insecure that I was rejected again and left without a job."
The article really got me thinking. Are these advantages that beautiful people have really so very advantageous? Are they particularly pronounced in the workplace or at least in the often tumultuous and competitive road to getting a job? Does a finely chiseled face command more authority than an awkward, saggy one? Does a strapping, barrel chested man come upon better business opportunities than his skinnier colleagues? And if so, are the decisions to bestow such advantages conscious?
In a paper entitled Beauty and the Labor Market, University of Texas Professor Daniel S. Hamermesh and Michigan State University Professor Jeff Biddle argue that:
"Holding constant demographic and labor-market characteristics, plain people earn less than people of average looks, who earn less than the good-looking. The penalty for plainness is 5 to 10 percent, slightly larger than the premium for beauty. The effects are slightly larger for men than women; but unattractive women are less likely than others to participate in the labor force and are more likely to be married to men with unexpectedly low human capital."
In another report entitled "Beauty, Productivity and Discrimination: Lawyers', Looks and Lucre," the two professors present evidence showing that how handsome a male attorney is has a directly bearing on how likely he is to attain early partnership directly correlates with how handsome he is. They could not clearly deduce whether the effect was because clients discriminate or because better-looking lawyers were able to obtain greater pecuniary gains for their clients.
In 2000, a London Guildhall University study revealed that men considered to be unattractive earn 15% less, equal to £3,000 on a salary of £20,000. It showed that "unattractive" secretaries earn some 15% less than prettier colleagues, and plain women on average, earn 11% less than men.
A CareerBuilders.com article points out that it's not just looks -- size matters too. It cites a University of Pittsburgh survey of male graduates, which reveals that the tallest students had an average starting salary that was 12 percent higher than their shorter colleagues.
The London Guidhall study showed that across all professions tall men earned an extra £1,000 for every £10,000 earned by short men.
Researcher Barry Harper, of the London Guildhall University told the BBC that something needed to be done. "The effects of appearance are generally widespread suggesting they arise from prejudice and in particular, employer discrimination. There is an urgent need for business and government to review their equal opportunities policy to address this issue."
Okay. So does all this mean that Gonzalo Otalora is right? If being ugly, short or overweight affects your pay packet, as statistics certainly seem to indicate, should good-looking people really be taxed for the sake of their disadvantaged counterparts? My first instinct is to say no, the whole idea is ludicrous and if people really are talented or hardworking or smart enough, well they'll get to where they deserve to be, good looking or not. Some could construe this as smacking faintly of idealism or naiveté however, and I'd be curious to know what other people think. The fact that ideas about beauty are necessarily subjective and amorphous, at least to a certain degree, adds further complexity to the issue.
Something to keep in mind is that the aforementioned research seems to refer mostly to people within companies and organizations. Looks seem to have little bearing on successful entrepreneurs or those of self-made fortune. A cursory glance at Forbes' billionaires list is evidence enough that you don't always need good looks to make money.
On one of my more lethargic post-lunch procrastination sessions recently, after a particularly soporific curry, I stumbled upon Free Rice, a site that a friend had sent me a while ago but I hadn't really taken the time to look at.
Half an hour later my food coma had lifted but I was still clicking away. Talk about addictive… The thing was I didn't really feel all that guilty.
A sister site of Poverty.com, Free Rice aims to help people improve their English while simultaneously using the process by which they do to provide food to hungry people. A laudable goal (or two depending how you look at it.) How it works is the site provides a word and then provides you with options from which you have to pick the correct one.
Urbane
a) Lackluster
b) Suave
c) Wrathful
d) Bear-like
There's a mix of words so that the site appeals to people who have a very basic grasp of English as well as to the more erudite. The program keeps track of each word one gets right or wrong and then adjusts the difficulty level accordingly, hence keeping you interested.
Until yesterday, for every word you got right, Free Rice donated 10 grains of rice through the United Nations to help end world hunger. As of today, it has started donating 20 grains. Pretty cool…
I sent the site to a whole bunch of people I know and the overwhelmingly positive reactions it elicited got me thinking about how remarkable it is that something this simple can be so effective.
What can other non-profits learn? First and most importantly, if you can make doing good fun, there's nothing like it. People like to feel good about themselves, like they're responsible citizens of the world who care about more than shopping and football. But at the same time, if a good deed takes away from other parts of their lives, or is boring and tedious, the likelihood that people will do good decreases drastically.
Which leads me to my next point: simplicity is key. The great part about Free Rice is just how simple giving is -- no long and annoying forms, no credit card numbers, no billing addresses, no trawling through lines of disclaimers. Just a lazy click of a button and you can pat yourself on the back. Sounds a bit dodgy admittedly, but the site makes money off advertising.
The design of the website supports this. It's clean and uncluttered, featuring very little other than a green background of rice crops and the bowl of rice that is populated by your English proficiency. An updated count of your score ensures that you want to keep going: "You have now donated 600 grains of rice."
Apart from being just fun, there's something valuable in it for you too: as you better the world, you're simultaneously bettering yourself -- incentive to keep going.
The site has also somehow managed to make itself viral and addictive -- (I've had about 5 different people tell me how addictive they find it in the last two hours.)And it's different to most other non-profit efforts out there. People who use it want to talk about it. Another editor at Fast Company, Kevin Ohannessian, unabashedly told me that he donated 2000 grains on the first day of discovering the site. Not a bad way to spend one's time while you're net trawling through the day.
