With the introduction of the ultra user-friendly Nintendo Wii system, the amazing technological developments of “next generation” playstation and xbox consoles, and the popularity of online computer games, gamers are becoming more mainstream and one of the fastest growing markets. Gamers not only represent a more diverse population than one might think at first, but they are also perfect for exploring new marketing opportunities and developing new marketing campaigns for several reasons:
1. Gamers have money- for the most part. If people have enough money to spend on consoles, controllers, online subscriptions, and games then they probably have enough disposable income for other purposes. Even though gaming is not overly expensive (see point #2), gaming is still considered a luxury and so is one of the last considerations for the budget. If they don’t have their own money they may have ready access to someone else’s (like a parent or spouse).
2. In an economic downturn, gaming becomes more popular and common. Gaming is a relatively cheap form of entertainment and once the initial costs are covered there is very little to no additional expense for more or even unlimited gaming (i.e. once the game is purchased you can play as long as you want or once you own a computer you have access to 1000s of free online games). People can stay in their house and be entertained, rather than having to go out and spend money. Gaming may be one of the cheapest forms of entertainment.
3. Gamers represent a captive audience. If someone is playing a video or computer game, they are usually not doing anything else. Why not play a short commercial while they wait in between games? Why not embed banner ads along the borders of online games?
4. Most gamers would actually support advertisements because they would IMPROVE the gaming experience. Added revenue to online gaming structures will only improve the game support structure and grow game popularity. Some online gaming structures (xbox live for example) require a monthly subscription fee to “support” the online game play. Advertisements could supplement this support fee to either improve the structure even more, or pass on savings to the gamers. “Unsupported” online structures could be improved by gaining advertising revenue- improving the structure improves performance, which improves quality, which improves satisfaction, which grows popularity, which supports the advertising.
5. Information on gamers can be gathered easily, and incentives for participation in research would be easy to provide through the game. Market research could be done very easily through matching a gamer’s online profile with their survey answers. And incentives for participation could be promoted through the actual game they are intending to play (ex: “participate in our short survey for 1000 in game points!”) and at little to no cost to the company researching. And again, cooperation with the game provider could be used to improve game quality and share savings with the gamers.
6. So far, in game advertisements or corporate game tie-ins have been relatively unsuccessful and poorly executed. Companies like McDonalds or Burger King have released their own games for consoles, but these have typically been nothing more than shameless promotions with little gaming value or replay-ability. Other companies have developed small online games that are plastered with their logo on their own company website, but again these games add little value to the gamer that has no incentive to start playing their game in the first place. Companies should look towards becoming involved in the most popular games that gamers are already playing. In the past, companies have attempted to develop or outsource their own designed games to meet their own advertising needs- which is a mistake. Companies should instead work towards developing their advertising to meet the desires of gamers and fit their advertising into already popular games to ensure maximum and repeat exposure.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Inisght, Foresight, and Hindsight
Dr. Rapaille
Dr. Rapaille’s research is centered on finding the “buying code” that triggers people to buy certain types of product over another type of product. The specific “code” for a type of product is found by digging deep into the consumer’s most basic and core driving instincts- or what Dr. Rapaille calls the reptile.
Dr. Rapaille’s method for discovering the reptile is a three stage process. Stage one involves questioning for reason. This first stage involves exploring the cortex and acts on a simple level to stimulate brain activity and thinking about the product. Despite the fact that most marketing research heavily involves stage one and no other stage (in other words- most marketing research only asks people to tell their reason for things rather than explore deeper for true untold answers) Dr. Rapaille does not care at all about the answers given in stage one. Stage two involves searching for the emotion behind the answers in stage one. The subjects in stage two are asked to think more abstractly and explain their answers more indirectly than in stage one. Finally, stage three reaches the core of the consumer thought process and the driving force behind purchases. For stage three, Dr. Rappaille attempts to remove distractions from the room and create a relaxing environment for the subjects to create free flowing ideas.
An example of Dr. Rapaille’s findings would be the code involved with buying SUVs. Dr. Rapaille found that the buying code for SUVs is “domination” so he instructed SUV manufacturer’s to make their models taller and tint the windows. A simple change in the product design can help lead to improved sales if the change triggers the buying code in consumers.
Song Airlines
Song Airlines took an absolutely amazing idea and crashed it into the ground (plane imagery) with poor execution. The idea of changing the whole idea of flying is almost revolutionary, but Song fell short with its implementation and promotion of its ideas.
Song’s good ideas mostly came right up front. Change the way that air travel is viewed- sell air travel less as transportation and more as an experience. That whole idea is simply brilliant, and honestly not very hard to sell. Think about air travel for a minute and how cool it is. You start in one place sitting down, you and the other passengers are accelerated and lifted into the air through forces of physics that most people don’t understand, you travel at speeds over 500 miles per hour at an altitude miles over the surface of the earth, you are physically flying through the air, and you eventually end up very far away from your starting point in a relatively short amount of time all while sitting comfortably (well semi-comfortably) and sipping a drink. Flying is a cool experience.
