Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Advertising’

It is hard to ignore the increased frequency at which men can be seen with a beard of some form or style on their faces in recent years. Beards have become popular especially among young men towards or in their early twenties. The renewed fashion of growing beards is making troubles for 115+ years old Gillette, once an independent company and since 2005 a division and brand of consumer packaged goods giant Procter & Gamble (P&G). The difficulties for the famed brand of razors and blades caused by changes in shaving habits of male consumers have been further exacerbated by increased competition and the growing shift to e-commerce. Yet above and beyond, Gillette faces a key challenge to defend and sustain its brand equity, arising from its reputation and position of leadership for many years.

Indeed ‘beards’ are far from being uniform. Beards, and facial hair in general, can be thick or thin, with or without a moustache, covering the cheeks or leaving them clear (see for example the  top 15 beard styles described by Gillette). Often enough the beard is not much more than stubble kept growing for a few days. But beards should be more than a matter of avoiding a shave everyday. As said above, there are different shapes and styles of them, and to keep the beard in form and in good appearance, one has to cultivate and nurture his beard on a regular basis.

  • From the late 19th century and through the first half of the 20th century the moustache was the epicentre of facial hair for men. It was a fashionable sign of manhood, and there were some creative and artistic designs of them.

According to figures from 2013, it was estimated that 17% of American men grew a beard of some form in that year, up from 14% in 2009. Beards are particularly frequent among young US men age 18-24: 35% in 2013 compared with 31% in 2009 (Experian Marketing Services, 14 March 2014; the estimate of ‘bearded men’ is based on a definition of men not using any shaving products or men who use electric shavers or shaving cream (foam) fewer than two times per week [to be distinguished from watching men and counting those bearded]).

The problem of Gillette seems to be aggravated, however, by a reduced frequency at which men shave per week. It is increasingly popular to grow a 2-day, 3-day or 5-day beard. If to judge by the frequency of using shaving cream, US men used it 4.5 times per week in 2009 versus 4.3 times in 2013 (mean 3.5-3.6 among 18-24 years old). Therefore, this is not simply a question of whether an individual uses shaving products, particularly disposable razors and blades, but how much one uses them (and thereof pays to buy them). It should be noted that just 15% of young men age 18-24 in the US have had a thick beard (using no shaving products) in 2013 (2009 13%);  among those in the next age group of 25-34 years old this proportion was a minor 5%.

  • In other data (by Mintel) for 2015, 41% of men using shaving products in the US do not shave daily (50% of  18-24 years old, 51% among 45-54 years old). Nonetheless, among those who do not shave daily not all is lost, probably far from it.

Hence, there is a different way, more optimistic, to look at the situation. Many of the men who grow some form of a beard do have to continue to shave regularly enough. First, it can be noticed that many of the young men grow a rather thin and light beard. Second, many grow a beard on part of their faces (e.g., around the mouth) and hence have to keep shaving the remaining areas where facial hair grows. Therefore, instead of looking at how men do not shave or shave less frequently, one should look at the frequency they do shave, when and how. Additionally, men who grow thin and partial beards can be encouraged and advised on nurturing their beards, keeping them in line and aesthetically appearing. In fact, Gillette demonstrates in videos on its country-websites how to do so with their manual shaving products, a step in the right direction (note: similar instructive videos are available from other sources as well). Nevertheless, more emphasis may have to be given to trimmers for cutting off more dense facial hair to offer customers a more complete solution.

Shaving manually with razor blades is a ritual that demands time, patience and care. It involves three main stages and requires the use of supplementary products (e.g., pre-shave lotion, shaving cream or foam). Part of the market of manual razors and blades has been captured years ago, especially in developed countries, by electric shavers for the greater simplicity of shaving with them and also for being safer. In the US, the ratio between shaving methods stands (2013) at about 3:2 — 6 users of disposable razors and blades to 4 users of electric shavers (Experian). Younger men (18-24) tend somewhat more to prefer manual shaving over electric shavers. If it gives any consolation, only 27% of American users of electric shavers apply the machine daily (i.e., 7+ times per week). In addition, users of electric shavers seem to have lowered their frequency of shaving (mean uses per week): 4 in 2009 versus 3.7 in 2013 (18-24 years old use them less frequently to start with, 2.5-2.6). A possible lesson from those revealed figures might be that men in developed countries should not be expected nowadays to shave daily, perhaps only half as frequently, using either manual or electric devices.

In some ways, as suggested below, the management of Gillette can draw back users of electric shavers to using the brand’s razors and blades. First, users of electric shavers may be convinced of a greater accuracy in which Gillette razor blades can be used to keep, for instance, a beard within its intended  border lines. Second, while men may not find the time and patience to shave manually during the week, they may see the benefits of doing so, instead of using the electric shaver, on weekends and holidays when they have more time to groom themselves. It may be possible to widen an already small overlap that appears to exist between the use of electric shavers and the use of disposable razors and blades.

  • P&G also markets the Braun brand of electric shavers (foil covering a straight-line blade). Philips, a leader in electric shavers (round rotary heads), is offering models with or without a pop-up trimmer on back of the handset shavers; a trimmer is also available as a separate device, as may fit the need to separately treat more dense hair. (Royal Philips has been re-aligning its business in the past few years, but it seems to have found a place for its shaving products in the personal care category for men as an extension to health-care technologies).

Gillette looks as an autonomous division of P&G, almost independent from it. It may get even more freedom than other brands in the house of brands of P&G. Indeed, Gillette has been an independent strong brand for many years and is still capable of being a driver of consumer choice without the help of the corporate name of P&G. Moreover, Gillette has been and remains the endorser of product brands such as Sensor (since 1990), Mach 3 (since 1998) and Fusion (since 2006; Fusion has two premium sub-brands ProGlide and ProShield). The three product brands may be strong enough each to share a driving power equally with the endorsing Gillette name. Some consumers may know that Gillette is owned by P&G and they may value the solid backing it can give Gillette, but it seems the P&G name has no more than a role of shadow endorser [1]. The root (US) website of Gillette and its various country-websites make no reference to P&G in their content; the only mention given is a title at the top left corner saying “Part of the P&G family”. This approach thus helps in instilling the notion that Gillette acts as a stand-alone brand (or brand tree).

The cost of replacing the disposable razors (‘handles’) and blades of Gillette has become a key issue for the brand in the last ten years. The ‘heads’ that contain the blades (e.g., Sensor with 2 blades, Mach has 3 blades and Fusion has 5) seem to cause the greater burden for users, especially as they have to be replaced more frequently than the razor on which the ‘head’ is mounted. Gillette has embarked on a major effort in the US to lower their cost and bring back customers — the US website includes a ‘Pricing’ page introducing a special Lower Prices offer on razors and blades (these are recommended retail prices that Gillette is careful to stress it cannot guarantee for every retailer). A similar ‘Pricing’ page appears on the Canadian website but without details of prices, while no such page appears on websites of other countries (e.g., Australia, UK, Germany, Argentina, South Africa). Additionally, Gillette publishes on its American website a ‘Letter to Consumers’ from its employees as part of its effort: showing how they listen to consumers, and expressing gratitude to those who have already returned after trying razors and blades of competitors (attributed to Gillette’s quality advantage and their lower price offering). It begs one to wonder why this effort is limited to North America.

A threat to Gillette has come primarily from online retailers such as Dollar Shave Club (now owned by Unilever) and uprising Harry’s. At first, men reacted to increasing costs of blades by growing beards and shaving less frequently, but then also by turning to online suppliers. Dollar Shave Club was estimated to have an online market share in 2016 of 52.4% on razors and blades, and Harry’s obtaining 9.4%. However, Gillette has also entered into selling its razors and blades online and launched a customer Club in 2014; in 2016 its share online was estimated at 21.2% (CNBC, 7 August 2016, estimate figures provided by Slice [Ratuken] Intelligence). An increasing interest in subscription plans was further noted by Mintel (5 Nov. 2015) — such plans offer razors and blades at lower prices with the advantage of providing also supplementary shaving products; all can be ordered together in convenient packages. Gillette had to adapt to the new conditions, including the shift in consumer behaviour and new market rules (i.e., e-tailing). The subscription scheme of Gillette Club is available mostly in Western countries of North America and Western Europe (notes: in some countries it is labeled ‘On Demand’, and in the scheme described online, orders are set to be fulfilled via retail stores).

  • Gillette was acquired by P&G in 2005 for $57Bn. In May 2018 the Gillette brand was ranked #32 on the List of Most Valued Brands of Forbes, valued at $17.1Bn. Market share of razors in the US has been sliding down during six consecutive years, from 70% in 2010 to 54% in 2016. Since 2012 the sales of Gillette have declined from a peak of $8.3bn to $6.8bn in 2016, and dropped another 3% in 2017 to $6.6Bn. There is an anticipation now that the Club would help to halt the decline in 2018.

The slogan of Gillette, sustained for several decades already, is “The Best a Man Can Get”. Gillette has been thriving for excellence in the area of shaving as a cornerstone of its brand equity. It has won its recognition as a leader based on high perceived quality of its shaving products, especially its razors and blades (as a ‘power brand’, it achieved a central category benefit [‘the closest shave’], and has been continually improving [2a]). An association that resonates with consumers is significant for brand-building; it has to be meaningful and relevant to them. David Aaker and Erich Joachimsthaler noted in their book ‘Brand Leadership’ that Gillette was among the brands “that have high customer resonance because their customer value proposition is highly relevant” [2b]. This could be the prime challenge of Gillette as a brand for the coming years: The high quality of its products is undeniable, but can it uphold its relevance to consumers?

