Motivated to target highly motivated consumers?

The Pareto Principle, which is also known as the 80-20 Rule or the Law of the Vital Few, states that 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.  In marketing-speak, the Pareto Principle means that, very often, 80% of sales come from 20% of consumers.

Should marketers focus on only the most highly motivated target consumers?  Or is there a benefit to aiming programs at other segments as well?

I really don't want to . . . but I must!

What factors can cause consumers to make choices they believe ex ante are bad or wrong?  Should marketers care or attempt to do anything about consumer PRE-decisional regret?

Knowing and doing are different!

Researchers from Oregon State University say college students deserve a failing grade on their eating habits because, on average, they eat less than one serving of fruits and vegetables a day -- far fewer than the five recommended by health experts.  

Surely intelligent, educated college students know better.  Why aren't they (you?) doing better?

Think about this in the context of decision making: Is there anything anyone could say or do to get you to change your political party affiliation or preference for presidential candidate?  What would it take?

Top of mind

A few recent commercials have struck me as not only very entertaining, but also down right strange.  Each of the below commercials begin in a way that is totally irrelevant to the advertised product and draw you in (or at least me) by making you guess what in the world this could be an ad for.  While I appreciate these types of commercials for their entertainment value and ability to create free impressions (YouTube --Ragu - 1.6 million views, Southern Comfort .26 million views) which leads to the products (or brands) being top for the consumer, is in being top-of-mind at the shelf worth the messages each of these commercials put off?  While Ragu seems to be positioning itself as a comfort food for children, the mom is the purchaser and they just made this mom look pretty irresponsible ( i.e."Mom's who put their children in stressful positions choose Ragu").  Then the Southern Comfort ad is just all kinds of odd, I've always thought of this as a staple American brand just a few pegs down in "American-ness" to Jack Daniels, and this commercial shows an overweight, over-tanned, mustachio'ed, speedo wearing, yet extremely confident European (assumption) sipping on Southern Comfort.  While I love the commercial and the humor in it, its a strange direction for an American whiskey product first produced in 1874.

To answer the question of whether or not there's value in these types of pseudo-shock ads, personally I think yes because eventually the specifics of the ad peel away in your memory and you are left only remembering Ragu or Southern Comfort made you smile.

Enjoy:

A Sucker in the Produce Aisle

I am a sucker in the produce aisle at the grocery store.  When shopping at my local Harris Teeter, whenever I see the bright yellow 2/$5.99 or 3/$9.99 signs by one of my favorite fruits or veggies, I immediately head toward the item and grab 2-3 cartons.  While in the back of my mind I know that often the produce may be on special because it is quickly approaching its “best if used by” date, I still tend to grab 2 or 3 cartons of the fruit and head on my way—because I just know that it is “such a good deal.”  Often, I also know that it may be difficult for me to consume all of the fruit prior to it going bad but am up for the challenge. 

I also know that often times, one can still realize the lower price even by buying only one carton of fruit instead of 2 (ex: one carton alone would cost ~$3 (if the deal were  2/5.99) versus its normal price of say ~$4), but often I still pick up two cartons.

Why do we continue to take the “deal” (buying 2 cartons) even though we can often get the promotional price by buying only 1 carton?  And does anyone else always instinctively go for the 2 or 3 cartons rather than just 1 or am I the only sucker in the produce aisle?    

The Post-Crisis Consumer

This week I turned to Ted Talks for blog inspiration. This Ted Talk was given by John Gerzma, who is currently the Chief Insights Officer at Young & Rubicam, and has worked with some of the world’s most famous brands including Coca Cola and McDonald’s. This talk was given in 2009, and was centralized around the idea of the post-crisis consumer in The United States.

The talk highlights four post-crisis trends, and how companies are responding to these new consumer demands and interests. The four trends are listed below:

     1.   Americans are now evaluating their success based on liquidity rather than having many material possessions. This cultural shift has lead consumers to déclassé consumption; the idea that spending money frivolously makes you look more “anti-fashion.”

     2.   Americans are now more concerned with ethics and fair play. Consumers are demanding more empathy and respect from companies.

     3.  Americans are more concerned with durable living, so consumers are searching for products that have a longer shelf life. Quality > Quantity. A tangible example of this is that consumers are now keeping cars longer than ever before.

     4. Americans are more focused on helping each other out, and therefore consumers are more interested in buying local products and supporting local causes.

Do you think these four trends are still relevant today? If so, can you provide more current examples of companies responding to these consumer trends?

Also related to the topic of savings, when do you think consumers are most concerned with price? When do consumers search for bargains, and when do they spurge? Are there situational factors that you believe affect how consumers factor in price when buying a new product? Is there a certain “pain-point” that every 

consumer has when it comes to price?

Check out the talk, and let me know what you think! Here is the link: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/john_gerzema_the_post_crisis_consumer.html