For some reason no airline has ever sold the entire flying experience though. For most people flying is a stressful chore. It seems that most people do not enjoy airports or even flying. Flying has become more about simply being transportation than an experience by itself. The fact that air travel is viewed by many to be a somewhat negative experience when it is naturally an extremely unique and positive experience tells me that people are unhappy with the way that normal airlines do business, which shows me why Song’s idea of changing the whole experience was so good.
But Song’s execution could not have been worse. After watching their initial ad campaign I was left confused and dumbfounded. How could their first set of ads only show clips from old movies and not mention anything about the company, their idea, or even air travel? No planes? No travelers? No airlines? More importantly, how could a whole group of business people watch their ads and approve the spending? Their ad belonged in an independent film festival, not in a business. They tried to introduce a new product idea without telling anyone what their idea was. Song got so caught up in being “artsy” and generating emotion that they failed to tie any of the art or emotion to their actual product. The emotion that Song so desperately generated was wasted.
Song’s idea was great, but their execution was absolutely abysmal. Of course, I am proven right by the fact that Song airlines no longer exist. Hindsight is always 20/20, but I am surprised no one at Song had the foresight to see their mistakes coming.
Dr. Rapaille’s research is centered on finding the “buying code” that triggers people to buy certain types of product over another type of product. The specific “code” for a type of product is found by digging deep into the consumer’s most basic and core driving instincts- or what Dr. Rapaille calls the reptile.
Dr. Rapaille’s method for discovering the reptile is a three stage process. Stage one involves questioning for reason. This first stage involves exploring the cortex and acts on a simple level to stimulate brain activity and thinking about the product. Despite the fact that most marketing research heavily involves stage one and no other stage (in other words- most marketing research only asks people to tell their reason for things rather than explore deeper for true untold answers) Dr. Rapaille does not care at all about the answers given in stage one. Stage two involves searching for the emotion behind the answers in stage one. The subjects in stage two are asked to think more abstractly and explain their answers more indirectly than in stage one. Finally, stage three reaches the core of the consumer thought process and the driving force behind purchases. For stage three, Dr. Rappaille attempts to remove distractions from the room and create a relaxing environment for the subjects to create free flowing ideas.
An example of Dr. Rapaille’s findings would be the code involved with buying SUVs. Dr. Rapaille found that the buying code for SUVs is “domination” so he instructed SUV manufacturer’s to make their models taller and tint the windows. A simple change in the product design can help lead to improved sales if the change triggers the buying code in consumers.
Song Airlines
Song Airlines took an absolutely amazing idea and crashed it into the ground (plane imagery) with poor execution. The idea of changing the whole idea of flying is almost revolutionary, but Song fell short with its implementation and promotion of its ideas.
Song’s good ideas mostly came right up front. Change the way that air travel is viewed- sell air travel less as transportation and more as an experience. That whole idea is simply brilliant, and honestly not very hard to sell. Think about air travel for a minute and how cool it is. You start in one place sitting down, you and the other passengers are accelerated and lifted into the air through forces of physics that most people don’t understand, you travel at speeds over 500 miles per hour at an altitude miles over the surface of the earth, you are physically flying through the air, and you eventually end up very far away from your starting point in a relatively short amount of time all while sitting comfortably (well semi-comfortably) and sipping a drink. Flying is a cool experience.
For some reason no airline has ever sold the entire flying experience though. For most people flying is a stressful chore. It seems that most people do not enjoy airports or even flying. Flying has become more about simply being transportation than an experience by itself. The fact that air travel is viewed by many to be a somewhat negative experience when it is naturally an extremely unique and positive experience tells me that people are unhappy with the way that normal airlines do business, which shows me why Song’s idea of changing the whole experience was so good.
But Song’s execution could not have been worse. After watching their initial ad campaign I was left confused and dumbfounded. How could their first set of ads only show clips from old movies and not mention anything about the company, their idea, or even air travel? No planes? No travelers? No airlines? More importantly, how could a whole group of business people watch their ads and approve the spending? Their ad belonged in an independent film festival, not in a business. They tried to introduce a new product idea without telling anyone what their idea was. Song got so caught up in being “artsy” and generating emotion that they failed to tie any of the art or emotion to their actual product. The emotion that Song so desperately generated was wasted.
Song’s idea was great, but their execution was absolutely abysmal. Of course, I am proven right by the fact that Song airlines no longer exist. Hindsight is always 20/20, but I am surprised no one at Song had the foresight to see their mistakes coming.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
You Can't Trust Anyone These Days
In the chapter titled, “Kenna’s Dilemma” Malcom Gladwell brings up several interesting insights, but I believe the most helpful are facts that you can’t always trust taste tests and you can’t always trust experts.
Experts
When it comes to experts, it is important to note that an expert on a certain subject, service, or product is not an expert on how people will receive a certain subject, service, or product. Just because someone knows everything there is to know about an industry, does not mean that they understand the growing and changing desires of the consumer and trends in the market.
