Mark Kolier’s Blog

Archive for the ‘Marketing stuff’ Category

Since I am a busy person and am not much of a shopper (more the type of buyer that walks into a store to buy what he came for and then walks out), shopping on the web is a great option for me. During the holidays I, like so many people, relish every opportunity to not have to fight the store crowd to purchase gifts.

My estimation is that more than 75% of the time I shop online. I have fairly high confidence that my credit card info will not be stolen (it used to be higher), and that the right goods will be shipped to me in a reasonable amount of time if I’ve not specified a special delivery.

So when I noticed that I was running low on after shave/cologne and realized that I had no time to go to the store I decided to try shopping for it online. It seems to me that very few men would go out of their way go to the store specifically to buy men’s cologne as it is the kind of thing you pick up when you are at the mall or department store shopping for other things and you remember to buy some so you won’t have to make a special trip.

Since I am an Amazon Prime member I checked it out there first. The annual membership to Amazon Prime offers ‘free shipping’ which is actually not free since you pay $79 a year for the membership. I checked out the offerings for men’s cologne on Amazon and they had a fair amount but it was not all that well organized and a bit clunky.

I then decided to try Perfumania.com (Sephora.com was next on my list). The Perfumania.com site was well organized and easy to navigate. They were having a June special which was clearly marked on the home page. Sephora.com also looked intuitive and easy to use but there were no specials listed on the home page. I bet you can guess where I decided to shop.

The prices on Perfumania.com were lower than Amazon.com – not substantially but lower. And free shipping was offered for orders over $60. Yes I was having some second thoughts about my Amazon Prime membership. A free gift was offered as well as samples and they were having a buy one get one for half price special also (something they term BOGO which is not the greatest name I thought as its only one letter away from BOZO).

Off I went placing my order by choosing the cologne I wanted. And then I hit the wall. The site was interminably slow and when I tried to load 2 items into my shopping cart the sands of internet time just kept on spilling. When I hit refresh it took me back a page and I had to enter in all my information a second, (and then third) time! And while I did not want to pay half price for another item of the same sort,( I did like the option however), the instructions were that I would be able to do it at time of order. But I never saw the option once I FINALLY got into the shopping cart.

At last I was able to make my purchase and check out. Yet the experience which had the potential to be a very good one was undermined because of the slow and frustrating performance of the site interface.
It’s something to keep in mind – you can get everything right, but then if you drive the customer crazy by making the navigation or site process difficult you will have more than lost what you gained.

Do you have any good stories to share that illustrate what I am writing about?

I spent the day today as a judging chair for the first round of the 2011 Direct Marketing Association (DMA) International Echo awards at the DMA headquarters in New York City. I’ve been judging the Echo awards for something like 7 years. I always enjoy the experience mostly for being able to sit and talk with my fellow judges who almost universally are very experienced and have interesting viewpoints on marketing.

The submitted campaigns are judged on marketing strategy, creativity and results. Over the years it’s been easy to notice the changes in the submitted campaigns. When I first started there were many more dimensional mail campaigns – that is odd shaped pieces that were mailed direct to consumers or businesses. However in recent years I’ve seen fewer and fewer of those campaigns (and most of the ones I do see are non U.S. based). This year a social media category was introduced which while it comes as no surprise is interesting since evaluating the effectiveness of a SM campaign is not quite as easy as other channels.

But what struck me most today was the speaker Rick Segal – President of Gyro Agency here in New York. The discussion was centered on interruptive advertising and how (finally!) that has to change. My associate David Adelman of OCD Media has been riding that same horse now for quite some time. The point was that the idea of interrupting whatever people are doing to get them to pay attention to your message is increasingly less effective if not offensive. As if whatever you are doing is not nearly as important as the message we (advertisers and agency folk) are trying to broadcast.

Do you like pop-up ads on the internet? And what viewer loves the concept of a pre-roll ad in order to watch a program? How about an increased frequency of television commercials toward the latter (and often better) part of a program? Historically interruptive advertising has been used because agencies (and clients) are convinced it works. And I am not averring that it does not or cannot work. However it is a tired old way of doing things and I believe not consistent with the idea of being PART of the conversation.

Being part of the conversation is not easy since it goes against our nature and against the expectations of consumers. Product placement is a great example of non-interruptive advertising. Mr. Segal made some interesting references to people being more productive since they are more connected. He also noted that technology is creating more capacity for work – not necessarily saving individual people time since they can do and are expected to do more. Interestingly he mentioned the concept of brands sponsoring parks (again non-interruptive) and leisure time activities so that people could unplug and enjoy themselves – even during a ‘work day’. (Don’t even get me started on that since in some ways – every day can be a work day).

Lastly, we talked about the idea of not accepting ‘good enough’ work and striving for excellence and standout campaigns. Creating a memorable but non-interruptive campaign is a challenge I will be throwing down to our team as I am fully on board with that idea.

We can and must do better. I for one am tired of all the advertising interruptions. How about you?

Selling any residential property (house or apartment) is far from a fun process. Right down there with selling one’s car. (I think the process of buying a house is much more fun than buying a car BTW). Since my wife and I have put our house ‘up on the market’ we have experienced all the things that are associated. Overlay a ‘down’ real-estate market and what you are left with is a daily exercise in frustration.

Remember Foxton’s from a few years ago – the home of the 2% real estate broker commission? They did not make it and went out of business in 2007. There are a few sites out there that promote only a 2% commission but they do not appear to have much traction. So the traditional real estate broker is the option if you choose not to sell your house directly (good luck with that we are told).