Mmmmm Beer. There's nothing like a cold sip to wash things down smoothly. When recently, in passing, I asked a group people about their views on beer, I was offered a spectrum of different views: it's a comfort factor, an every day drink, the beginning of (or perhaps the end to) a wild night out, a lazy Saturday afternoon in front of the TV, a frat boy's drink, and for some (like a loquacious group of old men who ritualistically visited the pub I used to work at in London,) just a way of life.
Whatever its connotation for you, it's clear that beer, more than any other alcoholic drink, has a deeply entrenched fan following. A recent BBC article on beer got me thinking – perhaps the lessons we learn from beer can also be applied elsewhere.
The article lists 5 reasons as to why beer sales have slumped – apparently they are at their lowest level since the 1930s.
Health: There is a misconception that beer is less healthy, and more fattening, than other alcoholic beverages. But studies have shown that beer drinkers and drinkers of similar volumes of other alcoholic drinks, gain the same amount of weight around their stomachs (refuting the notion of the beer-belly.) The British Beer and Pub Association argues that a beer with the typical 4.6% of alcohol is less fattening than wine, and significantly less fattening than spirits, which contain 6 times more calories even without the sodas they are so often mixed with.
Dr Martin Bobak, an epidemiologist at University College London, argues that the idea that beer makes one fat stems from the fact that less educated people show a stronger proclivity to drink beer. In the West the less educated one is, the more obese one is likely to be, and hence, he relates beer drinking to education, and in turn to obesity.
The lesson here for everyone else is pretty obvious: people are becoming more and more health conscious. In an age of gym memberships and organic foods, if your product is labeled as having health issues, it could knock you out of the game. Keep this in mind as your research, innovate and market.
Food: Over the years, pubs have boosted their emphasis on food, and as a result beer has suffered. People tend to drink wine with their food over beer, plus nowadays people go to pubs not just to drink beer, but sometimes solely to eat.
This is pretty specific to beer and pub food, but there is something of a takeaway: Changes in context matter. Consider the bigger picture when you make business decisions. Is setting up a website going to erode your magazine for instance? Is allowing customers to sit around and read at Barnes and Noble, or listen to music at Virgin going to prevent them from wanting to make a purchase? A rise in something else's popularity, even if mandated by you, could erode your own market, so look before you leap.
Women: Pubs have become more women-friendly, but sales of beer have not kept up with the increased clientele. Women tend to avoid beer in favor of other drinks, due to cultural factors, and image association issues: beer is seen as a "man's drink."
My thoughts after reading this -- unless you have a very specific target audience, make a conscious attempt to cast your net wide. If your clothes aren't just for hipsters, your tofu not just for tree huggers, your social network not just for teenagers and your beverages not just for men, well market yourself accordingly.
Cultural Changes: The article collates several cultural reasons for beer's decline – the decline of manual labor, the drink driving campaign of the 80s, the availability of beer in supermarkets coupled with the rise of satellite TV at home, and a rise in club culture that has made the use of recreational drugs more common.
I don't really have much to say on this one: cultural changes will happen. Companies and marketers just need to be aware of, and possibly foresee, these -- in an attempt to engage in damage control or to exploit potential opportunities.
Fashion: A quest to be more fashionable and adventurous, as well as an increasing range of choice in the beverages market, has also contributed to the slump in beer sales.
My take on this: You can't prevent other products in your market from mushrooming, but you can make an attempt to stay competitive by identifying, and where possible catering to, emerging trends, and by innovating.
Something to be careful about however is the danger of taking a perfectly good brand or product and innovating just for the sake of a fresh look or a wider audience. (Tim Manners, one of Fast Company's marketing columnists, wrote a post for us on this a few days ago.) Beer for instance is particularly hard to innovate with, and breweries could risk diluting their existing markets by attempting to do so. The trick may be to leave the product untouched and attempt to influence consumer perceptions, or recruit new consumers, through smart marketing campaigns.
With the holiday season beginning, retailers everywhere are donning their cheer inducing gear, organizing sales, and encouraging people to engage in frenzied bouts of spending – the current recession aside of course.
And there's nothing more holidayish than red. In keeping with the holiday spirit, or perhaps more aptly in the creation of it, Starbucks has unleashed its line of red cups for the holidays. I'd be surprised if sales don’t rise significantly. Last year, there was a 140 million dollar increase in gross profit in the last quarter of 2006.
Now I'm not really a die-hard Starbucks aficionado – I'll drink anything so long as it wakes me up – but the coffee giant's latest marketing move is worth some praise.
The red cup, dotted with white snowflakes and sporting a green Starbucks logo in the center, really does induce cheer. It makes people (well me anyway) want to drink something warm and comforting. And most importantly, it's self-advertising in a way that you just can't ignore. The red cups are so noticeable because they're new and for a limited time only, hence they stand out from the crowd. Like a pretty girl at an all boy's school, the bright red screams pay attention to me. But it does so tactfully by virtue of its exterior, in the name of holiday goodness and cheer.
On the go commuters carry the red cups everywhere, unwittingly acting as Starbucks advertising vehicles free of charge. It's only in the last few days that I've noticed how many people drink Starbucks coffee around my office – the new cups are all over the place and they're not easily missed.
In an added attempt at infusing holiday cheer in its customers, propagating the Starbucks brand (some people actually claim to mark the start of the holiday season by the launch of the red cup), and eliciting customer interaction, Starbucks has a micro-site that allows people to "start a cheer chain." This consists of dressing up a virtual you and your friend, and then sending a cheer (there are several to choose from) which is then passed on from friend to friend to friend…
All good marketing moves from a practiced retail giant that is somehow managing to indeed pass the cheer, and make some money in the bargain, seemingly without having to try all that hard.
