Research

Channel Surfing for Influencers: Social Media

In my third of four posts about which channels work best to reach and engage influencers, I take a look at the new kid on the block: social media.

Marketers are sometimes torn between doing what has worked most effectively in the past and testing out new technologies and channels that have the potential to be real game-changers in the future.

The bright shiny object of the last few years is, of course, social media, a channel that’s still not completely understood but that has, in theory, the potential to radically change the way we market.

Why? Well, to start with, based on our research, influencers are spending 7 hours per week in the US and 9 in Canada on social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and blogs. That’s already impressive but when you add to that the finding that influencers are connected, on average, to 108 (US) and 137 (Canada) people in their own social media network, that’s something that gets the attention of marketers – as it should.

While social media shares ease of use with the email channel, it’s this community or network that may hold the key to the channel’s true potential. These individuals have chosen to be connected based on an affinity for a particular community, and are actively engaged with others in it and outside that community too.

Bill McCloskey at ClickZ offers some fascinating examples about the potential power of social media, including this one:

“…look at Marvel Comics, which is one of the top performing ‘advertisers’ in the Twitter space. As of right now, Marvel has around 44,000 followers [63,000+ as I write this post]. But over the last few weeks, it sent out 151 Twitter offers. But more than that: 246 ‘influencers’ have directly rebroadcast that message to their followers. Add it all up and Marvel has exposed its offer to over 66 million eyeballs over the past few weeks!”

Those are some impressive numbers and just a hint of the potential opportunities social media offers marketers. However we do need to distinguish the difference between influencers: some will talk; others will pass along information (as per above) and of utmost value are those that truly influence others – by eliciting action. So whether on social media sites or via email or on the phone, you must understand what you are trying to achieve and ensure that you have designed appropriately.

One more thing bares repeating from my last two posts: even if some channels are better than others to reach particular consumers in particular ways, the fact is these channels work best for marketers when they work together.

For instance, email messages that offer a social-sharing option (like Twitter and Facebook) generate a 30% higher click-through rate than emails without it, according to a new study by email marketing company Get Response. And if the email includes three or more social-sharing options, that click-through rate jumps to 55%.

The bottom line? Social media offers a unique and advantageous opportunity to find, reach, engage and have a continuous dialogue with individuals – both within their social media communities and in their network at large. Just needs to be done right!

In the fourth and final part of this series, I’ll blog about the true answer to the question – which channel is most effective at finding, reaching, engaging and motivating influencers?

Gillian MacPherson

Group Think is the Result of Groupthink

Group think is the nemesis of qualitative research. The more senior you go in any organization, the more dismissive of focus groups managers become because of "group think." And, indeed, watching focus groups, as I have done innumerable times, it could appear that group think is impacting the dynamic.

Of course, one manager's group think is another manager's consensus. I mention this as an aside, but it is true that when 6 people in a group like the concept, this is a sign of a great concept. When six people in a group dislike the concept, it's clearly group think. Of course, if you hate the concept, then this works the other way around. Which leads to:

Bernstein's First Law of Group Think: The intensity of group think in any focus group is indirectly proportionate to the degree that the group reflects the observers innate bias.

But, I digress.

Group think is the inevitable result of recruiting homogenous groups of people. Why are we surprised that people who are in the same targeted age group, same target education level and use the same products with the same frequency, share the same opinions about the brand, product, category, and so on. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if there is no group think, then the recruiters have done a lousy job. And, perhaps even more controversially, the reason why professional respondents (i.e. those who attend many focus groups and don't absolutely fit the criteria) are generally more interesting than actual respondents (those who do fit the criteria and have little or no experience withfocus groups) -- they are, in fact, not the same as everybody else in the room and are therefor are more likely to have different opinions!

Think of it like this:

In her brilliant (must read for all marketers) book, The Art of Choosing, Sheena Iyengar points out three aspects of personhood that help clarify this issue:
1. People are more alike than they think
2. What people believe about themselves (or what people would want other people to believe about them) does not vary much from person to person
3. Each person is convinced that he or she is unique

So, if this applies to all people, imagine how much these lack of differences are magnified in a homogenous group. Group think is not group think in the sense of people following a leader in spite of their own personal opinions. Group think is simply group agreement.

So what?

