This course taught me a number of interesting lessons about marketing. The project specifically taught me a great deal about the importance of primary research. First of all, it opened my eyes to my own capacity for researching. I learned about a number of helpful resources like surveymonkey.com. Furthermore, I found that I’m not too young or inexperienced to find things out on my own. Nearly any statistics or general information can be found with enough searching and analysis. With that said, the project proved that I still need practice on my survey methodology. The group and I started off asking loads of questions about the backyard that we thought were relevant, but ended up with little insight. We soon learned that questions should be specific for the respondent to understand and specifically looking for preferences or behaviors on the part of the researcher.
MKT 372 taught me the importance of knowing the needs of your segment before creating a project. It makes sense to fill a need that exists already instead of creating something you like and trying to sell it to others. This idea reminds me of the utopian definition of business I first heard in Management 336: Working to make people’s lives better. (Certainly beats the pants off of: Exploiting the public’s naivety for my own personal gain). Therefore, by taking the extra measures to see what is lacking in the current marketplace, I feel better about what I am doing as a marketing student. The final project taught me a tough lesson about finding customer needs before making assumptions as we all met two or three times about creating the “child tracker safety watch.” It was really rough to turn back after so much effort and planning had already taken place. At times it felt like a waste and as if things would be much easier if we just fabricated an interview or two in order to support our product. But, I’m really glad we avoided the easy way out and learned a real lesson—even if it was the hard way.
Emotionally my experience varied throughout the semester. I initially thought “Great, another group project,” but was pretty interested once the task itself was unveiled. It was really helpful to have class time set aside for meeting for the initial phases of the project. I feel like this helped solidify us as a group and allowed all members to have a say. Oftentimes it’s difficult to schedule group meeting times and members may get left out or left behind. But since we all started with a common ground and had the opportunity to interact in class, things began smoothly. This was my first experience with an all-female project group and it went quite well. I felt like everyone listened and communicated effectively. There were rarely disagreements, and when they did arise we all seemed willing to bend a little. Although I dreaded working with a team at first, I now feel this was one of the most important dynamics of the course. The project itself is really enjoyable to work with as a team. At the same time I am curious how the results would be if assigned to individuals instead of groups. That may be something to look into for the future. However, ultimately I would not change it as this is one of the few business school projects I enjoyed sharing with others. Likewise I felt like Professor Walls brought a number of helpful insights to the table. He seems really up to date with the marketing field and in turn I feel more knowledgeable after hearing his experiences. I really appreciated the TEDtalks podcasts and current event articles. I plan to keep up with business and marketing news more now that I have seen how interesting and relevant it is. Furthermore I really appreciated the exposure to guest speakers with all types of marketing experience. Professor Walls seems perfect for the course subject and I would definitely recommend this class to a friend.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Art of Marketing vs The Marketing of Art
The Art Market
Introduction: The Paradox of Selling Artwork
Expressing Oneself
Pleasing the Customers
Plattner’s High Art Down Home
Who decides an artist’s worth?
The Artist
The Customer
Characterizing American Artists
Norman Rockwell
Jackson Pollock
Andy Warhol
Common Denominators
Training
Exhibits
Fame
Customer Insights
Wypijewski’s Painting by Numbers
Market Research
“Cumulative Advantage” article by Duncan J. Watts
The Art Market Today
Popular New Artists
Popular New Artwork
Gallery Atmosphere/Showcase Methodology
Conclusion: My Plan
Becoming an Artist
Using Marketing Skills
Introduction: The Paradox of Selling Artwork
Expressing Oneself
Pleasing the Customers
Plattner’s High Art Down Home
Who decides an artist’s worth?
The Artist
The Customer
Characterizing American Artists
Norman Rockwell
Jackson Pollock
Andy Warhol
Common Denominators
Training
Exhibits
Fame
Customer Insights
Wypijewski’s Painting by Numbers
Market Research
“Cumulative Advantage” article by Duncan J. Watts
The Art Market Today
Popular New Artists
Popular New Artwork
Gallery Atmosphere/Showcase Methodology
Conclusion: My Plan
Becoming an Artist
Using Marketing Skills
Monday, November 12, 2007
The Reptilian Hot Button
Dr. Rapaille is a little different. This “expert” in creativity and archetype discoveries has his own way of collecting and interpreting data from consumers. As featured in The Persuaders, Chief Officers (and every type of corporate executive) are interested in what this man has to say. They’re so interested in fact, that they are willing to pay big bucks, even millions of dollars, for his quirky yet confident advice.
