House of hearts

Is altruism a natural part of human DNA?

Superfreakonomics dedicated a chapter to this question, and citing research conducted by John List they concluded that ‘true’ altruistic acts are in fact a rare occurrence (click to read an excerpt from that chapter). Most acts of apparent altruism are in fact humans responding to rational or emotional incentives.

Rather than focus on this finding, I want to jump straight to the implications for organizations relying on apparent altruism, namely charities, but also brands that utilize societal marketing.

Case Study: Movember

A hugely successful charity initiative – men grow a moustache for the month of November and in doing so raise money for prostate cancer and depression charities. Do participants sign up out of true altruism? I don’t think so. It is about being recognized as a part of a community – and the fact that you grow a moustache means you are instantly recognized as a ‘do gooder’. Movember also provide additional ‘badges’ of recognition – you have your own online profile, after you raise $50 you receive a card with special offers and the list goes on.

Case Study: Green Bags

Everyone has one, or ten lying around the house. The concept that someone would pay more for a bag based purely on the fact that it is better for the environment is nice to believe. But what if the environmental bag looked identical and had the same durability of the traditional plastic bag; would people pay more for it? Probably not, biodegradable bags were around for a long time, but didn’t have the same success as green bags. Yes, people could argue that green bags are more durable, but why not use a backpack? The success of the green bag again lies in the recognition people get when they walk around with their green bag. It’s about the emotional ‘feel good’ factor – “I’m doing my part” and showing that off to the world.

Lessons:
• Give donors a means to promote their participation and be recognized

• Create a community around the cause

There is also financial incentive behind apparent altruism – you get a tax break – and in countries with higher tax breaks, the higher the charitable donations.

Lesson:

• Promote tax breaks in charity communications

One final finding from Superfreakonomics – research showed that children were more likely to visit parents in a nursing home if there was a large inheritance and to add to this single children were the least likely to visit parents in a nursing home.

Intangible value

This is a great speech on creating intangible value...

Includes some really interesting case studies about why people value 'things' beyond the rational benefits they provide - e.g. why brands and marketing exist

Brand equity is a headstart, but it won't always win the race!

Shopper insights are creating a lot of buzz at the moment, but not everyone is on the same page. For the purpose of this post, I have defined shopper insights as... "Insights informing strategies/ tactics aimed at increasing conversion of demand to sales during the act of shopping". This is based on the premise that sales are driven by demand (preferences) and shopper activation (how this preference converts to behaviour).


Demand (consumer insights, the study of preference) + shopper activation (shopper insights, the study of how these preference evolve during the act of shopping) = sales*

*this is oversimplified, but illustrates the point I'm trying to make.

It's important to understand both sides, because they don't always match perfectly. In fact, I like to look at strong preferences/ demand (brand equity) as a getting a head start in a race; it gives you a good chance of winning, but doesn't guarantee success. And on the flip side, you might start from behind, but still win the race (e.g. lower preference, but you still get the sale).

The fact of the matter is that most decisions are made while people are shopping.

Another definition - 'act of shopping' - from need recognition through to post purchase

Let's take an example. I recently traveled to the US. I wanted to fly Virgin - I like what the brand stands for and I think they offer a good service. If you were to measure my brand equity, I would be a Virgin 'lover'. However, when looking at hotels in San Francisco I noticed a United Airlines offer for Aus - US return flights. The end result, I purchased a ticket with United Airlines. Why? They did a better job of shopper activation; they reached me with a relevant offer while I was in the act of shopping. Admittedly the service was terrible, you couldn't get more surly flight attendants if you tried, but this is another issue entirely and not something I won't to go into now (experiece>loyalty>brand equity).

You can see how this example fits with the framework presented in the diagram. I entered the shopping process with preference for Virgin, during the act of shopping I ignored preference and acted on an offer, I was disapointed with the consumption experience and therefore I'm now a rejector of United.

An interesting article re P&G focus on shopper marketing

http://adage.com/article?article_id=139127

Research provides the roadmap NOT the directions

This post is in response to the common misconception that research will provide the definitive answer to business  problems. The truth is, research is only a guide and needs to be combined with solid thinking before any decisions are made.

Think of research as a map to aid decision making - a map won't give you the exact direction, but gives information you need in order to navigate to your destination. If we continue with this analogy, two people using the same 'map' could take different routes to the same destination - this is the impact of judgement. The more research you do the more populated with information the 'map' becomes and arguably you are able to make a better decisions on what route to take. But regardless of the quality of this 'map', the decision on what route to take is a decision for the driver (e.g. users of the information), not the research.

Don't get me wrong, researchers are in a position to recommend a route, but we can't become overly reliant on the data we collect to make these recommendations - we need to apply common sense and intellect.

NYC

Some bits 'n' pieces from New York City.

A supermarket allows shoppers to rate the quality of their fresh food, these quality ratings are then shared with other shoppers. Another example of a company handing over control to the consumer, but also a sound marketing initiative based on insight. Shopper turn to others (friends and family) for advice and fresh food is product that has big variations in perceieved quality. Shoppers will have this dialogue with you or without you, so why not be a apart of it and gather information at the same time. This research directly benefits your customer, but also benefits the company - opt in research at its best.

To be continued...

How ads use insight...

Case studies of ads that have sound strategic foundations based on consumer insights...

Disclaimer: I'm no ad expert and therefore I will focus my comments on underlying strategy driving the comms, steering away from any commentary on the creative or execution of the ad itself.



All Bran - Honey & Almond



My take on the insights driving the comms...

• Traditional All Bran have a large group of 'taste rejectors'
• Growing the brand required taking the product to new consumers - the 'taste rejector' group
• Targeting All Bran 'taste rejectors' reduces the risk of cannibilising sales of the existing portfolio
• The ad directly appeals to this group, by suggesting that disliking the taste of All Bran is the norm - e.g. you'd be lying if you said you liked the taste of All Bran.

VB - Late Night Lamb Sandwich

This is just a great example of understanding the life of your consumer and what they get up to when consuming your products. Nuf said...