So this past weekend I found out that I am allergic to wheat. Of all things that I could be allergic to, I get wheat. My daily diet consists of bread, pasta, and dessert, usually a cupcake of some sort. When I found out I was allergic to wheat, I literally could not eat one thing in my entire kitchen, except for Craisins, which don't make for a very substantial meal by themselves (trust me, I tried). Although this entire process has been a royal pain in my butt...well stomach actually...it has made me realize two things.
The first: There is a huge market, especially in Austin, that is allergic to wheat. More and more people are finding out that they are gluten or wheat sensitive, as Doctors like to call it. In addition, there are many people out there who would just prefer to not eat wheat, even though they aren't allergic. If this segment is growing and growing, what are they choosing to eat?
The second: There could be such a better selection of wheat-free food. I mean, come on. After one week of going wheat-free, I am already tired of eating quinoa, frozen bread, and other products I can't even begin to pronounce. If there's such a large market of people waiting for a good tasting pasta substitute, why aren't there any better options? Of course, there are a lot more products than I would have originally expected. Whole Foods and Central Market even have entire aisles devoted to gluten free foods. However, many of these products are the exact same and don't taste very good. This is upsetting to a 20 year old who now has to search up and down aisles with fingers crossed for something other than frozen bread.
Okay, so I'm being a tad overdramatic and this doesn't have much of anything to do with advertising...let me try and make this relevant! After seeing just a small portion of an untapped market, I can't imagine how many other portions of the population aren't being fairly served. Advertisers especially know how much clutter there is with products and advertisements flying everywhere, but billions of products don't mean anything if they aren't serving a target market.
Rant over!
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Social Media Battles
After hearing so much about social media and the multitude of online venues open to advertisers, it became apparent to me that I often lump all of them together. In my head, I don't really distinguish between Twitter and Facebook. And neither do many companies in my opinion. Almost every company that has an active Facebook account also has a Twitter account. From what I've noticed, this doesn't mean they even do both well! So what are the major differences between Twitter and Facebook and the consumers that use each?
Well for starters, "daily Twitter users who followed a brand were more than twice as likely as daily Facebook users who 'liked' a brand to say they were more likely to purchase from the brand after becoming a social media follower" (eMarketer). Interestingly enough, Twitter only shows small snippets of information at a time. Maybe this plays into the ADD of the average Twitter user. We can only pay attention to something for so long before we tire of it. Also, it's much easier for Twitter users to see all of the people they are following in one swoop. All the status updates are on one page and now, with the new Twitter interface, you don't even have to click on the next page to see more. Facebook users, on the other hand, must dig through thousands of posts, pictures, and statuses in order to see one they actually care about.
In addition, Twitter followers are generally more likely than Facebook fans to recommend a brand that they follow to their friends. This word of mouth action is exactly what marketers strive for. Women, especially, get most of their information from their friends so maybe this means companies that target women should focus on Twitter accounts over Facebook.
One disadvantage to solely working with Twitter, however, is their small customer base. "Just 3% of US internet users follow a brand through the microblogging service" (eMarketer). Generally the users on Twitter who follow brands are the influencers, rather than the average consumer. This could be an advantage or disadvantage. If this influencer really does know a lot of people and their opinion matters to their friends, you could be reaching a much higher audience on a more personal level than previously expected. However, if their friends don't trust or listen to their product advice, you could be putting all of your eggs in one basket so to speak. Although this small consumer base may limit your reach potential, Twitter seems to have a higher ability to "switch" users from their current brand to yours. On Facebook, many people "like" a brand that they already use. Therefore, there isn't much more a company can do to make them increase their spending habits or purchasing power. They already buy the brand. On Twitter, you can reach one person who already buys the brand and through them, reach 30 people who may not even know of its existence.
Social media has its advantages and disadvantages, like any other media venue. But companies need to be aware of each individual social media site and who it is catering to. Up until this point, I didn't differentiate between Twitter and Facebook when it came to advertising. However, after looking into it, the consumers that use each one are extremely different in their personalities and their needs. Brands should make sure they aren't just using social media to jump on the bandwagon, but that they are understanding how it could help their brand in the long run.