 


In its struggle to bring customers back, a national advertising campaign to persuade men to shave again has missed its target. An Israeli advertising agency (ACW) created a campaign titled ‘The Dad Test’ featuring a ruler for measuring how much a beard or stubble hurts babies by scratching the baby’s face (2017). The campaign stirred protest and anger for being insensitive and aiming low (Mako-Keshet TV, 7 June 2017 [Hebrew]). First, the ‘problem’ the ad caught onto is hardly new. Second, the campaign took an offensive stand by raising a conflict, alienating customers, and thus was shooting in the wrong direction. (ACW is affiliated with international advertising agency Grey; this campaign does not seem to have appeared outside Israel).

The US-based advertising agency Grey New-York launched in the past three years ad campaigns, for American Father’s Day, that seem to adopt a more positive and constructive approach to father and son relations: (1) In 2016, ‘Go Ask Dad’ instead of turning to the Internet (The Drum, 19 June 2016); (2) In 2017, ‘Handle with Care’ featuring a son helping his elderly father shave (AdWeek, 22 June 2017); (3) In 2018, ‘Your Best Never Comes Easy’, meant to redefine or re-establish the brand’s slogan (AdAge, 11 September 2018). A leading theme in these ad campaigns is connecting fathers and sons with a razor product of Gillette as the pivotal mediator. They may also be noted for enhancing a functional benefit of Gillette with an emotional benefit.


 

An approach that may help Gillette paving its way forward is looking through the lens of The Theory of Jobs to Be Done developed by Clayton Christensen [3]. In order to attract customers and keep them, a company has to understand the goal or task the consumers wish to accomplish and focus on how its designated product will help them in making progress towards achieving their goal (i.e., ‘getting the job done’). Furthermore, jobs are context-dependent, that is, in different circumstances or conditions the consumer may need the same product to do differing jobs. In the case of shaving razors and blades, we may posit ‘jobs’ such as: (1) What type of look men wish to display with their beards — does the consumer want to foster a ‘neat and elegant’ look or is he interested in appearing ‘rough and tough’? — from here a company may derive the extent to which razors have to provide a close shave and accuracy; (2) The main concern of male users may be that shaving will be easy and convenient, and without taking too much time (say 10 minutes). An additional goal for shaving may require that it is more economically affordable. Taking these options into consideration, it may prompt Gillette to examine whether consumers can easily distinguish between the different razors it offers and trace which model of razor and blades is most appropriate for the job one wants to accomplish.

The challenges Gillette has to resolve may be divided into two levels. In the short to medium term the brand may be more engaged in tackling the contemporary fashionable trends in growing beards and thereby the shifts in shaving behaviour of male consumers. There is little point in speculating how long this period may last — the brand just has go through it and adjust its product offerings and marketing. In the longer term, more crucially, Gillette will have to be concerned with sustaining the relevance of the brand (e.g., fit for a job) to men, younger and older, and ensuring that associations they hold of the brand remain valid and meaningful. On that depends the future of Gillette.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Notes:

[1] Based on the model of brand architecture in: Brand Leadership; David A. Aaker and Erich Joachimsthaler, 2009/2000; London, UK: Pocket Books (paperback edition, originally published in 2000 by Simon & Schuster UK)

[2] Ibid. 1: [a] (p. 67) and [b]  (p. 89)

[3] Competing Against Luck; Clayton M. Christensen with Taddy Hall, Karen Dillon, & David A. Duncan, 2016; Harper Business (HarperCollins Publishers)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Revelations about the Facebook – Cambridge Analytica affair last month (March 2018) invoked a heated public discussion about data privacy and users’ control over their personal information in social media networks, particularly in the domain of Facebook. The central allegation in this affair is that personal data in social media was misused for the winning political presidential campaign of Donald Trump. It offers ‘juicy’ material for all those interested in American politics. But the importance of the affair goes much beyond that, because impact of the concerns it has raised radiates to the daily lives of millions of users-consumers socially active via the social media platform of Facebook; it could touch potentially a multitude of commercial marketing contexts (i.e., products and services) in addition to political marketing.

Having a user account as member of the social media network of Facebook is pay free, a boon hard to resist. Facebook surpassed in Q2 of 2017 the mark of two billion active monthly users, double a former record of one billion reached five years earlier (Statista). No monetary price requirement is explicitly submitted to users. Yet, users are subject to alternative prices, embedded in the activity on Facebook, implicit and less noticeable as a cost to bear.

Some users may realise that advertisements they receive and see is the ‘price’ they have to tolerate for not having to pay ‘in cash’ for socialising on Facebook. It is less of a burden if the content is informative and relevant to the user. What users are much less likely to realise is how personally related data (e.g., profile, posts and photos, other activity) is used to produce personally targeted advertising, and possibly in creating other forms of direct offerings or persuasive appeals to take action (e.g., a user receives an invitation from a brand, based on a post of his or her friend, about a product purchased or  photographed). The recent affair led to exposing — in news reports and a testimony of CEO Mark Zuckerberg before Congress — not only the direct involvement of Facebook in advertising on its platform but furthermore how permissive it has been in allowing third-party apps to ‘borrow’ users’ information from Facebook.

According to reports on this affair, Psychologist Aleksandr Kogan developed with colleagues, as part of academic research, a model to deduce personality traits from behaviour of users on Facebook. Aside from his position at Cambridge University, Kogan started a company named Global Science Research (GSR) to advance commercial and political applications of the model. In 2013 he launched an app in Facebook, ‘this-is-your-digital-life’, in which Facebook users would answer a self-administered questionnaire on personality traits and some personal background. In addition, the GSR app prompted respondents to give consent to pull personal and behavioural data related to them from Facebook. Furthermore, at that time the app could get access to limited information on friends of respondents — a capability Facebook removed at least since 2015 (The Guardian [1], BBC News: Technology, 17 March 2018).

Cambridge Analytica (CA) contracted with GSR to use its model and data it collected. The app was able, according to initial estimates, to harvest data on as many as 50 million Facebook users; by April 2018 the estimate was updated by Facebook to reach 87 millions. It is unclear how many of these users were involved in the project of Trump’s campaign because CA was specifically interested for this project in eligible voters in the US; it is said that CA applied the model with data in other projects (e.g., pro-Brexit in the UK), and GSR made its own commercial applications with the app and model.

In simple terms, as can be learned from a more technical article in The Guardian [2], the model is constructed around three linkages:

(1) Personality traits (collected with the app) —> data on user behaviour in Facebook platform, mainly ‘likes’ given by each user (possibly additional background information was collected via the app and from the users’ profiles);

(2) Personality traits —> behaviour in the target area of interest — in the case of Trump’s campaign, past voting behaviour (CA associated geographical data on users with statistics from the US electoral registry).

Since model calibration was based on data from a subset of users who responded to the personality questionnaire, the final stage of prediction applied a linkage:

(3) Data on Facebook user behaviour ( —> predicted personality ) —>  predicted voting intention or inclination (applied to the greater dataset of Facebook users-voters)

The Guardian [2] suggests that ‘just’ 32,000 American users responded to the personality-political questionnaire for Trump’s campaign (while at least two million users from 11 states were initially cross-referenced with voting behaviour). The BBC gives an estimate of as many as 265,000 users who responded to the questionnaire in the app, which corresponds to the larger pool of 87 million users-friends whose data was harvested.

A key advantage credited to the model is that it requires only data on ‘likes’ by users and does not have to use other detailed data from posts, personal messages, status updates, photos etc. (The Guardian [2]). However, the modelling concept raises some critical questions: (1) How many repeated ‘likes’ of a particular theme are required to infer a personality trait? (i.e., it should account for a stable pattern of behaviour in response to a theme or condition in different situations or contexts); (2) ‘Liking’ is frequently spurious and casual — ‘likes’ do not necessarily reflect thought-out agreement or strong identification with content or another person or group (e.g., ‘liking’ content on a page may not imply it personally applies to the user who likes it); (3) Since the app was allowed to collect only limited information on a user’s ‘friends’, how much of it could be truly relevant and sufficient for inferring the personality traits? On the other hand, for whatever traits that could be deduced, data analyst and whistleblower Christopher Wylie, who brought the affair out to the public, suggested that the project for Trump had picked-up on various sensitivities and weaknesses (‘demons’ in his words). Personalised messages were respectively devised to persuade or lure voters-users likely to favour Trump to vote for him. This is probably not the way users would want sensitive and private information about them to be utilised.

  • Consider users in need for help who follow and ‘like’ content of pages of support groups for bereaved families (e.g., of soldiers killed in service), combatting illnesses, or facing other types of hardship (e.g., economic or social distress): making use of such behaviour for commercial or political gain would be unethical and disrespectful.

Although the app of GSR may have properly received the consent of users to draw information about them from Facebook, it is argued that deception was committed on three counts: (a) The consent was awarded for academic use of data — users were not giving consent to participate in a political or commercial advertising campaign; (b) Data on associated ‘friends’, according to Facebook, has been allowed at the time only for the purpose of learning how to improve users’ experiences on the platform; and (c) GSR was not permitted at any time to sell and transfer such data to third-party partners. We are in the midst of a ‘blame game’ among Facebook, GSR and CA on the transfer of data between the parties and how it has been used in practice (e.g., to what extent the model of Kogan was actually used in the Trump’s campaign). It is a magnificent mess, but this is not the space to delve into its small details. The greater question is what lessons will be learned and what corrections will be made following the revelations.

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, gave testimony at the US Congress in two sessions: a joint session of the Senate Commerce and Judiciary Committees (10 April 2018) and before the House of Representatives Commerce and Energy Committee (11 April 2018). [Zuckerberg declined a call to appear in person before a parliamentary committee of the British House of Commons.] Key issues about the use of personal data on Facebook are reviewed henceforth in light of the opening statements and replies given by Zuckerberg to explain the policy and conduct of the company.

Most pointedly, Facebook is charged that despite receiving reports concerning GSR’s app and CA’s use of data in 2015, it failed to ensure in time that personal data in the hands of CA is deleted from their repositories and that users are warned about the infringement (before the 2016 US elections), and that it took at least two years for the social media company to confront GSR and CA more decisively. Zuckerberg answered in his defence that Cambridge Analytica had told them “they were not using the data and deleted it, we considered it a closed case”; he immediately added: “In retrospect, that was clearly a mistake. We shouldn’t have taken their word for it”. This line of defence is acceptable when coming from an individual person acting privately. But Zuckerberg is not in that position: he is the head of a network of two billion users. Despite his candid admission of a mistake, this conduct is not becoming a company the size and influence of Facebook.

