Red Frog, Inc.

(from "Business Trends" by Josh Barinstein, Copyright 2004)

What’s coming up in 2004?

So let’s talk now about this year—projections we can make for the next ten months or so.

Health concerns staying strong

One of the biggest trends, that has no clear signs of slowing down is the health and wellness trend. Everyone has "healthier" versions of traditional products. The Low-Carb/Atkins craze is certainly visible from the bookstore to Subway. Fast food restaurants are offering "healthier" versions of their high-fat, fast food meals. Instead of soda, a consumer can get fruit juice and instead of French fries, a fruit and yogurt parfait can substitute. Yoga and pilates are mainstream exercise and fitness regimens. It seems as though consumers are looking for self-fulfillment anywhere they can get it.

And this makes sense. It used to be in the 80s that someone would ask "how are you?" and the person would respond: "good" or "great." This gave way to "busy," because that is simply what we are: busy, busy, busy. Michael Tchong of Trendsetters.com, who wrote "Trendscape 2004," calls this particular trend "time compression"—the new state of mind had become a state of time.

There doesn’t seem to be enough time anymore. Why? Well, there’s just too much to do! Driving long distances, possibly long days at the office, taking on too many responsibilities, family, friends, email, TV, etc., etc. We feel we must do it all or life just wouldn’t be right. Now, of course, everyone has their own version of this, so I don’t want to over-generalize. But my point is that at some juncture, consumers have to reflect on how they’re eating and taking care (or not taking care!) of themselves. Health matters if we’re going to be so active and demanding so much of ourselves.

Ways to get our attention

Let’s talk a little bit about in-store promotions, which are on a high-speed train trying to reach consumers more effectively—in a modern, less traditional way. Look for these innovations in 2004. The days of the "Blue Light Special" being announced over the intercom are over. According to Dick Blatt, president-CEO of Point-of-Purchase Advertising International, retailers remember that at least 70% of all buying decisions are made at the point of purchase. It’s no wonder so much importance is now being placed on in-store advertising. So we can expect a great deal of change in this area over the next year.

According to Kate Fitzgerald in Battling for Shoppers in the Aisles, in-store marketing’s newest gadgets (or gimmicks?) include "talking floors, messages that swoop down from the ceiling and motion sensors that trigger on-shelf light shows." I don’t know about you, but I’m a little scared. Who ever thought of Disneyland coming to your local supermarket?

The Portable Shopping System by Symbol Technologies is given to a customer when they enter a store, it scans prices (allowing shoppers to keep track of the amount they are spending), points out discounts, and suggests items the shopper may be interested in based on what has already been scanned.

Floorgraphics is introducing the first talking floor ad—audio commercials that are activated when customers step on a designated spot. Hmmm.

Visi-strobe is a motion triggered light show. Eventually, you’ll walk by a Mountain Dew, see a light show, and Pepsi Co. hopes you’ll buy their product.

Skybox from Island Display will turn existing light fixtures into backlit billboards…

Interesting, no doubt, and reminiscent of what happened in the film industry… Filmmakers felt a need to lure audiences back to the movies after the invention and popularity of the television. Clever ideas came out of a need to keep their audience—Smell O’ Vision, 3-D films, drive-in theaters, and Cinema Scope to name a few. Some worked and clicked and are still a part of the film industry. But most were ridiculous ploys and audiences were smart enough to realize it.

So in general, are these effective marketing tools? Or annoying ways to scream advertising at consumers until they eventually tune out? Will a strobe light really influence a purchase? Who knows at this stage. But, the bigger question is—will the strobe light halt a purchase? That too remains to be seen. The new ad gadgets/gimmicks are teetering on the edge of annoying. They are bothersome enough to annoy consumers, but can be effective enough that they don’t turn consumers off to products. For example, look at the new Quizno’s Sub ads. An unattractive, modified rodent with a less than stellar singing voice, touting warm, toasty sub sandwiches. The voice is annoying. A rodent singing about the virtues of a sandwich is grotesque. But, the campaign is effective. People remember the commercials, talk about them, and whether it’s good or bad doesn’t seem to matter. It can be argued that it’s an ad that teeters between annoying and effective in that it draws attention to the product without dissuading a potential purchase.

Definitely some neat ideas coming out of in-store advertising and the food industry, and we’ve yet to see which ones win out. Yet in all this talk, it’s really difficult to narrow down the success of a product or service to just a single commercial, ad, or popup. One has to look at the whole of the campaign being executed, or series of campaigns that in the long-term gradually win audiences over. So yes, the rodent concept may work well in the end… if it is part of a larger gameplan that focuses on the relationship between Quizno’s and sub lovers—appealing to them in different ways, with interesting information about what they have to offer, incentives, and so forth.

Marketers vs. Consumers

As marketers, we have a serious problem on our hands—and it’s one we have brought upon ourselves, I’m afraid. We underestimate consumers and try to push tactics that are only proving to be more and more ineffective. We underestimate consumer feelings about online and cable TV advertising, for instance. But, we grossly overestimate the consumer fondness of network television.

