Posts Tagged 'advertising'

Crux Research is Going to the Ogilvy’s!

Crux Research is excited to announce that our client, Truth Initiative, is a finalist for two David Ogilvy Awards. These awards are presented by the Advertising Research Foundation (ARF) annually to recognize excellence in advertising research. Ogilvy Awards honor the creative use of research in the advertising development process by research firms, advertising agencies and advertisers.

Truth Initiative is a longstanding client of Crux Research. Truth Initiative is America’s largest non-profit public health organization dedicated to making tobacco use a thing of the past. Truth is a finalist in two Ogilvy categories:

For both of these campaigns, Crux Research worked closely with CommSight and Truth Initiative to test the effectiveness of the approaches and executions prior to launch and to track the efficacy of the campaigns once in market.

We are honored and proud to be a part of these campaigns, to have had the opportunity to work with Truth Initiative and CommSight, and most importantly, to have played a supporting role in Truth’s mission to make youth smoking a thing of the past.

The 2016 ARF David Ogilvy Awards Ceremony will be held March 15 in New York.  More information can be found Ogilvy Awards.

How the truth campaign plans to end youth smoking once and for all

Excellent article on a great client!

http://www.fastcocreate.com/3049629/behind-the-brand/how-the-truth-campaign-plans-to-end-youth-smoking-once-and-for-all

The Evolution of Youth Marketing

Youth marketing is sometimes described as an “industry.” It has its own consultants, specialized agencies, and researchers. In my own lifetime I’ve seen marketing to kids move from something to be feared to something that is expected.

It can be somewhat disturbing to attend youth marketing conferences and hear militaristic terms used to describe children. Youth have become “targets,” a segment to be “captured,” and a demographic to be “penetrated.” I’ll never forget being at a youth conference where a presenter came dressed in full camouflaged military regalia and carried a fake shotgun. His theme was that if you want to capture the youth market, it is necessary to “hunt” them in their native habitat. More disturbing than the talk was the 200 or so youth marketers in the audience that didn’t seem disturbed by his characterization of children.

It is interesting to think about how we have gotten to this point as marketers. Viewing youth marketing through a historical and generational lens can yield some insight. So, let’s travel in time together and look at the evolution of youth marketing.

If we go way back, to when the Silent Generation (born 1925–1942) were children, we see that these were the offspring of some very difficult times. They were children of the Depression and war years, and were characterized as desiring conformity and security. At this time the marketing world itself was just getting established, and marketers were struggling to promote their wares at a time of economic uncertainty and war rationing. There was no “mass” way to reach consumers, as movies/news reels, local newspapers, and magazines were the key media of the day. Youth marketing at this time simply didn’t exist. Marketers were treading careful waters with adults.

The Boomer Generation (born 1943–1960) brought forth a huge increase in the number of children in the US, as well as America’s prominence in the world economy. These were Dr. Spock babies – raised by permissive parents, who became quite rebellious and self-centered later. This marked the advent of the TV age, and with limited channels and programming, marketers could reach a mass of consumers at the same time. For youth marketers, we typically call this the “children are to be seen and not heard” era. This time period witnessed the birth of the brand management system. Many marketing techniques in use today were created and refined at this time. But, there was such unfettered growth in adult markets that children were largely an afterthought for marketers.

This changed as Xers (birth years 1961–1981) came of age. Xers were born at tough time to be a kid. Divorce rates skyrocketed, parents focused on their own achievements, and the term “latch-key child” took hold.  Xers have been fiercely independent ever since, as they had to learn to do many things on their own. Just as marketers had a new way to reach kids directly (Saturday morning TV, and later kid cable channels), many brands began to mature, and marketers started hunting for growth.  One place they found was children. But, at this time, we remained in a parent-centric world, so marketing to children was really done by proxy – by marketing to Mom. Marketers discovered the youth market at this time, but addressed this market largely via their mothers.

Then came the Millennials (birth years 1982–2004). This is a sizeable generation (the Echo Boom) that has been watched and studied since they were born. They are characterized by over-protective parents, being reared largely in boom economic times, and as being risk-averse, team oriented, and in constant need of affirmation. Far from the “children are to be seen and not heard” era, this period marked a transition where youth became a central focus of society. Digital media came on the scene, allowing more targeted marketing approaches. So, how did marketers address them? Marketers quickly saw opportunity in youth markets and started applying sophisticated marketing techniques to them. For most of this era, marketers made what we consider to be a monumental mistake:  they concentrated on youth largely to the exclusion of parents. There was a sense among marketers at this time that if you try to market to both parents and kids at the same time you will fail at both. Marketers (who often hailed from Gen X themselves) often felt children were as independent as they were, and despite the sophisticated tools at their disposal, had a difficult time understanding the partnerships that were developing between children and their parents.

Which brings us to today’s kid generation, the Homeland Generation (birth years 2005 onward). These are kids growing up not just in an era of protectiveness via their parents, but also via society and the government. Political leaders often couch their policies in how well they will keep our children safe. Our culture is concerned that our children truly might not be better off than we were. Homelanders are also very much a “home centered” generation, as they don’t need to leave home (because of technology) to be entertained or to socialize, and they don’t wander much towards unstructured activities.  So, what are marketers learning now?  Largely, they are learning that youth marketing isn’t a matter of applying previous techniques to kids. Decision making processes are much more complex. For instance, think about the decision to buy a new video gaming system for the household.  Who makes that decision?  Mom?  Dad?  The Child?  Who pays for it? Who makes the actual transaction?  Who uses it once it is bought?

The decision process isn’t so clear cut because what you are really marketing to these days is a collaborative decision making unit and not an individual.  There is a marketing firm in our industry who says that youth marketers need to realize that their consumer has two heads, four arms, and four legs. We have seen many marketers who desperately want to be “kid-centric” stumble because they don’t truly understand the role of parents and just how collaborative households have become.

Historians typically resist writing about anything that has happened in the past 20 years because it is truly hard to understand larger trends without the benefit of a long-term perspective. The same is true about youth marketing today. Someday we’ll be able to look back and document what happened, but for now our best path is to look to broader, generational trends, and realize there is something happening here and we don’t know what it is.

Marketing in Schools – A Necessary Evil?

kidsforsale

The youth marketing industry’s practices are coming under increased scrutiny by the media, academics, and government. Issues such as increased commercialism directed towards children, online privacy, marketing in schools, the content of children’s media and advertising, and childhood obesity have become part of a national discourse.

This post is going to stress the topic of marketing in schools.

There has been a lot of information and misinformation placed into the public debate regarding commercialism in schools. At Crux, we feel we are in a unique position to comment. We have worked with and for school districts for many years and have close relationships with many school administrators. At the same time, we work with some of the most respected brands in youth marketing. So, the topic of marketing in schools is one we contend with often.

Commercial presence in schools is not something new. Local corporations have a genuine interest in the quality of their school districts. Not only are companies significant taxpayers that want to be sure their taxes are being spent wisely, but the quality of the workforce they can attract, local housing values, and quality of life for their employees depends greatly on the schools.

In terms of brands in schools, there has been marketing in schools for a long time, but it has really been the last 20 years or so that commercial interests really started to see schools as an untapped resource. I don’t think too many people would deny that the level of marketing activity in schools has been on the rise. You can notice this in your own travels in schools. You just “see” brands in school environments much more than you used to.

I thought I would share some of my own anecdotal conversations I’ve had with school Superintendents.

First, when I myself first starting “selling” our research to school leaders, I learned right away that the “pitch” had to be couched in a certain way. I had to show them how the research would lead to greater staff productivity or greater parental involvement in the schools. And, it was the moment that I had information that showed that our studies directly lead to greater student achievement that our services got easy to promote.

Which leads me to an important point: the motivations of school leaders are very pure – in a way you don’t see often in the corporate world. They are all about the kids. If you have a program and want to win over a school administrator’s heart, show them how it benefits the kids. Financial issues are very real to them – but are not what makes them tick.

Second, if you think you have pressures in your job, consider theirs. I’ve been to dozens of school board meetings. These are people that are at the center of many controversies. They are negotiating with the union. A parent has a concern. They have a crazy school board member to appease. The governor has given them some more unfunded mandates. They are adapting to new Common Core Standards. In short, they have a lot of battles to fight. Don’t assume that yours is going to make their priority list. So I learned that early on – if you are doing something that creates controversy, they will shy away.

Budgeting and school law are a big part of their job. But, it is also a part of their job they hate.

Finally, and probably the salient point for those who want to market their brands in schools, is when you speak to Superintendents about marketing in schools, the ONLY thing they will play back are the financial benefits. I have never met a school official that thought allowing marketers into schools is a good idea. But I have met plenty that feel it is a better option than making further cuts to the school music program.

And that is a perception that needs to change.

So, why do we see corporate involvement in schools? First and foremost, school budget issues are very real and acute. But, there is also a sense that society has become so commercial with advertising clutter everywhere, that allowing it into schools isn’t such a big deal.

And, the youth market is seen as a growth area – more and more marketers are developing plans for the youth demographic. The youth market has become increasingly lucrative. At the same time, schools have become relatively poor and more focused on their finances.

This makes a point that I think many people in the corporate world don’t realize. Typically, somewhere between 80% and 90% of the annual school budget is not under the discretion of school leaders. Between the union contract and state mandates, there really is little discretionary spending. The budget situation became dire in the recent recession and has yet to pick up.

So, what we see are schools taking some desperate measures to stay afloat fiscally. Some of these measures would be quite comical if they weren’t true. We have found cases where schools have hired marketing firms to sell naming rights to their buildings and facilities, have held fundraising telethons, etc.  We have even found a case where parents held a blood plasma drive in order to make enough money to save a teacher’s job.

Now certainly all schools aren’t this desperate, but they are certainly not flush with cash either.

So, let’s think about it a little more rationally. Why would educators want corporate involvement in schools?

Certainly, financial considerations are important. But there is also a big trend towards narrowing the curriculum to core subjects. Schools are being held accountable for test scores in math and reading.  So their resources are flowing to core subjects. This is putting non-core subjects (music, languages, arts) all at greater risk.

And, since the economy hasn’t been great recently, taxpayers have not been supporting tax increases like they once would.

At the same time, corporations want to be in schools like never before. Young people spend about a fifth of their lives in schools, and schools are about the most uncluttered advertising environment available.  Also, to some extent the medium is the message – an advertising message delivered in schools carries an implied endorsement.

Finally, traditional advertising venues are not working – at least not as well as they used to. Media has fragmented and the way young people use media has fundamentally changed. It is a bit of a mess.

So, companies do a variety of things. They place ads in the schools, on buses, on scoreboards, and on book covers. They distribute product samples in schools and place yearbook ads. They work with textbook publishers to get their products mentioned in books. They sponsor programs like the High School Heisman, Odyssey of the Mind, National Science Bowl, and National Spelling Bee.

And, in what might have been the straw that broke the camel’s back, they establish vending machine contracts and pouring rights for soft drink companies. This created such controversy that sugary drinks have been disappearing rapidly from school hallways.

It is easy for the youth marketing industry to look like a villain, but there are some strong arguments that can be made in support of advertising in schools:

  • Companies provide materials and financial support that would not be available otherwise.
  • Commercial materials present an opportunity for teachers to discuss media literacy in their lessons.
  • Teachers are capable of evaluating materials for commercial bias and using materials appropriately.
  • Businesses have unique information and resources that improve education – often better resources on some topics than educator’s have.
  • Problems with marketing in schools have been exaggerated. Commercialism is everywhere today and our kids can handle it, perhaps better than adults.

Of course, there are strong arguments against having a commercial presence in schools:

  • We are ceding control of education to people outside of education, and education is supposed to be locally controlled. Education isn’t and shouldn’t be a business.
  • School marketing efforts can compromise the integrity of education.
  • Ads in schools imply an endorsement from the school, which isn’t accurate.
  • There is a blurring of the line between education and advertising and kids don’t understand the difference, particularly younger kids.
  • Teachers are not appropriate gatekeepers as they have no training in this area.
  • We are promoting materialism.

So, how can youth marketers get on the right side of these issues?

Well, some ways of reaching young people in schools are seen as more appropriate than others. Sponsoring sports competitions, providing loyalty programs that reward schools for gathering product labels, purchasing sports equipment with brand names on them, school book fairs, and advertising in school newspapers tend to all be seen as appropriate tactics to reach children in schools.

Advertising on school buses, advertising on school book covers, and integrating brands into instructional support material and lessons tend to be seen as inappropriate.

So, below is our 6 step guide for organizations who seek to further their brands in a school environment.

  1. First, realize that to date opposition to in-school marketing has effectively positioned youth marketers as the “bad guys.” It doesn’t have to be that way, but the industry is starting from a negative position.
  2. Improve PR:  It is not inconceivable that marketers can be positioned as a “savior” and not a “villain.”  Done right, school marketing provides more than financial support – it can provide educational support as well.
  3. Stop doing the “really dumb” things. Your involvement has to be more than just advertising. It has to further an educational mission at the same time.
  4. Clearly delineate commercial messages – don’t “veil” them in curriculum, place them in contexts that are obvious advertising vehicles.
  5. Show that your involvement makes a difference to an educational need, and not just a financial one. I think most school leaders would agree that this is the essential approach.
  6. Leave curriculum and instruction to the educators, but if your organization has an expertise that is relevant to the curriculum, offer it!

Remember, school leaders have to choose their battles. Your in-school marketing can be something they trumpet, not something they have to defend.

The Arbiters of Cool

Why has the consumer culture in the US become so youth-obsessed?

Why has the word “coveted” become inextricably attached to the words “18-34 year olds” among media planners and buyers? After all, it doesn’t take much more than a quick Google search to discover that older demographic segments spend much, much more.

We’ve grappled with these questions for quite some time. As a firm that conducts a lot of research among youth and on youth topics, we’ve certainly benefited from the nation’s obsession with youth.

Young people do have a lot of money to spend. Depending on whose projections you want to trust, teens spend somewhere between $150 and $200 Billion a year. That might sound like a lot, but when you look under the hood a bit you will find that the bulk of that spending power is concentrated at the upper end of that age range. Today’s teens certainly have more money to spend than their counterparts did a generation or two ago, but that spending level seems minor in comparison to what older age segments are spending.

The real answer as to why the media and marketing world is so centered on youth is INFLUENCE. Young people’s influence on the spending of adults is somewhere between 5 and 10 times their direct spending. Parents feel good when they are spending money on their children (and this type of spending is more immune to the business cycle than other types). Older people feel good when they buy products that have passed a “youth cool test.” Young consumers have become the arbiters of what is cool, and adults want to jump on board.

Most children’s first words are ‘Mama’ or ‘Daddy.’ My kid’s first words were: ‘Do I have to use my own money?’ — Erma Bombeck

Another reason you see so many ads targeted to teens and college kids is that adults “aspire backwards.” Below is a chart that runs from age 8 to 75. The question asked respondents, “regardless of your current age, if you could be any age at all, what age would you want to be?”

agegraph

The chart shows that up until about age 20, most people aspire to be older than they currently are. That is well known in youth marketing – so to attract say, a 12 year old, you put teenagers in the ads. It appears that in your 20’s and 30’s you are roughly happy with the age you are, but the moment you hit 40 you start to wish you were younger. Mid-life crisis anyone?

Finally, just as kittens become cats and puppies become dogs, young consumers become adults. Brand preferences can begin quite young, and a lifetime payoff can be substantial. By way of example, most US adults have a brand preference for Coke over Pepsi or Pepsi over Coke. Most will also drink the other brand if their preferred brand is not available. But, when faced with a choice of both, adults tend to show a brand preference that does not change over their lifetime. When is that brand preference formed? Early – likely by middle school. The lifetime value of establishing this preference early is huge, which explains why both brands continually race each other for the youth market.

So, youth are a substantial market, have an influence many times their size, and eventually become adult consumers. All the ingredients for a youth obsessed culture are in place.

I was recently reading an article that discussed how in China, the population reveres it older members. Evidently it is the law in China that you have to look after your parents in their old age, and there have been cases of elderly parents successfully suing their children for lack of support. Revering the old is not just cultural, it is mandated by the government. Our youth-obsession is a western-dominated concept, and one you don’t see in less consumer oriented areas of the word.

Half of our advertising money is still wasted

money_down_toilet

The most vaunted saying in all of marketing was made over a century ago by John Wanamaker: “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half.”

About a decade ago I was making a presentation at a marketing conference where I brought the quote up. I said that even though Wanamaker said this more than 100 years ago, it is as true today as it was then. Which means that over all that time, marketers and researchers haven’t had any true breakthroughs in understanding how advertising works, or at the least, our knowledge hasn’t kept pace with the changes in the advertising and media world. If it did, whenever I bring the Wanamaker quote up in a meeting, I wouldn’t see so many heads nod.

After my presentation a number of testy researchers confronted me. “You can’t say things like that,” they implored, “it is too damaging to our field.” I asked them why they thought so many ineffective campaigns are launched. Their response was that it had to do more with agencies having too much clout and protecting their creatives at all costs. But, none of them challenged me on the point that at least half of advertising dollars are still wasted. They just didn’t want researchers to take responsibility.

If the research community truly had a handle on what makes advertising work, we’d see more effective ads. I don’t think this is the researcher’s fault necessarily – advertising is just very challenging to understand. When we survey consumers they tell us it doesn’t affect them. But, when we spend money on ads, sales go up.

A rapidly changing media environment adds another layer of complexity. Researchers had become reasonably adept at predicting how well ads would work in traditional media, at least for products with a clear frame of reference for the consumer. But today, there is so much noise resulting from a proliferation of media, determining the ROI of a campaign is not easy.

Advertising research is a large field, with a rich background of competing theories and black boxes. To me, this implies that communications research cannot be a one-size fits all approach. Each situation needs to be looked at specifically. With the amount of money being spent on advertising (~$500 Billion annually), the potential for waste is very large. We think it is important for researchers to admit that we own part of this problem. Our clients should be able to count on a better than 50/50 chance that their ads will work.


Visit the Crux Research Website www.cruxresearch.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.