Twitter – A Steadily Growing Number of “Use Cases”

As I recently said, on Twitter, about Twitter,

Consider this “use case” from Brazil, that falls into the “shape and leverage” category, courtesy Rupal Parekh on AdAge:

Ever forget to record a TV show and wish there was another way to do it? Brazil’s largest satellite provider, Sky, is testing a way for subscribers to record shows via Twitter. 

The technology, which was developed by Sky’s digital agency in Brazil, AgenciaClick Isobar, generates a Twitter hashtag that works like a record button. According to the agency, the concept is a response to noticing that consumers were turning to Twitter and other sources for information about TV shows rather the schedule of programming on Sky’s website.

The interesting part about this is that this was developed by a 3rd party, not Twitter itself – something that both reflects, and should further spur, Twitter’s adoption by the masses. 

Warby Parker, Wharton, Pricing and Strategy

Warby Parker, as hipsters and others know, is disrupting the “luxury” eyewear market. While “disruption” is a buzzword indiscriminately applied to many things these days, that’s not the case here. 

Coming into an industry that enjoyed near-monopoly concentration of market power (translation: consumers were paying a lot!), Warby Parker is taking on Luxxotica (proprietary brands here + licensed brands here = pretty much a who’s who in this industry) successfully, but still in a small way. 

A very interesting article from Knowledge@Wharton describes various aspects of the Warby Parker story. Students of business will find it especially appealing, because it touches on various elements of marketing, pricing and strategy.

Two excerpts (if you are in a rush) that I really liked from the piece.

1. Before founding the company

Before co-founding Warby Parker, Blumenthal directed VisionSpring, a group that trains women in developing countries to sell affordable glasses in their communities. The job left an impression. “It helped me recognize the power of a pair of glasses to change someone’s life,” he notes. Research conducted by the University of Michigan demonstrated that users of VisionSpring eyeglasses experienced a 35% increase in productivity and a 20% increase in monthly income, Blumenthal points out. “In international development terms, that is a miracle.”

2. Why $95 and not $45

The decision to price glasses at $95 comes with a back story. Wharton marketing professor Jagmohan Raju recalls that when the founders broached their idea to him, they originally planned to sell their glasses at half that price. “I really liked the idea overall … but after examining their analysis, I told them it’s not going to fly. [At $45 a pair], there’s no money [left over] for brand building; there will be no money in it for you and no money for investors.”

In addition to squeezing the business, a price tag of $45 was “too low” to be seen as credible to customers, according to Raju. “It would have put [Warby Parker] in a category I believed they did not want to be in. There are many companies selling cheap eyeglasses. Anyone can go on the Internet and buy two pairs for $99. But there is a perception among customers that the quality is not as good.”

The goal was to create a new price point that was still reasonable, but not low-end.

David Bell, professor of marketing at Wharton, served as an advisor to the founders in an independent study about pricing models and demand analysis. He recalls conversations around the social-psychological reasons for staying under $100. “There was a bit of discussion about what happens [psychologically to the customer] when you get to three digits,” he says. “[At the same time], $99 gets you a little bit of extra margin — $4 — but it doesn’t feel quite as classy. A price tag of $93 sounds more like a Walmart price: There’s too much exactitude there.” 

The price had to be right for another important reason: For every pair of glasses Warby Parker sells, it gives a pair to someone in need. (According to the company, almost one billion people worldwide — 15% of the global population — lack access to glasses.) TOMS, the shoe manufacturer known for its simple cloth espadrilles made with recycled vegan materials, is perhaps the best known company that employs a buy one/give one business model.

The Machine Will Fit You Now – Retail Adventures

When you are ready to spend $30, $50 or more on a shirt, a pair of jeans or even a T-Shirt, retailers want to make sure that you can quickly and easily find something that fits. Because, when they do that, it increases the probability of you buying something there and it probably prevents you from returning ill-fitting clothes later. 

Enter the “Me-Ality” machine. 

As Abha Bhattarai wrote on The Washington Post last month, it is

A futuristic-looking machine that uses radio waves to measure 200,000 points along your body. Ten seconds later, the system uses that data to spit out a list of jeans, sorted by color, style, fit and brand…

Me-Ality representatives say the machine uses the same technology as airport body scanners. Customers are asked to take off their shoes and hold their arms away from their bodies while a wand-like contraption circles around them twice.

