In Denmark there is currently a lottery fever. The pot is now at a staggering 142 million DKK ~ 19 mil €. It is A LOT of money for sure, so I have played three weeks in a row in order to win and guess what – I haven’t won! 
Impossible I say!
So far I have won 39 DKK app 6€ and spent 27€ in my attemp to win. I knew this was the outcome beforehand. No one really wins in the lottery beside danskespil.dk. But they are not lying about that – everyone can see the statistics on the web site.
1:98.000.000! That is the odds. I heard on the radio that Mogens Steffensen, professor in insurance math at Copenhagen University stated that it would be the same as driving 30.000 km in a train (earth is 40.000 km by equator) from Copenhagen and to a given spot on the planet. During that trip you randomly need to toss one piece of paper out of the window and hit a bucket that is placed among the route. Even for a skilled paper toss guy like me I recon it will be just a bit difficult…
Why on earth do we play then?
I have been a bit puzzled about this actually. Many people participate in the lottery, and as me they know that it is impossible to win. But there is always the what if…
Rational versus irrational
I did a little research about irrationality and found an article in Psycology Today by David Ropeik: “The best way to understand this kind of thinking, is to stop thinking of risk perception as a purely logical process. In fact, stop thinking of it as thinking. It is not a cognitive process. It’s a mix of the facts and conscious reasoning, interpreted through a powerful set of emotional and instinctive subconscious lenses that give those facts the valence, the meaning, the feel that helps us judge whether something might be dangerous.”
The quote here is more in relation to evaluating “true” risk as in evaluating danger. I do however think that the mindset is applicable here as well. If I were to evaluate the risk or rather the probability of me winning the 142 million DKK I would never play – no it is all emotions that influences the decision. Imagine if I won the big prize…. Oh the sweet life.
Danske Spil´s marketing
Danske Spil is the company that is running the lottery here in Denmark. They have for a long time been running the tagline “Imagine if you won” and now they are running “Imagine if someone you knew won”. I think the first tagline is brilliant because that is the essence of what people are buying. Consumers are buying hope. Hope that tonight when the numbers are drawn that you can call yourself a millionaire.
The second tagline is new. I guess they wanted to go with something else after many years of using the first one. I can see where they are going, but to me personally I think it creates some negative emotions of envy that I find a bit wrong.
I think the absolutely best way of market lottery games is to have a high prizes. Danske Spil is having more people than ever to participate these days as the total pot is over 140 mil DKK. There are stories in the press each week, people talk about it in social networks, at work, at school etc. People have a very creative mind when it comes to spending the money and all they need is a little push in that direction and I think that the “Imagine if you won.. ” does that trick very well.
Sources:
So, I came across a recent study from Business Insider*. It said that app 60% of people watching TV were distracted by the phone and around a third of the population were distracted by their laptops. However the attention to TV ads seems not to be significantly lowered by this fact as apparently the attention to TV ads is overall as a base low.
The study also looked at the online consumption and distraction and again in this case mobile phones was the no. 1 distraction with roughly 46%. What is important to note here is that the distraction is much more significant. So when the consumer takes his/her eyes off the screen to look at his/her iPhone then we see a significant decrease in attention to our online ads.
How can we take advantage of that?
Well, it tells us that we might as well expect that the consumers most likely will multitask while they watch our ads. This is old news actually and to no surprise. But what I think can be beneficial to work on from a marketing perspective is to leverage this fact. Expanding the ad from only TV to online to mobile is key in order to exploit the thesis that all these devices are online and in close reach in the exposure situation.
Reward me with a Burger!
I don’t know if this campaign is running in other countries than Denmark, but here McDonalds are running a campaign that combines mobile, TV, outdoor and online.
Basically it is a treasure hunt. McDonalds have offered a million virtual “coins” in Denmark. You can find the coins via QR codes on outdoor material, in the restaurants and by recording sound from TV ads (yes recording sound!). When you collect 10 coins you can claim your reward being a coinoffer (which is their offer on cheeseburgers etc. Typical stuff you buy on top of your menu)
I think McDonalds is doing something clever with this campaign and I would love to get some insights into the learnings based on this. It would be interesting to see if attention to their ads increases or not?