Dr. Clotaire Rapaille is author to several well known books including “Seven Secrets of Marketing in a Multi-Cultural World” and most recently “The Culture Code.” He is also kept on retainer by fifty Fortune 100 companies according to randomhouse.com. But what makes this guy so special? His personalized research technique, referred to as finding the “Reptilian Hot Button” seeks the basic needs and desires of consumers on a cognitive level. Needless to say, this information cannot be uncovered by typical surveys or focus groups. No, in order to find the inner-child Dr. Rapaille subjects his respondents to a more primal investigation.
A typical study, as shown on the film, consists of several steps of information gathering. First, the environment is much like any other focus group, with participants sitting in chairs around the room shouting out answers to Rapaille’s questions in a pop-corn style fashion. The interviewer will begin by showing one word on a white-board, in this case “luxury,” and ask respondents to define it. This phase is not given much consideration as cliché answers are often given because of a common exposure to the media.
Rapaille has the respondents take a break before they begin phase two. This section of the research involves confusing participants so they are unable to understand what the researcher is looking for. This allows them to give more honest answers with less influence from external forces. In the video example, Dr. Rapaille asks them to act as if they were telling a story to an alien child.
Finally, after break two, the participants re-enter the room to find all of the chairs missing. They are forced to think from their reptilian instincts as they sit or lay on the floor in the dark. Upon relighting the room, participants journal their thoughts as Dr. Rapaille recreates the open mind of the early morning when one first awakens. Here, the “Reptilian Hot Buttons” are exposed and marketers may find the most insight.
I found the results of Dr. Rapaille’s study somewhat ambiguous. I felt like someone with no expertise of research experience could make some of the same conclusions but be given little attention. The real genius behind Rapaille’s work is his ability to sell it at premium rates! Without his experience, attitude and corporate popularity he would not be able to get away with such vague insights. Where is the real science behind his discoveries?
As a marketer, one might be in trouble taking his advice for staple goods. He seems more like a fashion designer or philosopher whose audacity could be mistaken for being profound. Although P&G seems to love him, I feel like he may serve more as a muse to the marketing directors than a concrete source of information. Simply by saying “In America cheese is dead,” the company on the film credited Rapaille with the success of their product sales. I feel like some of his statements are obvious and/or generalized and people are “remembering the hits and forgetting the misses” when it comes to the return on their investment.
If I were Dr. Rapaille I would look out for Michael Shermer.
Dr. Clotaire Rapaille is author to several well known books including “Seven Secrets of Marketing in a Multi-Cultural World” and most recently “The Culture Code.” He is also kept on retainer by fifty Fortune 100 companies according to randomhouse.com. But what makes this guy so special? His personalized research technique, referred to as finding the “Reptilian Hot Button” seeks the basic needs and desires of consumers on a cognitive level. Needless to say, this information cannot be uncovered by typical surveys or focus groups. No, in order to find the inner-child Dr. Rapaille subjects his respondents to a more primal investigation.
A typical study, as shown on the film, consists of several steps of information gathering. First, the environment is much like any other focus group, with participants sitting in chairs around the room shouting out answers to Rapaille’s questions in a pop-corn style fashion. The interviewer will begin by showing one word on a white-board, in this case “luxury,” and ask respondents to define it. This phase is not given much consideration as cliché answers are often given because of a common exposure to the media.
Rapaille has the respondents take a break before they begin phase two. This section of the research involves confusing participants so they are unable to understand what the researcher is looking for. This allows them to give more honest answers with less influence from external forces. In the video example, Dr. Rapaille asks them to act as if they were telling a story to an alien child.