Couple of things.
1. The next time a client complains of group think, stick your finger in your ears and hum loudly
2. Don't recruit homogenous groups to focus groups. Try recruiting different people, try mixing the cohorts -- mix frequent users with terminal rejecters; mix 35 to 49 with 18 to 29; mix males with females; mix high income with low income. In any case you are better off doing two groups of mixed A and B than one group of A and one group of B
3. Read "The Art of Choosing" and get back to me .

And, for your added enjoyment, check out our new web site.

Laurence Bernstein

Channel Surfing for Influencers: Email

Part 2 of a 4 part series

Which channel is most effective at finding, reaching, engaging and motivating influencers to spread the word about your product? In this second of four posts, I take a look at email.

In part 1, I blogged about some of the reasons marketers still consider direct mail an effective way to reach influencers, but the truth is that was only part of the story. Because while DM still has a role to play in engaging influencers to spread the word about your brand, email is also a powerful channel and one that’s becoming more so all the time.

There are, of course, the obvious reasons email is so effective: it’s easy for consumers to forward – a sort of digital word of mouth – and, especially these days, it’s easily accessible whether you’re on your BlackBerry, iPhone, Mac or PC, at home, at work or on the run.

An email campaign may also be cheaper and less labour-intensive to launch: although these days consumers report opening up less of the vast amount of emails received so perhaps cheaper is an illusion. But we do know that recent technology has made targeting, tracking and offer redemption much easier than in the past.

Perhaps where email marketing can be most successful at reaching consumers and convincing influencers is in its interactivity. You can include a url link to your website or blog or Facebook page in which the consumer can immediately connect. And of course you can design an email to offer a level of animation to engage the senses.

Plus, based on a study we just conducted, people have very specific reasons why they like to be marketed via email, including:

• Speed: It’s in your inbox – or in your trash – in a flash
• Convenience: You can read it at work, at home, or anywhere in between
• Environmental: Unless you want to print it out to save or share, trees and our environment get a break

That said, the truth is DM and email can live with each other because they both have an important role to play, as ClickSquared’s Dan Smith explains:

Not all customers respond to communications in the same way… In certain industries – charities come to mind – direct mail remains the primary method for new donor acquisition. Email is used primarily to solicit renewals from existing donors – and in the absence of a response, is often followed by yet another direct mail piece.

The circle of life – marketing style.

In part 3 of this series, I’ll focus on the new kid on the block – social media.

Thoughts?

Gillian MacPhersen

Social Media: Don’t Mistake The Journey For The Destination

Over the past few years, you’ve probably heard stories about drivers so focused on their GPS directions, they end up in a river. Whether true or made-up, like the one about lemmings following each other en masse off a cliff, I wonder if – in response to social media’s red hot popularity -- marketers may be headed somewhere they don’t intend.

Don’t get me wrong. Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and other sites may be effective communication channels to help reach your marketing objectives. I just wonder whether marketers are treating social media as an objective – “quick let’s get a Facebook fan page up!” – rather than understanding its usefulness and role as a tool.

Put another way, it’s important not to think of social media as the destination itself, but rather a tool to get us to our destination – in this case achieving our objectives. And, as with any potentially powerful tool, we need to learn more about how social media works, who’s using it and why before we’ll really know if it can help us get where we want to go.

Take how social media relates to the work I’m doing on WOM. Some hypothesize that influencers – because they like to talk – may be more active in the social media space. In fact, the research doesn’t bare that out:

 Influencers don’t have more accounts than the regular Joe
 They don’t spend more time on Facebook, MySpace or Twitter
 They still prefer to share information – which they may gather from email or social media sites – the old fashioned way, face to face

Charlene Li, formally an analyst at Forrester, and the co-author of Groundswell offers some other learnings and insights into the minds of social media participants and how they actually differ, dividing them into the following segments:

 Creators: create or upload content
 Critics: respond to content from others
 Collectors: organize content for themselves, others
 Joiners: connect in social networks like Facebook
 Spectators: read, listen but do not participate
 Inactives: neither create nor consume

These two quick snapshots alone, I think, demonstrate that developing a successful social media presence first requires understanding who it works for and why. Then you can figure out how best to use the new medium to promote, engage and dialogue with consumers so you can meet your marketing objectives – without getting all wet.

Do you agree marketers are jumping a little too quickly on the social media bandwagon?

EXTRA! EXTRA! We’ll be holding an information-packed webcast on May 19th to present key findings from our recent white paper on influencers, plus other research and case studies. Click to learn more or to register. You won’t want to miss it! P.S You can also follow us on Twitter - we'll be tweeting before, during and after the event - @icomwom - hope you can join us!

