22
Nov

Neuromarketing: Market Research’s Magic Bullet?

neuromarketing: market research's magic bullet?

By Artem Violety, Vice President

Exciting new techniques are emerging within the advertising and technology industries, creating fresh disrupters in market research and opening new doors to more opportunities and insights than ever imagined before. However, as with most new findings, additional research and confirmation is needed before these techniques become relevant and widely accepted.

One new field of study that has emerged is “neuromarketing research”- an attempt to leverage learnings from neuroscience to better understand the brain’s responses to marketing stimuli, and thereby better understand consumer behavior. I had the pleasure of appearing on a panel discussing the topic at the ad:tech conference in New York, held November 2-3, 2016.

The panel discussed how face recognition software could uncover consumers’ emotional states; how biometric markers, such as skin conductance, heartrate, and respiration could be used to detect non-conscious response to stimuli; and how brain imaging techniques, including functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and Electroencephalography (EEG) could potentially uncover consumers “true” reactions to marketing stimuli by measuring actual brain activity.

These techniques are obviously very attractive to marketers. Imagine being able to peer into a consumer’s mind and see how interested they are really in a product, or which of two marketing messages better resonates with them, all without having to rely on what they tell us.

Neuromarketing’s focus is on consumers’ “unsaid” thoughts, so in essence, their inner, unedited, potentially unconscious thoughts and feelings. This is generally called “System 1” or “Fast” thinking, and it refers to a consumer’s automatic response to a given stimulus; it’s a potentially vital aspect in decision-making but by no means the only one.

In contrast, more traditional market research focuses on what is explicitly reported by a consumer. This is called “System 2” or “Slow” thinking, and refers to the more deliberate, logical or conscious aspects of decision making.

As one can imagine, both types of responses are worth considering when trying to understand how the consumer feels about a product or service. Unfortunately, the excitement that usually accompanies a discovery of a new set of tools or techniques often overrides not only previously accepted learning but even basic logic.

For example, the notion that there is a metaphorical “buy button” in the brain that can be accessed via neuromarketing is promise boldly made by some practitioners. However, this claim is akin to those made by proponents of using hypnosis or subliminal messages in commercials – highly attractive but without much merit. Since the brain is an organ that evolved over a much longer period of time than humans have engaged in commerce, there wouldn’t have been an opportunity for a “buy button” to be part of the biology of the brain. There are surely “approach or avoid”, “fight or flight” functions built in, but those reflect a need for basic survival, not the desire to buy a shiny new phone or another pair of shoes.

In order to be useful, neuromarketing research must be placed in the proper context – it’s a tool that can be used in conjunction with other traditional techniques, but it’s not a panacea for all marketing questions. As neuroscience evolves and is able to better explain human cognitive abilities, it will surely play a larger role in how we all conduct marketing research. However, it is unlikely it will ever completely replace  the need to actually talk to people in order to understand them, something we humans have a good deal of practice doing.

More
16
Nov

Change is in the Air (and not Just for Market Research)

Change is in the air (and not just for market research)

By Richard Clarke, Vice President, Key Global Partners  |  Vision Critical

2016 has been a year of enormous change.  As I sit here on November 9th 2016, change is something that everyone is contemplating in the US and throughout the world and the implications of this change is yet to be realized as to the impact on our daily lives; regardless of if you perceive this change to be good or bad.

This change comes on the back of Brexit on June 23, 2016 which again created enormous ripples of change and anxiety throughout the world and economies.  When Brexit occurred and as a British Citizen who has been very lucky to travel the world for both business and pleasure, I was sitting in Hong Kong watching from a far the implications of that decision and that change and wondering what it would mean for all of us.

