Recently in Market Research Category

When I was at university, my all time favourite subject was Consumer Behaviour.I loved learning about the relationship between organizations, their brands and their customers.In those days though, most marketing messages were delivered via a one-way street - broadcast from company to consumer.

Today, the dynamic growth of digital channels, and in particular social media, has truly shifted the communication paradigm. Marketing as a conversation has arrived!

There's no better example of this than the recent case of Vegemite iSnack 2.0. I'm sure there isn't anyone in Australia that is unaware of this saga but for our friends elsewhere I'll give you a quick overview:

Vegemite (http://www.vegemite.com.au) is an iconic breakfast spread that has been enjoyed by Aussies since 1922.They recently decided on a brand extension, adding a Vegemite and cheese spread.As was the case when they named the original product all those years ago, they decided to choose the name of the new product through a competition. iSnack 2.0 was the winning name but it didn't resonate well with the public. (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1101797/Backlash-kills-off-iSnack-2.0)

The new name was revealed last month during the Football (AFL) Grand final.I was enjoying the game but also had an eye on Twitter and saw an avalanche of protests appear before my very eyes. Not long after the social media uproar commenced, traditional media jumped on the bandwagon and for days the naming of this product was headline news.

This story got me thinking about a case study we had looked at in class years before. It was the Cola Wars and Coca Cola's introduction of 'New Coke' in April 1985.Coca-Cola did the unthinkable and changed their secret formula.They too received an 'instant' backlash. Consumers wrote letters of complaints (Remember them? They got delivered by snail mail). They phoned the company and talk-back radio stations and wrote letters to newspapers. The outrage was enormous!

(http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/heritage/cokelore_newcoke.html) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke)

There are a lot of similarities in these two stories. One could argue that decisions were made without enough research and consultation with their customers. Anyway, both cases required a reversal of decisions made by the marketing and management teams.The difference in the stories is the speed of reaction:

- Time to change Coke back to its original formula = 3 months
- Time to change the name of Vegemite iSnack 2.0 = 3 days!

If you're a 21^st century marketer, engage in conversations with your customers! The powerbase has definitely shifted and consumers are speaking - are you listening?

PS - The new Vegemite product was renamed Vegemite Cheesybite. How was the name chosen? By an online poll :)

Would you change your shopping habits to make the world a better place?

According to new findings from Edelman Worldwide's "goodpurpose Consumer Study" (as reported in Mediapost.com), of the 6,000 people surveyed in 10 countries, "61% say they have purchased a brand that supports a good cause even when it wasn't the cheapest option, and 67% said they would switch brands if another brand of similar quality supported a cause they were interested in."

Is this officially called buy and save?

Full story at Mediapost.com.


(photo by MadelineFox)

Aquent partnered with Monster to uncover the key to "attracting, keeping and developing Web talent in an uncertain economy" and we presented our findings in an AMA webcast today (I've embedded the slides below for your viewing convenience).

It would seem that, while others in the creative class may be struggling, the web folk are feeling fairly confident. 72% of our respondents said they would rate their current position as moderately to highly secure. 52% feel that they would have a good or excellent chance of finding another web position were they to look (a belief that is semi-bolstered by the fact that 37% of our client respondents said they plan on hiring web talent in 2009). And 51% saw their compensation increase over the last twelve months.

This level of confidence amongst the web-enabled is understandable. From the standpoint of companies looking for web talent, it also makes these folks "available." Indeed, 43% percent of the people we asked said that they will actively seek another position within the next 12 months, while an additional 35% said they would make a move if the right opportunity presented itself. In other words, 78% of working web talent are "out there."

I'm not a math guy, but all signs point to this being a good time to be looking for web talent (and a good time to actually be a talented web professional). If you are in the hiring game, you might want to consider the following to lure the interactive moths to your particular flame: web folk are looking for stable positions, flexible schedules, and access to professional development. If you've got that on offer, then get busy offering!

As mentioned, the slides:

Aquent and the AMA engaged the Dihedral Group to conduct a couple surveys asking marketers about salaries and hiring trends, as I mentioned in this post. Well, the findings have been analyzed, reflected upon, and transformed into a convenient white paper, "The Pragmatic Recession," which you can also find here, along with a recording of our recent webcast on digital marketing management.

There's a lot of interesting stuff in this document, but one thing that jumped out at me was the following: When hiring new marketers, managers are less concerned about depth experience and much more concerned about finding people whose skill-sets match their needs. While this makes sense on the face of it, I can't help but remind folks that when you hire somebody and it doesn't work out, it's rarely about their skills. On the contrary, it's all about fit.

As the scope of the current economic downturn expands and evolves, marketers are responding with pragmatism rather than panic. The pragmatic view, as revealed by research conducted by The Dihedral Group (TDG) on behalf of Aquent and the American Marketing Association, is driven by three factors: new technologies; the availability of highly-skilled contractors; and the understanding that organizations must plan for the recession's inevitable end.

