Is There A Formula For “Virality”?

NewImage

Ever use a great product or service that inexplicably fails to catch on and is soon discontinued…and you wonder what in the world went wrong?

Welcome to the world of “virality” – where that thing you thought was the best thing since sliced bread falls off the market with barely a whimper. And something that should never have existed sells 25 million copies and its  founder retires to St. Thomas in 6 months. 

So what does make something go “viral”?

Wharton Marketing Professor Jonah Berger has a book out about that called “Contagious”. Since I haven’t read the book yet – and probably won’t for a while – here are some excerpts from an interview with him on Knowledge@Wharton that might serve as a short-term substitute (if you’re going to find yourself in the same boat as me).

1. The science:

Knowledge@Wharton: In the book, you actually outline a framework of six principles for why things catch on, using the STEPPS acronym. Can you describe those for us and discuss how you developed them?

Berger: The books talks about the six key steps to drive people to talk and share. STEPPS is an acronym for:

  • Social currency:, It’s all about people talking about things to make themselves look good, rather than bad
  • Triggers, which is all about the idea of “top of mind, tip of tongue.” We talk about things that are on the top of our heads.
  • Ease for emotion: When we care, we share. The more we care about a piece of information or the more we’re feeling physiologically aroused, the more likely we pass something on.
  • Public: When we can see other people doing something, we’re more likely to imitate it.
  • Practical value: Basically, it’s the idea of news you can use. We share information to help others, to make them better off.
  • Stories, or how we share things that are often wrapped up in stories or narratives.

2. And, here’s an interesting example about everyone’s favorite amazing-product-and-brilliant-marketing company Apple:

Think about Apple’s headphones. It used to be that we all carried portable CD players. It was like carrying a pizza. You had to run like this, to make sure it didn’t skip. Then, they came out with these things called mp3 players. Really great technology, but they were super expensive. Is it worth adopting this new product? How do I know if it’s worth adopting this new product? If you looked around on the subway or the bus, you couldn’t tell [which products people were using] because everyone’s headphones were black. It was impossible to see what device someone was using, as opposed to another device.

But what Apple did really smartly is they used white headphones. Once you start seeing a number of people wearing white headphones, you say, “Wow. A lot of people are using this. It must be really good,” which encourages you to adopt that product as well. It’s just like if you’ve gone to a foreign city and you don’t know where to eat. How you decide? You look for a restaurant that’s full of people. It’s a totally offline example. But you assume if it’s full of people, it must be really good. Thinking about how to make the private public, particularly in an offline environment, is a great way to help your product catch on.

Find the full article here. When you get there, if you have 16 minutes, watch the video – or skip it and scroll down to the transcript. 

Aunt Jemima, Branding And It’s “Unsavory Past”

Building brands, as anyone knows, takes a lot of time. And effort. And money.

But what if a brand that’s been around for a very long time rose to prominence in a not-quite-Kosher way?

That’s the story of Aunt Jemima, PepsiCo, Quaker Oats and Pinnacle Foods, writes Claire Zillman on Fortune magazine.

So what’s going on?

In a class action lawsuit, D.W. Hunter and Larnell Evans claim that PepsiCo Inc., its subsidiary Quaker Oats Co. (which sells Aunt Jemima syrup), and Pinnacle Foods (which makes Aunt Jemima frozen pancakes) schemed to deny that their great grandmother, Anna Short Harrington, had worked for Quaker Oats while refusing to pay her royalties for 60 years, as products bearing her image brought in millions of dollars in sales.

The lawsuit alleges that Quaker Oats recruited Harrington as she cooked pancakes at the New York State Fair, after which the company used her recipes and trademarked her likeness as Aunt Jemima. A November 1935 ad in Woman’s Home Companion magazine that pictured Harrington’s likeness in a red bandana appeared with the title “Let ol Autie sing in yo’ kitchen”—a headline that the plaintiffs say capitalized on Harrington’s Southern accent and distinct dialect, which stems from the Gullah Geechee culture that was prevalent in South Carolina.

“Throughout the 1930s, the bulk of Aunt Jemima advertising continued to concentrate on the romantic world of ‘plantation flavor,’” the lawsuit says.

More damagingly, for the brand, Claire adds:

Indeed, the Aunt Jemima character has long come under fire for its racist past. In a 2007 interview with NPR, Maurice Manring, author of Slave in a Box: The Strange Career of Aunt Jemima, said that the marketing of Aunt Jemima came of age in an era when middle-class housewives were not able to employ black maids as easily as they once did. The ads targeted the nostalgia for those earlier days. “You can’t have Aunt Jemima today but you can have her recipe and that’s the next best thing,” Manring said, explaining the ads. “And so what we’re talking really about is trying to ease the transition from having someone do something for you to doing it yourself, and that’s where the slavery nostalgia was particularly effective,” he said.

That’s pretty reprehensible…But will the companies settle?

Not sure about the $2B that the lawsuit wants, but maybe at a much lower point – something that just about offsets the cost of rebranding and any negative publicity resulting from a potentially embarrassing lawsuit. Maybe…we shall see in the not too distant future, I think. 

Smart Clothing – Gaining Momentum?

NewImage

First, our phones became smart(er). Then our cars. Soon, our homes. And very soon, our clothes as well?

Consider this excerpt from a CrunchBase email:

Athos, a smart workout clothing startup based in Redwood City, has raised $12.2 million in Series B funding from True Ventures, DCM, Social+Capital Partnership, Golden State Warriors owner Joe Lacob and NBA player Jermaine O’Neal. Athos makes flexible sensors that can be printed on workout clothing to gather information like heart rate or calories burned and communicate with a smartphone. Founded in 2012, Athos has raised nearly $15 million to date and will use the latest cash to launch its first line of wearables this Fall.

OK…so does it work, and more importantly, does it work well?

Couldn’t find any reviews yet, but seems promising. As Joshua Brustein writes on BW,

Its clothing is made from sensor-laden fabrics that sit tight against the skin, sending information about how hard each muscle is working to your phone, through a transmitter that sits in a small pouch on a shirt or pants. In addition to information about muscle groups, the company says it can also measure more commonly-tracked metrics like calories burned and heart rate.

Not 100% sure there’s a huge market for this. Especially when each item of clothing is priced around $200. Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. But it seems the promising “use case” for true wearable clothing might be the medical market, for convalescents and seniors.

Those are the groups that need something monitoring their vitals around the clock, alerting loved ones and/or medical professionals when things are going awry, or more importantly and interestingly, before things start to go awry.

In 10 years perhaps?

 

Of Menus, Pricing And Revenue Maximization

The Guardian has an interesting article that everyone should read on how restaurants subtly manipulate patron behavior.

First on the menu, sorry, list, is the famous “anchor” Pricing strategy:

While you would assume that we read a menu from left to right, studies show that our eyes gravitate toward the upper right-hand corner first. This is often where the “anchor” – or the most profitable item – is located.

But this particular ploy is more cunning than simply getting you to buy the most expensive dishes: typically, having this usually quite costly dish listed will make everything look reasonably priced in comparison.

“Having an outrageously expensive item is both likely to get publicity for a restaurant, and will also get people to spend more,” says Charles Spence, experimental psychologist at the University of Oxford and co-author of The Perfect Meal: The Multisensory Science of Food and Dining.

“People think ‘I wonder if anyone ever orders that?’, without realising that its true purpose is to make the next most expensive item seem cheaper.”

Conversely, research suggests that diners look at the bottom left of a menu last, so this is where the least expensive dishes will be positioned.

Be sure to check out the rest of the article for other clever ways in which restaurants (and waiters) maximize their revenue on your next visit. 

Clever Marketing, From LG

What do you do when your main competitor has pretty much appropriated the word “Galaxy”?

You take out Ads like this one:

NewImage

Will it translate into sales?

Not sure, but it will at least make potential consumers pause for a second and grab some eyeballs, so it’s probably a good start. Then, comes the real marketing magic…

Floating Social Media Icons Powered by Acurax Blog Designing Company
Check Our FeedVisit Us On TwitterVisit Us On FacebookVisit Us On Google PlusVisit Us On Linkedin