“We want people to feel comfortable,” said Ahmed Aslam, regional manager for Me-Ality. “We don’t want them to feel like they’re at an airport.”

Aslam would not disclose how much each machine costs, but reports show that similar airport body scanners cost about $180,000. 

At that price, not every store will be able to afford them of course (so will large malls perhaps offer them as a service for small tenant-stores? Or, will Me-Ality offer the device on a lease basis?). Those that do may be able to differentiate themselves and win over more shoppers.

PS: Interestingly, from what I can tell, the machine’s recommendations are tied to sizes in specific brands (Ex: “Size 6, Lucky Jeans”). What this means is that shoppers could presumably get their “fit data” and then shop elsewhere (online?) based on price…which hurts the retailer whose machine the shopper used, but not the clothing brand itself. 

Sensors In Pills Bring The Future Closer

2013 05 02 12 38 38

A big problem with many patients is that they forget to take their medications on a timely basis. Or they take the wrong dosage. Or they may experience side effects and other problems that are not immediately apparent to the patient (or the doctor).

Proteus, a company out of Redwood City, CA, aims to fix all of that with its “ingestible sensor”-based pills. [The picture above explains how it works.] The FDA has already approved this “technology” and as an indicator that this has legs, Oracle and others just invested $62.5m yesterday.

Very innovative, and likely to make its way through the world’s healthcare system in a few years. I think. 

YouTube, Others Seek To Capture TV Ad Dollars

That many young viewers and perhaps some older viewers are watching their laptops and SmartPhones instead of TVs, is well known. But in the $64B US TV Ad market, the ad spend on YouTube and others (AOL, Yahoo, Hulu, et al) doesn’t seem to reflect the number of online viewers. 

This year, Google and the others are making a concerted attempt at changing that, writes Michael Learmonth, in a fascinating article on AdAge. 

A couple of things caught my eyes as I was reading the article.

1. While online TV is often edgy and can show and discuss what can’t be easily shown on Broadcast and Cable TV, a lot of ad dollars are still spent on family audiences. To this end, 

In a further bid to lure conservative TV advertisers, YouTube signed a deal with the Alliance for Family Entertainment, whose members include Unilever, Walmart and Subway, to create a family-friendly package across 32 channels on YouTube. Commitments from the members of AFE represent one of the bigger upfront deals YouTube is doing this year.

2. Google, with 12,000 sales people targeting TV advertisers, is becoming a force to reckon with, more so than in the past. Consider one way in which it is fighting for TV ad dollars:

This year, they’ve got a secret weapon designed to attack TV’s biggest weakness: the expense of reaching light TV viewers. National TV buys can pretty easily reach heavy TV users, but advertisers have to spend more on reach and frequency to find the last few when they happen to tune in.

This year, all of Google’s salespeople will be armed with what they call an “Extra Reach Tool” on their laptops to show TV advertisers that those light TV viewers can be reached for less money on YouTube. “The tool sits on a laptop and ingests Nielsen TV data, mixes in YouTube and produces a customized report,” Mr. Watson said. “More than half of campaigns would benefit from a 16% shift of TV to YouTube.”

Legacy TV networks and broadcasters may want to at least start thinking about how to pre-empt the Google juggernaut. 

Count On Amazon To “Crowdsource” TV Pilot Approvals

2013 04 22 08 36 31

Decades from today, will the media industry look back at TV execs and focus groups approving pilots with a mixture of mild disdain and nostalgia?

Maybe…if Amazon’s crowd-sourced approach to green-lighting TV shows succeeds.

As Robert Baldwin writes on Wired,

Amazon released its first wave of TV show pilots and is pushing them all out to viewers and letting them decide which ones get made. This is in stark contrast to traditional networks, which order a pilot, analyze it to death to ensure it fits the precise demographic audience advertisers want and then shoehorn it into the schedule.

<snip>

In addition to metrics, Amazon is also giving viewers the chance to fill out a survey and review each show individually. It’s the world’s largest focus group and you’re part of it. Will enjoy the zombie killing antics of Tallahassee or the rich comedic timing of John Goodman? Maybe you’ll like both.

There are many reasons why this “tapping into the wisdom of crowds” strategy could work.

(more…)

Animated Social Media Icons Powered by Acurax Wordpress Development Company
Check Our FeedVisit Us On TwitterVisit Us On FacebookVisit Us On Google PlusVisit Us On Linkedin