Ad Age reports that it’s getting mean and nasty out there: attack campaigns are bursting out all over, with customers in the middle of the fight. 
Campbell versus Progresso in a soup war. McDonald’s and Starbucks dousing each other with hot coffee. Dominos mud-wrestling with Subway. They’re all fighting over your new tightfisted spending behavior.
Monthly Archive for May, 2009
The Times reports on how good-with-numbers marketing consultants are using “Wall Street-like” data analysis to hone the effectiveness of online advertising.
The Consumer Confidence Index for May is 54.9, up from 40.8 in April and indicative of a growing optimism.
“While confidence is still weak by historical standards, as far as consumers are concerned, the worst is now behind us,” said Lynn Franco, director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center.
How is the Internet changing the face of advertising? How isn’t it? Marketers of everything now routinely create and post commercials for online viewing only, sometimes to reach target customers more efficiently (i.e., they’re online, not watching TV), sometimes because the products or product-uses being marketed aren’t suitable for prime time. Or, all of the above. There’s no better example, or a potentially squeamish one, than this from Gillette:
There are reports that Procter and Gamble, the world’s 800-pound packaged goods gorilla, is about to step up domestic marketing of cheaper versions of some of its brands: “basic” versions, according to the Wall Street Journal, of Bounty paper towels and Charmin toilet paper, for example. These products were originally developed for emerging markets, which now include, apparently, the U.S. Mr. Whipple wept.
In the Times, Stuart Elliott discusses the number of new TV-commercials invoking what life was like in America during the Crash (not this one, the one in the thirties). Most emblematic is the Allstate commercial, complete with iconic Dorothy Lange photography, that began running earlier this year:
Back when I was at Lands’ End in the early aughts, the company vigorously explored how to bring “mass customization” to t
he Web — that is, using online tools we could enable you the customer to order custom-fitting jeans and dress shirts. The business proved viable but not explosive. Today, all sorts of retailers dangle the promise of customized products — from computers to cars to athletic shoes. Oh, and stuffed bears. But it’s safe to say that, despite enabling technology and marketing hoopla, we have yet to enter the age of mass customization that we once thought would happen by now. Today I came across a list of some of the most-read business articles published by the Wharton School. Included among them, a piece published in 2002: “The Failure of Customization: Or Why People Don’t Buy Jeans Online.”
While we have stringent laws in place to protect copyrights and logos, the U.S. lags far behind Europe when it comes to protecting the design of apparel and other products — meaning that counterfeiting is illegal but knockoffs are rampant. Both well-known designer labels and small independent designers are routinely copied by others in the marketplace (which isn’t to say that well-known design labels don’t rip off each other). You, the consumer, may not 
know and may not care. Legislation to reign in the practice has been stalled in Congress for years now. As a result knockout suits routinely turn up in court and are followed closely by the industry, such as the one brought against Forever 21, the cheap-chic, teen-apparel retailer. A clear-cut verdict might have brought some clarity to the knockoff issue — that is, until a mistrial was declared the other day.
In the book I write about why so many of us succomb to “features creep,” a weakness for buying appliances and gadgets with more 
bells and whistles than we have any interest in (or aptitude for) ringing or tooting. Too many buttons and switches result in what the trade calls “features fatigue,” which is a prime reason the return rates at electronics stores are way, way higher than in any other retail category. The big box chains, Best Buy, for example, do what they can to put people on the sales floor who try to explain how products work, what all the buttons are for, etc. — but the level of expertise is, well, not always enthralling. The Journal today carries a story about a new trend: smaller electronics and appliance stores where service and customer illumination are served up a higher level.
Levi’s ranks as one of America’s most gay-friendly brands, others being HBO, Showtime, Apple, and Absolut. Said a spokesman for PlanetOut, a media company that conducted such research: “In virtually every category — from financial services to fragrance — the study shows that gays and lesbians tend to be ahead of the curve when it comes to embracing new products and trends. They are early adopters that their peers look to for advice, opinions, and ideas. As a result of their influence, they impact many more purchases than just their own.” Factors such as advertising imagery and programming openness to gay lifestyle are cited as among the reasons certain companies find favor in the gay and lesbian communities. Yesterday Levi’s reached out further by accessorizing store manniquins in San Francisco with white knots, the symbol of gay equality and same-sex marriage.