At the start of both hearing sessions Zuckerberg voluntarily and clearly took personal responsibility and apologized for mistakes made by Facebook while committing to take measures (some already done) to avoid such mistakes from being repeated. A very significant realization made by Zuckerberg in the House is him conceding: “We didn’t take a broad view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake” — it goes right to the heart of the problem in the approach of Facebook to personal data of its users-members. Privacy of personal data may not seem to be worth money to the company (i.e., vis-à-vis revenue coming from business clients or partners) but the whole network business apparatus of the company depends on its user base. Zuckerberg committed that Facebook under his leadership will never give priority to advertisers and developers over the protection of personal information of users. He will surely be followed on these words.

Zuckerberg argued that the advertising model of Facebook is misunderstood: “We do not sell data to advertisers”. According to his explanation, advertisers are asked to describe to Facebook the target groups they want to reach, Facebook traces them and then does the placement of advertising items. It is less clear who composes and designs the advertising items, which also needs to be based on knowledge of the target consumers-users. However, there seems to be even greater ambiguity and confusion in distinguishing between use of personal data in advertising by Facebook itself and access and use of such data by third-party apps hosted on Facebook, as well as distinguishing between types of data about users (e.g., profile, content posted, response to others’ content) that may be used for marketing actions.

Zuckerberg noted that the ideal of Facebook is to offer people around the world free access to the social network, which means it has to feature targeted advertising. He suggested in Senate there will always be a pay-free version of Facebook, yet refrained from saying when if ever there will be a paid advertising-clear version. It remained unclear from his testimony what information is exchanged with advertisers and how. Zuckerberg insisted that users have full control over their own information and how it is being used. He added that Facebook will not pass personal information to advertisers or other business partners, to avoid obvious breach of trust, but it will continue to use such information to the benefit of advertisers because that is how its business model works (NYTimes,com, 10 April 2018). It should be noted that whereas users can choose who is allowed to see information like posts and photos they upload for display, that does not seem to cover other types of information about their activity on the platform (e.g., ‘likes’, ‘shares’, ‘follow’ and ‘friend’ relations) and how it is used behind the scenes.

Many users would probably want to continue to benefit from being exempt of paying a monetary membership fee, but they can still be entitled to have some control over what adverts they value and which they reject. The smart systems used for targeted advertising could be less intelligent than they purport to be. Hence more feedback from users may help to assign them well-selected adverts that are of real interest, relevance and use to them, and thereof increase efficiency for advertisers.

At the same time, while Facebook may not sell information directly, the greater problem appears to be with the information it allows apps of third-party developers to collect about users without their awareness (or rather their attention). In a late wake-up call at the Senate, Zuckerberg said that the company is reviewing app owners who obtain a large amount of user data or use it improperly, and will act against them. Following Zuckerberg’s effort to go into details of the terms of service and to explain how advertising and apps work on Facebook, and especially how they differ, Issie Lapowsky reflects in the ‘Wired’: “As the Cambridge Analytica scandal shows, the public seems never to have realized just how much information they gave up to Facebook”. Zuckerberg emphasised that an app can get access to raw user data from Facebook only by permission, yet this standard, according to Lapowsky, is “potentially revelatory for most Facebook users” (“If Congress Doesn’t Understand Facebook, What Hope Do Its Users Have”, Wired, 10 April 2018).

There can be great importance to how an app asks for permission or consent of users to pull their personal data from Facebook, how clear and explicit it is presented so that users understand what they agree to. The new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union, coming into effect within a month (May 2018), is specific on this matter: it requires explicit ‘opt-in’ consent for sensitive data and unambiguous consent for other data types. The request must be clear and intelligible, in plain language, separated from other matters, and include a statement of the purpose of data processing attached to consent. It is yet to be seen how well this ideal standard is implemented, and extended beyond the EU. Users are of course advised to read carefully such requests for permission to use their data in whatever platform or app they encounter them before they proceed. However, even if no information is concealed from users, they may not be adequately attentive to comprehend the request correctly. Consumers engaged in shopping often attend to only some prices, remember them inaccurately, and rely on a more general ‘feeling’ about the acceptable price range or its distribution. If applying the data of users for personalised marketing is a form of price expected from them to pay, a company taking this route should approach the data fairly just as with setting monetary prices, regardless of how well its customers are aware of the price.

  • The GDPR specifies personal data related to an individual to be protected if “that can be used to directly or indirectly identify the person”. This leaves room for interpretation of what types of data about a Facebook user are ‘personal’. If data is used and even transferred at an aggregate level of segments there is little risk of identifying individuals, but for personally targeted advertising or marketing one needs data at the individual level.

Zuckerberg agreed that some form of regulation over social media will be “inevitable ” but conditioned that “We need to be careful about the regulation we put in place” (Fortune.com, 11 April 2018). Democrat House Representative Gene Green posed a question about the GDPR which “gives EU citizens the right to opt out of the processing of their personal data for marketing purposes”. When Zuckerberg was asked “Will the same right be available to Facebook users in the United States?”, he replied “Let me follow-up with you on that” (The Guardian, 13 April 2018).

The willingness of Mark Zuckerberg to take responsibility for mistakes and apologise for them is commendable. It is regrettable, nevertheless, that Facebook under his leadership has not acted a few years earlier to correct those mistakes in its approach and conduct. Facebook should be ready to act in time on its responsibility to protect its users from harmful use of data personally related to them. It can be optimistic and trusting yet realistic and vigilant. Facebook will need to care more for the rights and interests of its users as it does for its other stakeholders in order to gain the continued trust of all.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

The digital transformation of retail banking is clearly apparent by now. The way consumers manage their banking accounts (e.g., deposits, savings, investments) and run their finances keeps changing by relying on digital channels and tools to perform more and more account operations.  Most dramatically in recent years, the organisation, design and function of retail bank branches is going through re-conception and change.

Two fundamental dimensions of this transformation may be detected:

(A) Away from a branch: Account operations are shifted to digital channels of direct banking detached from bank branches. That is, banking operations are performed more frequently without requiring customers to visit a branch (e.g., using an online web-based account-management platform or a mobile app), and furthermore without interacting with human bank representatives (e.g.,  talking by phone with a representative at a bank’s call centre).

(B) At a branch: The physical environment of a bank’s retail branch is transforming by re-allocating space, facilities and human versus digital resources at the branch between banking activities. This means distinguishing between banking activities that are performed in self-service by the customers using digital working-stations or ‘kiosks’, and activities that involve human bank professionals. The transformation is affecting the site of a branch all around, within the branch and areas next to it. A salient implication of this process is the elimination of human tellers within a branch; many of the ordinary account operations will be performed with minimal or no interaction with a bank representative within a branch or in adjacent areas. Interaction with human bank professionals will be mostly reserved to consultation and for purchasing more complicated bank services (e.g., loans) or financial products (e.g., investments).

Obviously those changes are not wholly new — customers are familiar with and use various self-service, direct digital channels, as they add-up, for different lengths of time (e.g., ATMs, enhanced digital information kiosks , websites, mobile apps). The current change is in acceleration and extent of utilisation of digital technologies: the frequency in which customers are using them; the degree of customers’ freedom in choosing between digital and human modes of service for any particular activity; the types of services or products that will be diverted to digital platforms (e.g., certain loans will be arranged without meeting a bank advisor in person, perhaps by video conference); and re-shaping the environment and activity in banks’ branches.

The article explores the digital transformation by reference to the five main banks in Israel. It will especially discuss how banks balance between the human and digital factors in serving their customers. Some additional aspects of the transformation will be explained in the course of this review.

To remove any doubt, it must be emphasised that all five banks are engaged in implementing digital self-service platforms and facilities in serving their customers and offering them financial products (in addition to the now ‘classic’ direct banking by call centres). They differ, however, in how they propose and plan to balance between their digital and human channels and modes of service.

The two leading banks in Israel (Bank HaPoalim [‘workers’] and Bank Leumi [‘national’]) seem to take the transition to digital banking the most seriously and most extensively. These banks compete neck and neck for many years, swapping between them the first and second market positions occasionally, yet both are distinctively greater in scale and market dominance than the three other main banks. Both banks appear to follow more closely on the vision of digital banking transformation conveyed last year by Dr. Hedva Ber, Banking Supervisor at the central Bank of Israel, and her projection of how this ‘digital revolution’ should proceed. Nonetheless, these two banks differ on some issues in their approach to implementing the transformation.

Bank HaPoalim is advancing an initiative to establish digital-reliant branches — five branches already exist, two of them in the Tel-Aviv area. Customers utilise tablets (iPads) or larger screens on table-tops to perform their needed operations in self-service in principle; they may ask, however, for assistance from a bank representative in the branch. There are no visible desks for personal meetings with banking advisors for consultation. The branch in northern Tel-Aviv, for example, is one large open space with long white desks in the centre, a large screen on the wall, and a sitting area with personal ‘working stations’ on the left side of the branch. It has a look resembling an Apple store, elegant and flashy. One cannot find in this space the traditional partitions where customers can sit for more private and intimate consultations with banking professional advisors. This digital branch is built on site of the old-model branch.

This is a rather radical move that may precede too early the formation of mixed branches recommended and applied in other countries as the core model. Indeed most of the bank’s branches (more than 260 in total) are still more traditional; the bank plans to reduce the number of its branches and replace some of those traditional branches with new digital ones. Yet by doing so the bank could miss an important stage of preparing the public for the change.