Finally, after break two, the participants re-enter the room to find all of the chairs missing. They are forced to think from their reptilian instincts as they sit or lay on the floor in the dark. Upon relighting the room, participants journal their thoughts as Dr. Rapaille recreates the open mind of the early morning when one first awakens. Here, the “Reptilian Hot Buttons” are exposed and marketers may find the most insight.
I found the results of Dr. Rapaille’s study somewhat ambiguous. I felt like someone with no expertise of research experience could make some of the same conclusions but be given little attention. The real genius behind Rapaille’s work is his ability to sell it at premium rates! Without his experience, attitude and corporate popularity he would not be able to get away with such vague insights. Where is the real science behind his discoveries?
As a marketer, one might be in trouble taking his advice for staple goods. He seems more like a fashion designer or philosopher whose audacity could be mistaken for being profound. Although P&G seems to love him, I feel like he may serve more as a muse to the marketing directors than a concrete source of information. Simply by saying “In America cheese is dead,” the company on the film credited Rapaille with the success of their product sales. I feel like some of his statements are obvious and/or generalized and people are “remembering the hits and forgetting the misses” when it comes to the return on their investment.
If I were Dr. Rapaille I would look out for Michael Shermer.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Michael Shermer is Skeptical
After blogging about how we as consumers are more apt to complain about negative experiences than brag about positive ones, Michael Shermer tells us the opposite. But he isn’t really referring to the retail environment; he’s talks about how astrologists and psychologists make their livings: by people remembering the hits and forgetting the misses. If only Time Warner Cable was so lucky…
Michael Shermer is head of the “Skeptic’s Society” and publisher of “Skeptic Magazine.” In his episode of TED Talks he dissects the reasons people have for believing peculiar things. His work is largely a study in science, proving and disproving all of the crazy claims and inventions in our world today.
His group is like the “Ralph Nader of bad ideas,” Shermer claims while showcasing a marijuana-seeking antenna that works 50% of the time. “We need to keep track of the misses along with the hits” in order to prove something scientifically rather than relying on chance.
The real problem is matching data to support one’s theory as Galileo found out while observing Saturn for the first time. Theories are full of cognitive bias. Without data to back them up, they are little more than a stepping stone to real answers.
It seems that areas with incomplete information or “grainy details” are often twisted and given meaning through the power of suggestion. The tendency of the cognitive mind to find faces and look for patterns is evidence of this. Furthermore, from a marketing perspective, Shermer’s theories say a lot about the power of persuasion. He basically suggests that people are seeking to be persuaded. It is easier for us to attach meaning to things we do not fully understand rather than admit that matters are beyond our comprehensive capacity.
I found it particularly interesting that the “face of the Virgin Mary” appeared on a grilled cheese sandwich. First of all, why would any religious icon choose to reveal herself on a food product? Secondly, if this was truly a sign, why didn’t any religious authorities make a claim on it? It’s pretty amazing that despite the public’s general agreement that this object was not supernatural in any way, someone managed to make $28,500 on eBay.
I guess that is the power of marketing.
Consumer Power (blog 6)
There are several strong opinions floating around about various retailers and service providers. Legendary stories about Nordstrom’s (like the one about replacing a man’s flat tires because he was a valued customer and complained to them) make it stand out in the minds of many consumers. On the other end of the spectrum, there are horror stories about waiting on the phone for two hours to report one’s cable being out to Time Warner and still receiving no help. But which type of stories do we hear the most?
It has been said that one negative experience can be multiplied by 10 because that’s how many friends the unhappy customer shares their story with. On the other hand, a positive experience may be multiplied only once or twice. Is there something in the human psyche that makes us more apt to complain than be thankful? Or is it just easier to recall bad experiences because they tend to be more traumatic? Perhaps the service level across all consumer industries has increased so much that we expect more today.
Let’s go back to Wal-Mart. When brought up in marketing classes today, Wal-Mart is noted as a powerhouse. Many attributes like power over suppliers, efficient inventory technology and sheer mass come up when discussing the super-store. However, people no longer associate Wal-Mart with great customer service. Almost anyone I ask seems to appreciate the customer service at places like Target over Wal-Mart. But what about the little old man in the blue vest? The guy with 32 pieces of fleer, ready to hand you a shopping cart? This friendly Wal-Mart trademark seems to get overlooked for low prices and monstrous selection.