I have since moved back to the US and I am considering all that has happened this year, most recently the U.S. presidential election. I have viewed this through a different lens – a professional lens. So what can we learn from these major societal changes that have occurred in 2016?  As someone that has been engaged and involved in Market Research on a global level for 21 years it has been fascinating to see how many “polls” have gotten 2016 “wrong” (or supposedly so).  What is the impact on market research and polling and the trustworthiness that we as an industry are perceived to provide to the world; how will this affect my livelihood?

What I realize the lesson for me is this year, is that the only constant is change itself and we should not be surprised by these supposedly big upsets.  In 2016, we have seen this and it reaffirms a belief that I have that in this modern day of hyper connectivity, big data and always-on consumerism; we as people and brands need to stay engaged and connected with the people and brands that matter most to us – not just measure numbers and pay lip service to listening – but truly engage in an ongoing dialogue.

As things change and while we try to predict what is going to happen, we as people, brands and businesses can’t and don’t always get it right.  Therefore, the necessity for engagement and relationships is key to be able to adjust and learn as the world changes around us – if we are not engaging with people and establishing an open dialogue, then we risk not getting the right answers.  Listening, connecting and having people buy in to what we as brands are doing translates into results and actions and ultimately loyalty – this can only occur from the establishment of two-way dialogues where both parties talk, ask questions, listen and ultimately establish mutual trust and shared value.

Clients and users of the research industry have the opportunity to do just that; we have the opportunity to not just ask questions (poll people), but actually listen, engage, and collaborate to establish a shared value for all parties involved.  This is the concept of what Insight Communities are – establishing a two-way engagement with customers to drive change and action, not just measure.

Perhaps the key is not just asking questions but connecting with people. And as researchers and marketers that is our role – to connect with individuals and consumers, understand them and create shared value that drives action and outcomes.

If 2016 has taught us anything, it is the necessity to adapt (and change) in this new world and not to be shocked by the unexpected.  For research and for our clients we have to adapt away from just asking questions into a world of engagement where we enable change for our businesses through shared values and collaborative approaches.

It has reminded us that we as businesses need to put our most important stakeholders, our customers, firmly and squarely in the center of what we do – enabling an ongoing dialogue to impact the change and growth that we as businesses want and need to see.  If we don’t, we risk being irrelevant and passed over because we make assumptions – is that a risk any of us wants to take in a world where the only constant is change?

———

Richard Clarke is VP of Key Global Partnerships at Vision Critical, working with Morpace on expanding communities and their reach for Morpace clients.

More
5
Oct

The Question Remains, Have You Lost Sight of Your Target Customer?

The questions remains, have you lost sight of your target customer?

By: Kea Wheeler, Senior Project Director

Last week we talked about how population subsets identified with the help of segmentation algorithm screeners can help reach out to a target market and target customer in a more personal way.

So what’s the solution to using segmentation algorithm screeners in Qual recruiting?

Segmentations and their series of algorithm questions will not cease to exist. They are a valuable tool to marketers and market researchers alike. But how might one integrate these algorithm questions into qualitative recruitments? I would argue that if you are looking for the perfect target, then the algorithm questions should be the entire screener. If it has already been proclaimed that those who answered the questions a certain way, these are your “Savvy Savers,” and so why ask anything else?

There are instances where the addition of certain types of questions to an algorithm screener cannot be avoided.  For example:

  • Gender:
    • Know the product and the objectives and you will know if you need to recruit only one gender.
  • Household income:
    • Asking household income may be wise, such as in luxury goods research, as the participating consumers need to be able to afford the product or service being discussed.
  • Lifestage:
    • The introduction and/or removal of a spouse or children into or out of the home changes priorities, which changes a consumer’s needs and wants. This ultimately changes how they consume.
  • Age, but sparingly:
    • Age is just a number and shouldn’t be used if it is not relevant to the product or service. This is the same for generational cohorts. Boomers and Millennial Savvy Savers should “look” the same, at least on paper.

