Viewpoints

Icon

Random thoughts

Selling Luxury 2: Superyacht Ownership in the Post Recession Era

Big boats: Offshore finance | The Economist.

This article in The Economist points out the almost sorry state of the superyacht category. only 173 sold last year, down 27 from the year before. This is unfortunate for the makers of superyachts and it is a sign of the times.

More notably, however, is the fact that Roman Abromovich has been reduced to renting out his $660 million boat (including crew of 75) to members of the lumpen proletariat for around $2 million/week.

The article also points out that some superyacht owners send their captains to Tunisia to fill up on cheap gas — the Paul-Allen-Money* equivalent of going to Buffalo to buy gas.

* If you don’t know the expression “Paul Allen Money,” I’m afraid you will have to go to the linked article to find out.

Advertisements

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

Selling Luxury 1: Secret Fears of the Super-Rich

Secret Fears of the Super-Rich – Magazine – The Atlantic.

Two blogs on the super rich in honour of a conversation I had yesterday on the subject of luxury. Luxury is an experience, not a thing; luxury marketing, which is often confused with selling expensive stuff to rich people, is dependent on the ability of the marketer to activate an intrinsic experience in the target’s soul, which is difficult enough, but it needs to be done in such a way as to yield a profit to the marketer. Which is why luxury marketers generally default to doing nothing more than selling expensive stuff to rich people.

The two items below demonstrate the difference — although they both are extreme in the extreme:

0,000 Blancpain 1735

This $800,000 Blancpain stainless steel watch looks, let’s face facts, not much different from your run of the mill $250,000 Patek Philipe or, Heaven Forbid, $6,000 Rolex (or, for that matter, $100 Timex). But, it’s value comes from the intricacy of the manufacturing (it takes a year to make), and I imagine the owner gets a great deal of pleasure in knowing the degree of “complication” he is wearing. This, in my world, is luxury — not for what it is but for how it is experienced. Marketing this requires a subtle understanding of what makes the target tick (sorry, I couldn’t resist!). Compare it with this:

0,000 Crystal Tourbillon

This diamond encrusted watch is by Jacob and Company, and costs roughly the same as the Blancpain (well, it costs $900,000, but what’s a hundred grand between friends when we’re talking about quality?). The value of this is entirely extrinsic (not entirely, I mean it probably has a good enough mechanism that ensures it keeps time, even though it’s probably impossible to actually tell time because of the “design” of the face).  I imagine the person buying this is doing so because it is expensive, more expensive, he might think, than any others (he would be wrong — Vacheron Constantin have a leather strapped watch for $1.5 million in case you were wondering: http://www.powersaversearch.com/content/expensive-watches/2.asp). It is, to him, very publicly expensive and clearly telegraphs this to everybody around him. Selling watches to the person who buys this is simply selling expensive stuff to some guy who can afford it.

Which is the difference between marketing luxury and exploiting the rich!

On the other hand, the rich beg to be exploited, as my next blog shows.

Filed under: Behavioral Economics, Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

Archetypes of Adventurers

Adventure Travel – National Geographic Adventure Blog.

This is an interesting discussion of the typologies of adventurers framed in Jungian archetypes — this sounds a lot more technical than it is.  The author presents a simplified and highly readable introduction to atchetypes, without mentioning Jung even once!

Inner Directives, our Jungian Archetype segmentation system, has been used in exactly this manner on exactly this topic by the Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC). As part of the branding exercise we undertook for CTC, we segmented potential visitors to Canada into archetypes using MBTI and applied these findings to the marketing potential for different types of activities (or, roughly, the different regions of Canada).

Archetype segmentation is not a rigid science, but rather an almost qualitative approach to understanding the unconscious drives that motivate choice. It delivers insights that get to the heart of people and motivations and, as this article demonstrates, allows for colourful, actionable descriptions of customers (in this case adventurers) and their relation to the brand (in this case “adventure”).

As an aside, it was this process that led to a clear distinction between “:tourists” and “travelers,” which has subsequently become on e of the underpinnings of travel positioning in Canada and other parts of the world.

Filed under: Behavioral Economics, Hospitality and Tourism, Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , ,

Study: Only 1% of Facebook ‘Fans’ Engage With Brands

This is really long URL, but worth it — for those of us who have questioned the blind faith in the power of social media to “build relationships” with brands that (presumably, although never explicitly stated) result in increased sales, true-loyalty, brand ambassadorships and so on, this piece of research is enlightening.

However, just because only 1 out of every 200 people who “like” the brand actually create any content about it, does not mean that the whole facebook exercise is pointless. But, the point of the Facebook exposure is, ultimately the same as any other exposure: exposure!