Canadian Social Values - Dominant Themes in Canadian Culture - Part Four

Prior to this post:
Introduction
Part One
Part Two
Part Three

This post signals an end to our series on Dominant Canadian Social Values. We’ve outlined 4 Canadian Values: a unique balance between individualism and collectivism; an attitude of tolerance and acceptance; a heightened appreciation for a quality of life; and finally, an essentially peaceful predisposition.

We hope these guideposts will help you when crafting communications that can relevantly connect with and engage Canadians.

Defining Value #4
Borne of a legacy of cooperation and compromise, Canadians are essentially a peaceful people living in a peaceful place. An underlying sense of comfort and security manifests in our ideology with regards to peacekeeping and also is reflected in our business dealings. Further, it may be what allows us to attend to what we refer to as ‘higher level values’.

Points of Evidence
Canada truly and factually is a safer place to live. The murder rate in Canada is 1.85: 100,000 people, as compared to the U.S. at 5.6:100,000. The U.S. incarceration rate is approximately 6 times higher than in Canada; in fact, Canada’s murder rate has fallen by more than 40 per cent since 1975.

And perceptually Canadians feel safer as a people. Canadians afraid to walk at night is down almost 5% since 1975 and Canadians are more worried about Bullying than Terrorism.(MacLean’s Magazine Canada Day Report 2006)

How this Manifests
On Peacekeeping: When Canadians are asked about the traditional role of the Canadian military, they speak with pride about Canadian participation in United Nations peacekeeping missions. Over the years, more than 125,000 Canadian military personnel have served on peacekeeping missions for the United Nations – more than any other country. (cbcnews.ca, Canada: The World’s Peacekeeper)

In Business: Our peacefulness extends to our engagement style regarding business dealings. The 2008 Bribe Payer’s Index, prepared by the global civil society organization Transparency International, ranks Canada at No. 1, tied with Belgium—meaning our companies are the least likely in the world to engage in payoffs. Only four per cent of Canadian business people have ever bribed high-ranking politicians or political parties, according to the survey, well below the international average of 13 per cent. (MacLean’s Magazine Canada Day Report 2009)

On ‘Higher-Level Values’: Canadians embrace social responsibility. Almost 7 in 10 Canadians (68%) pay attention to issues related to Corporate Social Responsibility; 52% have consciously refused to buy a product or a service from a company not conducting business in a socially responsible way. And Canadians see the global environmental issue as second only to healthcare as a pressing issue facing the country (note that this ranking has bounced about a little with economy factoring in of late). (Social Responsibility in Canada, Ipsos Reid 2003 and 2006)

A Marketing Reference
Need we look any further than the spiritually-based success story that is Lululemon?

But in the interest of not repeating ourselves, let’s reference Marc Thuet’s restaurant in Toronto instead – Conviction Restaurant. Conviction Restaurant offers recently rehabilitated ex-convicts a chance to turn their lives around by helping give patrons “the most unforgettable eating experience of their lives”. As testament to the success of the concept, planning for a second Conviction location in British Columbia is currently underway.

Thanks again for your valuable time and attention!

Heidi McCulloch, V.P., Senior Strategic Planner, MacLaren McCann

Building Brand Trust Online and in the Mind

Last week the topic of trust was raised in a Harvard Business Review post titled, “What trust brings to Amazon, Zappos and USAA.” The author, Peter Merholz, described how being bold, and proactively trusting your customers, can contribute to a company’s online success.

The article was very well written, and the examples were thought provoking, but for me there was something missing. Beyond examples, what evidence exists that proactively trusting your customers can contribute to online success?

What Neuroscience has shown

At Claremont Graduate University, the neuroconomist Prof. Paul Zac has been studying the topic of trust for a number of years. Looking at the role of trust in macro and micro economics, his studies have begun to focus on the brain chemical oxytocin, and how it can influence trust.

In 2005, Zac published studies showing that when a person sends a trust signal to another person, it causes a release of oxytocin in their brain, which can induce a social obligation to reciprocate that trust. Put simply, his research showed that trust leads to trust, and it provides strong support for the idea of proactively trusting your customers.

What Morphological Research has shown

Morphological research has also been used to study the phenomenon of trust. In fact, in a recent study of 1000 North Americans, Concerto Marketing Group set out to uncover the benefits and drivers of trust in businesses and brands (link to the study here if you are interested).

