Captivating Connections.

the race is on: tablets vs. smartphones

According to new research from Adobe Systems Digital Index group, "The share of Web site traffic on tablets grew more than 300% in the past year." In fact, "Tablets' share of Web site traffic will exceed smartphone traffic by early 2013, reaching 10% of total Web site traffic in 2014."

This rapid growth makes total sense; as more and more people aquire tablets, more and more people are going to use them to go online.

What's interesting is that "the study suggests that traffic from tablets to Web sites will surpass that from smartphones in 12 months." The evidence they're using?

- "Within one year of the iPad launch in Q2 2010, tablet visits represented 1% of total Web site visits, reaching 4.3% of total visits one year later, up more than 300%."

- "Compare this with the first two years of the iPhone market entry, when smartphones accounted for 0.5% of total Web site visits, taking nearly three years to reach 1% of total visits."

We know smartphones are becoming increasingly popular, as are tablets. Both are attractive for different reasons, and both offer different forms of mobility and on-the-go functionality. I get that the arguement being made here is that, "for each visit to a brand's Web site made with a smartphone, four visits are made using a tablet." That may make sense; the way tablets tend to be used right now is for leisure, which includes surfing the web and browsing sites in a more lean-back manner. When you're on the web via your smartphone, it tends to be with a specific purpose in mind, and you may be relying on apps or specific search destinations more than just perusing a brand site. This also has to do with the fact that tablets tend to be used more in the home, while smartphones are used pretty much everywhere.

I'd even argue that, while more brand web site visits are being made via tablet, that the smartphone visits end up having a stronger 'ROI' so to speak, since these visits tend to be done with purpose and potential action in mind.

What do you think?

 

kickstarter proves the power of social.

For those of you who read the latest issue of ‘Socializer’ (which I would assume is ALL of you MediaVest/Starcom readers!), you’ll remember that there was a call out on the company Kickstarter, showing the power of ‘social couponing’ and crowd funding.  T

he newsletter highlighted a recent campaign, the Pebble watch (which syncs with iPhone and Android smartphones to deliver texts, emails, etc.), which was Kickstarter’s most successful crowd funing campgin to date.

Since we published that news, Pebble has gone where no Kickstarter has gone before: MEGA! At this point in time, Pebble has raised over $7 million dollars from over 50,000 investors from around the world (myself included). This is WAY beyond the original $100,000 the Pebble team had.

If this isn’t proof that sometimes letting the crowd help your brand out and be a part of the creation process can be a good thing, I’m not sure what is.

Check out Pebble here: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android

 

organic & food-allergy marketplaces are set to be fruitful.

According to new research, both the organic market and the food-allergy market  have only just begun to bear 'fruit' and enjoy success.

According to a report from Global Industry Analysts, Inc., thanks to an increase in food sensitivies and allergies, "the global market for food allergy/intolerance products will continue to explode, reaching a projected $26.5 billion-plus by 2017." This can't be shocking for most of you; if you poll a group of 10-20 people, I can almost guarantee someone will have some sort of allergy, senstivity, intolerence, etc. In fact, in the past decade alone, food allergy incidences have risen ~10.5%. That's crazy!

This is great news for those who suffer from these allergies and issues, as it means they'll have more and more options to choose from. Suffering from ANYTHING is hard enough; having increased options to enjoy and make everyday life feel more 'normal' is a great thing.

I'm not sure if this has a halo effect on organic foods, or if organic foods is enjoying it's boom due to an increased focus on health & wellness in the U.S., but, according to the Organic Trade Association, "sales of organic products rose 9.5% in 2011 to $31.5 billion, crossing the $30 billion mark for the first time." While price is still an issue (many consumers dismiss organic foods because they consider them to be too expensive compared to generic products), as the recession's effect subside, consumers are increasingly open to investing in organics for themselves and their families.

So how does this growth break out?

- Organic food sales grew by 9.4%

- Fruit and vegetables accounting for 41% of all purchases

- Dairy products came in second with 14.6%,

- Packaged and prepared foods followed with 13.6%

-Meat, fish and poultry is the fastest-growing of the eight food categories, up 13% from 2010 (it should be noted that it still remains the smallest, accounting for just 1.8% of all organic food sales)

Of course organic (just like healthier foods) faces issues due to consumer confusion (people don't understand the difference between terms like 'organic', 'natural', 'local', etc.), but this is a great opportunity for brands to help consumer gain shopping confidence by helping them better understand the many terms they see in the grocery store, and recognize how to shop smarter and better (no matter how they define 'better').