We spoke earlier about the personalization that Cable TV provides. Let's now look at some interesting statistics that give us perspective on the thinking out there and how that is likely to shape events in the coming year.

According to a MediaPost/InsightExpress Advisory Panel survey in late 2003, there is a huge difference in what consumers do and what marketers think consumers do.

Here are some eye-opening results :

If consumers had to choose only one medium they could have access to—33.3% would choose Cable TV, while only 16.8% would choose Network TV. Twice as many people prefer Cable over Network television. In fact, more consumers would choose the Internet as their one medium. Network TV comes in third.
There isn’t much variance on what consumers consider their favorite media outlet. Cable TV comes in a strong first. But only a third of marketers think Cable TV is a consumer favorite, while almost half of the marketers polled are positive that Network TV is the consumer favorite. However, only 19.6% of consumers cite Network Television as their favorite media outlet.

This difference of opinion has to be a reflection of marketers interpretations of the Neilsen Ratings. Yes, again, more people tune into Friends on a given Thursday. But, again, unlike Cable TV programming, Network TV does not aim, target, or pinpoint any specific group, specific interest, or specific need. Whereas on Cable, if Joe Smith is trying to remodel his kitchen for his wife, he’ll be more likely to tune into Trading Spaces or Monster House on The Discovery Channel for inspiration than he would to Everybody Loves Raymond.

The elusive question is where are consumers getting the message, where are they paying attention? Consumers are equally split between Network and Cable TV. 49.5% say they pay more attention to ads on Network TV than anywhere else, compared to 49.3% of those consumers surveyed who answered that Cable TV is where they are paying attention. With equal numbers of consumers paying attention to Cable and Network TV ads, what is the problem? If they’re paying attention to both, does it matter where the ads are placed? The problem is marketers are assuming, by a sizeable majority, that consumers are paying attention mainly to Network ads—that that is the more effective medium. Marketers are not paying close enough attention to what consumers are telling them and are grossly overestimating the importance of outdated, common, and yet traditional advertising media by constantly assuming that Network TV is the main medium that will lead to consumer purchases.

When asked where consumers felt ads had the most impact on their purchase decision—60% of marketers believe Network TV to be the most influential. Again, consumers have a different opinion—by 20%. Only 40% of consumers claim Network TV influences their purchasing decisions. At the same time, consumers cite Cable TV as being responsible for their purchasing decisions 38% of the time—not a big difference.

This survey proves a valuable point—marketers are not in tune with consumer mindsets. Traditional media, including magazines, newspapers, billboards and radio, have become clutter. And it is easier and easier for consumers to tune out. From VCRs and TiVO to commercial-free satellite radio and pop-up blocking software. The fight to get through to consumers is on—and if we don’t pay attention to what consumers respond to and what they ignore—we, as marketers, will make ourselves voluntary members of the "Adverscreaming" community.

Cable mindset in 2004

Over the next year, and moving forward, we can expect Cable TV’s strength in personalizing content to be recognized over the instability of Network television. Granted that a show like Friends draws in an average 26 million viewers on Thursday night. Therefore, we as marketers, assume that 26 million people are seeing our ads. The truth is, Network TV commercial breaks are longer than ever. In the past, a commercial break took about the same amount of time as going to the refrigerator and getting a soda. Now, we have enough time to go to the fridge, find out we’re out of soda and run to the corner market and still make it back to watch our program. I’m being facetious, but you get my point. People now have the opportunity to tune out, and that’s going to hurt exposure.

Despite the tens of millions of viewers that watch Network TV on any given night, cable TV is, by far, the better way to go. It’s more cost-effective. It is cheaper to buy airspace on a Cable channel than a Network channel—this is a fact. Because of the specificity of cable programs, we can narrow our targets down dramatically. Sure, there are 26 million viewers watching Friends on Thursday night. But, do all 26 million of them have the same needs and spending habits, or is the need to know if Ross and Rachel end up together the only thing these viewers have in common?

For example, if we are trying to sell a new, small cosmetics line, chances are we will reach more women (who are targets for the cosmetics) by advertising on the cable stations WE (Women’s Entertainment), Oxygen, and Lifetime.

So… I’ve covered some important trends for the rest of this year: health, in-store advertising, and more on Network vs. Cable. I’d like to open it up again now to comments and/or questions before proceeding to the next 5-10 years, where I’ll spend time on some exciting developments we can expect to see.

Back to teleconference index

Josh Barinstein is President of Red Frog, Inc., the Southern California ad agency that provides worry-free experiences and powerful results in the areas of Marketing, Print design, and Web/CD-ROM development.

Learn more at www.RedFrogInc.com or by calling 888-955-0550.

You have permission to distribute this article as long as all of the text contained herein remains intact.