Target may not have a greeter, but they do have personnel throughout the store to answer your questions and actually walk you where you’re trying to get. Target has established itself as a higher quality retailer, with higher pricing points and better quality goods than Wal-Mart. This may be part of the reason people associate it with better service. Ultimately from a PR perspective, it is often worth the extra wages paid to store clerks to ensure your brand does not become the next retail horror story.
It has been said that one negative experience can be multiplied by 10 because that’s how many friends the unhappy customer shares their story with. On the other hand, a positive experience may be multiplied only once or twice. Is there something in the human psyche that makes us more apt to complain than be thankful? Or is it just easier to recall bad experiences because they tend to be more traumatic? Perhaps the service level across all consumer industries has increased so much that we expect more today.
Let’s go back to Wal-Mart. When brought up in marketing classes today, Wal-Mart is noted as a powerhouse. Many attributes like power over suppliers, efficient inventory technology and sheer mass come up when discussing the super-store. However, people no longer associate Wal-Mart with great customer service. Almost anyone I ask seems to appreciate the customer service at places like Target over Wal-Mart. But what about the little old man in the blue vest? The guy with 32 pieces of fleer, ready to hand you a shopping cart? This friendly Wal-Mart trademark seems to get overlooked for low prices and monstrous selection.
Target may not have a greeter, but they do have personnel throughout the store to answer your questions and actually walk you where you’re trying to get. Target has established itself as a higher quality retailer, with higher pricing points and better quality goods than Wal-Mart. This may be part of the reason people associate it with better service. Ultimately from a PR perspective, it is often worth the extra wages paid to store clerks to ensure your brand does not become the next retail horror story.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
The "New Family" Market
Free topic does not equal free blog points. Despite my initial reaction to this assignment, I had a hard time choosing what to blog about. However, with my group project in mind, I decided to delve deeper into the psyche of the “new family” market segment.
Some traits that set this segment apart from others are their buying habits and powerful influence. Because they are inexperienced at providing for other family members, new parents tend to spend more money on impulse purchases. They are especially cautious when it comes to their children.
As a result, new parents are less price sensitive when it comes to “name brands” for staple goods such as diapers or baby food. Mom and Dad are influential because their children are learning right and wrong for the first time between the ages of 2 and 5. Kids are likely to imitate their parents in many ways, from the way they communicate to the way they shop. Ultimately, when an advertiser convinces a young parent to buy his brand, he is getting a 2-for-1 deal. College students (making purchase decisions for the first time) are more likely to buy the same brand their parents bought for products such as toothpaste, laundry detergent, and shampoo.
I am currently studying a number of theories about group behavior in a class called “Advanced Issues in a Multicultural Society.” In dissecting the traits of the young family segment, I found several of these theories applicable.
For instance, with the previously mentioned 2-for-1 concept in mind, advertisers have had great success employing rationale from the Distinctiveness Theory. The theory states that members of a particular group look for traits that make them distinct from other groups. When some type of media, say an ad in a popular magazine, touches on one of these distinct traits it appeals more to members of the group. Mothers in particular have been targeted lately with maternal products discreetly placed in tabloids and fashion magazines.
The Polarized Appraisal Theory is also prevalent among members of the young family segment. This theory states that members of a particular group are more critical of their own members than of those outside their group. New parents are often overprotective of their children (after taking classes and reading books on health and safety) and may look down on parents with dissimilar practices. For instance, a mother who is careful to coat her child with sunscreen before he is allowed to go swimming is likely to be critical of the mother beside her who disregards this precaution. She may confront the other mom or at least explain her disapproval to other group members like her husband or neighbors. Together they take pride in their safety awareness and sacrificing for their children. This sort of in-group satisfaction is characteristic of both the Categorization and Identification Theories which state that members of a group are united by things they have in common.
Some traits that set this segment apart from others are their buying habits and powerful influence. Because they are inexperienced at providing for other family members, new parents tend to spend more money on impulse purchases. They are especially cautious when it comes to their children.
