COMMENTARY

Millennials, Gen Z: What's Trending, 1 Year Into Pandemic

• by Kathy Sheehan , Op-Ed Contributor, 2 hours ago

One year into the pandemic, priorities have changed for businesses and young adults alike.  Here are the trends uncovered by recent research among Gen Z and millennials, along with comments from four female entrepreneurs.

Mental health: The pandemic had an economic impact on millennials and a cultural, social impact on Gen Z.

Ninety-two percent of young adults said they are more self-aware, notably when it comes to mental health. Young adults expect to be asked about their mental health status and expect brands to join the discussion. This means exploring mental health in campaigns and engaging with customers on ways to assist. As young people reevaluate their life, how are they navigating the journey -- and how can your brand help?

“Physical, mental, and emotional can’t be looked at independently,” said Elianna Goldstein, co-founder/CEO at GETMr. “When I have a great purse, how does this affect my confidence during the day? Or if I wear nice clothes or not on a Zoom? [Small acts such as these] can drive our long-term health.”

Life experiences: Young adults went from having FOMO (fear of missing out), to NOMO (NO MOments), to magnifying the memories they have, and are now living in a meaningful and intentional way. Actions matter and are carefully considered. The pandemic forced many to miss out on life events like weddings, graduations and prom.

Gen Z under-20-years-old enjoyed being home, spending time with their families and growing closer to their parents. They craved a sense of security, and unlike older Gen Z and millennials, feel no real sense of loss because it’s hard to miss what they never experienced.

Advertising: A new sense of brand discovery.  

When Gen Z and millennials purchase something they saw online, they are increasingly reporting that it is something they “found” --  nothing about how a targeted ad appeared in their timeline. Advertising is so organic that people don’t realize they are being advertised to. Millennials have more of a spending budget than Gen Z, but the younger demographic plays a vital role in driving sales to brands, even when they aren’t the ones buying. Gen Z introduces brands to their followers, friends, and family.

“Our company was very much founded on Instagram,” said Vanessa Holfert, senior vice president of marketing at Slumberkins. “The primary purchaser of our product has always been the millennial audience. Millennials are so important, but we’re also seeing a really interesting trend that young audiences are actually increasing their conversion rates with us year over year.”

Is your brand ready to celebrate? When the pandemic hit and everyone started hoarding toilet paper and hand sanitizer, consumers went online for some comfort buying. Now that millions of people are vaccinated and group restrictions are lifting, friends and family will gather together, and last year’s comfort buy will be this year’s celebration purchase. Can your brand handle the influx?

“As more people get vaccinated we’ll see an energy where people are going out, celebrating, partying, enjoying life and not taking it for granted,” said Wilglory Tanjong, founder of Anima Iris. “We’re going to see a continual ecommerce boom that smaller businesses should prepare for. [The pandemic] will forever change how people view themselves and how they view the world.”

 

CAUSE-RELATED

COMMENTARY

Sexism In Advertising Is (Still) Not So Sneaky

• by Tim Parkin , April 8, 2021

Sexism in advertising isn’t a new problem. And while there has been much progress, advertising is still plagued by a modern form of sexism hidden in plain sight—sneaky sexism.

People Per Hour, a freelancing community, posted an advert in the London Underground in 2019 that read, “You do the girl boss thing. We’ll do the SEO thing.” The Advertising Standards Authority banned the ad after many complaints, ruling that it reinforced "harmful gender stereotypes" by using the term “girl boss.”

Perhaps the ad had good intentions, but the failure to recognize that women are just as capable and likely to be CEO instead of a “girl boss” is where sexism starts to become covert.

As long as society remains largely numb to sexist messages, the problem will continue to spread.

Unfortunately, not all sexism in advertising is as subtle. On March 8, Burger King UK tweeted that “Women belong in the kitchen.” If you can believe it, this was part of a campaign launched on International Women’s Day because “only 20% of professional chefs in UK kitchens are women and to help change that by awarding culinary scholarships.”

How can this happen in 2021? And why is sexism still an issue that permeates advertising?