But overall, I encourage the addition of outside questions to a segmentation algorithm screener be used judiciously. If it is found that more and more questions are being added to a screener to get to the “perfect target,” it may just be that the screener is not being used to reach the desired customer identified in the segmentation study. The screener has instead become a tool to find consumers who may want the product/service the company has produced.

The greatest advantage of limiting the number of additional questions to an algorithm screener is that it will provide a purer recruit to the original algorithm. A purer recruit will lead to the right target group. And the right target group will provide better and more actionable insights to be gleaned from the qualitative study. That’s a win for the entire company.

Secondary advantages may include:

  • Qualitative projects are easier to recruit as there is a larger number of people that may qualify for the research
  • There may be more recruiters that are willing to take on the challenge of finding the people for the study
  • It may just keep that nagging voice in the back of your head that says “can we even recruit this?” at bay

Whichever of these advantages may speak to you the most, remember, the goal is to get back to recruiting the desired target market to find out the collective opinions about your company’s current line-up of products and services. By doing so, you may just rediscover your true target customer.

More
22
Sep

Have You Lost Sight of Your Target Customer?

Have you lost sight of your target customer?

By: Kea Wheeler, Senior Project Director

Imagine if your boss told you that she had found the perfect target group based on attitudes and needs segmentation, called Savvy Savers, and wants to conduct research with them.

But once you head off to find this target group, your boss tells you these Savvy Savers also have to drive a certain type of car, be aware of a certain brand, have 2.5 kids, see themselves as innovative, like to try new things, and must be located in Dallas. Welcome to the world of recruiting qualitative research with a segmentation algorithm screener.

What is a segmentation algorithm screener?

Traditional screeners use a set of questions to identify qualified consumers to participate in qualitative research. These questions usually revolve around criteria such as demographics (i.e. age and income) and can include category preference questions.

A segmentation algorithm screener is more complicated. Companies usually segment their market into subsets based on criteria such as attitudes, usage, or needs. These segmentations are usually done through a national quantitative survey. The results provide population subsets that companies usually name in order to speak about these segments of their target market in a more personal way.

Once the segmentation is complete, companies have a list of questions that they feel every named segment, such as the Savvy Savers, will answer the same way regardless of where they live. These series of questions is called an algorithm.

Why are segmentation algorithm screeners problematic?

Not all segmentation screeners are a bad thing. When applied effectively, they can bring companies closer to their target market. Issues arise when expectations are different from reality.

Issue #1: The algorithm target may not be the real target audience

Let’s use our Savvy Savers target as an example of being “the perfect target.” If the potential consumer answers the algorithm questions in a certain way, they fit the desired target market and qualify for the study. However, “this perfect target” is never perfect on an algorithm screener. Clients want potential participants to qualify for the study by answering the algorithm questions a specific way and, in addition, meet a host of other criteria. This means that the “perfect target” is indeed perfect on paper in the segmentation report, but not when it comes to who they want to actually attract in the marketplace.

Issue #2: A national incidence does not always equate to a specific market’s incidence.

Segmentation surveys are typically fielded with a broad geographic scope. This produces a national incidence or incidence rate. For example, if a company determines that the incidence to find a Savvy Saver is 20% nationally, that means that if 100 people across the country were called and screened, one should find 20 people who can be classified as Savvy Savers.

This seems reasonable enough. But qualitative research is not based on national representation. For the most part, qualitative research is conducted in 1-3 markets. This makes it harder to find and recruit the desired target group.

Issue #3: Qualitative research may be completed at a fixed location.

In some Qualitative research methodologies, it is necessary for participants to come to a specific location to participate, which further limits the number of potential recruits because respondents must be within a certain radius of the facility. Couple the limited location with the need for consumers to attend the research on a specific date and at a specific time and the pool of potential Savvy Savers to recruit may have dropped from 20 to 3.

Issue #4: The algorithm may be outdated.