Well for starters, "daily Twitter users who followed a brand were more than twice as likely as daily Facebook users who 'liked' a brand to say they were more likely to purchase from the brand after becoming a social media follower" (eMarketer). Interestingly enough, Twitter only shows small snippets of information at a time. Maybe this plays into the ADD of the average Twitter user. We can only pay attention to something for so long before we tire of it. Also, it's much easier for Twitter users to see all of the people they are following in one swoop. All the status updates are on one page and now, with the new Twitter interface, you don't even have to click on the next page to see more. Facebook users, on the other hand, must dig through thousands of posts, pictures, and statuses in order to see one they actually care about.
In addition, Twitter followers are generally more likely than Facebook fans to recommend a brand that they follow to their friends. This word of mouth action is exactly what marketers strive for. Women, especially, get most of their information from their friends so maybe this means companies that target women should focus on Twitter accounts over Facebook.
One disadvantage to solely working with Twitter, however, is their small customer base. "Just 3% of US internet users follow a brand through the microblogging service" (eMarketer). Generally the users on Twitter who follow brands are the influencers, rather than the average consumer. This could be an advantage or disadvantage. If this influencer really does know a lot of people and their opinion matters to their friends, you could be reaching a much higher audience on a more personal level than previously expected. However, if their friends don't trust or listen to their product advice, you could be putting all of your eggs in one basket so to speak. Although this small consumer base may limit your reach potential, Twitter seems to have a higher ability to "switch" users from their current brand to yours. On Facebook, many people "like" a brand that they already use. Therefore, there isn't much more a company can do to make them increase their spending habits or purchasing power. They already buy the brand. On Twitter, you can reach one person who already buys the brand and through them, reach 30 people who may not even know of its existence.
Social media has its advantages and disadvantages, like any other media venue. But companies need to be aware of each individual social media site and who it is catering to. Up until this point, I didn't differentiate between Twitter and Facebook when it came to advertising. However, after looking into it, the consumers that use each one are extremely different in their personalities and their needs. Brands should make sure they aren't just using social media to jump on the bandwagon, but that they are understanding how it could help their brand in the long run.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
They did what???
This past weekend was the Austin City Limits music festival. Yes, of course I went all three days! As an advertising student, embarrassingly enough, it was hard not to notice the vast amount of advertising all around Zilker Park. There were some very creative and seemingly successful products featured, however.
In past years, Heineken has always been the sole sponsor of ACL, even though their brand didn't necessarily fit in with the image. This year was a bit different! Budweiser Lite was EVERYWHERE and multiple beer brands were sold in the "bar stations" located around the park. Though their brand doesn't exactly fit the ACL image either, they did something smart in their promotions. Rather than excluding all others beers to be sold at the park and run the risk of making customers mad, they sold multiple types of beer and gave away free koozies that had the Bud logo all over it. In this way, Bud was able to sell all the different brands but cover up competitors' logos with their own. This strategy mirrors exactly what Sheiner Bock did last year. Since Heineken had taken full sponsorship of ACL, they weren't allowed to sell their beer but that didn't stop them from passing out free koozies shaped like beer cans. This way, it looked as if everyone was drinking Sheiner when really they were all drinking Heineken.
I guess it doesn't pay to sponsor an event if your brand will just be covered up by those smarter than you?
In past years, Heineken has always been the sole sponsor of ACL, even though their brand didn't necessarily fit in with the image. This year was a bit different! Budweiser Lite was EVERYWHERE and multiple beer brands were sold in the "bar stations" located around the park. Though their brand doesn't exactly fit the ACL image either, they did something smart in their promotions. Rather than excluding all others beers to be sold at the park and run the risk of making customers mad, they sold multiple types of beer and gave away free koozies that had the Bud logo all over it. In this way, Bud was able to sell all the different brands but cover up competitors' logos with their own. This strategy mirrors exactly what Sheiner Bock did last year. Since Heineken had taken full sponsorship of ACL, they weren't allowed to sell their beer but that didn't stop them from passing out free koozies shaped like beer cans. This way, it looked as if everyone was drinking Sheiner when really they were all drinking Heineken.
I guess it doesn't pay to sponsor an event if your brand will just be covered up by those smarter than you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)