The shortcomings of experts when it comes to understanding their own customers are painfully clear in Malcolm Galdwell’s examples about Kenna, and the “Chair of Death.” In both cases experts in their respective fields agreed that they had an incredible product that was better than what was currently available. Expert opinion of their own product was extremely high and all indications pointed to success. However, the experts did not correctly predict the reaction of the consumer. Even though the experts believed their product to be superior, their message was lost on the consumer.
The average consumer is not an expert. It takes time, skill, or training in many cases to recognize how one product is superior to another, and the average consumer does not provide that. Most customers can only evaluate products on what they already know, which causes new, innovative, or revolutionary products to sometimes fail, even if the experts all agree that the new product is superior to the old one. Expert approval does not equal guaranteed success.
Taste-Tests
Taste-tests are some of the most misleading marketing strategies ever. Consumers are not only led to believe that “tasting” a small amount of a product for a brief period of time is the same as normal consumption of the product, but also that products that win the taste test are superior. Of course we know that both of these assumptions are false. Malcolm Gladwell points out that Coke learned this lesson after the Pepsi taste tests and the invention of “New Coke.”
Coke was misled by taste-tests from Pepsi. Coke did not consider that a sip of Pepsi (as in a taste test) might be better than a sip of Coke, while at the same time the Pepsi product was not as good as, or at least comparable to, the Coke product. It may seem counter-intuitive at first, but Gladwell points out that the difference of sweetness in the two brands causes the initial affinity toward Pepsi. Pepsi was smart to use the taste-test to its advantage, but consumers should know by now that the tests are unreliable.
The only accurate test of how a product’s quality or performance is a full trial. A used car may drive well in a test-drive around the block and on the highway, but what happens at the end of a long road-trip, or in harsh weather conditions. In this “test-drive” example, it is easy to see the shortcomings of a small test versus a full trial. In many cases, a small test is the only practical way to try a product (such as a car test-drive or walk through an open house), but it should not be an acceptable way to test the quality of everything.
The taste-test brings up an interesting dilemma. We already know that consumers can not trust expert opinions. Consumers can not trust the results of “tests” or sample studies. And now, even if we find ourselves in a taste-testing situation we know that our own initial reactions may not be an accurate indication of our appreciation of the product as a whole, in which case we can not even trust ourselves.
Experts
When it comes to experts, it is important to note that an expert on a certain subject, service, or product is not an expert on how people will receive a certain subject, service, or product. Just because someone knows everything there is to know about an industry, does not mean that they understand the growing and changing desires of the consumer and trends in the market.
The shortcomings of experts when it comes to understanding their own customers are painfully clear in Malcolm Galdwell’s examples about Kenna, and the “Chair of Death.” In both cases experts in their respective fields agreed that they had an incredible product that was better than what was currently available. Expert opinion of their own product was extremely high and all indications pointed to success. However, the experts did not correctly predict the reaction of the consumer. Even though the experts believed their product to be superior, their message was lost on the consumer.
The average consumer is not an expert. It takes time, skill, or training in many cases to recognize how one product is superior to another, and the average consumer does not provide that. Most customers can only evaluate products on what they already know, which causes new, innovative, or revolutionary products to sometimes fail, even if the experts all agree that the new product is superior to the old one. Expert approval does not equal guaranteed success.
Taste-Tests
Taste-tests are some of the most misleading marketing strategies ever. Consumers are not only led to believe that “tasting” a small amount of a product for a brief period of time is the same as normal consumption of the product, but also that products that win the taste test are superior. Of course we know that both of these assumptions are false. Malcolm Gladwell points out that Coke learned this lesson after the Pepsi taste tests and the invention of “New Coke.”
Coke was misled by taste-tests from Pepsi. Coke did not consider that a sip of Pepsi (as in a taste test) might be better than a sip of Coke, while at the same time the Pepsi product was not as good as, or at least comparable to, the Coke product. It may seem counter-intuitive at first, but Gladwell points out that the difference of sweetness in the two brands causes the initial affinity toward Pepsi. Pepsi was smart to use the taste-test to its advantage, but consumers should know by now that the tests are unreliable.
The only accurate test of how a product’s quality or performance is a full trial. A used car may drive well in a test-drive around the block and on the highway, but what happens at the end of a long road-trip, or in harsh weather conditions. In this “test-drive” example, it is easy to see the shortcomings of a small test versus a full trial. In many cases, a small test is the only practical way to try a product (such as a car test-drive or walk through an open house), but it should not be an acceptable way to test the quality of everything.
The taste-test brings up an interesting dilemma. We already know that consumers can not trust expert opinions. Consumers can not trust the results of “tests” or sample studies. And now, even if we find ourselves in a taste-testing situation we know that our own initial reactions may not be an accurate indication of our appreciation of the product as a whole, in which case we can not even trust ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)