Read more: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/173164/organic-heats-up-breaks-30-billion-mark.html?edition=46089#ixzz1t4B45M5g

is content bad for your budget?

There's something about seamlessly buying and downloading content like music, movies, and books that makes you forget you're actually spending (real) money on it. I used to be a major offender of, um, filesharing music, and now I can't stop buying random songs from iTunes. It all seems pretty harmless - a song here, a song there - until I get my bill and I realize just how much I racked up.

For some reason, until I get the bill, I forget I'm actually spending money on the content, and probably don't need all these songs I won't listen to after a week. Part of me thinks "meh, it's less than 1 or 2 dollars," while another part of me thinks "isn't that how people ruin their budgets? By minor purchases here and there?"

I'm not the only one concerned about this. According to AICPA, "more than 40% of Americans download and pay for digital content, and they’re spending more money on them than they ever have."

But do they have this money to spend? Jordin Amin, chair of the AICPA’s national CPA financial literacy, says it best when he says, “one of the concerns we have is that it’s very easy to make these purchases without a budget or an overall financial plan.”

It's true. Do people not 'count' content they download as a real purchase because it's not in tangible DVD, book, or CD form? One could argue that it's cheaper to buy a song vs. an album, or a digital version of a book than a physical paperback, but do we justify more purchases when they are only a tap or swpire away?

What do you think?

online spending is going up. so too are consumer demands.

According to eMarketer, 70% of all Internet users ages 14 and up bought something online in 2011, as eCommerce accounted for 6.6% of retail sales. However, that number is destined to go up, as consumers increase the number of shopping-enabled devices and up their confidence in shopping via desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone, etc.

So what do these shoppers want? According to AdWeek:

"As people increasingly shop across channels, they're expecting more from retailers. Most of all, shoppers want consistency in salespeople's knowledge of products; the ability to check availability of products in their local store before going to shop; and the ability for salespeople to check inventory at another store and have items delivered from there."

If predictions hold true, online shopping could represent 20% of total retail sales over the next decade. Check out AdWeek's infographic breakdown of the details here.

when will marketers recognize we need to market to PARENTS, not just mom or dad?

Listen, I get it: Moms rock. They're awesome. But so are dads. For reals!

In a world where the average family structure is changing and the roles people play vascilate, it's important to recognize that PARENTS run the family household, not just a mom or a dad. Sometimes if you only speak to moms, you make dad feel left out. And if you only speak to dads, moms feel like you're ignoring them.

So what's wrong with talking to parents as...wait for it...PARENTS!

According to work done Edelman and The Parenting Group, dads are social media monsters, too. In fact, "fathers—particularly first-time fathers—are engaging in the same types of social media activities that new moms enjoy...42% of new US dads who use social networks write family-related status updates on a daily basis. It further found that 56% of new dads post family photos at least a few times a week, while 21% post family-related videos."

Some dads are even 'beating' moms: "There was even one area in which dads were actually ahead of their female counterparts: Millennial dads have more online friends than millennial moms. These dads reported an average of 96 online friends, while moms averaged only 70."

So how do you appraoch this dads? I like how Mark Wildman, vice president and group publisher of magazine and digital media company The Parenting Group, sums it up. He points out that, as a dad himself, “I don’t just view myself as a provider. The nurturing, the cooking, the food buying—I am doing it in partnership with my wife.”

What do my parent readers think about this?

how did you become so addicted to games?

Anyone who has played me in Scramble knows it's all gameface when it's time to connect those tiles. However, I'm also proud to admit that I've never played Angry Birds. Fruit Ninja, though, is another story....

The real question is, how did we go from being gaming geeks hanging out at the arcade to all of us now keeping our heads down and we play away on our smartphones and tablets? How did we get so addicted?

The NYTimes has a great article looking at the history of addicting "stupid games," and how, "in the nearly 30 years since Tetris’s invention — and especially over the last five, with the rise of smartphones — Tetris and its offspring (Angry Birds, Bejeweled, Fruit Ninja, etc.) have colonized our pockets and our brains and shifted the entire economic model of the video-game industry. Today we are living, for better and worse, in a world of stupid games."

For something considered "stupid," there's a lot of interesting thoughts. For example, "game-studies scholars (there are such things) like to point out that games tend to reflect the societies in which they are created and played. Monopoly, for instance, makes perfect sense as a product of the 1930s — it allowed anyone, in the middle of the Depression, to play at being a tycoon. Risk, released in the 1950s, is a stunningly literal expression of cold-war realpolitik. Twister is the translation, onto a game board, of the mid-1960s sexual revolution. One critic called it 'sex in a box.'" Aggressive.