Through our research we managed to uncover six equally correlated drivers of brand trust. Two of these drivers have particular relevance to this discussion; Relationship and Practical Value. In order for people to trust a brand, it needs to provide some sort of Relationship. Furthermore, in order for that Relationship to be strong, it must deliver some sort of Practical Value.

Based on these two drivers, our research would also support the idea of proactively trusting your customer. When Amazon gives a customer the power to provide product reviews, or when USAA lets a customer deposit checks by email, they are delivering Practical Value, strengthening their Relationship, and ultimately building brand trust.

Building Brand Trust Online

For many companies and consumers, the online environment can embody the best and worst of humanity. It can provide facts and friendship on the one hand; on the other hand it can harbor lies and fraud.

Extending proactive trust to your customers is a powerful way to cut through this mess and build a strong brand. In fact, it would seem that Peter Merholz was on to something in his recent post; being bold and proactively trusting your customers can contribute to a company’s online success.

Nick Black

Canadian Social Values: Dominant Themes in Canadian Culture – Part Three

Prior to this post:
Introduction
Part One
Part Two

Defining Value #3
“One difference between Americans and Canadians is that Americans are still waiting to win the lottery. Canadians live as if they have already won the lottery.” Michael Adams, Fire and Ice, 2003.

20% of Canadians cite Quality of Life as top source of pride in being Canadian. (Macleans Canada Day Survey 2006). Quality of Life is one of Canadians’ key defining values.

Quality of life, simply put, refers to how good life is. People throughout the centuries, and in various parts of the world, have defined quality in their lives in rather distinct ways.

Among developed countries, certain variables are consistent in defining quality of life – life expectancy, purchasing power, literacy and education, housing, employment, finances. Against these variables, in study after study, Canada has always landed in the top ranks. For example, in the 2009 Mercer Consulting annual Quality of Living Survey among 215 cities, Vancouver ranked 4th and Toronto ranked 15th. In all of the Americas, Canadian cities of Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Calgary dominated the top spots.

Where does this come from?

• Canada is endowed with nature’s majesty, in lakes, mountains, fields in our backyard. Our physical closeness to nature likely inspires a more mellow approach to life and living.
• Since after the Great Depression, Canada instituted policies that would ensure that its people maintained certain standards of living - pensions, health care, protection from unemployment and other social support. Having a secure safety net gives people a certain reassurance that no matter what goes wrong, all will be well; in general, people have less to be anxious and stressed about. Unencumbered, people pursue a certain way of living that is more attuned to relationships, connections, rather than simply getting ahead in a rat race.

Points of Evidence
Macleans annual Canada Day poll offers up interesting proof points about Canadians’ distinct version of quality of life.

For Canadians, there is more to life than work: Canadians place A REWARDING CAREER behind Freedom; Family Life; Being Loved and Being Canadian on their list of things that they value the most. (Macleans Canada Day Poll 2006)

Asked which activities they enjoy most, Canadians cite: A nice meal with my partner; Having a few hours for myself. (Macleans Canada Day Poll 2006)

Canadians believe that Experiences, not Things, make one happy. When asked, what is the best thing that happened to you in the past year, milestones such as weddings, births, pregnancies, vacations, graduations rose to the top of the lists. Moving into a new house or getting a new car sat at the bottom of the list of best things. (Macleans Canada Day Poll 2006)
Canadians don’t care for keeping up with the Joneses. 29% of Canadians say it’s important that people admire the things they own, compared with 36% of Americans. (Fire and Ice, Michael Adams)

Marketing Reference
Lululemon
The brand believes in keeping healthy, exercising, and drinking eight glasses of water a day. They’re not just getting people to buy their clothes, but to embrace the lifestyle they promote. And that lifestyle, outlined in their manifesto, includes beliefs like, “Friends are more important than money.” Their mission: Lululemon athletic creates components for people to live longer, healthier and more fun lives. If we can produce products to keep people active and stress-free, we believe the world will become a much better place. Lululemon has successfully tapped into a Canadians’ unique view of what a good life looks like.

Molsons’ Made From Canada
The Made From Canada spot pays homage to Canadas’s natural beauty, and the uniquely Canadian impulse to enjoy it as much as we can. Copy: Fact is, its this land that shapes us. We know we have the best backyard in the world and we get out there every chance we get.

Lee Chapman, Strategic Planner, MacLaren

Can we talk WOM?