Jane Cunningham, one of the authors of the upcoming book “Brandsplaining: Why Marketing is (Still) Sexist and How to Fix It,” suggests that brands have amassed so much power that they’re telling consumers who they should become. Brands love pontificating about being customer-centric, yet often have an outdated and archaic view of who their customers are in reality. Customers are diverse and multifaceted, something many brands can’t seem to grasp. For brands to be genuinely inclusive, representative, and customer-centric, they need to let their customers represent them instead of the other way around.

Dove is one of the pioneers of accurately representing customers, launching the Real Beauty Pledge in 2017—a campaign and a commitment to showcasing real, unedited women instead of the photoshopped models that have become the advertising standard.

Savvy brands like Dove know that eradicating sexism isn’t just the right thing to do; it’s also good for business. Women control most of the purchasing power, accounting for 85% of consumer purchases and 58% of U.S. ecommerce spending. And half of all products marketed to men are actually purchased by women.

Despite these dramatic figures, there is a massive gap between how brands advertise to women and what women want to see, with 91% of women agreeing that advertisers don’t understand them.

Brands must recognize that women are much more than a set of archaic stereotypes. Brands can build an authentic connection by putting women at the core of marketing campaigns and simultaneously cater to a valuable demographic that will boost their bottom line.

Sexism remains a fundamental issue in our field that we must address through education, advocacy, and action. We desperately need more women in senior leadership positions to guide the process and provide accountability.  And given the influence that marketing and advertising have in our society, we must take pragmatic steps to establish equality, diversity, and representation in our work so that sexism of any kind can’t sneak back in.

COMMENTARY

Why Brands Need To Do More When Marketing To Hispanics

• by Isabel Rafferty , 7 hours ago

In 2014, Google labeled the U.S. Hispanic market as marketers’ “Next Big Opportunity.”

Fast-forward seven years, and not much has changed. Brands are still struggling to figure out a winning strategy for reaching Hispanic audiences, despite the fact that a report by Claritas found that total annual spending by Hispanics in 2020 was, at $978 billion, higher than that of any other minority group.

There are over 60 million Hispanics currently living in the United States, according to Pew Research Center, making up 18% of the total population. Yet it would be a mistake to treat them as a homogenous group. Just as no experienced marketer would consider the entire non-Hispanic white population a single audience to advertise to, so too should the nuances of Hispanics be recognized.

Sadly, I’ve seen too many brands take the easy route and partner with companies like Telemundo and Univision. While they certainly play an important role in the Hispanic media ecosystem, far too many marketers see these partnerships as the extent of their Hispanic outreach, instead of as a springboard toward a better understanding of their target audience. Moreover, brands that take this approach are also missing an opportunity to partner with minority-led and operated businesses that have real connections and insight into the nuances of the Hispanic population.

Amid the Black Lives Matter Movement and growing calls for more diversity and inclusion, advertisers have finally seen multicultural advertising for what it is: a necessity that allows them to reach diverse audiences in ways that go beyond the superficial.

But in order to do multicultural advertising right, brands have to think about the entire process -- starting with the companies that will be producing those ads, through to the media channels that they choose to run those campaigns on. Unfortunately, many brands who say they’re supporting Latinos and other minority communities end up spending money with companies who look the same as they do -- that is to say, companies that lack the types of diverse voices needed to successfully appeal to multicultural audiences.

It’s time for brands to put their money where their mouth is, and support communities of color in truly meaningful ways. A good first step would be to look for officially accredited Hispanic-led and owned agencies to assist with campaign planning and strategy. Not only must these companies go through an extensive auditing process before they can be certified, they also provide a level of audience insight that others are unable to provide. For instance, they can advise brands on which cultural cues appeal most to Hispanic audiences, and how those cues differ depending on geographic location, age, and the level of acculturation.

Only 6% of U.S. ad spend is directed towards Hispanics -- a shocking statistic considering the demographic’s purchasing power. While many have taken (much-needed) steps to changing this statistic, the reality is that it’s past time for Hispanics to be taken seriously as an economic and cultural force. An ad on Telemundo just isn’t enough anymore.

 

COMMENTARY

Gen Y, Z Lead The Way With EVs

• by Tanya Gazdik , Staff Writer, Yesterday

It has to be music to the ears of General Motors, Tesla, Rivian and other electric-savvy automakers.

One in four Gen Y and Z auto intenders say electric vehicle technology is a “must-have” in their next car, per just-released research that GfK AutoMobility is sharing first with DriveTime. 