Segmentation studies can be expensive and time consuming. So it is understandable that companies may only conduct a segmentation study once every few years. This may be acceptable for items that take more time to change such as attitudes and beliefs, but things such as needs and usage can change dramatically in a short amount of time. Circumstances can create lower incidence, which means less potential respondents for the qualitative study being recruited.

Issue #5: Algorithms can increase costs and may reduce the number of willing recruiters.

Recruiters dislike algorithm recruits. Seriously, dislike them. This disdain can result in higher per recruit costs or recruiters flat out refusing a project.

One of the reasons recruiters dislike segmentation algorithm screeners is because the algorithm “key” is a huge secret known only to the client and the supplier who conducted the segmentation study. This minimizes the ability for recruiters to “pre-screen” their databases.

Without the pre-screen option, Maya Middlemiss, the Managing Director of research recruitment consultant Saros Research Ltd in the UK and Casslar Consulting in Spain, warns recruiting costs could resemble that of cold calling. In Middlemiss’ article, Recruiting qualitative participants research using quantitative algorithms, she  explains,

If we are provided a locked tool, the only thing we can do is apply it after the event during the telephone interview stage – this is more cumbersome and expensive, because it does not enable us to rule out people who are not a fit before the calling stage.  Depending on the expected incidence of the desired segment(s), the strike rate – and therefore costs involved in recruitment – may even approach that of cold-calling. That is often a surprise to clients, but it is a consequence of trying to use quantitative tools in qualitative research (April, 2016).

We’ll continue this discussion in part 2 of our post on the use of a segmentation algorithm screener next week, where we will discuss solutions and the value that this type of methodology can provide.

More
14
Sep

For Most Americans, Being “Mobile” Still Requires a Personal Vehicle

For Americans, Being "Moble" Still Requires a Personal VehicleBy: Bryan Krulikowski, Senior Vice President

How do you get from point A to point B? Given that 4-in-10 consumers believe their primary mode of transportation will be different five years from now than today, the answer to this is going to become increasingly complex.

The goal of the Morpace MOVETM Study that was recently fielded and is now available as a syndicated study is to help answer this question. We surveyed more than 3,000 consumers across eight U.S. metropolitan markets and uncovered some interesting consumer insights about the role of transportation and mobility in this new “Sharing Economy.”

Consider:

  • Overall, more than two-thirds of respondents would have their ability to get around strongly impacted by not owning their own personal vehicle.
  • Although ride-sharing services are currently being used at a greater rate than car-sharing services, they are reserved for “occasional” use and not relied on as every day transportation.
  • Despite lower levels of vehicle ownership, Urbanites have a stronger emotional attachment to their vehicle than Suburbanites—even going so far as to give their vehicle a name.
  • Finally, fewer than one-third of respondents feel that alternative mobility solutions are practical for them. After all, consumers do not see any other option as convenient as owning a primary vehicle in the U.S.

This shouldn’t come as a major surprise. For decades, vehicles have represented freedom for many Americans. The national highway system has made it feasible to get from state to state, where driving long distances for work or play is more common than in other parts of the world.

Among the many findings in this study is the idea that the majority of consumers clearly feel that having their own vehicle is necessary. They may not use it every day, as other results from the Morpace MOVETM Study show us, but when they need their vehicle, THEY WANT IT.

The study also gives us ideas for how and when personal vehicles are used compared to other forms of transportation. Public transit, particularly in urban areas, does (and will continue to) play a role, perhaps based most on convenience and cost. One-half of respondents have access to public transportation within one mile of their residence. Still, public transportation comprises just part of the mobility puzzle for Americans today.

Morpace MOVETM found that eBike, shared bikes, and car-sharing modes show the greatest potential increase in spend in the next one to three years. But there are times that Americans want to get where they want, when they need to get there. So even for those living in some of the country’s most densely populated communities, nearly all respondents use their own vehicle at least a couple times per month. And three-quarters of current vehicle owners are planning to buy or lease a new vehicle in the next five years.