Wait! Does this mean our "stupid games" come from our culture of stupidity? Did reality TV win?!

This is my favorite idea from the article: "Stupid games, on the other hand, are rarely occasions in themselves. They are designed to push their way through the cracks of other occasions. We play them incidentally, ambivalently, compulsively, almost accidentally. They’re less an activity in our day than a blank space in our day; less a pursuit than a distraction from other pursuits. You glance down to check your calendar and suddenly it’s 40 minutes later and there’s only one level left before you jump to the next stage, so you might as well just launch another bird."

What do you think about "stupid games" and how most people love to call them stupid but wouldn't dare give them up?

how do you use email vs. social media?

Brands looking to engage with consumers need to recognize that not all forms of communication result in equal types of communicating and engagement.

According to Chadwick Martin Bailey, consumers engage with brands differently on email than they do via social media. How so? While "consumers connect with brands both via email lists and by 'liking' companies on Facebook...while users want to receive discounts and special offers via both channels, connecting with a brand on social media is an added public display of support," while email if more private.

What causes consumers to engage with a brand via email or social media? Much of the driving forces are the same, with discounts and offers driving participation. The major difference between engaging via email and social media is that social media is far more public, and supporting a brand becomes a reflection of who you are, what your likes are (so to speak), and what you're interested in. Consumers wouldn't publicly declare that they like a brand if they were embarrassed by it. Therefor, social media is a way to make your own declaration of interest.

Spill it: Why do you engage with brands via email or social media?

as coupon use increases, marketers' tactics diversify.

While coupon popularity among consumers may be increasing, marketers may be slowly moving away from coupon offerings.

According to NCH Marketing Services, "food marketers drastically cut their use of coupons last year, issuing 13.1% fewer coupons than they did in the prior year. That amounted to 305 billion coupons, a decline of 8.1% in all categories." Howver, it should be noted that "2011 coupon distribution was comparable to 2007, with 20 billion more coupons -- a 7% increase jump -- available to shoppers. And the $470 billion of coupon value in 2011 is a 26% increase from 2007."

Thanks to the economic crisis and increased consumer savvy, there's definately a hunger for coupons among consumers; "coupon-craving consumers redeemed $4.6 billion in savings, a jump of 12.2% from the year prior, and a 58.6% increase from five years ago."

While marketers are responding in various ways, including changing the offerings, the savings, the redemption opportunities, and more, depending on the category, new tactics are being attempted. For example, I previously wrote about how retailers are testing different types of pricing strategies.

What other types of tactics have you seen?

smart(er) shoppers leading to smart(er) shopping.

The NY Times has a great article looking at how consumer smarts and tactics are increasingly impacting the shopping experience, including pricing. 

As the article explains, "pricing has always been a tug of war between retailer and shopper, with the retailer having more muscle." However, the Internet and the slew of apps that have hit our smartphones and browsers (incuding daily deals, coupons, price comparisons, etc.), have given consumers new weapons in the war on prices, and are forcing retailers to be more flexible in their pricing.

In this day and age, there's really no such thing as a set price anymore. 

Think about the last time you bought a pair of pants: Did it cross your mind to do one of the following?

1. Look up (online, on an app, in a circular) if they were on sale somewhere?

2. See if someone else offered it cheaper than the retailer you were looking at to make your purchase?

3. Search online to see if you could get it cheaper? The retailer's website? Ebay?

Apps and the Internet are making all of this easier for you, and more difficult for retailers. The new shopper mentaliy really has become "there's never a reason to pay full price." We're way too savvy for that.

As consumers become experts, brands are trying plenty of tactics. For example, "J.C. Penny has introduced a streamlined system: daily prices, lower monthlong specials and clearance prices. Mango, the fashion retailer, has cut all prices by one-fifth. Stein Mart, the specialty chain, has reduced its coupons. Supervalu, the grocery chain, has sworn off heavy promotions and lowered some prices. Even Walmart has pledged to match competitors’ prices if it sets its own too high."

The real result is an interesting game of cat and mouse, with each side trying to outfox the other. However, at what point do these tactics from retailers just consumer the customer to take a pass on their offerings? Aren't these consumers tools supposed to empower by providing simplicity, not forcing the retailer to increasingly 'complixify' their strategy?

What do you think of these pricing strategies? Do they impact your shopping habits?