Our industry is excited – about Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, blogs and a whole host of new and evolving social media tools. But it’s important to remember that they’re just that – tools. And in the end, as marketers, we still have to first clearly understand what we’re trying to accomplish and who we’re talking to before we can determine the best way to achieve the results we want --results that admittedly seem more and more challenging to attain.

Which brings me to my main subject. It’s been three years since I first immersed myself in word-of-mouth marketing. My goal was to learn everything I could about influencers. I started out with many assumptions about how and why people talk about the products they love or hate, but interestingly many were disproved through research and discussions with other industry experts.

Like how influencers pass along information to others. Despite how they get it (email, websites, newsletters, social media sites) influencers do most of their recommending face to face – almost 90% of the time they pass it along to friends or family in person or by phone.

And how influencers don’t talk about everything. They talk about a few categories – likely because of interest or perhaps because of where they are in life. Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?

Take diapers, for instance. If you’d talked to me a couple of years ago, you’d have walked away thinking I had a degree in baby undies – I could tell you which were more absorbent, which were softer, which were cuter and which were the best value. And if we were trapped in an elevator, you’d have no choice but to listen to Gillian’s 101 fun facts about diapers. A marketer could have gained a lot of free advertising from me at the time, but today my interest in diapers has – perhaps unsurprisingly – waned.

My husband, for his part, can talk your ear off about natural remedies and will do so at every opportunity and proactively, but, unlike a lot of other guys his age, will only discuss electronics when prompted.

Little nuggets like these – anecdotal as they may be – confirm a growing body of in-depth research that suggests targeting influencers to spread the word and drive traffic or
sales is more complex than choosing a few demographic or psychographic variables and sending out direct mail or an email – or a tweet for that matter. Understanding who these
brand advocates are, what motivates them and how they behave is an exercise that must be handled with care – especially when you consider that, while they’re a small group, influencers can have a dramatic effect on brand building and sales.

I have a lot more to come on this topic and I can’t wait to share it with you in coming posts. Hope you’ll join me.

In the meantime if you would like a copy of a paper we just prepared detailing much of our new research, email me – I’d be happy to send it along.

BTW, what has been your biggest eye opener in WOM marketing?

NEXT TIME: Do marketers have a clear roadmap for social media marketing or are they simply following the crowd?

Gillian MacPhersen

Canadian Social Values: Dominant Themes in Canadian Culture - Part Two

Prior to this post:
Introduction
Part One

Defining Value #2
We Canadians value an attitude of acceptance and tolerance. Over the course of our history, Canadians have embraced a liberal, open attitude, extending goodwill and acceptance to others who might be different.

Because of this pervading attitude of acceptance and tolerance, Canada is not just multi-cultural, but multi-everything. Note the diversity of beliefs, lifestyles, opinions, worldviews. Some would go so far as to say that this diversity is our greatest strength. (Macleans Canada Day Poll Report, 2006)

Diversity and pluralism are celebrated in Canada. Multiculturalism, in particular, has been noted as one of the most distinctive features of our society. More Canadians cite multiculturalism as central to the national identity - more than bilingualism or hockey. Canada’s top source of national pride is Multiculturalism, second only to Democracy. (Michael Adams, Unlikely Utopia, 2007)

Adams asserts further: “Canadians aren’t unique in living in a diverse society. Rather, Canadians are distinctive in the way that they have incorporated Canada’s policy of accommodating diversity into their sense of national identity.”

(I tend to disagree with the first part of the statement – that Canadians aren’t unique in living a diverse society. Canadian diversity IS unique and more intense. Take the United States: First nations and British colonial roots, but no French. Same goes for Australia. Canada counts among its peoples a first nations group, not one but two colonial forebears, and substantial waves of immigration from all over in recent years.)

The rest of his statement, however, rings true. Canadians have imbibed a strong attitude of acceptance and tolerance, so much that it defines and binds us as a nation.

Where does this come from?

How did we get here?

History: Canada was never a unitary entity. Canadians have never been one people in one place; we’ve always been a diverse people – Aboriginals, colonial British, colonial French, European immigrants – spread across a vast territory.

Our religion – or lack of it?