Desire for EVs has grown 150% in just two years among  these key buyer groups. Interest in EVs among Gens Y and Z is 11 percentage points higher than among intenders as a whole (15%). 

Basically, if Gen Y and Z represent the future of auto buying, then electric EVs are positioned for exponential growth in the years to come.

General Motors is on its way to an all-electric future, with a commitment to 30 new global electric vehicles by 2025. 

The GfK AutoTech Insights study also confirms that luxury car intenders are now driving interest in all-electric cars. 

One in three (34%) lux intenders say they are interested in an all-electric vehicle – up from 24% in 2018. By contrast, the non-lux interest level is just 13%, after dropping 2 percentage points (from 15%) in the past two years.   

Even if you are extremely green-friendly, there are practical considerations to be considered, like the ever-present “range anxiety.” How do I get from point A to point B if it exceeds my battery life? 

That’s why fast-charging stations are a key draw for potential EV buyers. Six in ten (59%) intenders who are “mostly interested” in an EV -- and two-thirds (68%) who are “somewhat interested” -- say that the availability of free fast-charging stations would raise their interest levels.

Free installation of fast-charging stations at buyers’ homes is another big draw, appealing to 54% of those who are “mostly interested” in an EV and 62% who are “somewhat interested.” 

GM’s Chevrolet division acknowledges this, and recently announced plans to cover standard installation of Level 2 charging capability for eligible customers who purchase or lease a 2022 Bolt EUV or Bolt EV.

GfK also found that attractive styling and third-row seating were the only features selected significantly more often by the “mostly interested” intenders versus the “somewhat interested” ones.

“There is no question that EVs are powering auto innovation right now,” says Tom Neri, commercial director for marketing and consumer intelligence at GfK North America. “The question is, can they expand beyond the upper echelons of car buyers and gain true mainstream acceptance? Strong interest among younger intenders is definitely a positive sign – but we will have to see if that translates to sales and loyalty in the years to come.”

In some respects, the pandemic-inspired lack of a commute (which could become permanent as more and more businesses reduce their costly office space) could work in an EV’s favor.  

If the majority of trips is around the neighborhood, going to the grocery store, picking up the kids from soccer practice, etc., then an EV makes perfect sense. 

The practicality of road trips in a pure EV remains a concern since it adds an extra element of planning for stops to recharge should the day’s driving exceed the battery range.

If the availability of charging stations continues to expand and if technology continues to lessen the amount of time necessary for recharging, EV ownership should become more and more attractive to more people. Time will tell. 

 

COMMENTARY

Brand Loyalty Here To Stay -- But Now It's 'Emotional Engagement'

• by Robert Passikoff , Op-Ed Contributor, Yesterday

A recent spate of articles have declared that brand loyalty is in jeopardy, or even -- as suggested recently in a commentary in this publication -- “on its way out.” The reality is, brand loyalty not only exists, but is a measurable, leading indicator of consumer behavior and brand profitability, and is not going away anytime soon.

The thing is, today’s brand loyalty is different from the brand loyalty of the last century. It has adapted to new consumers in a new marketplace.

If it helps, I invite you to think about brand loyalty as a consumer’s emotional engagement with a brand. In fact, I urge you to. Because emotional brand engagement is the 21st century paradigm for loyalty.

Real assessments of loyalty measure the emotional engagement between the consumer and brand versus the consumer’s perception of their category ideal, best defined as the degree to which a brand is able to meet the expectations consumers hold for their category Ideal. Brands that can do that always see what might reasonably be called “loyalty.” In fact, 25 years of research and independent validity studies have demonstrated a brand that best meets your expectations is the one that you’re six times more likely to buy -- and buy again.

Those engagement levels can identify differences between loyal customers and casual customers. The ability for a brand to meet your expectations identifies a point on a continuum, between brand obsession and indifference. Emotional brand engagement levels vary from category-to-category but are always predictive of consumer behavior. Yes, it’s a more complex measure to take, but today’s consumers, and today’s brand loyalty are more complex too.

A lot of commentators have based their opinions on a McKinsey survey that noted shortages during the pandemic resulted in people buying whatever was available, with a third of respondents trying new brands.