Bank Leumi is going in a somewhat different direction, encouraging its customers to utilise mostly its direct channels that do not involve coming to one of its branches. At the branches, the bank is in major progress to eliminate all its counters of human tellers; customers are referred to enhanced information kiosks (‘Leumi Digital’) that also allow for some account operations, and to ATM machines. These stations are located in a separate interim lobby area before entering the main hall of the branch, which is dedicated only to personal sittings with banking advisors. The bank is working overall to reduce the number of its branches (currently about 250).

The bank is taking a positive move in the right direction, and yet it is not complete because the bank does not truly mix digital with human service resources in the branch. What Bank Leumi is doing is more of a re-arrangement than genuine re-modelling. Indeed it eliminates the function of human tellers, but it does not integrate the digital and human modes of service in a hybrid model and design.

Many bank branches in the country have three ‘service areas’: (a) A couple of ATMs and digital kiosks outside the branch (i.e., on street front); (b) A few ATMs and digital kiosks in a protected lobby area that customers may enter and use also outside working hours of the branch; (c) A main hall of the branch where customers can receive service or consult more privately with bank representatives and professional advisors. Some branches may have a ground floor for assistance usually with the more basic functions and a second floor for consulting on more complex issues. Bank HaPoalim created a new branch version primarily reliant on advanced digital facilities; Bank Leumi eliminated human service for basic teller functions but keeps the digital facilities outside the branch per se — it does not welcome customers using those stations to enter inside the branch.

However, the intention of a new model being developed for bank branches is to entail a combination of digital and human modes of service working next to each other. In a common hall customers can use one of the digital working stations or sit with an advisor on any specific issue more complex and financially significant. A customer may use the digital station while standing or sitting on a couch, read materials on products and perform operations. He or she may also watch instructive videos on a large screen. It should be a much more convenient and pleasant setting than using the information kiosk machine. A bank representative should be available for guidance and assistance with the digital self-service stations. But when more serious consultation becomes necessary the customer can approach one of the expert advisors sitting in partitioned meeting corners. Digital and human channels are thus in immediate access close to each other.

  • Best examples of layout, design and organisation of the new form of bank branches around the world can be found in the website of The Financial Brand: Branch Design (also see their latest Design Showcase from Fall 2016). Give special notice to the mixture of self-service stations and private zones for consultation with bank experts-advisors within the branch.

Banks may build in addition to mixed primary branches also secondary smaller digital branches (e.g., in shopping malls) to provide a convenient, quiet and pleasant place for customers to work on their bank accounts vis-à-vis using a bank’s app on their smartphones. Being similar to the model of the new “Poalim Digital” branches, they are not supposed to come in place of a cross-mode primary branch. Likewise, offering working stations in a lobby, to be used almost any hour, adjacent to the branch is not supposed to be in place of a self-service digital zone within the branch with a human assistant  (formerly a teller) ready to guide if needed. Bank Leumi should not confuse the two types of self-service by digital means. Moreover, the bank must have a digital zone integrated in the overall design of the branch that will be welcoming, visually pleasant, convenient and friendly.

Two of the smaller main banks (Bank Discount and Bank Benleumi [‘international’]) maintain at large the traditional branch format and offer in parallel a variety of digital channels with their facilities (e.g., information  kiosks) and applications (e.g., website, mobile app). They do not make yet any clear or particular stand on the balance they see fit between the digital and human modes of service. Hence, while they make sure to be up-to-date on the technological front of digital direct banking services, there is no apparent major move beyond that which would reflect a more strategic approach to a desirable human-digital balance.

But then there is Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot that has chosen to take a more distinct approach to the digital-human balance by assigning greater weight to the human factor — more precisely, committing not to sacrifice human interaction in favour of digital channels. The bank may have thus found an important dimension to differentiate its brand from the competing banks.

The bank is aiming to solidify its position as the third largest bank in Israel, climbing one position up by pushing back Bank Discount. Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot currently operates about 150 branches, and contrary to the leading banks it plans to increase this number towards 200 branches. In September 2016 the bank launched an advertising campaign, emphasising human touch, with a tagline (translated from Hebrew):

  • “On the things really important, there is no substitute to humanity.”

It purports to persuade prospect banking customers (as well as its own current customers), who still seek and prefer human interaction, that at this bank customers will continue to be able to find a human representative to talk to. Billboard ad posters, displayed until recently, proposed that the bank will cater to consumers’ concerns as they complain to their banks as follows (exemplar statements translated from Hebrew):

  • “Is it no longer possible to talk with a human in this bank?”
  • “Enough with apps, give me a human” [to talk to] — the ad “answers” that if you want to talk to a human, call a specific number.
  • “You closed the branch on [X] street. Is only the ATM left now? What is happening with you?” (the original Hebrew phrase plays on dual meaning in using the word ‘closed’)

The bank implicitly commits to maintain human reference for customers on banking issues that matter more or less. Indeed the bank does not fall behind in offering a variety of digital facilities, applications and tools for customers to manage their accounts. Yet the bank steps forward to assure customers that addressing a human representative at the bank will not be sacrificed in favour of the digital direct channels. For instance, the bank offers customers the possibility to talk by phone not only with a human representative at the call centre but also with one’s personal banker (account manager) or advisor at the branch where the account is held, reached through a direct (seamless) phone extension.

Without undermining their commitment for human reference, Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot may still modify the way it delivers certain services (e.g., teller-type) with human assistance at a branch. A new model may involve a zone equipped with digital self-service stations but supported with stronger human presence or qualifications of bank assistants for customers than what may be offered in other banks. The human resources dedicated to fulfill these positions and the tasks assigned to them should be planned anew.

Of course promises have to be tested in the reality of customer service at the bank. The bank has to prove it can deliver on its commitment to make human representatives available to customers when necessary. A critical reason banking customers turn to direct digital channels is being dissatisfied with either the long time customers feel they have to wait to reach a human representative or the level of assistance they get (e.g., professional, efficient, courteous). Nevertheless, there always remain the more complex and significant issues in which customers may need more serious consultation and human guidance in making a decision and completing a procedure (and sometimes being able to negotiate terms), help they cannot receive adequately through a self-service digital channel. Trust in customer-bank relationships is also dependent on that.

With regard to the advertising campaign of Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot, an imminent question arises: Is the message delivered in this campaign backed by a more profound vision and strategic plan? In other words, one would want to know that the campaign stands on solid ground and is not only a marketing communication idea hanging-in-the-air. A second part of this article, soon to come, will address this question, and will also examine what strategic position and attitude take the other four banks on balancing between digital and human resources and modes of service.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

 

Read Full Post »

For the past two years the Internet company Yahoo is under immense pressure: The management led by CEO Marissa Mayer, in office since 2012, is working hard to reinvigorate the core online business of the company with new up-to-date technologies; and furthermore, creating more value, mainly from advertising. The board of directors is seeking to give management more time to find a way out of the difficult times, however it is struggling to fend off pressures from activist investors who demand a break-up of the company in order to salvage the real value they see captured in Yahoo through its stakes in external companies — Alibaba of China and Yahoo Japan. Yahoo is in a delicate and complex situation, carrying a danger that consumers-users will be left behind in the final business outcome.

The key criticism of Yahoo concerns the poor performance of its online advertising system, lagging behind other platforms such as Google (search) and Facebook (social media). The core business of the company entails its search engine and media (news in various domains), acting as sources of income from advertising (e.g., display ads, sponsored results). Display advertising is now active also in Yahoo’s Mail (e-mail service).

Underlying the poor financial performance of the advertising system are mainly two problems: (a) inconvenient and technologically outdated utilities and tools for advertisers when placing their orders for online ads (1); (b) a relatively low volume of search queries by Internet users, particularly far behind Google, and insufficient returns by visitors to the different sections of Yahoo websites. For example, according to figures revealed by the New-York Times, only ten percent (10%) out of one billion monthly visitors of Yahoo websites return every day, suggesting weak brand attachment; the reported figure for Facebook is 65% (2). It may start from failing to persuade more Internet users to make Yahoo a start homepage on their browsers.

Yahoo may be suffering, nevertheless, from a  broader problem of generating income from its online services. That is, the company should not rely only on income from advertising but create additional schemes that can generate income from use of its online services. Yahoo could monetise services, for instance, by charging users on premium plans (e.g., allowing extended storage capacity, more advanced tools or features, increased customisation, access to extended content). Yahoo may further not have a wide enough range of services on which it can charge premiums from registered (logged-in) users. Rightfully, companies are reluctant to ask customers to pay for online services, but that may be an unaffordable privilege, as in the case of Yahoo. Moreover, charging price premiums for enhanced services is legitimate and can contribute to higher perceived quality or value to consumers.

The complexity of the situation can partly be explained by the claim of investors that a greater portion of market value of Yahoo arises from its stakes in Alibaba and Yahoo Japan than from its own activity. Yahoo originally (2005) had a stake of ~24% in the Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba. Shortly before an initial public offering (IPO) of Alibaba in September 2014, that stake was valued $40 billion. During the IPO, Yahoo sold 40% of that stake as agreed with Alibaba to the latter’s requirement. Yahoo eventually collected more than $9bn, available to award shareholders or re-invest in the company (how funds were actually used is unpublished). The remaining stake of Yahoo in Alibaba (~15%) was worth some $30bn in December 2015. Investors thought that not enough value stemmed from Yahoo’s genuine activity before Alibaba’s IPO, and some seem to believe that is nonetheless apparent after the IPO.

The first two years of Mayer as CEO enjoyed a sense of improvement and optimism. Until the IPO of Alibaba, Yahoo acquired more than forty technology companies to bring fresh methods, tools and skills to the company. The share price of Yahoo climbed from a low of under $20 to above $30 by the end of 2013 and reached $50 in late 2014. But after Alibaba’s IPO, tensions with investors, especially the activist ones, escalated as patience with Mayer as well as the board was running thin. The share price also started to decline back to $30 during 2015 (it recovered to ~$36 since January 2016).