Religion, by its very nature, prescribes a certain code of conduct and belief. One’s religion helps a person make sense of the world, and pass judgment on what’s acceptable or not.
Canada is a secular nation. Compared to the United States, there are twice as many Canadians who say they have no religious affiliation. Church attendance has been on a steady decline, with almost 2 in 5 Canadians saying they never/almost never attend church. With less religiosity, Canadians are less likely to adhere to hard-and-fast, black-and-white judgments on right or wrong. This, in turn, makes for a more laissez-faire stance towards difference in beliefs/lifestyles.

Points of Evidence
Canadians are a tolerant and accepting people, who value and celebrate diversity. Festivals such as Caribana, Taste of the Danforth, Pride are the most obvious (and colourful) expressions of such.

Other data points support this value:
• By 2017, 1 in 2 people in Toronto and Vancouver will be visible minorities.
• 57% of Canadians live side-by-side within the five largest cities. Canadians – of whatever colour or stripe – are able to live amicably in close proximity to one another. Contrast this with other modes of settlement where people who are “different” confine themselves to either ghettoes or gated enclaves.
• 78% of Canadians believe immigration is good for the country (vs 64% of Americans).
• Canada was the fourth country in the world and the first country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide

A Marketing Reference
In one of the most iconic pieces of Canadian advertising, The Rant aka I Am Canadian from Molson’s, “Joe” actually lays out the policy, and the pervading belief of Canadians – I believe in diversity, not assimilation.

During the Olympics, Tim Horton’s aired a spot that drew directly from the immigrant narrative – the first things that newcomers to Canada experience are the cold, and Tim Hortons. The spot rose to the top as both “Most Memorable” and “Best Ad.” (Marketing Magazine, April 19, 2010)

Of late, Virgin and LCBO tipped their hat to the LGBT communities in their ads targeted to their mainstream audience, signaling that sexual orientation is a non-issue for these brands.

Lee Chapman, Strategic Planner, MacLaren

Canadian Social Values: Dominant Themes in Canadian Culture

As Robin Whalen noted in her introduction to this series, it’s true that the more we can understand the deep-seated values that drive us as humans and consumers, the better chance we will ever have of really connecting with them. We, at MacLaren McCann, in managing communications for global brands and global platforms, feel that it is important to understand what specifically and uniquely shapes us - as Canadians. So, to that end, here is Part 1 in the series of Defining Dominant Canadian Social Values.

Defining Value #1
We Canadians value a unique balance between individual autonomy and collective responsibility. It is a very special attitude we uphold as Canadians, in that we believe in having the ability to self-determine the way we want to live, but importantly, we also expect and even defend the right for others to have that same privilege. So while one may choose differently from another, Canadians generally believe in each person’s right to make their unique personal choice. Said simply: Canadians respect difference.

Where does this come from?
Canada is a nation founded ultimately through cooperation, with a history of accommodation, and this is reflected in the founding principles of ‘peace, order and good government’ (outlined in more detail by Michael Adams in his book Fire and Ice). Through these historical roots, the wants and needs of various diverse Canadian groups were acknowledged and accommodated to create a workable collective.

Additionally and importantly, the Canadian ‘system’ is built with an emphasis on the provision of social support services. Canada features a public education system, a public health-care system, a public welfare system and with that, a corresponding tax system to fund it. This system functionally places responsibility on the community to be supportive of its residents.

And thus Canada has bred an orientation to life amongst its residents that believes the collective has a responsibility to the individual, and concurrently, the individual has a responsibility to the collective.

Points of Evidence
Respecting Difference:
- More than two thirds of Canadians say they relate to non-conformists, compared to just half of Americans (Michael Adams, Fire and Ice);
- 60% of Canadians approve of homosexual relations, where only 38% of Americans feel the same way. “We’re one of the world leaders there.” In fact, in 2005, Canada become the fourth country in the world to legalize gay marriage (Reginald Bibby in 2006 Maclean’s Canada Day Poll and 2009 Maclean’s Canada Day Poll).

And the Collective:
- A third of Canadians want a more active government (Michael Adams, Fire and Ice);
- And more Canadians feel a sense of social responsibility than Americans (Michael Adams, Fire and Ice).

A Marketing Reference
Speaking of ‘respecting difference’, recall as far back as 1995, when RuPaul was signed to a modeling contract for Canadian company, MAC cosmetics, making him the first drag queen supermodel?

Watch for the next post, Canadian Defining Social Value #2: Attitudes of Tolerance and Acceptance. We continue to look forward to hearing your comments and reactions.