Related article from Shiv Singh, Global Head of Digital:
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/11/the_new_role_of_television_adv.html
*http://www.businessinsider.com/yume-video-study-2011-5
I have just bought a new lovely 50″ 3D TV. I love gadgets and technology. My TV is a Panasonic TV and it has Internet. Internet on my TV!! I recently read a survey stating that 1/3 of American households will have an internet connected TV in 2015*, however the majority are currently not using the feature. Content is needed.
I can now record TV shows on the fly. I can pause a TV show if I need to go to the loo etc. All this is something that is already possible with digital boxes, media center solutions etc. A lot of marketers are a bit concerned about this. Consumers can now skip TV ads and past forward to the content they want to see. Ok let’s hold on to that thought – content they want to see…
Smart TV = Smart Ads = Content is KING!
So if our TVs get smarter so should our advertisement. If the tv is connected to the Internet then we are able to gather information about online habits either voluntarily or by looking at cookies. This information can really be a game changer that for both marketers and consumers and generate value for both parts.
This means that I would see ads that are much more relevant to me – ads that I would actually be interested in seeing and ads that I wouldn’t skip, even if I had easy access to doing it. Smart TVs should give us smart ads and therefore better and relevant tailor made content.
Anyways this is just a thought. We should embrace the new technologies and not be concerned about the consumer’s skeptical view on commercials. It forces marketers to deliver more VALUE to the consumer and less sales bullshit. Value will be rewarded with interest (and maybe desire if your product delivers quality).
* http://blogs.forrester.com/category/connected_tv_forecast
* http://www.forrester.com/rb/Research/make_connected_tvs_future_of_tv/q/id/57662/t/2
I love when brands from time to time show a little attitude and have the guts to provoke some of their main “enemies”.
Pepsi’s video for this summer:
To be or not to be…
… a Pepsi fanboy. I don’t know if I will swith to Pepsi now, but I think the Pepsi fans love this. This is like your favorite football team scoring a goal on the homecourt in an important match. It just feels good I guess. I think that the discussion Coke vs. Pepsi is a discussion everyone have had at some point. Therefore I foresee this as a good viral video - send it to one of those friends who loves Coke (you know the type of person who would rather drink toilet water than a Pepsi - I am sure you know the type).
Do it again and again…
Pepsi also did it last year:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX0fmBHiZy4&feature=player_embedded
Selvom den danske statsminister endnu ikke har udskrevet et valg, så er det klart, at valgkampen allerede er skudt i gang i forbindelse med et par printannoncer inden nytår og i særdeleshed med statsministerens nytårstale.
Eksperter var enige om, at Barack Obama var eminent til at bruge de sociale medier til at føre valgkamp med og dette var en af hjørnestenene i hans valgsejr. Jeg læste ligeledes en artikel i Berlingske, hvor Berlingskes egen medieekspert udtalte sig om, at de sociale medier kunne blive afgørende for et valg i Danmark 2011.
Betyder Facebook så meget for valgkampen?
Facebook er jo suverænt Danmarks mest populære sociale medie, så derfor var det nærliggende, at kigge nærmere på dette. Jeg satte mig for at ”Synes godt om” mange af partiernes formænd/kvinder på Facebook (Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Lene Espersen, Villy Søvndal, Anders Samuelsen, Pia Kjærsgaard). Alene dette synes, at være lidt af en presbold for mange. Hvorfor skal jeg tilkendegive ”synes godt om” på min væg så alle kan se det. Jeg tror ikke, at alle er åbne for at tilkendegive deres personlige politiske præferencer og alene dette kan være en barriere på Facebook.
Lad os lave tankeeksperimentet, at du rent faktisk godt vil tilkendegive dette. Kunne man så ikke forestille sig, at dette netop var fordi, du var en type person, der var stolt af at skilte med din politiske overbevisning? Hvis dette er tilfældet, så ville du dermed også være enig i rigtig mange af de ting som dit parti nedfælder på Facebook. Dette betyder, at der ikke rigtig kommer nogen debat omkring deres indlæg. Der vil naturligvis altid være nogle fra den anden politiske lejr, der sniger sig ind og kommenterer, men de vil jo blive fuldstændigt haglet ned af den pågældende politikers egne fans, eller undskyld ”Synes godt om” mennesker. Derfor er en egentlig dialog ikke rigtig funktionel, men mere en måde for politikerne at få nogle tommelfingeren-op-tegn (elsker den oversættelse).
Skal man så bruge energi på at påvirke folk som allerede er overbevist?
I den Amerikanske valgkamp talte man meget om, at de her svingstater var afgørende. Der var f.eks. ingen grund til at forsøge påvirke de stater, der altid havde været Obama-stater. Lidt samme ræsonnement kan man bruge i dette tilfælde med de mennesker der allerede har tilkendegivet, at de sandsynligvis stemmer på det pågældende parti, som de ”synes godt om” på Facebook.
Hvad kan man så bruge Facebook til i valgkampen? Hvad skal politikerne gøre?
Den umiddelbare styrke ser jeg i at mobilisere. Du kan mobilisere nogle folk til at være dit partis og dine holdningers ambassadører. Du kan udstyre dem med argumenter imod dine modstandere så de er velklædte til frokostpausen, kaffebordet, i sportsklubben og mere ”private” facebookvægge, hvor alle diskussionerne om politik foregår. Jeg tror det er lige her, de sociale medier har deres styrke. Politikerne er eksperter i retorik og kan dermed hjælpe deres ambassadører med modargumenter. Man kan jo ikke forsvare overfor venner og familier at være imod efterløn, hvis man ikke kan forklare sig om hvorfor man mener dette.
Udover at mobilisere, så er der naturligvis også den fordel at politikeren kan snakke uden filter til sine ”Synes-godt-om” fans. Det betyder, at han/hun kan rette misforståelser op både udsprunget fra politiske modstandere såvel som fra pressen.
Rent brandingmæssigt kan man også bruge Facebook til at vise, at der er et menneske bag politiken. Lars Løkke Rasmussen skriver eksempelvis en dag kl 00 ”er lige kommet hjem, skal tidligt op i morgen til Go morgen Danmark” (ok det er frit husket, så ikke direkte citat). Selvom dette er til den gruppe som allerede har tilkendegivet, at de er indforstået med hans politik, så er dette igen en ambassadøreffekt. Folk får indtryk af at han arbejder hårdt. Det er jo en god historie at fortælle videre.
Jeg synes, at denne ambassadøreffekt på nogen måde udvander argumentet omkring, at det ikke rigtig kan betale sig at tale til allerede overbeviste politiske tilhængere. Man skal ikke undervurdere word-of-mouth. Så det er lidt en både-og betragtning.
Så Facebook er både relevant og ikke relevant?
Jeg tror ikke man kan føre valgkamp uden brug af Facebook og sociale medier (husk på at sociale medier er andet end Facebook), men jeg tvivler på, at Facebook får en afgørende betydning om end den klart får en indflydelse, som man ikke kan og bør se bort fra. En sidste opfordring til alle de polikere der (alligevel ikke) læser dette indlæg er dog at lave indlæggene selv. Det er så mange gange mere personligt.
The biggest brands of today have conquered the world. They are very mass market and appeal to a very large target group with the service or product that they offer.
If we look at the top 10 brands of 2010 we can see that Coca Cola, IBM and Microsoft are leading the way closely followed by Google, Disney, GE and so forth. (See the full list here: http://tinyurl.com/23eoj5r )
What they have managed is to create brands that are meaningful for a lot of people. To create a brand that is attractive to so many people is a very difficult strategy to pursuit. I am not sure that it is always the best strategy in a mature market where your brand is in the launch phase or early stage of the product life cycle. This is what I want to discuss in this blog post.
The fragmented consumers.