We may now be part of the “alternative mobility” movement in the U.S. Yet, the value and importance of a personal vehicle remains high for Americans because of that sense of freedom it provides – no matter where you live in this country.

Other findings and insights are available through our Morpace MOVETM Study and you can learn more by clicking here.

More
8
Sep

Is Autonomy Happening Too Fast?

Is autonomy happening too fast?

By: Greg Swando, Senior Research Director

While automotive manufacturers across the globe work feverishly to equip their current automotive line with the latest Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), and some even striving for full autonomy as early as 2020, how are consumers reacting to this new technology?

We’ve published a new study on consumer sentiments toward autonomous driving technologies and among the findings we learned that up to 50 percent of U.S. drivers that own vehicles equipped with driver assistance systems are turning them off.

Why? According to consumers it’s because some feel they are more confident in their own abilities to anticipate emergency situations.  Others find the warnings and audible alerts to be annoying. Several consumers don’t fully trust some of the ADAS technologies that are now being incorporated, while others may not even be aware whether or not they own the features.

At the same time, there are segments of consumers seeking out ADAS features and excitedly look forward to the day of a fully autonomous vehicle. These consumers are ready, and willing to put full their trust in the current technology—but is the technology ready to be trusted? Take a look at the recent Tesla Autopilot crash. We believe that one of the outcomes of our study is that consumers need to be educated on how these features work, why they’re needed, and how they can benefit from them.

While OEMs are planning to increase their investments and marketing spend toward fully autonomous vehicles within the next 10 years, consumers need to feel better prepared to drive these vehicles than they are today. Such consumer education is key to not only getting the public to trust the new features, but to also use them properly so that accidents, like the recent Tesla one, can be avoided.

Our study, A Consumer Centric Journey Toward Autonomy, highlights customer opinions and experiences—both good and bad—when it comes to autonomous features, and found various consumer personas that will shape future autonomous vehicle adoption. These findings will help OEMs and suppliers better understand the consumer and their relationship to new autonomous technology, preventing the consumer from feeling autonomy is being adopted too quickly.

More
31
Aug

Auto Manufacturers’ Response to the Takata Airbag Recall

Auto Manufacturers’ Response to the Takata Airbag Recall

By Greg Deinzer, Research Director

If you are like 62% of Americans, you are aware of the largest-ever U.S. auto recall by Japanese company Takata Corporation for defective airbag systems. The recall affects tens of millions of vehicles and dozens of vehicle manufacturers/brands, and has expanded dramatically over the past six months. Findings from Morpace’s July 2016 Omnibus survey of 1,000 U.S. respondents provide consumers’ opinions and feedback on this critical concern.

According to media reports in May of this year, at least 10 deaths and more than 100 injuries have been linked to the airbag problem worldwide. Additionally, the recall is expected to take place in phases over the next 2-3 years, and a few auto manufacturers are still equipping their new vehicles with the type of Takata airbags that are currently being recalled. Here’s hoping the other 38% who are unaware of the recall stay off the road for the next three years.

Somewhat surprisingly, those aware of the recall have about the same impression of the auto industry as those who are unaware, with more than one-third rating it “Good” or “Excellent”, over half rating it “Fair”, and only 1-in-10 rating it “Poor” or “Very Poor.” Ratings are higher for those on the recall list and for drivers who have been notified by the manufacturer or have had their airbags replaced. Even so, one-fourth of those who heard about the recall before this survey have a somewhat lower or much lower opinion of the auto industry in general.

Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus automobiles account for over half of the vehicles mentioned by survey respondents as being on the recall list. Although 6-in-10 vehicles on the list have already been replaced, 82% of those who are still waiting for replacement airbags have not been given an estimated time frame for their repairs.

Dealer Manufacturer actions chart

Seventy percent of those who are still waiting for replacement airbags are driving their vehicle as usual. That is, they are not taking any additional actions or precautions such as driving the vehicle less often, or not allowing anyone to sit in the front passenger seat. Likewise, in over one-fourth (28%) of pending recall replacements, the dealers or manufacturers are not providing any amenities to those who are waiting.