It must be noted that the board of directors together with Mayer did try to find solutions that would satisfy the investors while saving the core business of Yahoo. One plan considered was to sell the remaining stake of Yahoo in Alibaba but that solution was abandoned due to concerns about a looming large tax liability. Another solution, championed by Mayer, was to put the core media and search business of Yahoo on sale in one piece, but that plan was also just recently suspended as the process failed to mature. The most serious prospective buyer was the US telecom company Verizon; they were thinking of merging the activity of Yahoo with that of AOL, acquired last year, but executives were worried about the company’s ability to pull together such an integration effort in a short time (3).

  • Update note (July 2016): After all, a deal was done with Verizon to buy Yahoo for $4.8bn (excluding its stakes in Alibaba and Yahoo Japan.)

In the second part of this article I examine the display and organization of Yahoo’s websites with a user-consumer viewpoint in mind — visual layout, sections and services on the website, composition of content, links, menus and other objects. The examination is focused more on the content and services Yahoo provides to its users rather than its advertising.

Yahoo runs multiple versions of its website in different countries and languages. The major part of the review is centered on the website of Yahoo in the United Kingdom as a pivot exemplar. References will be subsequently made to other versions. Nevertheless, all of the additional websites visited (8) highly resemble the UK website in appearance and composition. Through the examination I intend to argue that Yahoo has not organized and designed the homepages of its website versions appropriately to expose users to, and give them the necessary inducement to access, some of its core services that would also be important sources of income. However, beyond the homepages, I also relate to the ‘portfolio’ of media topical sections and services that comprise the websites.

Some of the graphics on the page were not captured (the title name Yahoo and news bar were supplemented)

Two services of Yahoo are primary assets: the search engine (Yahoo! Search) and the e-mail service (Yahoo! Mail). Both follow the company’s website in substance from its early days. They are essential components of Yahoo’s brand. The search facility is the gate to the enormous content on the Internet. The e-mail service with its mailbox management utilities is at the foundations of the company’s invaluable customer base. Both have advanced over the years and added features, although there is argument over the nature of progress particularly with regard to the search engine. A third additional asset of Yahoo is the media content of news stories and videos in various domains delivered on the website. On the left-hand of the homepage appears a sidebar with links to services and news topics on the website; a ‘global’ heading bar appears on top of any webpage on Yahoo’s site.

As important and interesting as the news media content may be, its preview takes grossly too much space of the homepage. Conversely, the search window for initial queries, while on top, is marginalised on the page, nearly “drowning” in the news content. It sends a message to visitors that this feature is secondary or less to media content. It is little wonder that on-face Internet users perceive Google as the universal search engine (Yahoo has been relying on the powers of search engines of Google and previously Microsoft’s Bing in recent years). The icon-link to the e-mail service is not in a much better position at the top right corner. Even though three links for Mail appear on the homepage — the icon right to the search window, on top of the vertical sidebar, and on left side of the heading bar — none of these positions is central. The allocation of space on the homepage is not reasonably proportional between these three assets. It suggests that Yahoo has become a media company and has practically discounted its two other assets.

The sidebar added to the website in the past two years is a welcome contribution as it helps to quickly familiarise with or easily find some key services and news topics on Yahoo’s site. Nevertheless, icons-links for those services and topics could receive better attention and salience in users’ eyes and minds if they were arranged in a central area of the page adjacent to the Search window and Mail icon (e.g., beneath them). It would give Yahoo an opportunity to promote services or topics with a greater income potential vis-à-vis visitors’ interests and utility in using particular services. For example, the online cloud-based service Flickr for storing, editing and showcasing photos is hardly noticed on the head-bar, and if at all on the sidebar (Flickr was acquired by Yahoo in 2005). If site users could also see more instantly and clearly what functional services (non-news) are offered by Yahoo, it might be better understood why there is a Sign-In option separate from Mail.

  • Extra feature-services such as Contacts, Calendar, Notepad and Messenger (chat) are already included in Mail.

Yahoo highlights on its homepage general news, sport, entertainment and finance. On the ‘homepage’ of the news section one can find more categories such as UK,  World, Science & Tech, Motoring and Celebrity. Links to some of them appear on the sidebar of the UK homepage (e.g., Cars [Motoring], Celebrity). Interestingly, some news/media sections do behave as more autonomous sites and some have a different layout with a visual graphic display of tiles — Parenting, Style and Movies. (In the Italian version, Beauty and Celebrity sections also exhibit a tile ‘art’ display.)

The news headlines with the snippets (briefs) are useful but those do not necessarily belong on the homepage in that long a list. The ‘ribbon’ of images for selected stories would most appropriately fit on the homepage with a focal story changing on top — that is all that needs to remain on the homepage (with some enhancements such as choice of category) while the additional headlines are delegated to the News ‘homepage’. In the final display of the homepage, a concise and elegant arrangement should include the Search window and Mail/ Sign-In icons, surrounded by a News showcase and a palette of selected services or media topics.

  • A visitor has to look deeper into the website to trace additional services that may be  interesting and useful. A few examples: (1) The Finance (news and more) section includes a personalised utility ‘My Portfolios’ for managing investments; (2) On a page enlisting more services one can find Groups (discussion forums) and Shopping. Other features or services on a sidebar or head-bar refer to Weather, Mobile (downloading Yahoo apps), and Answers (subdivision of Search — peer-to-peer Q&A exchanges).

When the homepage of UK website is compared with other country and language websites of Yahoo, it is mostly noticeable that some of the links on the sidebar and head-bar may vary, apparently accounting for regional and cultural differences in public interests. Countries may also be affiliated or in co-operation with different local content and service providers. For instance: Italy assigns more importance to Style, Beauty and Celebrity, also having more invested topical sections; France has a section on real-estate (Immobilier) in affiliation with BFM TV); Australia has a TV section affiliated with PLUS7); and in Germany the Weather and Flickr services are represented on both sidebar and head-bar. It is further observed that the sidebar in Yahoo Australia includes many more links than in other site versions.

Regarding the US website, some differences can be marked. First, subject titles of appear above each news headline. Second, a reference to the social blogspace site Tumblr appears on the head-bar (in addition to Flickr) — it appears also on the site of Australia but not on the other sites visited (Tumblr was acquired by Yahoo in 2013). Third, the US site chose to mention on its sidebar Shopping and Politics.

  • The Yahoo websites exhibit anomalies implying that the company refrains from promoting some of its own in-house or subsidiary services. For instance, Flickr and Tumblr are sidelined, and the latter is exclusive to just a couple of countries. The ‘Shopping’ product search for attractive retailer offers (powered by Nextag) is more often hidden, and Yahoo homepages provide links to eBay and Amazon.

In order to design in practice the most appropriate and effective composition and layout of the homepage, Yahoo may apply usability tests, eye tracking, and possibly also tracking of mouse movements and clicks. These three methodological approaches can be used in parallel or even simultaneously to derive findings that can support and complement each other in guiding the design process. Attention obviously should be paid to visual appeal of the page appearance in the final design. As suggested above, however, emphasis should be directed to the content and services provided by Yahoo as opposed to the advertising space.

Notwithstanding, the homepage is just the start of the journey of a visitor on the website. Of course much depends on the quality of services and content in determining how long a visitor will stay on the site. For example, how the mail, e-commerce (shopping), or photo service platform compare with competition. Particularly with respect to the search engine, continued utilisation relies on relevance, credibility and timeliness (historical to up-to-date) of results generated.

Yahoo provides specialised searches of websites and pages, images, videos, answers, products and more. Yet the company acquired in the past the Altavista engine that was advantageous in retrieving higher-quality and academic-level information sources and materials but it was apparently submerged without leaving a trace; and as indicated earlier, Yahoo has turned to stronger capabilities of competitors at the expense of developing more of their own. Marissa Mayer aims alternately to create a leverage by developing a powerful intelligent search engine for mobile devices in a mobile-friendly site/app. Even though the mobile-driven approach can be a move in the right direction for Yahoo, it may not resolve the suggested problems inherent in the online website, and skeptics doubt that the company has the skills and resources in its current state to accomplish those goals.

Yahoo has a lot at stake. It should not rely on users to know how to get to its services independently or to search for their Internet addresses. The site, online or mobile, has to give a hand and show users the way to the services it wants them most to visit and apply, and there is no better place to start than on the site’s homepage. The solutions needed are not just about technology but in the domain of marketing strategy and user-consumer online and mobile behaviour. Yet, looking at how events roll at Yahoo, the decisions made could be driven by business and financial considerations above the heads of users-consumers.

  • The lessons for Yahoo should now be learnt by Verizon as it intends to merge between functions and capabilities of Yahoo and AOL, and probably rebrand them.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Notes:

(1) “Marissa’s Moment of Truth”, Jess Hempel, Fortune Europe Edition, 14 May 2014  pp. 38-44.

(2) “Yahoo’s Suitors Are in the Dark About its Financial Details”, International New-York Times, 16-17 April 2016.

 

 

Read Full Post »

In late February the annual Mobile World Congress (MWC) 2016 took place in Barcelona, including a large festive exhibition and a conference next to it. The leading motto of the MWC declared that “Mobile Is Everything“. This motto, directed primarily at people involved in the mobile industry, on either the technology-side or the management-side, could help to increase their interest in the event, create a uniting theme, and energise them to be part of the congress and its community. But what does this ‘invitation’ tell client-companies operating mainly outside the field of mobile telecom and technology? Moreover, what does this call suggest for the lives of consumers?

A little over 100,000 people from 204 countries attended the MWC this year according to MWC official website. Some 2,200 companies were represented in the exhibition; during that time the conference hosted speeches and panel discussions by experts and business leaders. An intensive media coverage on TV, online, and in the press, made sure news from the event reach almost everyone. Everything important, it would appear, has happened that week at the MWC.