And, as I have written here before, exposure and frequency of exposure is key to building brands. Engagement, though nice, does not actually build brands (it may deepen relationships, although some may also question the point of this as well). But the idea that thousands of people see the brand, maybe feel something about the brand, is certainly worthwhile.

So, keep up the good work on Facebook!

http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=5568699569434271756&gid=31804&type=member&item=91677100&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fadage%2Ecom%2Farticle%2Fdigital%2Fstudy-1-facebook-fans-engage-brands%2F232351%2F&urlhash=x6GC&goback=%2Egde_31804_member_91677100

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

Rats Have Feelings Too

Yes. In a recent experiment (as reported in the Montreal Gazette — why am I not surprised?) researchers at University of Chicago sought to find out whether a rat would release a fellow rat from an unpleasantly restrictive cage if it could. The answer is yes! Click on the rats for the full article.

Even better news is that they will only rescue other rates of they’re real rats — the researchers tried the experiment with a bound and gagged toy rat and NO, it was not rescued by the other rat.

I am convinced that there is some deeper meaning to this, but, honestly, it escapes me at this moment. But, it’s worth pointing out that no person is trying to break through the door to rescue me from the confines of my office.

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , , ,

Sex and advertising: Retail therapy | The Economist

This little gem published in the Economist is worth reading. In fact, it’s must reading as it highlights the everything-new-is-old and what-comes-around-goes-around theories of the world.

Sex and advertising: Retail therapy | The Economist.

Going back some years, Ernest Dechter invented the world of “soft-side” qualitative research: getting beyond the rational response and learning about non-rational responses. Or, triggering non-rational responses.

Not to boast, but we have been doing this for the past fifteen years: we have understood that behaviour toward brands and products is determined to a large (but not total) extent by unconscious motivations. We, that is Bruce Barnes and I, have focused on typology, specifically typology as defined by Carl Jung and referred to as archetypes. But, as we have said over and over again, identifying archetypes is only part of the process: the real power, form a marketer point of view, comes from understanding how the archetypal energies respond to stimuli from the world around them.

Most recently, Daniel Kahneman (qv) has studied this phenomenon and explains it in practical terms: the brain functions via 2 systems. We respond to everything immediately via our System 1 brain, which is entirely unconscious and we have no direct control (or awareness) of it or its machinations. Our response is moderated by our conscious, thinking brains: System 2. Depending on a number of factors, our system 2 brain can and will override our system 1 response, or it will let it go. Which results in spontaneous, sometimes illogical, sometimes bang-on behaviors.

So, from Freud (Superego, ego) to Dichter (emotions and unconscious whims) to Kahnemann (system 1 and system 2) to Bernstein and Barnes (unconscious typologies) the one theme is constant: we are hardly in control of what we do, BUT, with the right approach, marketers can develop a general understanding of why we do it.

Both Dichter and Kahneman come from the idea that what goes on in our subconscious can be influenced by factors of which we are not and never were consciously aware — that we absorb information that we are not aware of. For instance, we can be exposed to something (let’s say, for instance, the word “sex”) for a very short period of time — so short that we do not consciously notice it — and our sub-conscience will pick up on it and store it away. If it is repeated often enough (Kahneman) or relates to some base motive or need, we will associate it with other stimuli (for instance a brand name), and this will influence how we respond to the brand name.

Yes! Vance Packard may have been right all along. What did Dichter really insert into the ads for Chrysler for which he became famous, or, more obviously, Esso:

 

Are we, modern advertising people, in our eagerness to be smarter and more in control, doing a disservice to our brand clients by denying the power of subliminal advertising.?

O,r are we in fact NOT using subliminal advertising? Does anybody really know what lurks in the folds of Apples famous iPod ad?

I wonder.

Filed under: Behavioral Economics, Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Undercover Boss: Break or Build the Brand? Steve Joyce of Choice Hotels put it all on the line. Did he win or lose?

Perhaps a bit behind the times, but better late than never, I watched a repeat of the Undercover Boss episode featuring Steve Joyce, CEO of Choice Hotels (the fact that Joyce rhymes with Choice, incidentally, might explain in part why Joyce has his job – see Kahneman’s book [qv],  but I digress). It raised the question in my mind, again, as to the impact this kind of thing has on the brand.

This particular episode was a great case in point: it bravely exposed the warts of the brand as well as the limitations of the brand’s management. Joyce highlighted a number of problems in the hotels they selected, and in only one or two incidents did he focus on what they do fantastically. This is in sharp contrast to most of the Undercover Boss episodes which seem more like one hour brand-commercials.

For this Choice needs to be congratulated, and also for the incredibly honest way in which Joyce allowed himself to be portrayed as a fallible, emotional and not completely tuned in CEO. My hat is off to all of them.