As a result, new parents are less price sensitive when it comes to “name brands” for staple goods such as diapers or baby food. Mom and Dad are influential because their children are learning right and wrong for the first time between the ages of 2 and 5. Kids are likely to imitate their parents in many ways, from the way they communicate to the way they shop. Ultimately, when an advertiser convinces a young parent to buy his brand, he is getting a 2-for-1 deal. College students (making purchase decisions for the first time) are more likely to buy the same brand their parents bought for products such as toothpaste, laundry detergent, and shampoo.
I am currently studying a number of theories about group behavior in a class called “Advanced Issues in a Multicultural Society.” In dissecting the traits of the young family segment, I found several of these theories applicable.
For instance, with the previously mentioned 2-for-1 concept in mind, advertisers have had great success employing rationale from the Distinctiveness Theory. The theory states that members of a particular group look for traits that make them distinct from other groups. When some type of media, say an ad in a popular magazine, touches on one of these distinct traits it appeals more to members of the group. Mothers in particular have been targeted lately with maternal products discreetly placed in tabloids and fashion magazines.
The Polarized Appraisal Theory is also prevalent among members of the young family segment. This theory states that members of a particular group are more critical of their own members than of those outside their group. New parents are often overprotective of their children (after taking classes and reading books on health and safety) and may look down on parents with dissimilar practices. For instance, a mother who is careful to coat her child with sunscreen before he is allowed to go swimming is likely to be critical of the mother beside her who disregards this precaution. She may confront the other mom or at least explain her disapproval to other group members like her husband or neighbors. Together they take pride in their safety awareness and sacrificing for their children. This sort of in-group satisfaction is characteristic of both the Categorization and Identification Theories which state that members of a group are united by things they have in common.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Art to Market
Whenever I’m asked what my dream job would be, the first thing that comes to mind is an artist. Aside from the fact that I love to draw and create, there are several perks to this career. The way I envision it, artists get to do whatever they want. I would set my own hours, travel frequently, and get paid immensely. “Project Research” could consist of a lavish trip to Italy or sailing across the Atlantic. I could “look for inspiration” anywhere I choose and make money in the process. Of course the trick to all of this is being able to sell ones work at ridiculous prices. For this reason I will research the science of selling artwork. I will attempt to gain insight into the minds of both customers and dealers so I may discover what affects pricing and how to give value to my own creations.
There are few businesses in which a manufacturer can sell their goods with no correlation or even consideration for expense. However, what cost one artist $30 to paint could sell for $30,000. Inversely, another artist may spend thousands of dollars creating a “masterpiece” and find himself unable to sell it. So who decides what is “art” and what isn’t? I’ve been to museums that feature Crayola scribbles on canvas and wondered, “What makes them better than me?” Does it come down to explaining the significance of each brushstroke? Does one need to establish a reputation first? Did I need to get some kind of formal training to do this right? My list of questions goes on and on.
In hope of finding some answers I looked to the web. My Google Scholar search turned up several helpful articles that plan on referring to in my final paper. However, the most important piece I found was a book titled High Art Down Home: An Economic Ethnography of a Local Art Market, by Stuart Plattner. This anthropological study seemed to fit my situation perfectly.
The author grew up wanting to be an artist, with talent and support from everyone around him. He even took his interest a step further, going to art school and finding a job in commercial art. However, he found his passion was cheapened when it was directed and sold. Plattner went on to study anthropology and ultimately used this perspective to study artists in his local community. The book investigates the paradox of putting a price-tag on art and the resulting conflicts of artists on psychological and economic levels.
Rough Citation:
Plattner, Stuart. High Art Down Home: An Economic Ethnography of a Local Art Market.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sI-AXDAtsCIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=selling+artwork&ots=GQwH9_Ab1U&sig=L1qnX6mP76yaVtnPeOF9GjpVq60
There are few businesses in which a manufacturer can sell their goods with no correlation or even consideration for expense. However, what cost one artist $30 to paint could sell for $30,000. Inversely, another artist may spend thousands of dollars creating a “masterpiece” and find himself unable to sell it. So who decides what is “art” and what isn’t? I’ve been to museums that feature Crayola scribbles on canvas and wondered, “What makes them better than me?” Does it come down to explaining the significance of each brushstroke? Does one need to establish a reputation first? Did I need to get some kind of formal training to do this right? My list of questions goes on and on.
