Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Communication’

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)

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Oftentimes references to and appraisals of product design (e.g., on websites, in magazines) concentrate on the aesthetics of the product’s visual appearance. The importance of this facet of visual design of products is now well acknowledged, particularly in attracting consumers to them. This is of no dispute. Visual design, however, has an informational capacity and it can communicate to consumers on other aspects embedded in the product or reflected from it.  These facets are functional, symbolic (personal, social) and ergonomic (affecting ease-of-use) that may be inferred from visual design or appearance of a product. They deserve no less attention than aesthetics in discussions of product design from a marketing point-of-view.

Product design did not gain much awareness or interest from marketing and consumer scholars until the mid-1990s. The researchers Peter Bloch and Robert Veryzer made each this critical observation in separate articles in 1995 as they started to conceptualise the meanings and roles of product design with respect to consumer behaviour.  Bloch referred to the powers of good design in attracting consumers, communicating to them, and adding value by enhancing the quality of their usage experiences (1). Veryzer wrote of the low relevance consumer researchers attributed to product design and aesthetics (e.g., superficial styling, related primarily to works of art) that impeded the progress of consumer research to that time in these areas. He set out to start developing a theory on the contributions of product design to consumer-product interactions, and how different considerations (e.g., aesthetic, functional, communication) affect varied consumer reactions (e.g., understanding the product, aesthetic response)(2). Both Bloch and Veryzer recognized the importance of the communicative functions of visual product design beyond aesthetics.

The aesthetics of appearance of a product ascribe to its beauty, evoking visual appeal. It relies on physical properties in the design, such as form, size (proportions), texture (materials) and colours, and how they combine or belong together (i.e., a holistic view, unity of design elements). professional designers may relate to harmony and balance. More commonly, innate preferences of people are shaped by Gestalt rules pertaining, for example, to symmetry, similarity, proximity, repetition and closure. An aesthetic pleasing appearance  increases consumers’ attraction to look at products longer, hold and obtain them.

Nevertheless, the visual design of a product can tell consumers beyond experiencing its aesthetics and appeal. Design of a product entails generally the composition and arrangement of components and overall configuration of the product. Only some of the components are readily visible to consumers (i.e., on surface); many others most relevant to the product’s orderly functioning are hidden from them, and for a good reason. Thereof appearance plays a vital role in communicating to consumers about the function and usage of a product. While it is widely accepted that “form follows function”, one should observe that in many cases form tells people how a product can or should be used (i.e., from a consumer perspective, function is determined by form). In its communicative role, design incorporates important visual and iconic cues about product use and mode of operation. The visual comprehensibility of a product is therefore vital to successful consumer-product interaction (2).

  • Features of products (e.g., electric, electronic and digital), and how to activate them, should be easily identifiable; symbols need to be self-explanatory as much as possible or be easily learnt. The consumer should be able to make basic operations without reading a manual, especially if he or she is experienced with that type of product (e.g., setting parameters and taking a photo shot on a camera). Manuals are more often refered for performing more complex or specialised tasks. Consumers expect to receive fundamental information about the product from its appearance.

Crilly, Moultrie, and Clarkson elaborate on Shannon’s model of communication, as formerly interpreted in the context of product design.


  • The source is the designer or design team
  • The transmitter is the product by its (visual) design
  • The channel is the environment in which consumer-product interaction occurs
  • The receiver entails the perceptual senses of the consumer
  • The destination is the consumer’s faculty for response, incorporating cognitive, affective and behavioural responses.

The researchers concentrate on cognitive responses to visual product design, and identify through a literature review three categories: (a) Aesthetic Impression is the sensation that results from perception of attractiveness; (b) Semantic Interpretation pertains to what a product seems to say about its function, mode-of-use and qualities; and (c) Symbolic Association relates to what a product may say about its owner or user (personal and social significance attached to the design). Decoding the “design message” from appearance and making judgements thereafter is part of cognitive response (3). Crilly et al. note that different types of emotions may stem from all cognitive categories; moreover, there are considerable interdependencies between cognitive and affective responses, where cognition is leading to affect and affect is influencing cognition.

Crilly and his colleagues suggest that aesthetic impression should account for objective qualities of design as well as subjective experiences of consumers. As a second dimension they distinguish between information and concinnity (harmonious arrangement of elements) originating in design. Information may objectively refer to the level of contrast between elements comprising the product’s design against its surroundings or among the elements themselves, while subjective information reflects a degree of novelty perceived by consumers, arising from deviation of the design from forms familiar to them. Novelty induces greater interest, but care should be taken because excessive deviations might cause greater difficulty for consumers to identify the correct category a product belongs in (e.g., by comparing to familiar prototypes), leading to confusion. Concinnity at an objective level would indicate whether the design is in good order (e.g., following Gestalt rules); subjectively, it reflects the extent to which the design makes sense to viewers (i.e., easier to understand, assign meaning, based for example on cultural norms or comparison to other relevant objects).

Semantic interpretation and symbolic association may play a more complex or nuanced role in communication from design (Veryzer recommended distinguishing between aesthetic and communicative roles). The semantics of design pertain primarily to qualities of the product, mode-of-operation and ease-of-use. Physical properties are relevant mainly with respect to how a product should be handled (e.g., its density, stability, fragility). Most importantly, Crilly et al. refer to how consumers may infer from visible components of the product — its layout, feature buttons or switches, levers etc. — how to operate it correctly and more effectively, and how easy using the product is going to be. Among the examples they give: a grooved handle may suggest in what direction it should be turned and how much force should be applied, or flashing switches signal they should be switched off.

The semantics implied from design may refer in particular to affordances (what a product is suitable for or made to do, given its form); constraints (what a product is limited in doing and should not be forced to do); and mappings (how a user’s actions relate to corresponding behaviour of the system). Mapping suggests in this context an interesting aspect of visual compatibility that seems desirable between ‘handles’  for operating a product and its form and response — buttons of a gas stove arranged to fit the layout of burners in the stove itself; levers in an electric-car-seat-control-panel for moving the seat arranged to represent the seat itself.

Think for a moment of TV sets, but not the current flat screens; reflect instead on TV “boxes” from past decades, before the 1990s. This domain demonstrates so well how technology and tastes in design have changed side-by-side over the years. The TV sets from the 1940s to 1970s were casted in a wooden “box” housing.  The TV set was perceived to a great extent as a piece of furniture in the house, and very likely it was designed in wood to match better in look with other furnitures. Early on owners used to put their TV set in a cabin with doors, as if they were not sure about its nature and wanted to conceal it in a furniture. From the 1950s the attitude changed and people were more open and happy to show the innovative technological appliance in their house. From the late 1970s the wooden housing was replaced with injection-moulded plastic. At first frames still adopted a wooden look but the appearance has gradually changed to black and grey-metalic look. The trend transformed from reflecting craftmanship and traditional warm appearance to modern cool appearance that puts technology a front.

Through several decades control panels were usually visible on the right-hand side of the screen. In the 1990s, as remote control handsets became more prevalent, control panels were reduced and became less apparent. This was partly done to leave more space for larger screens (e.g., 26”). Then came the flat screens (plasma or LCD, >32”), and control panels vanished from the front of TV.  Some controls may be found on the TV back but most selections and tuning the viewer is expected to perform on the remote control.  This is the second important change in TV sets: they leave no visual cues for their mode-of-operation easily accessible on the product itself, relying on its remote accessory. The TV sets are now made to take least space possible in the house. Manufacturers of flat screen TVs give priority to a “clean” visual design outwards and their advanced technology inwards. But from a communicative perspective, one may ask if this is the better user-friendly approach. It could be more comfortable and re-assuring for users to place a few controls (e.g., power, sound, channel buttons) on a front panel below the screen rather than hide them on the TV back.

Symbolic association turns our attention from the product to its owner or user. It may involve attributes that correspond to the user’s own personality (e.g., enhance or corroborate one’s self-image) as well as reflect desirable attributes or social standing of the user to others based on product’s appearance. Those product-person symbols may be shaped by the sociocultural context of use. Symbolic associations have been classified in literature, for example, as self-expressive symbolism (supporting one’s unique personality, idiosyncrasy or distinction, and differentiation from others) and categorical symbolism (suggesting one’s group membership, including social position and status, as reflected frequently via shared consumption symbols)(3).

One of the more prominent examples given for products with strong symbolic associations are clothing garments, especially the more fashionable they are, and contingent on type (materials), purpose and style of the garment. Let us look, however, to another domain perhaps less often used as an example: Think of bright beige leather seats in a car. Such seats reflect elegance and high quality; to the car’s owner the leather may also signal softness and comfort (semantic meanings). The leather seats may symbolise elegance of the car owner himself, enhance self-importance to the owner and suggest to others who see the car on the street that the owner has to be a respected person of higher prestige. (The implied symbols seem to matter to men more than to women.)

Consumers perceive physical properties in forming impression of a product’s visual design and appraising it. But to formulate their experience or judgements they translate or map the physical terms (e.g., form, size, colour, surface and texture) onto abstract attributes. Blijlevens, Creusen and Schoorman who studied and identified three such attributes for durable products note that consumers differ, however, from professional (industrial) designers in their understanding and the attributes they use to describe a design. Design literature uses terms such as harmony, unity, symmetry, typicality, massiveness and naturalness that ordinary or design-novice consumers are not familiar with and may not understand. The undesirable implication is that consumers frequently do not grasp the meaning of appearance embedded in the product as intended by its designers (4).

  • The three attributes in the model based on consumer descriptions constructed by Blijlevens et al. are: (a) Modernity (descriptions of ‘modern’, ‘oldish/old-fashioned’ [reversed], ‘futuristic’; (b) Simplicity (‘simple’, ‘minimalistic’, ‘plain’); (c) Playfulness (‘playful’, ‘funny’). Of the three attributes, modernity coincides directly with a parallel attribute used by designers while simplicity correlates inversely with an attribute of ‘complexity’ in design literature. Yet, playfulness  is an attribute more distinctive of consumers with no attribute close enough in meaning as used by designers (regarded as more accurate and deeper attributes).
  • The researchers suggest that (i) consumers’ attributes should complement, not replace, those used by designers to provide consumer viewpoint; (ii) there should be continued effort to study the mapping of physical properties onto consumer attributes; and (iii) marketers should be cognizant of changes in tastes and fashions of aesthetics and visual design that may alter existing relations or mappings over time.

Aesthetic appearance of products is a likely source of pleasure; consumers enjoy talking about appealing and creative visual design, the more so when they have greater acumen in these matters. But the picture cannot be complete, from a marketing perspective, without relating to semantic and symbolic connotations emanating from the visual design of a product because they have important influence on consumer decisions. They are significant to the practical use of a product as well as extended psychological (self-image) and social implications of product ownership and usage.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

References:

(1) Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response; Peter H. Bloch, 1995; Journal of Marketing, 59 (3), pp. 16-29.

(2) The Place of Product Design and Aesthetics in Consumer Research; Robert W. Veryzer Jr., 1995; in NA — Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, F.R. Kardes and M. Sujan (eds.), pp. 641-645, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.    http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=7824

(3) Seeing Things: Consumer Response to the Visual Domain in Product Design; Nathan Crilly, James Moultrie, & P. John Clarkson, 2004; Design Studies, 25 (6), pp. 547-577.

(4) How Consumers Perceive Product Appearance: The Identification of Three Product Appearance Attributes; Janneke Blijlevens, Marielle E.H. Creusen, & Jan P. Schoorman, 2009; International Journal of Design, 3(3), pp. 27-35.  http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/535/272

Read Full Post »

Not many people would resist a nice meal of a 200g burger sandwich, whole and rich with supplements, ketchup on top, and a side dish of French fries or fried onion flakes. But the venue of dining also counts in shaping the diner’s experience — it is likely for a diner to expect a more tasty and enjoyable burger meal at a full-service grill restaurant compared with a fast food restaurant. A number of factors affect the attraction of a restaurant to diners in addition to food quality, like atmospherics of the venue, service and attitude towards customers. “Moses”, a small-medium chain (8 branches) of grill bar-diners in Israel, has created a brand theme aimed at making patrons-diners feel more welcome and wanted at their restaurants. At the core of the theme are anthropomorphization of Moses as a cat wearing a wide smile and his style of language that is meant to let customers feel more at ease, like they belong in the restaurant as personal guests of Moses.

  • See epilogue with update at the bottom (June 2018)

The language Moses uses to tell patrons-diners about special offers, activities and events is personal, direct and very informal, often a non “going around the bush” kind of talk. It appears on table covers, postcards, signage, its website and other materials. This style also characterises its advertising. It may sound a little blunt sometimes but careful not to be offensive. The approach Moses takes to bring up any matter is intended in a humourous way. It seems that Moses is just trying to be frank, clever yet witty.

There is not much company-official text in English to give as an example since Moses addresses substantially Hebrew-speaking Israelis as in a casual discourse. And indeed Moses’s rhetoric employs expressions in Hebrew that have significance to Israelis but whose semantics may be partially lost in translation to English or other languages. Still, the tone and intention of the rhetorical style of Moses is preserved and can be sensed in the following examples. Moses typically takes a rather plain information or message and twists its presentation by inserting: (a) some doubt or skepticism, (b) adventurism or suspense, (c) irony.

The limited content in English on the Israel-native website of Moses appears (reasonably) to be translated from content originally composed in Hebrew. Consider the following phrases, extracted from the English version of the About page (note: information here is not updated as in Hebrew), to get a feel of how Moses talks to clients. Thus, when telling readers of the chain’s background Moses says:

“Here’s something you’ll find on every website, and here too. Do you really care if Moses Tel Aviv was established on November 2003, and it is part of a group of restaurants…” (Note: the group referred to includes other restaurants of different types of cuisine and brand names; since then Moses expanded as a distinct chain within the group).

Cutting short on the chain’s evolution, Moses comments:

“What’s really important is that they are open now. If you wanted to learn some history you’d probably log into Wikipedia or somewhere like that.”

Some consumers may not like to be sent-off like that to find more information, but another, and the correct way to read this is “Moses doesn’t want to waste your time; just come and eat”. In an age when people are shorter in time and can easily search and find information on the Web, Moses shows as understanding. (Moses also seems to understand the tendency of Israelis to be not very patient.)

In another example, a print ad from a few years ago for a new burger of Moses, Artburger, posed in large-bulk letters (‘loudly’) at the center of the copy: “How Many Times Do I Have to Explain to You That This Is Not a Hamburger?!”  Artburger is made of a mix of lamb, beef and veal meat. Text in small font at the bottom of the ad explained:

“In a competition conducted by TimeOut magazine, which is like what you are holding now but another, readers chose the Artburger of Moses, which is exactly what you will be holding soon, as the best hamburger. So this is the time to admit failure. If after all we had done, we couldn’t make you understand that Artburger isn’t really a hamburger, then we probably deserve this.”  (Translated, RV)

This is a clear attempt by Moses, if a little sarcastic, at differentiating its 250g Artburger with a superior-quality meticulous blend of meat from standard beef hamburger. Importantly, this is not a gimmick of one-off ad but an integral part of the language Moses consistently uses in its communication to consumers, part of his character. (An image of the original ad in Hebrew can be found in the Gallery; also see photos from restaurants in the chain and the Artburger Olympic Contest).

As a final example, Moses made an intriguing invitation or call for customers to participate in a satisfaction survey distributed on postcards at his restaurants. This is how the invitation went:

“Psss… Psss… Act normally. Continue reading as if this is just any other text on a postcard. Don’t let the waiters feel that something suspicious is going on here. Smile like what is written here is something funny. Now, in your most nonchalant way, throw a look at the bottom left corner of the postcard…did you get the (QR) code? It can turn you from regular Moses customers to … “mystery customers”, Hush… Yes, exactly as you’ve heard. Scan the code now and not at home, answer our discreet satisfaction questionnaire, show when finished to the waiter and get a scratching card, and maybe you will win a bonus to spoil yourself. Nice work, Agent. See you on the next mission.” (Translated, RV)

It is an attention-grabbing and engaging way of asking customers to participate in such a survey. In a ‘gamified’ kind of invitation, the task is put into a story of a secret mission — properly applied and difficult to ignore. The invitation has additional important elements like encouragement to reply immediately and a reward, both aimed at increasing the response rate (a link is further provided in addition to the code), yet embedded in a whole story that signals suspense and thrill (and also humour). Then finally comes this footnote:

” (!) This postcard will destroy itself instantly when finished reading if you spill a little ketchup on it, a bit of mayonnaise, wrinkle it into a little ball, and then throw to the garbage can…” — A nice touch of irony in mockery of espionage work…

Moses the cat is a cartoon character — he is known to consumers only by face, with his wide smile, his tongue hanging out as a signal of his mischievous nature, round eyes, red nose, and sharpened ears on top. The icon that identifies Moses visually fits well with his verbal language, and together they help build the brand personality: Moses is sociable, extrovert or approaching to others, light, direct but sometimes more subtle and sophisticated, looking for adventures, and he likes to make jokes but with the sting of irony. Over time some versions of the looks of Moses have appeared (e.g., in different colour, ears pointed to the sides or raised upwards) but they all have the same distinctive elements that are indicative of his character. Other visual elements like the design of the website (e.g., colours and shapes of “windows”) or the menu (recently re-designed in a graphic style similar to infographs) are consistent with the less-orderly conduct of Moses .

  • The face icon of Moses is reminiscent of Felix the Cat, a hero comic and cartoon character from the 1920s-1940s. The personality characteristics (e.g., adventurous, playing tricks on others) also match quite well. The chain has reportedly acquired the creative rights to use the icon-logo of the cat Moses from an American company that owns rights since the 1960s for an original animated figure (1), although the article does not mention the name of the original figure.

However, language can more than tell of the brand personality of Moses; it also speaks of the culture of Moses chain of restaurants as an organisation. When the language used in written and electronic communications is considered together with oral communication, conduct and other actions of the chain’s staff members in the restaurants, they indicate a culture that approaches customers, wants to get close to them and cares for them. Staff members on-site do not really talk as described above but they are courteous and waiters would usually ask diners how they were doing before taking order and return to ask how is the meal after serving. They also tend to fix problems and give away bonuses as compensation to conciliate with customers and keep them happy. Members of the customer club are called Moses Friends; the language used by Moses the cat seems to be directed especially to them and to encourage new ones to join as his friends. Moses Friends regularly get a bonus starter or dessert and accumulate stars for price discount. They also get priority seating.

Yuval Sela, founding partner (with the Yarsin Group) and CEO, defines Moses as “a restaurant that talks to everyone, at noon to business people, in the evening to families, and at night to the young ones after entertainment” (2). In fact, Moses restaurants have turned out most popular among families on weekends. The chain that considers itself a place for “Modern American Kitchen” runs a well-controlled number of restaurants, self-managed without franchising. Sela sees children as the anchors that bring families to their restaurants and therefore most important to satisfy — they give them game and drawing booklets with coloured pencils, and at least one restaurant added in the past year a play room for little children (“Gymboree”). For the young ones who come late at night they offer a night burger meal for a special price treat (42 NIS=€8.75). Beyond that they offer as expected a business lunch deal of a salad, 200g burger, side dish and soft drink/juice at a very fair price (competitive even against McDonald’s meals — 58 NIS to 50 NIS) and other attractions like “international burgers” in culinary styles of different countries. All together, it is evident of a culture of a business that cares for its varied customers.

The language of Moses in the chain’s communications will not appeal to everyone. Some may consider it impolite and intruding (e.g., senior citizens). Others may find this genre of language simply strange to them. It is essential to study and confirm to what segments that kind of language is appealling or at least can feel comfortable with it. Notably, five of the restaurants are located in the Tel-Aviv area in or near business districts that host professionals and managers in banking and finance, Hi-Tech and other business services and socio-economically privileged neighbourhoods. The recently added branch in the vacation resort city of Eilat is rather the exception and probably targets primarily consumers as families.

More frequently, the restaurants are in vicinity to patrons-diners that are likely to appreciate and welcome the spiked humorous and sometimes more sophisticated approach of Moses’s language. It is furthermore likely that consumers from those same circles are those that come outside working hours with friends and family to dine at Moses. It can be hoped that diners who come along with “devotees”, even if they do not truly welcome that style of language, will at least find it amusing.

Epilogue (June 2018):  In early 2017 Moses restaurant chain was acquired by BBB Group which already owned at that time two hamburger restaurant chains. Following this acquisition, BBB Group operates three chains with different positions of quality and value proposition: Burgerim — basic, fast-food; BBB (Burgus Burger Bar) — medium, good value; and Moses as its premium brand. However, within a year BBB dropped or abolished much of the symbols and elements of the brand personality of Moses, including the culture and language attached to it. Five of its current 11 branches are already operated by franchisers. The previous founding owners lamented that differentiation of the brand has eroded and revenues did not justify keeping up the chain. Yet the personality and culture of Moses did make the restaurant chain stand out from its competitors, including BBB itself. Moses is not the same as before; even its menu and how burger sandwiches are served have changed. The BBB Group has not made so far an attempt to revitalise the brand theme of Moses or replace it with something new and different. Without it, the task could become more difficult to maintain differentiation of Moses from other chains at least similar in position of quality and value, and it is losing its brand distinction and uniqueness.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Notes:

(1) “How Did We Turn Into an Overeat People: 20 Hamburgers a Day and a Line to Restaurant at 3AM”, TheMarker Online (Hebrew), 23 Sept. 2010 http://www.themarker.com/misc/1.581423

(2) Ibid. 1 (Citation translated from Hebrew, RV)

 

Read Full Post »