Last spring, Aquent and the AMA enlisted TDG to conduct a survey asking marketers about salaries, hiring plans, and their outlook on the future. We turned the results of that survey into a marketing salaries calculator. Since the initial survey asked a lot about plans for 2008, we sponsored a follow up survey to find out what had happened in the intervening six months. Of course, we found that some plans had changed (only about a third of anticipated interactive marketing hires had been completed, for example), but we also found that, despite the severity of the current economic crisis, marketers seem to responding with a forward-looking level-headedness.

1. Guess what? Technology has changed marketing!

Everybody knows that email, the web, and the rise of social media have changed and are continuing to change the practice of marketing, so naturally these are changing the way marketers respond to a downturn in the economy. Specifically, whether companies are faring well or are struggling right now, online marketing plays a key role in their plans to weather the current storm.

They are, however, using the technology for different reasons and to different ends. On the one hand, those companies that experienced growth in 2008 are concentrating on using online capabilities to deepen customer insight, analyze their behavior, and continually improve the effectiveness of their digital marketing efforts. On the other hand, the strugglers are increasing their reliance on interactive marketing for increased efficiency and cost-savings.

Recent research revealed that, by and large, our clients do not read our marketing materials. Given that I spend a lot of time writing and editing the aforementioned materials, I was somewhat disheartened.

The good news was that people overwhelming tend to hear about us from someone else. Given that the drum I most frequently beat says that you get jobs primarily through people to people connections, I felt strangely validated.

If no one reads what you write, but through their actions prove it to be on the money, that's good, right?

A web design firm based in North Carolina, OnWired, has set up a site called Please Critique Me where, "designers can submit their work and have it reviewed (albeit publicly) by one of their industry peers." Seems like an interesting idea, especially from a recruiting standpoint.

Anyone used this yet?

What do you think?

Our CFO was kind enough to forward me an article from the Wall Street Journal, "Most Corporate Blogs Are Unimaginative Failures." Once I recovered from his passive-aggressive attack, I actually read the article and was relieved to discover that, for all its faults, at least this corporate blog doesn't commit the sins Forrester enumerated in the study on which the article was based.

Forrester faults most B2B corporate blogs with: lack of personality; infrequent posting; and the mere recycling of press releases. As far as the first two go, I think we're good. Personality is my only real asset, so if ain't coming through in this here blog then, gosh darn it, I'm doing something wrong.

On the frequency front, I've maintained a fairly steady "3 posts a week" pace, but I'm trying to bump that up to 5 per. And as far as press releases are concerned, if you want to read them, you can find them here on our corporate website.

Finally, Forrester points to the dearth of comments as an indicator of failure. To that I'll quote Van Morrison, who once sang, "And if you fail to hear from me/It only means I didn't call," or something like that. In other words, the only definite conclusion you can draw from an absence of comments is that no one commented. It doesn't mean they didn't read, think about, or even react to a particular post (or so I tell myself....)

In any event, I do, get comments. So back off, CFO-man!

Image Courtesy of salimfadhley.

On the "giving it away as a business strategy"-front, check out this WSJ article on Google offering a free tool to measure web hits. I quote, "Existing ad-serving systems don't currently provide detailed Web-audience data about the sites where they place ads. By giving away the new tool, Google could presumably attract more ad business."

You charge companies to serve their ads, but at the same time, you provide them with free intelligence about where those ads will best perform, which encourages them to use your ad-serving service. Etc.

I think they call that a "virtuous circle," though Google's competitors may call that a "death spiral."

A week ago I posted that I would be attending the MarketingProfs' B2B Forum here in Boston and, long story short, I did.

My überboss asked if I would put together some slides on what I learned there, but I thought I'd kill two birds with one stone by writing about it here. After all, isn't Web 2.0 about sharing knowledge, insight, information, and, well, love?

So, in no particular order, "My Learnings."

1. Aquent Finds Marketers Job

Here's an anecdote: I was late to lunch on Tuesday and had to find an available seat for David Meerman Scott's presentation. Introducing myself to one of my tablemates, she said, "I know Aquent. I got my first job through you and a good friend and mentor of mine used to work for you guys." This was actually the second meal in which I heard words to that effect.

2. Aquent Finds Marketers Marketers

The other type of conversation I had, again fairly randomly, involved people who identified themselves as clients of Aquent. These were smart people doing innovative things at big companies.

3. Marketers Turn to Aquent as a Resource

I met people who said, "Oh, I was on your site looking for a new gig." I met others who said, "Oh, maybe you guys can help me find a new job." Another person wanted to know if job titles were a good vector of segmentation (if that makes sense).