On the other hand, many companies are taking steps to alleviate or correct the situation by installing airbags from another supplier, providing a rental car, or deactivating or removing the airbags altogether until they can be replaced.

Some feel that mistakes happen and that recalls are inevitable. As one respondent put it, “auto manufacturers should not be blamed for the defects of one supplier.” Yet others hold vehicle manufacturers to a higher standard and expect quicker notification, an action plan, and replacement in a shorter period of time.

Many hold a more negative view—that automakers are willing to cut corners at the expense of safety. One respondent referenced an ironic fact: “a safety airbag manufacturer that manufactures unsafe equipment.”  Still, in relation to the airbag recall, only 7% do not feel at least moderately safe driving their vehicle.

Consumers are split on their feelings of how Takata is handling the recall. Thirty-four percent are “Very” or “Completely Satisfied”, 33% are “Moderately Satisfied”, and 33%are “Not Very” or “Not at all satisfied.” Auto manufacturers receive higher satisfaction ratings. Almost half of respondents are “Very” or “Completely Satisfied” with the way their vehicle manufacturer is handling the recall.

This illustrates the importance of open communications by suppliers and OEMs in clearly disseminating information and warnings to the public even if your hands are tied for months or even years. In this case, and probably many others like it, the public is likely to be more forgiving when transparency is used with consumers.

More
24
Aug

5 Myths About Being a Moderator

5 myths about moderators

By: Kea Wheeler, Senior Project Director

1: Travel for work = vacation

Being a moderator and traveling for work, people often comment on how “lucky” I am to travel for my job.  It is true that I am lucky to have a career that I enjoy, but being “lucky” because of my work travels is an overstatement.

When I travel for a project, I usually work 9-12 hours per day inside of a temperature controlled, windowless facility. After my interviews are complete, I stagger out into the night air in search of food and beverages and then hurry back to my hotel room to write-up my notes for the day…then repeat. I know what you’re thinking “wait, that sounds like…work.” Well it is work.  And this cycle could last for 1 day or up to 10 days if I am participating in a clinic. So travel yes; vacation it is not.

2: Traveling gets you away from the office

When I relate my tale of what it is truly like for me to travel for work, I often hear “well at least you are away from the office.” With the advent of smart phones, and other mobile devices, is anyone ever truly away from the office? Not really. And this holds true for moderators too. Just because I am not physically positioned at my desk in our office building, does not mean that I am “away” from the office.

Once back at my hotel in the evenings, I am answering all of the emails that I received while I was conducting interviews. The work back home doesn’t stop while I’m out on the road and neither do the email/text notifications.

3: Moderating is easy

This is my favorite moderator myth.  There are some who look from the outside and see me “talk” for a living. But moderating is much more than simply talking to someone. It is engaging in conversation about topics that consumers may not even know they could converse about at length. When I conduct interviews about a topic or product that consumers take for granted, such as a cleaning product, my interviewees wonder, “What is there to talk about for an hour?” Once we are engaged in the conversation and our time together has expired, respondents are shocked to realize that we did, indeed, talk for an hour.

I will say it is easier to speak to someone about a concept vehicle, but it takes skill to keep a somewhat natural conversation going about toilet cleaner.

Besides maintaining a conversation, my job also entails observing what is happening around me and determining my next move.  In all things, body language is important. And as a good moderator, this should always be taken into account. Body language tells me when I need to follow-up on a response, when I need to ask another respondent what their position is on a subject, or when I should let a line of questioning lapse until the respondent feels more comfortable speaking on a certain topic.

So yes, I talk about everything from consumer concept vehicles to toilet cleaners, but if I didn’t also observe what is happening around me, I would only be getting part of the conversation.