Does that surprise you? You couldn’t get Charmin, so you bought another toilet paper! Does that dumbfound you? Nah, me either. Researchers really ought to note the distinction between need and allegiance before leaping to the QED, brand loyalty is on its way out.

A tiny segment of respondents indicated the new brands would have standing in future purchase decisions. Well, OK. Except as far back as 1990, researchers knew “purchase intent” was notoriously overstated in survey responses. What the survey did confirm was the efficacy of mid-1980 satisfaction and total-quality movements, which made primacy-of-product the rule rather than the exception.

So, there was pretty much no downside to buying  a “new” brand of toilet paper when Charmin wasn’t available, until it was, and consumers went back to buying it and not the “new brand.” So much for standing in the purchase decision.

And yeah, you might try another brand because something’s new. Novelty has its place, but it almost never unseats a brand that best meets your expectations. Unless it meets expectations better than your current brand. That’s called “good marketing.”

And buying a brand regularly? That’s called “loyalty.”

 

COMMENTARY

NFL Scores Dominating Rights Deal. Can Advertisers Stage A Comeback?

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, Yesterday

NFL headlines have been breathtaking: A collective $100 billion-plus TV right deal, at mostly a 100% (or more) annual cost hike for TV networks.

If you are a regular NFL advertiser watching this, what is your reaction and worries? Figure marketers may already be readjusting long-term linear TV plans.

On the flip side, figure the ever-higher NFL expense for TV networks -- and no doubt sports in general -- may need to think outside the box, luring regular nonsports advertisers to consider dabbling in the big game. All must consider what to do about the acceleration of decreasing viewership on live, linear TV.

TV networks will need to find ways to raise advertising pricing around the big NFL programming in the next decade.

MoffettNathanson Research estimates ESPN will see a 42% annual rise, to $2.7 billion a year, while NBC, Fox and CBS, will spike from 105% to 110% -- $2.0 billion, $2.25 billion and $2.1 billion, respectively.

ESPN gets a bit of a break, considering it paid much more for its contract the last time around ($1.9 billion) than NBC, Fox, or CBS did with their deals -- $960 million, $1.1 billion and, $1 billion, respectively.

It isn’t just ad revenues that will need to do more than just tow the line. Networks will need to find ways to boost affiliate fees (in the case of ESPN) and broadcast retransmissions fees (for NBC, CBS, and Fox).

The wild card -- and potential major upside -- is what really happens with respective streaming services: ESPN+ (for Walt Disney); Peacock (for NBC Universal); Tubi (for Fox); and Paramount+ (for ViacomCBS).

Not only do they get to simultaneously air games alongside their sister legacy linear TV networks, but they also get a few exclusive games. Then add in the biggest news -- Amazon’s exclusive regular season airings of “Thursday Night Football” for the length of the deal.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the NFL football viewing audience on those particular weekends. And perhaps more importantly, how advertisers will react.

 

Yes DC There is an Internet

March 17, 2021

0

The Federal Communications Commission has proposed rules to improve the way the public receives emergency alerts on their phones, TV’s and radios. The Commission also adopted a Notice of Inquiry to explore the technical feasibility of delivering EAS alerts via the Internet.

Yu may recall back in 2018 when a false emergency alert in Hawaii mistakenly warned of an incoming ballistic missile. That was a wake-up call to The FCC that the system needed improving.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 subsequently charged the Commission with adopting rules to strengthen emergency alerting in various areas.

On Wednesday, the Commission adopted a Notice Proposed Rulemaking to ensure that more people receive relevant emergency alerts, enable government agencies to report false alerts when they occur, and improve the way states plan for emergency alerts.

Specifically, the Commission proposed to:
· Combine the current “Presidential Alerts” category, which is non-optional on devices that receive Wireless Emergency Alerts, with alerts from the FEMA Administrator. The new non-optional alert class would be called “National Alerts.”

· Encourage all states to form State Emergency Communications Committees, which help administer alerting on the state level, or to review the composition and governance of existing committees, as well as require these committees to certify that they held a meeting in the past year.

· Provide a checklist of information that should be included in annual submissions of state Emergency Alert System plans and amend the process for Commission review of those plans.
· Specify that government agencies may report false emergency alerts to the FCC’s 24/7 Operations Center.

· Require and ensure that Emergency Alert System participants can repeat certain alerts over television and radio when the government alert originator requests it.