Heidi McCulloch, V.P., Senior Strategic Planner, MacLaren

INTRODUCING Canadian Social Values: Dominant Themes in Canadian Culture

It’s no secret that as a Marketer, you need to understand your consumer in order to influence the likelihood of response. And before we seek to understand our specific demographic, it behooves us to take a step back and truly comprehend the nature of our broadest consumer: the CANADIAN.

For this reason, the Strategic Planning team at MacLaren McCann (Heidi McCulloch; VP, Strategic Planning and Lee Chapman; Senior Strategic Planner) embarked on a journey to study and explore emerging dynamics in Canadian values and culture. Given our proximity and relation to our Southern neighbours, we also looked at ourselves in comparison to the U.S. We condensed a variety of different research sources along with knowledge on the topic and combined it with some unique insights and perspectives of our own. The result? An understanding of 4 key defining values in Canadians.

Over the course of the next month we will share our findings via a 5 part blog series. ‘Tune’ in weekly to learn more about:
• Defining Value #1: A balance between individualism and concern for the common good
• Defining Value #2: Attitudes of acceptance and tolerance
• Defining Value #3: A distinct version of quality of life
• Defining Value #4: A culture of peace

Whether you are a Digital Marketer, a Creative Director or a Public Relations expert, identifying and being familiar with what makes a Canadian tick is quite simply, invaluable information.

Watch for the first post coming in the next week and please feel free to share your thoughts and experience on the matter. And since we all know Canadians are polite, forthcoming and friendly, I’m sure we’ll have some stimulating and mutually beneficial discussions!

Robin Whalen

The Humanity and Biology of Brands

First a confession: When I was at University, I struggled with the concept of branding. An odd thing for someone in the business of building brands to admit, but it’s true; as a concept branding never made much sense. Every book had a different theory, every agency offered a different approach and every expert had some unique model or metric. Depending on who you talked to, or what you read, a brand could be a pyramid or a personality, an experience or an equation.

It seemed that branding was either the most compelling and complicated topic in marketing, or it was a load of crap.

Now an insight: Brands are like human beings. They exist as a mirror of our motivations, reflecting our ideals and dreams, fears and frailties. Nothing can exist in branding that doesn’t already exist in our everyday lives. In fact, if we want to better understand brands, we don’t need more complicated metrics, we need to better understand ourselves.

So how can we gain a better understanding? We need to go back to basics and re-consider the psychological and biological parallels between human beings and human brands.

Just like people, brands are born. Where a brand is born and to whom, are important factors in determining its development. A brand may have great nature (visual appeal or personality) but without the right nurture (parental support and security) it may never survive. As marketers, what type of parent are you and how will that affect the development of your brand?

Just like people, brands go through adolescence. Very few brands can become an overnight success; indeed it takes time to establish an identity and become independent. Attempting to circumvent this process can be as detrimental for a brand as it is for a person; the childhood stars of today are the forgotten failures of tomorrow (think Macaulay Culkin or Extreme Football League). What was your brand’s adolescence like; did it experiment and gain experience?

Just like people, brands need the right environment. As Prof. Richard Florida found in his study of cities, “the place we choose to live affects every aspect of our being. It can determine the income we earn, the people we meet, the friends we make, the partners we choose.” The same can be said for a brand. A brand must pick a place that will help it build relationships and earn the income it needs to survive. Is your brand in the right environment, an environment that matches its motivations?

Just like people, brands can get sick. We like to believe that we, and the things we create, are invincible - but nothing could be further from the truth. Human beings and brands are fragile and prone to illness. Even the strongest leaders can get sick (Bill Clinton or Toyota) and without proper treatment they may die (Michael Jackson or Pontiac). When was your last brand check-up, do you have insurance, or are you working your golden goose to death?

Just like people, brands must reproduce. Reproduction isn’t just fun, it’s fundamental to our survival. By reproducing we allow our species to adapt to the environment and evolve. A brand must also reproduce; it must adapt and evolve itself in order to maintain relevance and to respond to changes in the environment. Is your brand ready to reproduce?

As a brand strategist, having worked across three continents with many multinational clients, I believe there is something missing in our understanding of branding. As a morphological researcher, I believe what’s missing is an understanding of their humanity. Because brands are more than a metric or a model, they are a mirror of our psychological and biological motivations; and to properly understand them, we must better understand ourselves.