But it does raise the question of what this kind of exposure does for the shareholders, franchisees, and associates.

I’m not sure I have a position on it, but open the conversation in the hopes of generating thoughts and insights into the real value of magnified transparency.

The show features Joyce working maintenance in what must be one of the worst maintained hotels in the system. What happened to standards? From the audience point of view, how typical is this? As insiders we know that updating old properties is expensive and also not at the discretion of the franchisor. Calling the hotel GM on the carpet seems a bit ingenuous, and frankly lacks credibility. I think more should have been made of the potential to pull the brand from non-performing properties in order to reassure the audience that this is atypical.

In addition to the hotels where he worked, Joyce stayed in Choice brands along the way. This allowed further exposure of the brand’s weaknesses (elevator breakdown, no-coffee fiasco, etc.). In my opinion, this added nothing to the story and came across (from the professional point of view) as a negative mystery-guest report to franchisees and as a bad reflection on the brand (for viewers). This may have been a real mistake.

On the subject of the coffee fiasco (in a Suburban brand property, Joyce discover that while there is a coffee machine in the rooms, coffee is not provided – guests have to go to the front desk and purchase the coffee), it seems strikingly odd that nobody considered the implications of this when developing the standards for the brand (the management team all looked stunned when Joyce suggested this was a potential negative guest touch-point experience). In a category where competitors are providing breakfasts and other perks, surely the “paying for coffee” standard was tested, discussed, tested again, until everybody was sure this was a good idea?

Are potential guests reassured knowing the one front desk person on duty at night in a Comfort Inn does everything (front desk, laundry, pool, maintenance and much, much more)?

And, the evident lack of complicity among franchisees (read “lack of interest”) in the management training system, cannot do much to inspire potential new employees.

And yet…I cannot help but think that overall the brand came out looking good, largely due to the uber-humanity and sincerity shown by Joyce.

It’s hard to know for sure – there were painfully few comments on YouTube. Google revealed one interview with Steve Joyce (http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/09/24/choice-hotel-undercover-boss/) in which he said he hoped the exposure had injected a bit of “humor, humiliation and heart), which it certainly did – mostly humiliation and heart, which are good things for brand building.

In the interview Joyce also said he thought the show had helped – summer business was up and that could perhaps have been attributed to the exposure. I think this is unlikely – there was nothing about the show that suggests a tactical or immediate business lift.

The most telling measurement would be to compare the on-line review site mentions for the choice brands before and after the show – my guess would be that there would be fewer negative reviews after the show and possibly more positive reviews. This because the show would, in my opinion, have resulted in guests arriving at Choice properties wanting to like them, because they want to like Steve Joyce. Add to this a slight moderation in expectations and the net result should be more satisfaction, less complaining; more goodwill, less need to punish the properties for not being perfect.

Filed under: Hospitality and Tourism, , , , , , , , , ,

But, Will More Passengers Fly?

This article from MediaPost brilliantly questions the credibility of the Cathay Pacific “People. They Make an Airline.” campaign. More than that, it raises an important question: is there anything airlines can say in the current atmosphere of squeezing paying passengers into every inch and squeezing every dollar from every paying “guest”. The answer, of course, is an emphatic “NO.” And the solution might be for airlines (legacy airlines, that is — the new, groovy Porter and JetBlue airlines are of course exempt from any criticism) to simply not try — take the money that would be spent on brand advertising and spend it on, for instance, a second mini-pack of mini-pretzels. While not likely to generate viral buzz about the elaborate generosity of the airline, it might just make a few “guests” a little less testy. Which would be good for everybody.

But, it’s clear from looking at the Cathay Pacific website that the campaign has nothing to do with building the airline brand or getting bums on seats. The campaign is an example of the latest and greatest marketing fad: “internal branding,” or, as HR people call it, motivating demotivated people without actually addressing their needs.

Annie, Carmine, Christine, Darminee and the rest of the gang are sure to feel special having their pics and bios on the website (and the expensive photography is a testament to creative boondoggling, as well). But is this really going to make a difference to how they truly behave toward the public and their internal associates? Probably not — in fact, the reverse may be true: as specially selected examples of people making an airline they will surely feel more special than their larger, less photogenic, older, peers.

Which brings me to the next and final point: it is disingenuous and quite frankly offensive that Cathay Pacific have only young, attractive, clear skinned, slender employees (except for senior pilots who are older, distinguished, attractive, clear skinned men). Rather than humanize the airline, this stuff actually makes the airline seem Stepford Wife-like, superficial…you know, all that stuff.

MediaPost Publications Cathay Pacific Campaign Humanizes Its Employees. Will More Passengers Fly? 01/05/2012.

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , ,

Twitter Updates

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 155 other followers

%d bloggers like this: