February 25, 2008

50 Most Innovative Companies

Filed under: Business — Emily Reeves @ 9:13 am

As declared by Fast Company:

  1. Google
  2. Apple
  3. Facebook
  4. GE
  5. Ideo
  6. Nike
  7. Nokia
  8. Alibaba
  9. Amazon
  10. Nintendo
  11. Procter & Gamble
  12. News Copr.
  13. Affymetrix
  14. Disney
  15. Samsung
  16. Method
  17. Target
  18. HP
  19. Tesco
  20. Ausra
  21. Timberland
  22. IBM
  23. Arup
  24. Anomaly (an ad agency, oops, branding/innovation/design/VC firm)
  25. Autodesk
  26. Herman Miller
  27. RealNetworks
  28. Boeing
  29. LG Electronics
  30. Omniture
  31. iRobot
  32. Wal-Mart
  33. Live Nation
  34. Intel
  35. Burton
  36. Whole Foods
  37. Cisco Systems
  38. Corning
  39. Toyota
  40. Real D
  41. Microsoft
  42. Payless
  43. AirAsia
  44. Current TV
  45. Sun Microsystems
  46. BMW
  47. Tata Group
  48. AKQA
  49. Prosper
  50. Baidu

February 1, 2008

Microtargeting Problems

Filed under: Advertising, Business, Marketing — Emily Reeves @ 10:40 am

The theory behind the popular book Microtrends is being challenged. The book’s theory is that demographic segments as small as 1% of the population can “tip an election” or “spark a movement.” The problems, according to a Brandweek article, include:

  • The results are only as good as the data: many samples are not large or representative enough to accurately reflect the population, subjects self-report behavior and tend to lie (or to say it more kindly, report their aspirational behavior rather than actual behavior).
  • A psychographic splinter group that has one defining trait in common may have just that–one thing in common and nothing else.
  • Within each niche, each person has multiple selves. For example: “Let’s say the research identifies a segment of ‘Thrillseekers,’ and contrasts that against groups who prefer more safety. Who’s to say that the person who jumps out of a plane for kicks will exhibit this same commando attitude toward the prospect of risky sexual behavior?”
  • Marketers can become so obsessed with quirks and fads that they fail to consider their underlying drivers–which are often clues to broader cultural trends far more valuable to the marketer in the long run.

How are these problems overcome?  Think of microtargeting as an “inaugural research step toward a broader targeting strategy–one still aimed, but not exclusionary.”  Brands that have done a good job with this approach:

  • Vans–viewed as cool shoes for everybody that work especially well for skateboarders.  Vans sold the skater “lifestyle.”
  • Apple–manages to be both inclusive and exclusive.  In iPhone spots the viewer never sees a discernible age, race or gender.  “Even the dancing silhouettes in ads for iPods instill a sense of relatability that fully rendered models arguably wouldn’t.”

Conclusion: make sure your brand is speaking to the relevant audience, but don’t ignore or exclude everyone else.

January 31, 2008

Advertising Makes Bad News Worse

Filed under: Advertising, Business — Emily Reeves @ 2:15 pm

Reported in Brandweek:

What should a company do when negative news is being reported about the company? “One school of thought is that maintaining or increasing advertising during such a time will drown out the bad news. The alternative–pulling advertising–seems pretty risky. Nevertheless, a new study that ran in December’s Journal of Advertising Research suggests that’s exactly what you should do while the bad news runs its course…It found that advertising has an amplifying effect: When the news is good, advertising helps. When it’s bad, advertising makes things worse.”

January 28, 2008

Wellness Trend

Filed under: Business — Emily Reeves @ 3:43 pm

With the rising costs of healthcare and fewer companies covering insurance costs, consumers are increasingly interested in wellness information. Staying well, means staying away from doctors, which means saving money. Healthcare-associated brands are recognizing this need for health and wellness information and they are finding ways to become the consumer resource for this information. The newest “brand” to jump on this bandwagon is the Lance Armstrong Foundation. The Wall Street Journal today reported that “the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which spends about $40 million a year on health programs and cancer research, is teaming up with Web-site operator Demand Media Inc. to launch a health-and-wellness We site funded by advertising. The site, called ‘livestrong.com,’ is expected to go live this year.”

The Armstrong Foundation “felt that launching a for-profit site would increase awareness about the foundation and promote its core mission of helping people with cancer…Like Mr. Armstrong’s foundation, more philanthropies are linking up with for-profit companies to raise cash and elevate their profiles.”

“The Armstrong Foundation says it will work with Demand Media to build a Web destination for people who want to count calories, track workouts or connect with other people trying to keep fit. Mr. Armstrong, now retired from competitive cycling but still an avid athlete, will contribute content to the site.”

The Oscar Economy

Filed under: Advertising, Business, Current Events — Emily Reeves @ 11:15 am

Reported in BusinessWeek:

“There’s big money at stake if the Feb. 24 awards ceremony gets scotched.

  • $4 million worth of post-Oscar parties.
  • $5.5 million in media coverage.
  • $26.5 million in limos, security, personnel, and gifts for the nominees.
  • $51 million for the main broadcast in the Kodak Theater, along with side events.
  • $54 million in spending on radio, TV, print, and outdoor campaigns by studios competing for awards.
  • $100 million in publicity generated for companies who clothe and bejewel the stars.

Gen Y’s Work Style

Filed under: Business — Emily Reeves @ 10:36 am

We have had a lot of discussion lately in our agency about the differences in the work styles of the Gen Yers (born since 1980), also referred to as Millennials, verses the rest of the staff. This is especially important to us, as advertising tends to be a young person’s business. Evident of this growing concern among businesses, this month’s Harvard Business Review included a brief article on the subject as one of its “Breakthrough Ideas for 2008.” According to this article, “Generation Y workers clearly prefer jobs defined by task, not time. They want to be compensated for what they produce.”

“Many younger employees find they can complete tasks faster than older workers, perhaps partly because of technological proficiency but even more…because they work differently. They spend less time scheduling and are comfortable coordinating electronically. They resent being asked to log hours and stay in the office after their tasks are done, and the idea of face time really annoys them. Ys love to work asynchronously–anytime, anywhere.”

“Going forward, we can devise a better model of how to define work. Think task, not time:

  • Articulate the results you expect–and tie accountability to getting the job done.
  • Make physical attendance in the office, including at meetings, optional.
  • Gauge performance on the quality of the work performed.
  • Help managers and employees learn to measure dedication in ways other than face time.
  • Use today’s networking capabilities to allow employees to work from anywhere.
  • Support the changes by creating drop-in centers, team spaces, and open work areas.”

I am right on the edge between Gen X and Gen Y, so I can see the benefits of both traditional work styles and Gen Y work styles.  Regardless of personal preference, companies need to be equipped to accommodate both if they want to recruit and retain talented employees.

Power Women

Filed under: Business — Emily Reeves @ 8:57 am

When making a job switch, women are more likely to bring their success with them to the new company. Unlike men. At least according to an article in this month’s Harvard Business Review:

“Unlike their male counterparts, female stars (189 women, 18% of the star analysts in the original study) who switched firms performed just as well, in the aggregate, as those that stayed put.”

“Though female stars adopt these career strategies as a way to overcome institutionalized norms that put them at a disadvantage, their strategies are not a second-best alternative. Rather, they constitute a powerful skill set from which any manager would do well to learn. The star performer study focused on one labor market–Wall Street analysts–but the challenges these women face are similar to those in other knowledge-based industries, such as management consulting, health care, public relations, advertising and the law. Some of the female stars’ actions were designed to help them advance within their firms, and only incidentally increased their portability; others were deliberately adopted to ensure that they would be able to succeed elsewhere. Either way, the strategies of star women can help both men and women enhance their ability to shine in any setting.”

What makes the difference? Why are women more capable of building skills that can travel from one employer to the next?

(1) They focus on building relationships outside their current firm, rather that relying on internal relationships. “By contrast, male analysts built up greater firm- and team-specific human capital, investing more in the internal networks and unique capabilities and resources of the firms where they worked.”

(2) They take greater care when assessing a prospective employer. “They evaluated their options more cautiously and analyzed a wider range of factors than men did before deciding to uproot themselves from a company where they were already successful.  Female star analysts, it would seem, take their work environment more seriously yet rely on it less than male stars do.  They look for a firm that will allow them to keep building their successful franchises their own way.”

Although it unacknowledged, the bottom line is that there is still sexism in the workplace.  To overcome this persistent inequality, women must employ “creative strategies” to succeed.  One of these creative strategies is finding a wardrobe balance.  As ridiculous as this is, “women in positions of authority, from Washington to Wall Street, face fashion scrutiny that’s so intense it can border on comical,” according to an article in the Wall Street Journal last week.

“The attention brought to clothing is a two-edged sword for authoritative women everywhere.  A style misstep can be career-limiting.  Yet paying too much attention to one’s appearance risks accusations of frivolity–which is equally career-limiting.”

With the challenges that face women in the workplace, it is a wonder we have ever succeeded.  But women are intuitive, smart, and adaptive; if we figure out what we want, we will figure out how to get it.  I have seen the evidence.  Our agency, Stone Ward, is woman-owned and Millie Ward has overcome these challenges to build a successful advertising agency.  And, I am proud that we have a viable female candidate for president this year.  Maybe one day we won’t have to have discussions about the different challenges that men verses women face in the workplace; instead we will just have discussions about workplace challenges.