In hope of finding some answers I looked to the web. My Google Scholar search turned up several helpful articles that plan on referring to in my final paper. However, the most important piece I found was a book titled High Art Down Home: An Economic Ethnography of a Local Art Market, by Stuart Plattner. This anthropological study seemed to fit my situation perfectly.
The author grew up wanting to be an artist, with talent and support from everyone around him. He even took his interest a step further, going to art school and finding a job in commercial art. However, he found his passion was cheapened when it was directed and sold. Plattner went on to study anthropology and ultimately used this perspective to study artists in his local community. The book investigates the paradox of putting a price-tag on art and the resulting conflicts of artists on psychological and economic levels.
Rough Citation:
Plattner, Stuart. High Art Down Home: An Economic Ethnography of a Local Art Market.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sI-AXDAtsCIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=selling+artwork&ots=GQwH9_Ab1U&sig=L1qnX6mP76yaVtnPeOF9GjpVq60
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Maximizing Freedom
Nowadays customers want choices. Even fast food menus like Wendy’s have grown to include other options to go with your meal. The phrase is no longer, “Do you want fried with that?” but rather, “Do you want fries, a salad, mandarin oranges, baked potato, or chili with that?” Here in America we value these options because we perceive them as a means to more freedom. Psychologist Barry Schwartz dissects the impact of excessive choices on the consumer to determine if the benefits outweigh the costs in his speech on “The Paradox of Choice.”
Schwartz breaks down the negative effects of too many choices into two main categories: consumer paralysis and decision regret. Paralysis, he explains, comes from being overwhelmed with options to the point of putting our decision off for the future. I have definitely felt this effect as a Business Student at McCombs. There is often so many opportunities to practice for interviews, attend company info sessions, learn how to fix my resume, etcetera that I would need to so major scheduling before I could fit it all in. Of course 99% of the time I don’t. So here I am, paralyzed.
The second negative effect of too many choices is after-purchase regret, or cognitive dissonance. Who hasn’t felt this? It may be the fact that I’m still in school and pretty poor for the moment, but I think about my purchases way too much after the fact. Even after arriving back home from the grocery store I can’t help but wonder, “Should I have got this kind of lunch meat? What if no one eats it and it goes bad?” Pretty lame, I realize, but true.
Consumer decisions are effected by this “freedom” phenomenon every day. As Schwartz mentions in his lecture, we can’t even buy jeans without having to choose between at least 6 different styles.
There is a delicate line when it comes to freedom. It may seem ideal to always have our choice yet we need some structure to truly be free.
Schwartz breaks down the negative effects of too many choices into two main categories: consumer paralysis and decision regret. Paralysis, he explains, comes from being overwhelmed with options to the point of putting our decision off for the future. I have definitely felt this effect as a Business Student at McCombs. There is often so many opportunities to practice for interviews, attend company info sessions, learn how to fix my resume, etcetera that I would need to so major scheduling before I could fit it all in. Of course 99% of the time I don’t. So here I am, paralyzed.
The second negative effect of too many choices is after-purchase regret, or cognitive dissonance. Who hasn’t felt this? It may be the fact that I’m still in school and pretty poor for the moment, but I think about my purchases way too much after the fact. Even after arriving back home from the grocery store I can’t help but wonder, “Should I have got this kind of lunch meat? What if no one eats it and it goes bad?” Pretty lame, I realize, but true.
Consumer decisions are effected by this “freedom” phenomenon every day. As Schwartz mentions in his lecture, we can’t even buy jeans without having to choose between at least 6 different styles.
There is a delicate line when it comes to freedom. It may seem ideal to always have our choice yet we need some structure to truly be free.
Monday, September 10, 2007
7-Eleven's Transformation Helps I.T. Fit In
While reading about 7-Eleven and their new plan for sophistication, one cannot help but be reminded of the early nineties movie “Demolition Man.” The plot of this action packed, ridiculous film starring Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes is quite forgettable, yet one anecdote managed to find itself at the front of my mind. As I read about 7-Eleven’s intent to tone down their color scheme and adjust their product line to wine and fresh cut flowers, I could not help but recall the movie scene in which Stallone takes Sandra Bullock out to a five star, white table cloth dinner… at Taco Bell. While laughable at the time (even for a futuristic action film) this scenario seems to slowly be playing out as companies like 7-Eleven, Wal-Mart and even McDonald’s are revamping their images.