There aren’t nearly as many real estate brokers around today as there were 5 years ago. A crushing recession and horrible real estate market are the reasons for that. Back in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s it seemed everyone around me knew someone who was obtaining their real estate license. After all – 6% (now down to 4-5%) commission on homes offered a pretty nice payday – especially if you were selling homes in the more expensive areas of the United States.

Today the overall real estate market remains stagnant at best. It’s a buyer’s market as they say. And real estate brokers have no way to create buyers. There’s too much inventory, too many choices and anyone selling a house or apartment has to be ready to drop their price, possibly below what they paid for it, if they’ve lived in the house for less than ten years.

In our case we’ve been asked to make some ‘minor’ improvements (translate that to spending money for someone else to enjoy). And yes we’ve already been asked to drop the price which is the normal course of doing business my wife and I understand. Yet it irks me that a $50,000 price reduction only reduces the broker’s 5% commission by $ 2,500 yet the seller is still down a full $50,000. It’s easy to understand why a real estate broker would suggest lowering the price since the broker will feel little of that sting.

Everyone is aware that real estate markets ebb and flow – right now we are in a buyer’s market and have been for some time. When my wife and I sold another house in the late 1990’s it was a seller’s market and we actually had multiple bids and the house was sold (in a week) for more than the asking price. I readily admit that the pendulum can swing both ways.

But I cannot help thinking there’s a big idea opportunity here. Real estate brokers serve buyers more than they do sellers. There are ‘buyer’s brokers’ and related fees to engage them. I think that is a concept that should be explored even further. A buyer’s broker serves the purchaser in many ways with information on the area, schools, market conditions, local resources as well as can help the buyer understand and get the purchase for the best possible price.

But overall the process of buying and selling residential properties has changed little over the past 50+ years. While the MLS (Multiple Listing Service) has made an impact and online viewing of properties is cool, the actual process has not really changed.

I’m going to think more about how that might be altered and if you have any interesting thoughts or ideas please share them.

The TV upfront season is at hand and the news is that ad spending on television is alive and thriving. One of the big reasons for that is the participation of the 55+ demographic. This group watches a lot of television but perhaps more importantly they also have discretionary income and they actually spend it.

An article in the NY Times last Friday – http://nyti.ms/jmcazW really got my attention. The figures were eye opening. ”The most recent unemployment rate for those 20 to 24 years old is 14.2 percent; for those 25 to 34, it is 9.4 percent. The rate for people aged 55 to 64 is only 6.2 percent.”

Financially, the disparity is similar. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “…those people aged 45 to 54 and 55 to 64 had the highest median weekly earnings of any age segment in the United States: $844 and $860, respectively. Meanwhile, those 20 to 24 had weekly earnings of only $454. Those who are 25 to 34 earned $682.“

Mature consumers also seem to be spending on categories not traditionally associated with older people. NBC’s study of those people 55 to 64 showed that they spent more than the average consumer on categories like home improvement, large appliances, casual dining and cosmetics.

They have also become heavy spenders on electronics and digital devices. The study also showed that members of the 55-to-64 age group were just as likely as those ages 18 to 34 to have high-definition televisions, digital video recorders and broadband service.

The most interesting statistics I read were on audience age: The median age for audiences for every broadcast network has moved upward since 2006. NBC has moved to 50.1, from 48.5; ABC increased to 52.3, from 47.4. Fox, always the youngest network, aged to 45.4, from 41.5. CBS began at 53 and is now at a median age of 56.

“American Idol,” once considered the hot show for young people, finished its first season 10 years ago with a median age of 32.1. This season, its median age is 47.2. ABC’s biggest hit, “Dancing with the Stars” has a large complement of 50-plus viewers.

Patricia McDonough, senior vice president for insights, analysis and policy for Nielsen, said, “35 to 64 is becoming a relatively common target now.”

So the 55+ set is generally more employed, more financially stable and more prone to watching television and buying things. I guess they’re not getting older, they’re getting better. It’s not too long for me to join this group and somehow I am feeling a bit better about it.

Sort of.

With its $ 8.5 billion acquisition of Skype announced yesterday Microsoft will yet again be put under the microscope to examine how it will manage one of the world’s most popular web portals. Skype has more than 660 million members/users around the world. Only a small portion of Skype ‘customers’ actually produce revenue for the company since the VOIP (voice over internet protocol) is free unless you call or text an actual phone or mobile device.

So Skype does not make all that much money even though it’s been in business since 2003. EBay could not make its acquisition of Skype work and sold it off to Silver Lake Partners. What makes Microsoft think that it will be able to leverage Skype’s assets and users? After all 107 million users are connected for more than 100 minutes per MONTH on Skype? But how will you get them to PAY for the service that people have come to know and love as FREE?

I for one thought Facebook was a better match for Skype as I believe that the integration of Skype-calling with Facebook’s social networking would be a powerful combination. But Microsoft ‘won the battle’ for Skype – although the battle was not a public one. Microsoft’s history of involving itself in consumer based companies has been mixed at best. http://nyti.ms/muGV9C

Skype investors had considered a public offering but undoubtedly came to the conclusion that increasing the valuation by selling it to Microsoft was a surer bet for Silver Lake Partners. And in the process Microsoft at the very least kept Skype out of the hands of Google and Facebook. So maybe Microsoft is playing some sort of corporate preventive defense?

Excerpt from the article in the Times –

“Microsoft and Skype share the vision of bringing software innovation and products to our customers,” said Tony Bates, the current head of Skype who will become the president of the newly created Microsoft Skype Division. “Together, we will be able to accelerate Skype’s plans to extend our global community and introduce new ways for everyone to communicate and collaborate.”

I use Skype all the time and really find it a useful application. However I don’t really have any idea what Mr. Bates’ comment means but for some reason it makes me nervous. How about you?