By Nick Black, Vice-President of Strategic Insight, Concerto Marketing Group

Marketing's Outlook for 2010

This is year four of the CMO Council’s annual Marketing Outlook study that probes media and marketing intentions for the year ahead - and year two that CMA is a fielding partner. The study is fielded globally; to the CMO Council's members and through its partners, therefore, a comprehensive and valuable benchmark tool for any organization.

The study’s executive summary will be freely available as a download, and the full report available only to respondents.

You can link to take the survey here - takes about 15 minutes to complete.

Survey closes end of day on March 4th.

Early Adopters and the Mass Market

A well-established principle of marketing says that a small group of early adopters can spur mass-market acceptance of a new product. But how do early adopters react when its brand is accepted by the mass market? And do mass markets react the same way that early adopters do to the same brand? Marketers assume that dominating the first market (early adopters) will also help them dominate the second market (mass market).

Wharton marketing professors David Reibstein and John Zhang have explored the topic and say that a company could experience a backlash as early adopters move on to other new products. An example is Porsche, a successful brand for sports car enthusiasts. The brand saw a decline in sports car sales after it entered the SUV mass market. The backlash was significant.

In fact, as The New York Times points out, teenagers would rather text their friends a message rather than post it on Twitter. Instead, Twitter has been embraced by an older demographic. Twitter’s success has shattered a widely held belief that young people lead the way to popularizing innovations. The brand has proved that an offering can take off in a different demographic than you expect and become very popular. Twitter is defying the traditional model.

So why do marketers assume that success with early adopters will lead to quick adoption by the mass market? The "early adopter" concept is flawed because they aren’t always a good indicator of the growth potential of a brand nor do they have an extended Customer Lifetime Value. Most early adopters move on to the next big thing and may not be loyal to brands.

What is more important is to identify your most profitable potential customers. These profitable customers will eventually be the core of your growth strategy and profitability. The important indicator is the rate of adoption - the relative speed with which the most profitable consumers adopt an innovation. Success depends on an organization's ability to build and maintain loyal and valued customer relationships. Therefore, it is essential to build refined strategies for customers based on their value to the organization. The best marketing strategies pursue long-term relationships with profitable customers.

Two questions for you: (1) Who is your most profitable customer? (2) What is their lifetime value to your organization?

Please email me for our "View from the Top" series on best practices in customer satisfaction strategies.

Marketers, Beware the Decimal Point

In CMA’s Weekly Watching Brief February 5th edition (accessible to CMA members), there was reference to a study from the US-based CMO council regarding the value of loyalty programs. I found this posting very interesting for many reasons, but mostly because it illustrates how easy it is to potentially mislead people, whether intentionally or not, by including a few choice numbers. In the classic 1950s book called “How to Lie with Statistics”, the author Darrell Huff describes how easy it is to prove whatever point you want by choosing which numbers to present and how to present them.

In the case of this posting, I am referring to its fairly rash generalization regarding loyalty and reward programs. There are probably as many different types of loyalty and rewards programs as there are published studies about them. Loyalty programs could be something large and complex, or as simple as a frequent coffee-buyer card from your local shop. To state that 61% of marketers believe that the consumers who take part in these programs are their best and most profitable customers demonstrates such an oversimplification as to make this statistic practically meaningless. How did the survey respondents choose to define loyalty program or best customer and which ones were included, or excluded? There are no consistent definitions of these concepts and I have rarely met a marketer who has actually pursued a data-driven assessment of their own program to find this statistic to be true. It depends on so many factors including the type of products or services being offered, the competitive context, the types of rewards being offered and the types of consumer behaviours required to earn these rewards. Depending on how a program is set up, its heaviest users could actually be the least profitable customers.

Too often marketers are willing to turn over any quantitative assessment of marketing initiatives to the data geeks or finance and take the answer at face value, without questioning the results (unless of course they are positive). There are usually many ways to skin the proverbial cat, including such things as definitions of test and control cells, definitions of success and what costs are included in profitability calculations. And depending on how these various factors are defined you could come up with very different results. Since these calculations are used to support decisions about potentially significant major marketing investments, you need to be completely confident in how these calculations were done and what was, or wasn’t, included. I strongly encourage marketers to get more involved in the analysis and understand the definitions being used, how the results are calculated and what other factors could influence the outcomes instead of simply going along with an answer because it was calculated to 6 decimal places.

By Paul Tyndall, Senior Manager, Predictive Modelling & Segmentation at RBC. Paul is also a member of CMA’s Marketing Technology and Database Intelligence Council.