The consumers are getting more and more fragmented. If we look at different trend studies it shows us that niche magazines, niche TV stations, niche communities etc. are emerging at a quite fast pace. This indicates that consumers are niche oriented. Therefore it is very plausible to assume that the very broad ranged target groups are fragmented too and therefore could be divided into different segments.
Example: Fitness Chain in Denmark.
Lets take an example of a fitness chain. In a fitness chain there will be different segments; the housewives, the body builders, the fitness freaks, the obese etc. If you were to find a very broad positioning that would fit them all it could be something like “cheap and quality”. The broader the communication you want to make the more “common” the brand will be. Therefore the brand will end up saying nothing at all. Many fitness chains can claim to be cheap and have high quality. That would not be unique and the brand would not have an attitude towards its consumers and fans. If the fitness chain on the other hand had a different and more relevant positioning towards a more specific segments then it would be much more engaging and interesting for that target.
Ok, so you want us to attract bodybuilders and housewives with two completely opposite values? Both yes and no. If you are a new player in the fitness market you really need to consider if you want to attract both segments. If you want both segments you would have to find a compromise of the service that both segments would prefer and the hard part about this is that It still has to be better than what the competitors offers. It is not impossible but it depends on the competitors, the line of business and the preferences of segments, but I think that going after fewer segments should be considered as an option.
There is an example in Copenhagen called Freshfitness.dk (danish) . They offer a very low price and they can do that by having video-instructors, pay-per-shower, consumers pay for aerobic teams if there is a real-life instructor and so forth. They claim that they offer low price and high quality, but in my mind they are offering low price and a quality that is relative lower than their competitors unless you pay the extra money. For the price sensitive consumer that is definitely the best choice on the market. They have a strong positioning and it makes their marketing more effective.
The catch:
The downside of being more unique in the positioning and more relevant for the fewer segments is that that sales potential is lower. This would usually not be the preferred strategy from management. That is why a lot of marketers still struggle for a very difficult mission – to conquer the world!
I think this is a great way of using the power of social media to drive sales on the product.
When you are in a purchase situation and you especially are interested in a more complex purchase then you normally ask your friends (experts) for advice. What Best Buy is doing smart here is that they are giving the consumer a quick way of asking advice. Best Buy are not only pleasing the consumer by offering this service, but they are also exposing all the consumer’s relations for this product. It is often very likely that the consumer’s friends have a related hobby and also might be interested in the same kind of product.
The downside is that experts can guide the consumer in another direction, another shop, a cheaper price etc. This is as always with social media completely out of your control. This would however have happened anyways in some form or another if the consumer is interesting in offering the time to research thoroughly.
Who is the sender?
Is it Best Buy or is it the consumer who is interacting with the Best Buy application? I think that most people will think that it is the consumer that is interacting with his friends rather than Best Buy that is spamming promotions on other people’s walls.
Interesting promotion, I would have loved to see their insights so far. Do you know any research on this? What do you think of this promotion?
Is e-tailing really that different from retailing?
Today I think that a lot of retailers a taking a completely new approach to their e-shops etc., but is it really that different from what they are already doing today? To some extent I think that there is a lot of similarities between e-tailing and retailing.
Retailers today has many years of experience in what drives sales and what does not drive sales. I bet that a lot of this information can be transferred to the virtual store.
They can still;
The main benefit is that e-tailers will have a lot of data that in detail shows what the consumers are doing and this can allow e-tailers to go much more into detail on optimizing the consumer experience and thus offer more relevant content.
On a side note.
The suppliers to e-tailers also have to go through the same routines for channel marketing as for offline retailers. Suppliers still need to fight for the best shelves, optimize share of shelves, have merchandisers to check if their goods are online on release date, has the right prices when doing campaigns, has the best displays etc.
I know there will be a lot of differences between e-tailing and retailing, but all in all I think that the skillful retailers should leverage on the years of knowledge already accumulated in their marketing departments. Therefore well established retailers is also in my mind the ones who will be able to win the largest market shares in the e-tail war.