7-Eleven CEO Jim Keyes is restructuring his American convenient stores to be more like those found in Japan. By providing better technology programs, store managers are ultimately equipped to make better purchasing decisions for their specific market. Overseas 7-Eleven is hip and trendy, appealing to a broad range of market segments. However, past success has led American strategy-committee members to remain set in their ways. They still perceive the target market to be primarily “blue-collar, truck driving men.” The statistics prove otherwise.
Due to the ever-changing American market and lack of cigarette and gasoline sales, Keyes successfully implemented his “tech-transformation” and continues to target new customers. Focal lifestyle segments include “businessmen, urbanites and especially women.” This helps explain why the new 7-Eleven sounds more like Starbucks than a convenient store.
Apparently everyone wants to be more like Starbucks these days, as even McDonald’s is vying for the sophisticated yuppie crowd. They have designed new coffee cups with warmer, earthy tones and without traditional red and yellow. Even their commercials are directed away from children and mothers and towards the younger, health-conscious crowd. I take the Capital Metro bus to school every day and notice a McDonald’s ad on the side of each. Does it feature a burger and fries? Of course not! Instead there sits a simple graphic of iced coffee with a short sans serif bit of copy.
With our major retailers, food vendors and service providers all following the same trend, one cannot help but wonder what the future may hold. Will the American market become one great big toned down, health conscious, jazz loving coffee shop? Of course Adam Smith says no. A new method will surely find success before every corporation exhausts the Starbucks model.
Although it may be impossible to predict future trends for the retail or service industries, we can analyze the underlying factors of success today. For instance, technology has been one key element which each of the aforementioned companies can credit their success to. Without the “tech-transformation” 7-Eleven would not have control over suppliers (nearly Wal-Mart-esque) like it does today. This technology has also helped with another underlying factor of success: knowing your market. With data collection capabilities, managers are able to spot trends and make accurate stocking predictions based on their target segments.
7-Eleven CEO Jim Keyes is restructuring his American convenient stores to be more like those found in Japan. By providing better technology programs, store managers are ultimately equipped to make better purchasing decisions for their specific market. Overseas 7-Eleven is hip and trendy, appealing to a broad range of market segments. However, past success has led American strategy-committee members to remain set in their ways. They still perceive the target market to be primarily “blue-collar, truck driving men.” The statistics prove otherwise.
Due to the ever-changing American market and lack of cigarette and gasoline sales, Keyes successfully implemented his “tech-transformation” and continues to target new customers. Focal lifestyle segments include “businessmen, urbanites and especially women.” This helps explain why the new 7-Eleven sounds more like Starbucks than a convenient store.
Apparently everyone wants to be more like Starbucks these days, as even McDonald’s is vying for the sophisticated yuppie crowd. They have designed new coffee cups with warmer, earthy tones and without traditional red and yellow. Even their commercials are directed away from children and mothers and towards the younger, health-conscious crowd. I take the Capital Metro bus to school every day and notice a McDonald’s ad on the side of each. Does it feature a burger and fries? Of course not! Instead there sits a simple graphic of iced coffee with a short sans serif bit of copy.
With our major retailers, food vendors and service providers all following the same trend, one cannot help but wonder what the future may hold. Will the American market become one great big toned down, health conscious, jazz loving coffee shop? Of course Adam Smith says no. A new method will surely find success before every corporation exhausts the Starbucks model.
Although it may be impossible to predict future trends for the retail or service industries, we can analyze the underlying factors of success today. For instance, technology has been one key element which each of the aforementioned companies can credit their success to. Without the “tech-transformation” 7-Eleven would not have control over suppliers (nearly Wal-Mart-esque) like it does today. This technology has also helped with another underlying factor of success: knowing your market. With data collection capabilities, managers are able to spot trends and make accurate stocking predictions based on their target segments.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)