4: Report writing is a breeze

I once had a colleague tell me that every time he tries to write a qualitative report, it goes something like this, “I write some people said this, some people said that…and then I die a little inside.”  I don’t know if I would equate qualitative report writing to the withering of your entire existence, but for those accustomed to reading tabs and writing reports from the data, qualitative reports can be daunting.

The hardest part about writing a qualitative report as a moderator is trying to make sense of a ton of unstructured data. Not only are you looking for the answers to your questions and behavioral themes, but you are also searching for any context that may be important for a client to understand.

And while a quantitative report is sometimes rated on how many charts and different data cuts can be obtained, a qualitative report is judged by its ability to tell a story in the briefest possible manner.  Think more twitter post, than blog. And while not as soul crushing as my colleague indicates, you may just be a little more bruised after your report is finished.

5: We don’t like numbers

I call foul on this. I like numbers.  Numbers are necessary as they help to get a story across to a large number of people.  This will never change. But what I will say is that in today’s world, you need both numbers and the human context behind the numbers to truly make a difference. Think about all the times you hear people say “I don’t want to be just another number.” It’s not that they don’t want to be counted. What they don’t want is for companies to treat them as only a widget to be tallied and tossed into a heap of others to be tabulated and charted. They want to be regarded as a person.

Qualitative helps to define the humanity behind the numbers. And once you can define the humanity, that’s where change can truly occur in how a company produces and markets their products and services. Once this change occurs, consumers flock to these companies as one that “gets” them.  And that will add numbers to a company’s consumer base, its likes, its shares, and its sales – all numbers. Who doesn’t like that?

While there are certain myths about my job as a moderator that I have to contend with, I still love what I do. And I’ll admit sometimes the stars do align and I can tack on a few extra days to schedule a vacation after a project is complete. Not as glamorous as all the myths, but the truth never is.

More
26
Jul

Pokémon Go Consumers, You Gotta Catch ‘Em All

Pokemon Go Consumers, You Gotta Catch 'Em All

By: Cory Kinne, Project Director

It’s 2016 and the Pokémon craze has struck again, this time in the form of a mobile app called “Pokémon Go”. As of July 21, Over 30 million downloads have occurred since the app’s release earlier in the month, and the hype doesn’t seem to be slowing down any time soon.

Not surprisingly, many Pokémon Go players are adults, since Pokémon first came out more than two decades ago. It’s nostalgia for many in their 30s and 40s and the game’s social features appeal to most millennials as well, not to mention teens.

Because of this broad appeal, Pokémon Go presents retailers with an opportunity for free promotion. No matter how big or small a business may be, welcoming Pokémon Go players to their shops and restaurants, or malls and boutiques has little downside.

Simple in-game purchases can be made by businesses in order to draw more customers through the doors. Items like “Lures”, which draw Pokémon to a certain location, can be purchased for as little as $1. New customer bases can be reached and the return on investment is promising; one New York pizzeria is boasting huge returns by investing only $10 in the Pokémon “Lures”, causing a 75% increase in business over the course of a single weekend.

Businesses can also be a “Pokéstop”, a place where players (or “trainers” as they are referred to in the game) go to receive items like “Poké Balls” and “revives”, or a “gym”, a place where players battle their monsters to become leaders. You literally have to be within a few feet of a Pokéstop to take advantage of the bounty of items within.

Such features of Pokémon Go draw players to the area, and businesses can up their marketing prowess by offering incentives such as discounts, prizes, or a free gift for players stopping by to increase interest in their products or services.

Our research and technology partner Qualtrics had some interesting statistics from Pokémon Go trainers they surveyed. See some fun and interesting infographics here.

For any retailer, it’s an opportunity they can’t afford to pass up. Engage customers in simple e-marketing campaigns, inviting Pokémon players, and informing them of nearby gyms or announcing your status as a “Pokéstop” is easy to do and costs little more than time. You literally have to be within a few feet of a Pokéstop to take advantage of the bounty. Better yet, business owners, managers and even employees should download the app and play the game to become familiar enough to converse with customers about it.

You may not get to level 30 in Pokémon Go, but chances are many of your customers have that as a potential goal. If your retail location hasn’t started using Pokémon Go, you don’t want to miss out.

For further insights contact the Morpace Retail team at ckinne@morpace.com. When we’re not catching the Wild Rattata lurking in our hallways or checking out the three nearby gyms adjacent to our Detroit headquarters, we’ll be there to answer your questions on how to take advantage of this craze. After all, you gotta catch ‘em all (customers that is)!

More
14
Jul

X, Y, Z … Boom! How will Changing Demographics Impact Corporate Culture?

Are you ready?

By: Donna Taglione, Vice President

Full transparency: I am a baby boomer. Born right in the middle of the largest generation–until Millennials. For many of my generation, retirement is a dirty word; it’s an inevitability to be delayed as long as possible. As a group, Baby Boomers have been fighting aging since we turned 30! After all we weren’t supposed to trust anyone over 30 until, of course, we became 30 ourselves and realized we were just getting started.

All kidding and old jokes aside, the reality is that 10,000 Boomers will turn 65 every day between now and 2029. Retirement has already started for many and isn’t that far off for more than half of the Baby Boom generation. My children, Millennials that they are, are probably saying “Finally! What’s taking you so long?” But the sheer volume of pending retirements is staggering and prompts the question how will the obvious “changing of the guard” affect corporate life?

Demographers and business historians estimate that Baby Boomers currently hold 56% of corporate leadership positions. Additionally, two-thirds of all businesses (about 4 million companies) are owned by Baby Boomers. Yet, according to a survey of Fortune 1000 employers, and of critical importance to business in general, 62% of Fortune 1000 employers believe that Baby Boomer retirements will result in a skilled labor shortage sometime in the next five years. In the next 5 years! How is this possible? What should people and companies be doing to prepare for a potential gap in skills? Are companies and their mid-career managers (Gen X and Gen Y) prepared for corporate memory to walk out the door?

Truth be told, with each generation there is always a need for new and fresh perspectives. Somehow it is a lot easier to swallow that new idea when you are on the younger end of the continuum espousing it rather than on the side that finds itself thinking “been there done that”!  Yet companies and managers are going to have to creatively manage the knowledge transfer required as the current generation of executives makes room for the next generation.

Partial retirement or flexible working arrangements–typically a two-year offer with reduced hours and benefits–is one way companies are exploring the retention of certain levels of management so their knowledge can be shared with those next in line for their pay grade. Reverse mentoring, popularized by former GE Chairman Jack Welsh, matches senior executives with 20 and 30-somethings to share experiences. Reverse mentoring closes the knowledge gap for both older and younger age groups and can identity future leaders. Succession planning prepares others internally to assume key business positions. Encore consultancy – when a person “retires” on Friday yet returns on Monday as a part-time consultant for the job they just left – has caught on in some organizations. Are these enough? Are companies paying attention to what corporate life will be like after a generation of workers retire?

I distinctly remember going to my father’s retirement party. Lots of people I’d never met before talking about a side of my dad that I never really knew at home. It was quite enlightening to hear that your dad–the guy who fell asleep on the couch waiting up for you–was a person others looked up to and respected. I don’t think a lot of companies “do” retirement parties anymore. My dad worked for the same company for 37 years. That kind of tenure is almost unheard of now. When I retire, even though I’ve been in the same industry for over 30 years, I’ll have worked at the same company for about 12 years. Certainly not worthy of a full blown celebration. But party or no party, over the course of the next fifteen years, one very large generation, used to setting standards for how things get done (Baby Boomers), is about to retire and be replaced by an even larger generation (Gen Y/Millennials) in the early to middle stage of their careers. Are we ready?

More