|
|
|
|
|
|
| Home |
As the wireless penetration rate increases across the United States, it carries with it a host of demographic data that are likely to be highly useful for marketers - especially those engaged in third-generation (3G) mobile telephony, which include video and broadband wireless capabilities.
The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), conducted July through December 2006 by the National Center for Health Statistics (part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), shows that as the number of wireless-only households continues to increase, certain segments of the population are increasingly defined by their ownership of a land line.
During the second half of 2006, more than 3 out of 20 American households did not have a landline telephone, and of those without a land line telephone, most had at least one working wireless telephone.
While that data simply proves what most marketers already know, the deeper data is surprising - and may provide for interesting applications of 3G platforms in the future.
For example, adults who rent a household (26.4%) were more likely than adults who own a house (5.8%) to be living in households with only wireless telephones.
Additionally, half of all wireless-only adults were less than 30 years old.
What's even more interesting - largely because advanced applications such as 3G aren't necessarily cheap (as of yet) - is the income-distribution level of the users of wireless-only telephones: Adults living in poverty (22.4%) were more likely than higher income adults to be living in households with only wireless telephones.
What that means for the next generation of mobile phones remains unclear, but marketers should take heed of data like this; it will likely serve as invaluable information as they continually try to pin down a fickle, elusive consumer base.
By Michael Fielding
Have you ever been bored while pumping gas? No? Well, no matter. Now there’s Detroit-based Gas Station TV or GSTV: 20-inch LCD screens installed right above gas pumps. The content is tailored to approximately four minutes—the average time it takes to fill the tank—and includes quick snippets of traffic, weather, news, consumer-oriented segments, and advertising (naturally). GSTV also delivers ABC programming, mostly from ABC’s locally owned or affiliated TV stations, and ABC sells ads for the screens. This month, the company signed a deal with ESPN, for ad-supported sports news and information updates.
But don’t worry. In an interview on msnbc.com, the company’s chief executive David Leider assures that the programming will be helpful and that GSTV won’t overadvertise. He elaborates: "Pumping gas is boring and mundane. We live in a very can't-sit-still, multi-stimulus environment. We are convinced that people will be very favorable to this experience at the gas station." Let’s hope that is the case, because there’s no off switch available for those at the pump.
And GSTV is probably coming to a gas station near you. Presently, the screens are in Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston; next month they are due to arrive in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. According to mediaweek.com: The company has more than 1,000 screens in the current cities, and intends to have more than 6,000 screens by the end of 2007.
So tell me, does this seem like a brilliant idea, or is it a little preposterous—even overkill? And with gas prices as high as they are, do we really need a reason to stay at the pump longer?
Perhaps this is really a ploy—to prompt people to become pedestrians.
One week ago, a nationwide guerrilla marketing campaign to promote the cartoon Aqua Teen Hunger Force “blew up” in Turner Broadcasting’s face.
The company positioned electronic light boards, portraying a character “giving the finger,” in 10 major cities. And some had a battery and wires attached to them. The devices were in place for about two weeks before Boston officials found nine of them around the city and suburbs, and mistook them for bombs. (Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley told reporters that they “had a very sinister appearance.”) State, local, and federal authorities shut down highways, bridges, and river traffic, and U.S. Northern Command monitored the situation from its Colorado headquarters. Officials went on to find more than three dozen of the devices.
And it gets worse. One of the two men paid to distribute them (and now criminally charged in the matter) videotaped a bomb squad taking away one of them. Yet he didn’t inform the officers that it was innocuous.
Has this one campaign done irreparable damage to marketing’s reputation? Consider the following comments, as reported on cnn.com:
• Boston Mayor Thomas Menino: “I just think this is outrageous, what they’ve done … It’s all about corporate greed.”
• Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis: “It’s a foolish prank on the part of Turner Broadcasting.”
• Boston-area Representative Ed Markey: “Whoever thought this up needs to find another job. … Forcing first responders to spend 12 hours chasing down trinkets instead of terrorists is marketing run amok. It would be hard to dream up a more appalling publicity stunt.”
There are plenty of other issues to ponder:
• Turner has apologized and agreed to cover costs and restitution, but does it matter?
• Was the generated publicity worth it?
• Will the uproar make others think twice before executing guerrilla campaigns?
• Why didn’t other cities become suspicious? (Is Boston less hip, or more safe?)
Meanwhile, I’m trying to understand why there’s a cartoon about a talking milkshake, a box of fries, and a meatball.
Have you had it with healthy this and trans fat-free that? The artist formerly known as KFC might be banking on it. According to a November 2006 consumerist.com post, the establishment has reverted to its original name: Kentucky Fried Chicken. Now it's flagrantly all about the fried.
Moreover, it has refreshed its logo--giving Col. Sanders a slight makeover. Instead of a white suit jacket, he wears a red cook’s apron. In part, Kentucky Fried Chicken wanted to convey that he was a real person and a chef.
But wait, there’s more! Kentucky Fried Chicken is now the world’s first brand visible from space. An 87,000-square foot version of the new logo (composed of 65,000 1-foot square tiles) stands in the Nevada desert, for publicity’s sake. The effort took 24 days.
How do you feel about these innovations? Are they prudent, and will consumers positively respond to them? (Perhaps more importantly, should we be on the lookout for more alien abductions? Kentucky Fried Chicken could be tempting fate.)
I don’t shop at the Gap, I don’t follow the latest fashions (i.e., “skinny” black pants), and I’m not that interested in the work of Audrey Hepburn. Nevertheless, I got a huge kick—no pun intended—out of those commercials with her dancing (from the movie Funny Face) to AC/DC’s song Back in Black. (Come to think of it, I’d probably enjoy anything set to that song.) To be fair, though, it had to grow on me. The first time I “experienced” it—and it is an experience—I found the visuals seriously creepy.
Call me a snob, but I wouldn’t have expected such a radical endeavor from this clothing retailer. It really impressed me with the highly innovative and fun combination, which also included some wacky snippets of Hepburn’s dialogue from the movie. (The effect just wouldn’t have been the same without: “I rather feel like expressing myself now. And I could certainly use the release!”) And let’s not overlook the Gap’s cleverness: The commercial grabs your attention whether you’re watching it or simply listening to it.
But on to more monetary matters: Did the commercial help the Gap’s revenues? As noted in a San Francisco Business Times article this month, the company saw a 3% decrease in same store sales in September. However, for the five weeks ending September 30, it saw a 4% growth in net sales (to $1.46 billion).
What did you think of the Gap’s advertising campaign? Will we see similar efforts from other companies? Will AC/DC’s popularity and/or record sales increase?
The commercial might not have induced me to make a purchase, but it did get me interested in seeing Funny Face!
|
|
|
|