Companies were presenting in the exhibition their technological solutions, methods and products. Each company could summarily describe its areas of specialisation by classification in any of 90 different product categories (companies more frequently applied 3-5 categories). A remarkable variety of mobile-related products, applications and services were shown in the exhibition: mobile devices (i.e., latest models of smartphones and tablets); accessories and mobile-supported peripheral equipment (e.g., virtual reality [VR], 3D printing, Internet of Things [IoT]); mobile apps; equipment and services in connection with mobile communication (e.g., infrastructure, business & tech consulting, data analysis). While some companies demonstrated apps as designed to be used by consumers, most exhibitors offered  platforms for developing apps (custom or adapted) and mobile-oriented methodologies and services intended for business clients.

  • The classification appears to single out the salience of mobile apps these days. It is interesting to note that out of the ninety categories, five were dedicated to App Development: General, Film, Gaming, Music, and Shopping.

Key areas associated with digital marketing (e.g., data analysis, CRM, content management) need to be extended from online (PC-based) to smart mobile devices. Clearly, technology companies that were not originally in the mobile industry have to adapt and add digital solutions respectively for the mobile channel. Yet it is no less a challenge for companies in lines of business that only use digital technologies for improving their performance (e.g., food, cosmetics, fashion, retail) to keep pace with the latest developments — in mobile communication to this matter. Some companies may produce their solutions in-house but many others have to hire specialist companies to provide them with systems or services tailored to their needs. Those kinds of companies, offering business solutions in a mobile context, would be found most likely at the MWC.

Mobile Advertising and Marketing was one of the more crowded categories (290 companies classified). One of the issues receiving particular attention in companies’ offerings is targeted advertising on mobile devices as well as improved targeting techniques for mobile apps. This category is closely tied with data analysis (e.g., to provide input for implementing more accurate personalised targeting), and is also connected with topics of customer relationship management (e.g., loyalty clubs) and content management in the mobile environment. For example, Ingenious Technologies (Germany) is an independent provider of cloud utilities for business analytics and marketing automation (e.g., omni-channel activities, tracking customer journeys), and Jampp (UK) specialises in app marketing, offering ways to grow consumer engagement in mobile apps (e.g., combine machine learning with methods of big data and programmatic buying). Exhibitors also addressed an increasing concern of monetization, that is the ability of businesses to charge and collect payments for content or for products and services that can be ordered on mobile devices, especially via apps.

In an era that promotes digital and data-driven marketing, it becomes imperative to cover and analyse data from mobile touchpoints. The category of Data Analysis (148 companies) includes the marketing aspect, yet relates to applications in other fields as well.  Among the applications concerned: integrating predictive analytics with campaign management (e.g., Lumata [UK]); analytic database platform for IoT and processing app-based queries (e.g., Infobright [Canada]); traffic analytics for enhancing urban mobility of vehicles and people (e.g., INRIX [UK]).

In the category of Consumer Electronics (222 companies) one may find: (a) devices (e.g., Samsung Galaxy S7 smartphones); (b) accessories (e.g., SanDisk’s portable data storage solutions, fast charging [Zap-go-charger, UK] or portable power backup [CasePower, Sweden]); and (c) components (e.g., LED components by Ledmotive [Spain]). But there were also some less usual devices such as a wearable device for tracking a dog’s health and fitness, which comes with an app (Sense of Intelligence [Finland]).

  • The area of audio (music) and video playing gains special interest, and is further connected to gaming and mobile entertainment overall. A couple of examples under the heading of consumer electronics: software for audio enhancement (AM3D A/S [Denmark]; a mobile video platform, supporting live streaming and video chat (avinotech [Germany]). Video also appears in the context of content management, such as an advanced technology for accelerating display of video content in HD TV quality (Giraffic [Israel]).

This brief review would not be complete without the rising category of Location Technologies and Services (141 companies). Location technologies and their applications can be found in different areas, not just marketing or shopping. For instance, a French company (Sensineo) offers an ultra-low-GPS tracking and positioning device which may help in locating cars or dogs, but furthermore important, tracing vulnerable people who may have lost their way and need support or medical assistance — location apps and mobile alarm devices emerge as new aids to healthcare. In the context of advertising, we may refer to technologies that bridge online and offline domains (e.g., targeting by combining text analysis of consumers’  conversations in social media and intelligence on where they go in the physical world [Cluep, Canada], eliciting online-to-offline engagement in brand or retail campaigns [Beintoo, Italy]). Another technology (by Pole Star [France]) specialises in indoor location, involving analytics through precise geofencing (i.e., activation as people enter specified perimeters) and proximity detection. The last three examples have apparent relevance to consumer behaviour during shopping trips.

  • In regard specifically to development of shopping mobile apps (46 companies), there seems to be greater reference of exhibitors to technologies that may support shopping utilities but not enough examples for apps that truly connect retailers and shoppers. As an example for a more relevant app, Tiendeo Web Marketing (Spain) offers an app, working in partnership with retail chains, that informs consumers of weekly ads, deals or coupons in their area of residence.

For businesses that are client-users of technologies and associated services, the message is very clear — in order to be accessible and relevant to consumers, the business must have mobile presence. Consumer brands of products and services, and in retail, cannot afford to neglect the mobile channel. Moreover they must have a strong showing because the competition is intense and ‘mobile is everything’. The need to be present and useful via mobile devices (mobile websites and apps) is undisputed. As more consumers are engaged with their smartphones much of the time, and perform more tasks in mobile mode, companies should be there available to them. The idea, however, that this is all that matters for marketing and customer service is dubious. Companies are under endless pressure to keep to-date with continuous advances in technology. Technology and consulting companies remind their clients all the time that in order to be competitive they must apply the most advanced mobile features and tools. But companies have to be available, effective and attractive through multiple channels and the kind of pressure implied by the MWC’s motto is neither helpful nor productive.

The danger is that companies engaged in consumer marketing may neglect other important channels in attempt to develop a strong mobile presence. In fact, this kind of shift to interactions through newer technological channels has been happening for years. The latest shift advised to companies is from Web 2.0 on personal computers to mobile websites and apps. It could mean that companies would be forced to invest more in mobile compatibility of their websites, while neglecting improvement of the functionality and visual attractiveness of their usual websites. One of the implications of the shift to online and mobile touchpoints is reduction in direct human interactions (e.g., fewer brick-and-mortar service branches, fewer service hours, not enough trained and skilled personnel in call centres). But consumers continue to appeal call centres for help, and when faced with inadequate assistance they are encouraged to prefer computer-based interactions. More companies offer customers options to chat by text, audio and video, but on the other hand they also refer customers more frequently to virtual agents. The mobile facilities are not desirable for everyone, and at least not all of the time; having the most advanced technology is not always an advantage, except for tech-enthusiasts.

Companies that develop technologies and market hardware and software products and associated services are on a constant race to provide more advanced competent solutions. It starts to be a problem when too many companies are pursuing a single main course — mobile in our case. It is the kind of push induced by MWC’s organizers that should worry us. The interest of GSMA — a consortium of mobile telecom operators, joined by device manufacturers, software companies etc. (“broader mobile ecosystem”) — in putting mobile under the spotlight is clear. However, following the claim that “mobile is everything” can have negative consequences for many stakeholders in industry and also for the general public. There is a sense of rush to develop apps and all other sorts of mobile products and utilities that is concerning. It may never develop into a bubble as fifteen years ago because the conditions are different and better (i.e., stronger technological foundations, greater experience), but there are disturbing signs that should alert stakeholders.

It is hard to argue with the many conveniences that mobile phones, particularly smartphones, provide to consumers. Basically, if one is late for a meeting, wants to set a meeting point with a friend in the city, or just needs to update a colleague in the office about anything, he or she can call while being out on the way somewhere. It has become an invaluable time saver as one can settle any professional or business issues at work while travelling. Yet the elevation of mobile phones to computer-based ‘smart’ phones (and in addition tablets) has expanded greatly the number and types of tasks people can perform while being away from home or office. It is not just sending and receiving voice calls and SMS but also e-mails and various forms of updates on social media networks. Then one can check the news and stock prices, prepare shopping lists and compare products and prices while visiting shops, schedule a forgotten appointment for the doctor, order a table at a restaurant for the evening, listen to his favorite music, and far more. The point is that any minute one can find something to do with the smartphone; people cannot lose hold and sight of their smartphones. Smartphones no longer just serve consumers for their convenience but the consumers ‘serve’ the smartphones.

The motto of MWC could be right in arguing that for consumers ‘mobile is everything’, yet it is also complicit in eliciting the consumers to become even more preoccupied with their mobile devices and adopt forms of behaviour that are not honestly in their benefit. Consumers bear a responsibility to notice these effects and sanction their use of mobile devices reasonably. For instance, people not only can call others when convenient but may also be reached by others in less convenient times (e.g., by an employer). Talking and messaging while travelling on a bus, taxi or train is fine but there are stronger warnings now that people put themselves and others in greater danger if doing so while driving, because this diverts their attention from the road. Being preoccupied with their smartphones causes people in general to look less around them and be less communicative with other people. Immediately sorting every query on a website or app may get consumers hasten purchase decisions unnecessarily and also ignore other channels of resolution (e.g., consulting staff in-store). Finally, relying on mobile devices to find any information instantly online evokes people to make less effort to remember and accumulate new knowledge, to retrieve information from memory, and think (i.e., less cognitive effort).

The motto “Mobile Is Everything” sounds shallow and simplistic. Sweeping generalisations usually do no much good — they cannot be taken too seriously. Perhaps this title was meant to be provocative, so as to fuel the MWC with enthusiasm, but it can end up aggravating. The field of mobile telecom and digital technology has much to show for in achievements in recent years. There is no need to suggest that businesses and consumers cannot do without ‘mobile’ and should invest themselves even more fully into it. Using such a motto is not acting out of strength.

