This past weekend I watched a TED talk by Malcom Gladwell, which you can enjoy below:
The talk was largely focused on Howard Moskowitz, a psychophysicist who helped Prego create and launch its chunky spaghetti sauce, which helped the company’s sales surpass those of Ragu. The article discussed how Moscowitz basically debunked three assumptions regarding consumers (he zoned in on consumers from the food business, but I think his information can be applied to any industry).
The assumptions and his findings include: Assumption 1: People know what they want and they will tell you. Moscowitz: Consumers have no idea what they want! Some of the time they agree with their peers even if they don’t want to, some of the time they tell marketers the "right" information, and some of the time they have no idea what they’re talking about.
Assumption 2: Products experience horizontal segmentation, meaning there are different varieties of the same product and only one can really succeed. Moscowitz: Different types of the same product exist to benefit different kinds of people. Each group should be catered to and satisfied.
Assumption 3: Every dish is “platonic,” meaning there is only one way to make it. (Like I said, Moskowitz’s research was based on food, but from my perspective, I took “dish” to mean any product.) Moscowitz: We must go past the idea of “platonic” dishes and cater to variability based on consumers’ preferences. That means there should be changes to products based on each person’s needs.
All of Moscowitz’s ideas fit together to reach one idea: if consumers’ various desires can be discovered and satisfied, everyone will be happier.
Gladwell’s videocast caught my attention for a few different reasons. First, after reading his article, “True Colors” for class, I thought his work was entertaining. He has a knack for telling a good story. That being said, the lecture I watched was also really engaging since he talked about Moskowitz’s research for well-known companies such as Campbell’s and Pepsi. Hearing about how Pepsi tried to find the perfect Diet Pepsis, not Diet Pepsi, was really eye-opening because I didn’t realize how hard Moskowitz worked to satisfy multiple consumers’ needs instead of worrying about creating one perfect product.
Next, I thought his views were the complete opposite of Barry Schwarz’s views in his lecture, “The Paradox of Choice,” which I wrote about in my last entry. As I mentioned last time, Barry Schwarz wrote that people now suffer from a paralysis that results from having too many choices when trying to purchase products. I felt that Gladwell’s lecture was saying that that idea itself is what Moskowitz was trying to advocate: that people feel happier when they have the ability to pick from a variety of products because they’re more likely to find what they’re looking for.
Also, I also thought Gladwell’s ideas were fascinating because they supported another article we read in class, “Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers.” That article discussed how companies try too hard to come up with new and exciting products that they think will entice consumers, when in fact consumers are only interested in products that they can truly benefit from. I think Gladwell really hit this one on the head when talking about Moskowitz. Like I said before, Moskowitz helped Prego come up with chunky spaghetti sauce. The success of the chunky sauce really skyrocketed because Moskowitz learned how to benefit consumers by learning what they wanted. If companies could just learn that consumers want to get something out of their products (not just fun), they would be much more successful.
Finally, the last thing that caught my eye about Gladwell was his unforgettable hair. Be proud of your afro!
I really enjoyed listening to Barry Schwarz’s lecture on the paradox of choice. Essentially, Schwarz talks about how individuals think they are experiencing freedom because they have an endless number of opportunities to choose from. In fact, sometimes as consumers, we have so many different product options to choose from that we ultimately end up not choosing any option at all. And, by some chance, if we are able to pick one of the available choices, we feel unhappy with our choice because we think one of the options we didn’t choose is better than the one that we did choose. Confusing? I think so. I’ll give a personal example.
A few days ago, I was having some allergy issues so I went to CVS to buy some medicine. When I reached the allergy aisle, I was shocked to see how many different types of allergy medicines there were. There were at least three different brand names (Benadryl, Claritin, Zyrtec, etc.), along with the generic brands. On top that, within each brand, there were at least a few different types of medications for people who wanted non-drowsy or nighttime medicines. I literally spent about 20 minutes trying to figure out which brand and type of medicine to buy. I finally settled on Claritin non-drowsy tablets.
I hurriedly came home and took one of the pills, which should have taken effect within 30 minutes. Needless to say, 6 hours later when I was getting ready to go to sleep, the medicine still wasn’t kicking in as well as I would have liked. I was so angry with myself! How was it possible that after spending so much time trying to select from such a variety of medicines that I picked the one that didn’t work!?
That’s Schwarz’s argument. It’s not that the Claritin didn’t necessarily work. It’s just that in my mind, I had set such high expectations for the Claritin that after it didn’t live up to my standards, I felt regret and anger for not choosing another brand. And that anger could only be towards myself because I was the one who decided which brand to buy.
I think Schwarz’s ideas are really enlightening when it comes to consumer decisions. I think his ideas have even bigger implications for marketers. Ask yourself this: how many brands can you think of that only offer one type or version of any product? I honestly can’t think of any. That means that marketers have to work incredibly hard to make their product stand out in consumers’ minds. In department or grocery stores, that’ll be almost impossible for them to do unless consumers already have preconceived notions before entering the store. If a consumer comes into a store similarly to how I did for my allergy medication, it’s really the luck of the draw for which brand he or she will end up picking. That means marketers have to work harder than ever to elevate their brand over the competition.
On the other hand, I do think there is a way for some marketers to take advantage of this paradox of choice idea, and it deals with marketing to consumers online. Like I mentioned in my Generation Y post, it all comes back to technology. If I, as a consumer, am guided through the many choices from which I could potentially choose, I think I would be less frustrated with the choice I end up picking. Usually this guidance doesn’t happen when you physically go to a store because half the time you can’t find any store clerks, but online it is possible. For example, in the picture below (click to enlarge) you can see that when you go to a popular retail website such as OldNavy.com, you have the option to narrow down what’s available by providing the specific sizes you are looking for. Additionally, you can also narrow down the type of clothing you’re interested in, such as pants, tees, skirts, etc., which will make it easier for you to find what you are looking for.
I want to clear something up here. I’m not saying the paradox of choice is a positive thing for consumers if a company has a website. I’m saying that if a brand’s marketers are able to help narrow down consumers’ choices, consumers will be happier with that specific brand because they will have been provided help to shrink down what initially seemed to be an endless list of possibilities. After shopping online, these consumers will be more likely to go to retail locations and purchase products from the company since they were previously satisfied with their online purchases.
It’s odd to me that I can be classified into a group known as Generation Y. My parents are both Baby Boomers, a group I have grown up hearing all about—they’re a part of history. It’s just surreal to hear that I am also becoming part of history by being part of a generation that differs completely from any previous one. The main difference in generations can be attributed to one thing: technology. My generation is obsessed with anything technology-related. Technology includes actual products, such as computers and cell phones. More importantly, technology includes the Internet, which allows me to stay connected to friends and family 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That makes my lifestyle extremely different than people from other generations. I own an iPhone, meaning I can access my Gmail account, AIM, Facebook, text messages, and anything on the Internet at any time and anywhere, thanks to Apple and AT&T. Even though all of the technological products and applications in the world are entertaining and enjoyable to “play” with, I think the introduction of technology to Generation Y has molded my peers and I into people very different from the past. Technology has led my generation to be more independent, individualistic, open-minded, and unpredictable, characteristics I feel I definitely exhibit. These are characteristics that marketers can focus on to push their products toward us, if they plan and time their marketing efforts correctly. Companies are slowly beginning to realize this. Unfortunately for some, they may have not been prepared for the frenzy that goes along with catering to Generation Y. The “MySpace Generation” podcast discusses how Friendster was one of the first social networking websites to go live. Soon after, MySpace was introduced with its blogging abilities and profile customizations. Some of MySpace’s success can be attributed to the fact that Friendster was unable to keep up with the changing desires of my generation. Since then, MySpace has become the most popular social networking website in the world with over 40 million users. By listening to its users, the company has been able to adapt its services to fit the needs of Generation Y. That being said, when it comes to my generation, I think marketers should follow us to where we spend most of our time: online. In that aspect, Friendster was headed in the right direction; however, any company that decides to launch its brand on the Internet must be able to follow through with its goal to satisfy consumers, which Friendster did not. My favorite brands today are those that have some of the most solid websites that make product browsing and shopping online incredibly easy. These brands also advertise on Facebook or personally email me irresistible coupons. These marketing tactics are very different from the traditional TV ads that my parents grew up watching. Marketing to Generation Y online doesn’t need to be done only through social networking sites or email. Viral marketing campaigns have also become quite popular because they create a buzz among Generation Y members. One example of a successful viral marketing campaign was the trailer for the horror movie Cloverfield on YouTube. The trailer was intriguing and left me wanting more. The “Generation Y” article discusses how members of my generation are likely to share their satisfaction of products by word of mouth, which is why I shared the movie trailer with my friends. Marketers have a variety of ways that they can successfully reach my generation. However, they need to be careful not to take advantage of the fact that Generation Y is fueled by technology. The advent of technology has really catapulted my generation into an era of connectivity, especially in regard to how open we are with providing our personal information to millions of people online. Some observers may say we’ve become too open in that regard and that my generation is irresponsible for doing so. I completely disagree. I know we are taking risks by being so easily accessible; however, we are also very practical and realistic as a group. That means we know where and when to draw the line when it comes to interacting with people and companies. Similarly, marketers must be sure not to cross any lines either. Bombarding me with too many coupons could be detrimental to the relationship I have with your brand. As I mentioned earlier, my generation is a lot more unpredictable and fickle than any previous generation. We know what we want, and if one company can’t give it to us, we will find another company that will. Obviously, marketers have their work cut out for them. One of the biggest challenges marketers will continue to face with my generation is the ability to adapt to our constantly changing desires when it comes to products.
