Cross-cultural, nay community, research is important. It is easy to forget that not everyone perceives the world the same way you do. I was reminded and enlightened about the importance of ethnographic research by an article on PSFK entitled ”Understanding communities through ethnography,” originally featured on Market Sentinel.
In the article, researcher Tricia Wang explains how companies are now using ethnography to connect with their consumers. She demonstrates the importance of ethnography by comparing social network usage in the west and China by explaining normative digital behaviors in each culture. What I found most engaging were her examples of sites of similar nature that found success in one culture, but failed in the other, and other sites that succeed in both.
Happily for retailers, research shows compulsive savers tight and compulsive shoppers spend approximately the same amount on gifts during the holiday season.
The NSF did a Q&A with Scott Rick, professor of marketing at the University of Michigan about his research on tightwads and spendthrifts and their spending during the holiday season. It’s an interesting presentation which covers underlying differences between these two types of shoppers and also gives recommendations about how to market to tightwads to encourage them to increase their purchase consumption.
Given the current economic times and a trend toward reduced discretionary spending, understanding the “tightwad” mentality has become increasingly important. Rick and Lowenstein’s research on the decision making and emotional aspects of spending provides a wealth of information about how consumers shop and the path to purchase.
Check out the webcast of the discussion here or the research paper by Rick, Cryder, and Loewenstein (2008), “Tightwads and Spendthrifts,” in the Journal of Consumer Research.
This week on the BBC’s Moral Maze, (listen here until December 4th) panelists discuss “nudges” and if and how governments should be using theories of behavioral economics to encourage people to perform in certain ways. A few of the panelists were quite alarmed that the British government was employing “behavioral architects” to craft policies that seemingly coerce the public to act ways that could benefit themselves and the society at large.
Because the British seem to support their nanny state, it is unclear to me why they view nudges as being the first misstep that sends civil society into an Orwellian dystopia. (Wouldn’t be the first.) Aren’t nudges just another way that the state can protect its inhabitants from making bad decisions? (Rather than scolding them.) In the program, a few panelists worried that the government would use nudges as a way to manipulate and control the choices that people made. What they failed to understand is that people still have choices that can be freely made.
Just because there is now a picture of a fly in the urinal, doesn’t mean that you have to aim for it.
Just because now organ donation is the default, doesn’t mean that you can’t opt out of it. It just requires that you actually read your driver’s license document before signing it, if you want to make sure that you check that extra box so that your organs are selfishly buried with you. (For something like changing the default, making a choice counter to the default might take a little more thinking on the part of the citizens, but the choice is still there.)
The nice thing about nudges is that they can be unobtrusive, innocuous aids to help us make better decisions. The key is that the decision is still there to be made.
While it is interesting to discuss the morality of governments practicing nudging its citizens and to what level that nudging should be made salient, I am rather more interested learn about nudges that have already been enacted in the real world.
A Volkswagen-branded initiative in Sweden sought to change people’s behavior for the better and have fun while doing so. Their site TheFunTheory.com showcases four great examples of how nudges in the real world can encourage people to perform pro-social actions, such as picking up litter in the park or driving the speed limit, or actions that benefit the individual directly, such as taking the stairs. In these examples, the consumers/citizens/performers are delighted and entertained by the options given.
While The Fun Theory demonstrations are probably too costly to be scaled, their success should encourage governments, companies, non-profits to create and execute new nudges to encourage individuals to better themselves and their communities.
For additional reading, consult Thaler’s research, the popular book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness by Thaler and Sunstein, or social psychology research around framing and heuristics.
Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to attend the IAB’s Case Study Road Show for Digital Media Success Stories. Upon arrival, I found that the team I’m apart of (including the talented and insightful Jason Lau and Matt Mates) had completed the research studies for three of the five studies presented. Awesome! It’s great to see that clients use and champion the work we do.
From a research standpoint, campaigns that are creative, understand and engage with the audience’s mindset, and provide some benefit to consumers are typically more successful at changing brand perceptions; and I enjoy delivering good news to my clients. (Among the test group, positive increases in your brand’s metrics are very impressive, significant at the .95 level!)
From a consumer perspective, I like to be entertained, inspired, and even benefit from ads. One recent ad I saw featured on the Advertising Lab blog will benefit parents and other airline passengers throughout the holiday season. This interactive FirstBank ad running in a column display at Denver International Airport invites kids to place their hands on the column and keep them there. Trick is, the ad rotates around the column, requiring the kids to run to keep their hands in place on the imprints. Thus, tiring the children out pre-flight so they sleep or are at least too tired to fight with their siblings.
From Ad Lab: FirstBank billboard tires children
Due to the ad’s creative and interactive elements, it manages to benefit everyone grumpily hanging around the airport. The kids are entertained, the parents will have subdued children, and the adults without kids (myself included) can look forward to a peaceful flight. FirstBank’s ad has the potential to improve one variable of the airport experience.
FirstBank and any brand that can create positive experiences (or at least nullify more annoying occurrences) during the airport wait will benefit from positive brand associations.
If there is one thing I have learned from my ad effectiveness research experience, it is that ad fit and perceived benefits of the ad are key to positively changing brand perceptions. Here, FirstBank fulfills both criteria: the ad seamlessly fits into the airport environment, entertaining restless travelers with time to spare. It also benefits each type of passerby: kids, parents, other adults.
Having spent my fair share of time travelling through DIA, I wish they had thought of this sooner.
This ad makes me wonder why there aren’t more jungle gyms in airports. Are there too few children travelers? Is it the possible lawsuits? A colorful jungle gym could brighten up a deary airport terminal.
Six months after the launch of L.L. Bean’s Signature and Lands’ End’s Canvas, let’s see how their new ventures are progressing. From the sites’ consumer reviews and the number of discounted merchandise, I hypothesize that neither has been hugely successful at catching the eyes or purses of young consumers.
L.L. Bean, I wanted to buy a few products from you (thinking of the rose chambray, the yellow pintuck top, and various shirt dresses), but you know what, between the content of the reviews and the profiles of the reviewers, I could not commit. The reviews on most items were pretty good, although some people complained of the fit of the garments and color accuracy of the pictures.
As I mentioned in a post when the site launched, I was looking to see how the profiles of the purchasers would change. Mainly that their would be a difference between L.L. Bean main site consumers and Signature line consumers. There wasn’t. The same people who buy on the main site are now buying from Signature. I have to admit this is a barrier for me. As someone who has a proclivity to dress like an old lady, I try specifically to find items that young people wear. Seeing that mature women, who have a love of gardening and cats, are buying the products that I considered really scared me. (Immediately clicked over to shopbop to get back my bearings.)
Also, as L.L. Bean is supposed to be a great American company, and with the Signature line they are offering reprised classic items, like leather totes and fisherman’s sweaters. But how can they justify offering a leather tote for $199 that is made in China? My friend bought one when during the pre-sale before the site opened officially and was disappointed to see the “Made in China” tag.
I will have to say that I love that you have the “Key Looks.” Also, I like the styles offered- great for work and for play- but I just need to see an improvement in quality in the reviews before I commit. Like many young professional women, I have outgrown Forever 21, and am seeking new places to spend my cash. L.L. Bean, you could be that place, but first you need to freshen yourself up.
As marketers say, “fish where the fish are.” To get younger consumers interested, why not take a page from Revolve Clothing and incentivize people to visit your facebook page and become fans?
You could join Shopstyle and setup a”Signature Looks” group where you have a moderator who invites users to create looks inspired by a key Signature piece. Or contests to create an outfit out of entirely Signature pieces. Even offering to post the winning outfits of the contests in the Lookbook on the site. Many young women on the site are aspiring stylists and would jump at the chance to be featured on your site. Might also want to become a brand featured on the site.
For those who want to experience the local culture, but who may be weary of couchsurfing, this site offers reviews, maps, downloadable guides, sage advice about what to do/see/eat in dozens of European cities. All supplied by locals.
I may be at the point where I trust editorial advice from actual journalists, rather than the masses. I need only think about the extreme reviews on yelp, to make me turn the other cheek to aggregate ratings sites. (How is the Shake Shack in NY so highly rated? It should not have four stars, my friends.) That’s not even to mention the PPUR (Paying for Positive User Reviews, and deleting negative ones) scheme Yelp had going and is being sued over.
A new site, In the MO, has the right idea. It supplies users with recommendations based on their ratings of places and has a buddy system, so the algorithm also incorporates your friends’ ratings and recommendations somehow. I like the site, the ratings system is easy to use and the site is sleek and intuitive. A Netflix for your night out.
Thanks for the tip about Spotted by Locals, Renia from Rotterdam!