Mobile indeed is a great deal, yet is definitely not everything.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Markting)

 

Read Full Post »

As a shopper approaches the entrance to a store or shop, and walks through the doorstep, he or she quickly figures out how inviting the venue is. Does the store look interesting and compelling, showing a potential for exhibiting merchandise articles of value? Or does the scene look so crowded and messy it is hard to believe one can find there anything he or she may need or desire? More basically, do the store’s interior design and display appear pleasant to the eye or annoying? While consumers generally like to keep things simple and in good order, some degree of visual complexity can help to capture shoppers’ attention and make the store more attractive and inviting for prospect customers.

A simple design, stripped of any form of art and modestly furnished for displaying merchandise, stands the risk of being perceived too boring to justify spending time in the store or shop. An element of surprise, a break from the ordinary or standard, may be necessary to intrigue the shopper and entice him to enter and study the store more closely. But deciding on the right measure of complexity can be difficult. A store owner may not want to complicate its design and display to a level that is overwhelming for the shopper, making it hard for the eye to absorb (e.g., an unruly mixture of deep and flashy colours, every furniture or fixture in a different form and style). Challenging the shoppers is welcome, but the challenge should be carefully planned and designed so as not to scare them off. Importantly, planning for visual complexity is not just a matter of amount but even more so a matter of its form and composition.

Introducing variability (e.g., in shapes or colours) and irregularities (e.g., construct displays in non-parallel lines), for example, increase the complexity of a design. Complexity does not have to be extensive — a few elements can be sufficient to spice-up the design of a store; and even a disruption of “normal” order can have rules. When increasing visual complexity in the store one should take care to maintain the aesthetic appearance of its scene. In reference to the design of products, Hekkert (1) proposed four goals towards an aesthetic and pleasant visual design: maximum effectiveness from minimum means (e.g., use a few and simple features, apply correlated features that co-align into a meaningful construct); unity in variety (i.e., follow specific principles like those of Gestalt to maintain order and control in variety); striking a balance between novelty and typicality that excites but does not shock the consumers; and, co-ordinate between stimuli that relate to the different human senses.  Hekkert argued that the aesthetic experience should be considered in tandem with the experience of meaning and emotional experience. We may refer to these goals as a benchmark for constructing discernible but sensible complexity — for instance, breaking away from a Gestalt principle (e.g., symmetry) increases complexity, but it should be done without dissolving the whole organization of the store’s scene. Such guidelines could be of particular relevance for the design of product display, that is, visual merchandising.

Visual complexity may arise from different factors such as the number and range of elements or objects in a scene, the variety and density of visual-graphic features present (e.g., colours, shapes, texture), and deviation from principles of organization and regularity (e.g., symmetry, similarity, repetition). Clutter is associated with complexity but is not synonym with it. Clutter frequently represents the objective information-side of complexity, that is, the (excessive) detail and (weak-structured) layout of information in the scene. It is viewed as a driver of complexity though it is not the only facet to consider. Visual complexity, on the other hand, often reflects the personal subjective perspective, such as the evaluation by individuals (e.g., with respect to attractiveness) and their response to complexity. However, references in research to ‘complexity’ can be as complex and diverse as the term itself suggests. The effect of visual complexity on consumer processing, evaluation and behavioural response is important with respect to appearance of products and their packages, ads, webpages, and scenes of retail and service physical environments.

Store owners have the choice whether to display more or less merchandise in the main space of the premises, and where and how to display it (e.g., on tables, counters or shelves at the centre, along the wall, or as a fixture attached to the wall). Additional elements of interior design would accompany the display to create the overall impression for the shopper-viewer. Orth and Wirtz (2) tested direct and mediated effects of visual interior complexity on store attractiveness in two types of environments, deli stores (merchandise-oriented) and coffee shops (service-oriented). They showed that greater complexity (e.g., many products crowded on a long counter) hurts the perceived attractiveness of the store. Attractiveness is furthermore mediated by the pleasure experienced by shoppers-viewers from the display and overall scene. That is, lower attractiveness is driven, or can be explained, by shoppers being unhappy with or annoyed by the visual scene. It is also attributed to a decrease in processing fluency of the more complex visual scene (fluency is mediating between complexity and pleasure). The consequences, as this research shows, can be a behavioural tendency of avoidance from a more complex store and weaker intention to revisit it.

  • The researchers measured “attractiveness” with respect to aspects of overall attractiveness, product quality and price level. However, information on products and prices was only implicitly shown but not manipulated, or alternatively not shown at all.  Hence, our ability to learn how complexity, as an attribute of visual design, fares in its effect on store attractive relative to the other two aspects is very limited. The effect of complexity that seems truly to matter relates to pleasure experienced from viewing the store’s scene, pertaining particularly to its visual appeal (not mentioned in the scale of attractiveness) — complexity is less appealing to the eye. This experience is sensibly influenced by the lower fluency when perceiving the visual scene.

A rich view into the store-perhaps too rich

But the case for visual complexity in the store is not yet lost. The answer for employing complexity to the advantage of the store or shop may be in selectively implementing particular layers or facets of visual complexity in the interior design and visual merchandising of the retail outlet. We may learn a lesson from research by Pieters, Wedel and Batra (3) who analysed visual complexity and its effects in the context of advertising from the consumer perspective. They made an important distinction between “feature complexity” and “design complexity” and showed that these layers of complexity have opposite effects on attention and attitude (through techniques of eye-tracking and direct questions).

Feature complexity refers to the variation, density and layout of visual features (colour, luminance and edges) across a whole scene. For example, an ad image that contains more colours all over is more feature-complex. In other words, feature complexity is enhanced as the eye has to shift more frequently between areas of different colour, luminance or texture and cross more edges of objects and frames. Clutter is associated in this account with feature complexity. Design complexity pertains to the appearance of identifiable objects contained in the scene (e.g., a picture of a product or a fashion model figure, a brand logo). The six criteria defined by the authors may be divided into two groups: (a) criteria concerned with the appearance of specific objects (irregularity of object shape, dissimilarity of objects [differ in shape, colour, texture or orientation], and having more edge and colour detail); (b) criteria concerned with the layout or arrangement of objects ([greater] quantity, asymmetry of object arrangement and irregularity of object arrangement). It is noted that configuring and designing the appearance and arrangement of particular objects is to a great extent in the control of ad designers, and hence their better ability to determine the level of design complexity of the ad. Pieters and his colleagues substantiate the following differing effects of feature and design complexities:

  • Feature complexity reduces attention to the advertising brand (e.g., its name heading or logo). Furthermore, greater feature complexity (visual clutter) hurts consumer attitude towards the ad.
  • Design complexity increases attention to the pictorial elements in the ad as well as to the ad in whole. Moreover, higher levels of design complexity improve attitude towards the ad.
  •  (It is also shown that greater design complexity together with better brand identifiability in the ad enhance ad comprehensibility, probably by improving consumer ability to attach associations inferred from the ad with the focal brand.)

Extending insights from ads to brick-and-mortar retail stores is not quick and easy. First, an ad is a two-dimensional image whereas the store’s space is a three-dimensional scene — our perception of visual effects differs between 2D and 3D views (e.g.,  a photograph compared with the actual location). In addition, ads often incorporate an heterogeneous mix of different types of pictorial and text elements and other graphic features, conjoint in a discontinuous layout not possible in a physical 3D space. Nevertheless, some insights on visual complexity seem applicable also to the interior design of a store and to visual merchandising.

Consider these two examples for increasing design complexity in a store:

  1. Imagine a shelf display on a wall where merchandise articles (e.g., sweaters) on each row are in a different colour; suppose we now arrange items so that in the center we get, for instance, a circle filled with items in a colour different from the remaining display, thus adding a colour while “breaking” the horizontal rows of the shelves.
  2. Suppose we created a display composed of small square tables on the floor with merchandise articles (e.g., books) on top; we may add complexity by placing one table in a different shape (e.g., triangle), or moreover add a stand in an irregular shape.

Another issue may be raised with regard to design complexity, whether instead of manipulating visual aspects of specific fixtures or props it is better to manipulate their arrangement and for example set asymmetric or irregular layouts. These design variations may serve to make a statement or highlight cues about the store’s image. The challenge is not to lose sight of the whole scene to avoid rendering it too confused, disturbing or difficult to follow (i.e., cluttered). We may further realise that even in a store the visibility of a brand logo, large photographic images posted on walls and other signage count, no less than in ads — they support brand identifiability and visual merchandising.

A classic stationary shop re-modelled to fit 21st century

A classic stationary shop re-modelled to fit 21st century

If a retailer is cautious and prefers to start in a middle ground, here are a few possible avenues for action. Front windows make a good place to start. Particularly the cabin-type window displays that are closed on the back and block the view into the shop’s space sustain a scene that is closer to 2D. The front window displays are of special importance because they provide shoppers the first introduction as they approach the shop. And of course one may also on advertising for the store, such as for an ad that includes a photographic image of the store. Specifically for ad posters that are intended to be shown in the store (e.g., new fashion outfits, deals), Pieters, Wedel and Batra recommend that they should reduce feature-based clutter as much as possible because of the short duration shoppers are expected to be exposed to those ads. Photo images of a store may also constitute a practical and suitable medium for studying consumers’ evaluation (e.g., visual appeal) and attitude given an exhibited level of complexity in the store.

Introducing visual complexity in a store is a matter of form, composition and style. Not just the extent of complexity created but also in what ways it is done will determine its acceptance and favourability by shoppers. Ultimately visual complexity needs to stimulate shoppers to purchase. Applying aspects of design complexity is the course for store owners or managers, and visual merchandisers and interior designers working with them, to exercise their creativity. But it is essential at all times to keep an eye on the overall scene outcome so as not to fall into a trap of creating too much visual clutter and confusion.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

References:

(1) Design Aesthetics: Principles of Pleasure in Design; Paul Hekkert, 2006; Psychology Science, 48 (2), pp. 157-172.

(2) Consumer Processing of Interior Service Environments: The Inerplay Among Visual Complexity, Processing Fluency, and Attractiveness; Ulrich R. Orth & Jochen Wirtz, 2014; Journal of Service Research, 17 (3), pp. 296-309

(3) The Stopping Power of Advertising: Measures and Effects of Visual Complexity; Rik Pieters, Michel Wedel, & Rajeev Batra, 2010; Journal of Marketing, 74 (Sept.), pp. 48-60.

Read Full Post »

With click rates on online ad banners ranging between o.5% and 2% it is not difficult to understand why many in the marketing, advertising and media professions often question the efficacy of click-based models of advertising on the Internet. It is a problem for both advertisers of products and services and the website owners that publish ad banners on their pages.

For advertisers, exposure of consumers to their ads is not a sufficient or satisfying criterion but immediate action in response to the ad banner is very difficult to elicit; perhaps clicking-through should not be expected just because these objects are “clickable links”.  Should the effectiveness of ad banners be doubted because of low traffic it may generate, or is it that the criteria used are inappropriate?

For the owners of websites used as vehicles for advertising (e.g., newsmedia, portals, social media), it is a question of effectiveness in generating satisfactory revenue from those ads, conditioned on mouse clicks. When webpages receive high volumes of visits, even very low click rates may be sufficient to collect a handsome sum of money, but this cannot be generalised to most websites and pages. On the other hand, if a website is loaded with ads across the pages to generate more revenue, it may end up cluttering its own content and chasing away visitors.

Internet users who browse websites in search for information on a particular subject (e.g., photography, nature), and  read or watch related content on webpages, are very likely to see ad banners as no more than a distraction from their main task. Clicking on a banner that sends the users to another page means an interruption of the kind many would not welcome. There are exceptions, of course, when for example the ads are for products (e.g., cameras, hiking gear) related to the main topic of the website and thus provide access to additional information that can be of interest on relevant options (i.e., context in which ads appear matters). Ads may be perceived less disturbing to surfers who are engaged in exploration with no planned goal but for fun and entertainment; checking on advertised companies and products may be accepted as part of the exploration, although maybe not in every condition (e.g., when users are wary of non-trusted solicitations, busy interacting with friends in social networks, engaged in watching music videos and so on).

However, viewing an ad banner for a brand can leave an impression, and a trace in memory, in consumers’ minds that will have its effect at a later time, especially if a choice situation in the same product domain is looming soon after. Consumers may register in memory the exposure episode, with the brand name and additional information contained in the ad, for checking-up later without being required to click-through at the same moment. Importantly, this “registration” does not have to occur consciously to make an impact.

If a consumer-surfer is interested, he or she may attempt intentionally to remember the ad and look-up for the brand’s website when the time becomes available and convenient. When  working on a computer or a mobile device, one can easily type a note or set-up a reminder, especially if the website address also appears on the banner. But an ad banner can operate without waiting for a voluntary response or overt reaction from the consumer.  It depends to a large extent on the kind of impression made by the visual image of the ad banner on the consumer-surfer at an initial or quick glance. An image that is easier for the eye and mind to process, that feels pleasant to look at, its informational content will become more readily acceptable and persuasive. Visual processing fluency (1) at the perceptual level suggests that principal elements of the image can be identified with little effort and great accuracy — for instance, in a banner’s image, that may include the brand/company name, logo icon, and picture of a product. Visual fluency can be facilitated by the use of colours and recognizable shapes that are pleasing to watch, symmetry, clear contrast between figure and ground, etc. Its persuasive effect may not be strong enough to trigger a mouse-click yet increased fluency can make the ad’s content better remembered as well as better liked by the viewer for a longer time after exposure.

An ad banner can influence consumer attitude and response also through a process of priming. This type of effect in the particular domain of ad banners on the Internet has been studied by Mitchel and Valenzuela (2). The consumer is initially introduced to the ad in a seemingly casual and incidental way. However, information in the ad stimulus, “planted” as a trace in the consumer’s memory, would prime her or him, unconsciously, to use it during a future task, for example when recalling brands or choosing between alternative brands. Such exposure could work simply by evoking a positive attitude towards the brand in the priming ad. In another procedure, a joint presentation of a brand with a product attribute in the ad banner would prime the consumer to look for and give priority to that same combination when it appears in the information provided on a set of product alternatives to choose from.

according to this research, priming by an ad banner can affect the consideration of brands for purchase (tested with airlines) in three significant ways. First, a brand whose ad had been shown earlier was more likely to be considered for purchase (of air-tickets) than if an ad for another brand had been shown or no ad at all (control). Second, this effect is stronger for a lower quality brand than for a higher quality brand, that is, a stronger brand has less to gain from priming through its ad banner. Third, when consideration is based on recall from memory, priming has a stronger effect in leveraging the likelihood of consideration of a primed brand than if the brands have to be selected from a constrained list — this may be explained by the added impact of priming through prior exposure on memory (note: this difference is valid only for the lower-quality brand!). Advantages of priming are established also when making the final choice of a single brand to purchase from (subject again to the second and third qualifications above).

Mitchel and Valenzuela further reveal in their research an interesting effect of priming of established brands on a “new” unfamiliar brand (i.e., a fictional airliner). All participants were exposed to an ad banner for the unfamiliar brand before given any tasks and therefore the relevant priming effects arise from the lower-quality and higher-quality brands. It is shown that results for the unfamiliar brand were more favourable if at the beginning of the research the higher-quality brand had been primed rather than if the lower-quality brand or neither of them had been primed. The more positive image of a higher-quality brand seems to spill over to the unfamiliar brand by lifting the brand’s evaluation higher and increasing its likelihood of consideration and being finally chosen — an advantage that earlier priming of a familiar but lower-quality brand cannot provide to the unfamiliar brand.

We may learn from this research that ad banners can be utilised to create an advantage for a brand during consumers’ decision processes without their full awareness of it but it will not help any brand — it is more suitable for brands that are currently weaker — and not in every situation. The placement of the ad banner for this purpose has to be planned wisely, preferably in websites, and on particular webpages, where consumers are engaged in learning about a product domain or making the first steps of searching and screening products. Designing an ad banner that is clear, concise and pleasant to watch can only help to maximise impact.

Measuring the effectiveness of ad banners is undoubtedly faced with difficulties and barriers. There is greater tendency to refer to statistics of page views to assess also potential exposure  to ads placed on a page (“impressions”). However, overall “page impressions” are not detailed enough as they refer to the whole webpage; they cannot tell us to which sections or objects, particularly ad banners, a consumer-surfer attends, nor at what level information is processed. Capturing fixations on particular objects by Internet users requires an application of the methodology of eye-tracking. Latency of eye fixations can already provide an indirect indicator of the extent of processing information. However, that methodology cannot be practically and economically applied on a large-scale nor can it be applied on a regular basis.

A third-way approach that is based on tracking mouse movements over a webpage, and is able to detect objects on which a mouse hovers even without clicking on them, provides a sort of middle-ground solution. It is not as complete and accurate as eye-tracking but it can provide a substantive even if partial information on objects to which a consumer-surfer attends; it is based on the premise that our hand often follows our eyes (i.e., visuo-motor correlation) and we tend to point the mouse on a place or item we concentrate at a given moment. And, not least, it is a more feasible solution, technically and economically, to operate on a large data scale. At this time, it seems as a viable platform for developing extensions and improved measures of consumer attention, browsing behaviour, and response to stimuli.

  • The Internet company ClickTale, for example, offers a range of methods for analysis and visualisation of users’ behaviour with a mouse (e.g., “heat maps” based on frequency of mouse “landings” in different locations over a webpage and tracking the movements of a mouse on a webpage).

There are remaining limitations to behavioural data that do not allow us to assess more fully the extent to which ad banners are processed and how it may affect our attitudes, thoughts and feelings. Difficulties can be foreseen for example in measuring the implicit effects of visual fluency or priming on consumers in a “live” environment in real-time. The way to test and measure these effects is by conducting experiments while combining cognitive, attitudinal and behavioural data. The new age of touch screens presents yet a new set of challenges in measuring covert and overt responses.

To conclude, here are a few points that may be worth considering:

  1. The relatively small area of a standard ad banner can make it challenging to construct and design effective ads. First, it is recommended to graphically design an image that is visually fluent for the consumers-surfers, as much as it is in control of the designer  — the rest is in the eye and mind of the viewer. Second, include sufficient information in the banner, like a key claim or description of strengths, that the consumer can relate to and keep in mind, consciously or unconsciously, without having to click-through anywhere else. Third, include a web address the consumer can save and use anytime later.
  2. Think a few steps ahead, what consumers-viewers may do next, that is, how consumers may be influenced by the information and utilise it in a subsequent activity (e.g., shopping online). Thereby, plan the content, placement and timing of the ad banner with respect to events or types of behaviour it intends to affect.
  3. Animated ad banners quickly capture the attention of viewers by their motion. However, such ad banners that appear especially on sidebars attract attention involuntarily at the periphery of the visual field, that is, even if the reader tries to avoid it. Limit the period of time the animation works or let the user stop it lest she is likely to abandon the page altogether.
  4. Beyond the advantages of motion and sound of ad video clips, they can be activated on-site and viewed without requiring the consumer-surfer to leave anywhere else, an important benefit of time-saving and convenience. They should display a visually appealing opening screen and be kept at time-lengths of 30 seconds to two minutes to attract and engage viewers for a reasonable period of suspension from other tasks on the website.

References:

1. Cognitive and Affective Consequences of Visual Fluency: When Seeing Is Easy on the Mind; Piotr Winkielman, Norbert Schwarz, Rolf Reber, & Tedra Fazendeiro, 2003; in Persuasive Imagery: A Consumer Response Perspective, L. M. Scott and R. Batra (eds.)(pp. 75-91), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

2. How Banner Ads Affect Brand-Choice Without Click-Through; Andrew Mitchel and Ana Valenzuela, 2005; in Online Consumer Psychology: Understanding and Influencing Consumer Behavior in the Virtual World, C. P. Haugtvedt, K. A. Machleit, & R. F. Yalch (eds.)(pp. 125-142), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »