This entry opens with a statement that may alienate the world's passionate cat lovers: I am not a cat person. I know this because my wife has left me for two weeks with her Maine Coon cat, Pumpkin Pie. Deliberate emphasis on her.
Pumpkin Pie is my wife's cat, pure and simple. She is not my cat. I don't like cats. In general, I find cats haughty, fickle, calculating and maddeningly ego-centric. I understand this ascribes human personality traits to an animal whose mental capacities are incapable of manifesting such behavior, but having no other frame of reference I must rely on my observations.
My wife--God bless her--rescued Pumpkin Pie from a shelter, days before she (that is, the cat) was to be euthanized. I suspect the shelter people say that to every sad sack who wanders in, oohing and aahing over a sweet little kitty cat.
So in the beginning there was Pumpkin Pie. She lived with my wife well before I entered the picture, and I swear she (that is, the cat) has resented my presence ever since.
I inherited Pumpkin Pie in the marriage deal--which is pretty fair, since my wife inherited my daughter. The wife loves the cat and the cat--when it suits her (generally during mealtime) loves the wife right back. I have photos of the cat sleeping on my wife's head. It's really cute. The cat never sleeps on my head--I suspect she's an anti-baldite.
Since the wife left for two weeks in California, Pumpkin Pie has not been at all cute. After four days alone together, I'm willing to bet that Pumpkin Pie--if she could form a coherent thought in her pea-sized brain--is saying to herself, "I am not a man person."
I think she is deliberately trying to sabotage my relationship with my wife, who instructed me in no uncertain terms to in her absence value the cat's needs over my own.
In just four days, Pumpkin Pie has:
* Left hairballs in my chair
* Defecated alongside her litter box--right after I cleaned it!
* Scampered on the kitchen table, knocking over candles and other fragile objects
* Overturned her water bowl
* Scampered (for reasons unknown) across my bed at 2 a.m. for three consecutive nights (always at 2 a.m., like she knows what time it is--I tell you, it's eerie)
I spoke with a few cat people I know (one must befriend the enemy to gain insight regarding the enemy's behavior)and they said it's because Pumpkin Pie misses her mommy. She knows something isn't right in her world so she's acting out.
Acting out?! Let me get this straight: Cats have pea-sized brains, it's unfair to ascribe human behaviors to them because of their pea-sized brains, yet the cat is acting out? Maybe I should send the cat to intensive therapy for the next 10 days.
Pumpkin Pie and I have a truce going, though: When I am upstairs, she is downstairs. When I venture downstairs, she moves upstairs. We pass on the stairs, eyeing each other warily. The stairs have become our DMZ.
As long as I feed and hydrate her, as long as I clean out her litter box (Aside: litter? It's not litter. It's defecation and urination. I mean, I'm in PR but really, calling it "litter" is too much), and as long as I give her some treats I think she will not claw out my eyes while I sleep.
Here's the irony, though: This afternoon while I was watching TV, Pumpkin Pie jumped into my lap (she NEVER does this with the wife) and sat there for about 20 minutes while I scratched her behind her ears and rubbed her tummy. I understand from cat people that when a cat allows you to rub her tummy that means she's comfortable around you.
I suspect Pumpkin Pie is trying to lull me into a false sense of security and resolve to remain vigilant--especially at night when she has the run of the house...
Friday, July 4, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
More on Generation 'I': Are They Getting the Message to Succeed at Any Cost?
Here are some facts that will set the background for this blog entry, which deals with "Generation I" and the message we as a society may be sending them:
Last week the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia awarded the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC) $2.3 million damages in a copyright infringement case GMAC brought against Lei Shi and other operators of the U.S.-based web site known as Scoretop.com.
Scoretop.com sold VIP access for $30 a month and gave users previews of questions on the latest GMAT (Graduate Management Admission Test)--including some answers posted by users after taking the exam. In the award, GMAC got access to the hard drives listing Scoretop.com's clients; a GMAC spokesperson said that prospective and current graduate students who may have used Scoretop.com to cheat on about 6,000 entrance examinations over the past five years could have their scores thrown out.
When it comes to getting into "the best" schools, standardized test scores make the most difference. The competition to get into "the best" schools obviously spurred a small group of test takers to gain a competitive advantage by cheating.
What possessed the cheaters to believe that cheating was acceptable? Perhaps in cheating they merely reflected the lessons we've taught them. In a era when success--defined as degrees from "the best" schools, living in the biggest house, driving the flashiest car, etc.--is prized above all else, traditionally accepted morals and ethics seem sadly obsolete.
To support this theory, I turned to a book I read several years ago, A Tribe Apart, written by Patricia Hersch.
Hersch writes: "In times when society lacks clear ethical guidelines, when parents neither spend the time to educate their children about time-honored values such as honesty, integrity, and personal responsibility nor necessarily model consistent values in their own lives, kids are responding to the one message they hear loud and strong from the adult world: Succeed. Do well. Do whatever you need to do."
If success means knowingly cheating on a standardized test or if it means deliberately cutting corners, are today's kids learning these lessons from us? To what extent are we to blame for the relentless pursuit of success that would prompt adult children (the average age of GMAT test takers is 21) to cheat on the exam?
If we are (as I believe) partially to blame for the astounding erosion in the time-honored values to which Hersch refers above, what can we do to reverse this alarming sense of entitlement and moral turpitude?
For a possible answer, I turned to another book I read a few years ago, For Shame: The Loss of Decency in American Culture, by James B. Twitchell.
Twitchell writes: "We've got to restore a sense of shame to our society. Nothing seems to shame us or outrage us anymore. We look at our television sets and see all kinds of trash, and we allow it to come into our homes. We're not ashamed of it anymore."
General Colin Powell--an erudite, well spoken and highly experienced soldier and stateman--would advise the cheaters thusly: "There are no secrets to success: Don't waste time looking for them. Success is the result of perfection, hard work, learning from failure, loyalty to those for whom you work, and persistence."
There's no doubt that cheating conveys a competitive advantage which could very well lead to fiduciary benefits. But in the final analysis, there is a spiritual cost to that fleeting fiduciary benefit.
Twitchell comments on that spiritual cost and its influence on society: "A society that ignores or opposes a set of core standards that motivates people to work, stay married, exercise self control, and be honest exhibits a poverty of the spirit that no amount of money can enrich."
The message we may be sending Generation I--to succeed at any cost--could well be eroding the fabric of our very society.
Last week the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia awarded the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC) $2.3 million damages in a copyright infringement case GMAC brought against Lei Shi and other operators of the U.S.-based web site known as Scoretop.com.
Scoretop.com sold VIP access for $30 a month and gave users previews of questions on the latest GMAT (Graduate Management Admission Test)--including some answers posted by users after taking the exam. In the award, GMAC got access to the hard drives listing Scoretop.com's clients; a GMAC spokesperson said that prospective and current graduate students who may have used Scoretop.com to cheat on about 6,000 entrance examinations over the past five years could have their scores thrown out.
When it comes to getting into "the best" schools, standardized test scores make the most difference. The competition to get into "the best" schools obviously spurred a small group of test takers to gain a competitive advantage by cheating.
What possessed the cheaters to believe that cheating was acceptable? Perhaps in cheating they merely reflected the lessons we've taught them. In a era when success--defined as degrees from "the best" schools, living in the biggest house, driving the flashiest car, etc.--is prized above all else, traditionally accepted morals and ethics seem sadly obsolete.
To support this theory, I turned to a book I read several years ago, A Tribe Apart, written by Patricia Hersch.
Hersch writes: "In times when society lacks clear ethical guidelines, when parents neither spend the time to educate their children about time-honored values such as honesty, integrity, and personal responsibility nor necessarily model consistent values in their own lives, kids are responding to the one message they hear loud and strong from the adult world: Succeed. Do well. Do whatever you need to do."
If success means knowingly cheating on a standardized test or if it means deliberately cutting corners, are today's kids learning these lessons from us? To what extent are we to blame for the relentless pursuit of success that would prompt adult children (the average age of GMAT test takers is 21) to cheat on the exam?
If we are (as I believe) partially to blame for the astounding erosion in the time-honored values to which Hersch refers above, what can we do to reverse this alarming sense of entitlement and moral turpitude?
For a possible answer, I turned to another book I read a few years ago, For Shame: The Loss of Decency in American Culture, by James B. Twitchell.
Twitchell writes: "We've got to restore a sense of shame to our society. Nothing seems to shame us or outrage us anymore. We look at our television sets and see all kinds of trash, and we allow it to come into our homes. We're not ashamed of it anymore."
General Colin Powell--an erudite, well spoken and highly experienced soldier and stateman--would advise the cheaters thusly: "There are no secrets to success: Don't waste time looking for them. Success is the result of perfection, hard work, learning from failure, loyalty to those for whom you work, and persistence."
There's no doubt that cheating conveys a competitive advantage which could very well lead to fiduciary benefits. But in the final analysis, there is a spiritual cost to that fleeting fiduciary benefit.
Twitchell comments on that spiritual cost and its influence on society: "A society that ignores or opposes a set of core standards that motivates people to work, stay married, exercise self control, and be honest exhibits a poverty of the spirit that no amount of money can enrich."
The message we may be sending Generation I--to succeed at any cost--could well be eroding the fabric of our very society.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Leave the Marketing and Communications Work to the Professionals
Both as a freelance communications consultant and as a full-time Communications Director, I've worked with and for people who believe they can market and communicate as well as I can. The further up the leadership food chain I progress, the more ingrained I have found this belief to be.
This is particularly true with non-profit organizations and associations (such as the one I just left): The leaders shortsightedly think they'll save money by cutting marketing and communications staff and "doing it themselves."
While it is generally true that most senior leaders understand the basic fundamentals of marketing and communications, they don't understand the subtle nuances that often make the difference between successful marketing and communications efforts and those that merely cause the organization to run in place.
Even worse, the often prodigious egos possessed by leaders in smaller organizations or associations as well as entrepreneurs convince them that they can, in fact, plan, implement, manage and analyze effective marketing and communications initiatives.
In my experience, their attempts fail miserably: They do a disservice to their organization or their association and, when they end up hiring a new communications professional, the new arrival has to work even harder to make up the communications deficit.
CEOs and COOs don't involve themselves every day in the subtle nuances of marketing and communications. They don't grasp how dynamic marketing and communications are; they don't understand how traditional and nontraditional approaches work together to create the vital synergy necessary to achieve marketing and communications goals with limited resources. In most cases they fall back on their old, obsolete knowledge.
I see it happening now with my former employer. It's a shame because it squanders the progress we made over the past seven months to create a immediately recognizable brand for the association, to formulate and communicate compelling collateral which conveys the association's unique value, and to establish a strong foundation upon which to conduct effective and long-term public relations.
Effective marketing and communications demands constant attention and nurturing by marketing and communications pros, not by neophytes who regard these vital activities as merely another additional duty among many additional duties.
Sure, they'll put their best efforts into the activities but their efforts will fall short because they simply lack the skills and knowledge to do so effectively.
Smart leaders leave the marketing and communications work to the professionals.
This is particularly true with non-profit organizations and associations (such as the one I just left): The leaders shortsightedly think they'll save money by cutting marketing and communications staff and "doing it themselves."
While it is generally true that most senior leaders understand the basic fundamentals of marketing and communications, they don't understand the subtle nuances that often make the difference between successful marketing and communications efforts and those that merely cause the organization to run in place.
Even worse, the often prodigious egos possessed by leaders in smaller organizations or associations as well as entrepreneurs convince them that they can, in fact, plan, implement, manage and analyze effective marketing and communications initiatives.
In my experience, their attempts fail miserably: They do a disservice to their organization or their association and, when they end up hiring a new communications professional, the new arrival has to work even harder to make up the communications deficit.
CEOs and COOs don't involve themselves every day in the subtle nuances of marketing and communications. They don't grasp how dynamic marketing and communications are; they don't understand how traditional and nontraditional approaches work together to create the vital synergy necessary to achieve marketing and communications goals with limited resources. In most cases they fall back on their old, obsolete knowledge.
I see it happening now with my former employer. It's a shame because it squanders the progress we made over the past seven months to create a immediately recognizable brand for the association, to formulate and communicate compelling collateral which conveys the association's unique value, and to establish a strong foundation upon which to conduct effective and long-term public relations.
Effective marketing and communications demands constant attention and nurturing by marketing and communications pros, not by neophytes who regard these vital activities as merely another additional duty among many additional duties.
Sure, they'll put their best efforts into the activities but their efforts will fall short because they simply lack the skills and knowledge to do so effectively.
Smart leaders leave the marketing and communications work to the professionals.
Monday, June 23, 2008
They're Calling it Generation I: But Does The 'I' Stand for "Internet" or "Id"?!
Last you heard from me I was happily typing away at the Fort Lauderdale Airport, awaiting my flight to Providence. We finally boarded the plane three hours late, and by that point the young kids who'd been waiting in the terminal for more than four hours were either fast asleep or in the beginning stages of Category Five meltdowns (those of you who are parents are familiar with Cat V meltdowns; those of you who are not, I'd advise witnessing one in real time as the most effective form of birth control).
We board without problems; everyone finds a seat. In my general vicinity is apparently a family of seven: Two sets of grandparents, a mother, a father, and what appears to be a four or five year old boy. Everyone's attention is focused on the boy: What he's doing (bouncing up and down in his seat--which thankfully is not in front of mine); what he's eating (cheerios, apparently, as one lands in my lap from his flinging them about the cabin); and what he's saying (as far as I can tell--and I am conversant in toddler talk--he's screeching about Elmo).
The grandparents and the parents are doing nothing to stop the kid from bouncing, flinging O's and screeching about Elmo. In fact, they're doting on him, which serves to encourage him to bigger bounces, more vigorous O-throwing, and louder screeches. Of course, the bouncing stops when he hits his head on the bulkhead and starts wailing at the top of his lungs.
This, my friends, is a classic Cat V Meltdown. The mother--seated by the window in my row--calms him down a bit by plugging him into a DVD. But the DVD was merely the eye of the storm. The brat isn't done--no, not by a long shot. He refuses to wear the headphones. The grandparents and the parents transfer the kid from lap to lap, trying without success to get him to put on the earphones.
They give up and decide that rather than insist the child put on the earphones or not watch the DVD, they'll subject the entire area to the Elmo DVD. Mind you, this is after a three+ hour delay and on a full plane flying through turbulence.
My questions:
* Since when is a four-year-old brat in charge of SIX ADULTS?
* Since when does a four-year-old brat have the ability to hold a plane hostage?
* Since when has it become acceptable for adults to subsume the needs and desires of a community to the needs of a spoiled child?
While I understand it may be easier to rely on the indulgence and understanding of strangers rather than risk another catastrophic meltdown, the scenario perfectly explains why the kids of Generation I are growing up to believe that everything centers around their needs and desires.
Rather than describe them as Generation I (as in Internet--that is, the first generation that has grown up fully integrated with the web), perhaps we may want to call them Generation Id--as in, the generation reared to believe that it's ok to be ruled by your id.
The id, you'll recall, is responsible for basic drives such as food, sex, and aggressive impulses. It is amoral and egocentric, ruled by the pleasure–pain principle; it is without a sense of time, completely illogical, primarily sexual, infantile in its emotional development, and will not take "no" for an answer.
I am not a perfect parent. I'm probably average. But I can damn for sure tell you that my daughter would either have worn the earphones or not listened to the DVD. Discovering that the world does not revolve around him or her is one of the earliest and most profound lessons a child learns--withhold the lesson and you render the child a disservice. You foster the Id and indulge the I.
We board without problems; everyone finds a seat. In my general vicinity is apparently a family of seven: Two sets of grandparents, a mother, a father, and what appears to be a four or five year old boy. Everyone's attention is focused on the boy: What he's doing (bouncing up and down in his seat--which thankfully is not in front of mine); what he's eating (cheerios, apparently, as one lands in my lap from his flinging them about the cabin); and what he's saying (as far as I can tell--and I am conversant in toddler talk--he's screeching about Elmo).
The grandparents and the parents are doing nothing to stop the kid from bouncing, flinging O's and screeching about Elmo. In fact, they're doting on him, which serves to encourage him to bigger bounces, more vigorous O-throwing, and louder screeches. Of course, the bouncing stops when he hits his head on the bulkhead and starts wailing at the top of his lungs.
This, my friends, is a classic Cat V Meltdown. The mother--seated by the window in my row--calms him down a bit by plugging him into a DVD. But the DVD was merely the eye of the storm. The brat isn't done--no, not by a long shot. He refuses to wear the headphones. The grandparents and the parents transfer the kid from lap to lap, trying without success to get him to put on the earphones.
They give up and decide that rather than insist the child put on the earphones or not watch the DVD, they'll subject the entire area to the Elmo DVD. Mind you, this is after a three+ hour delay and on a full plane flying through turbulence.
My questions:
* Since when is a four-year-old brat in charge of SIX ADULTS?
* Since when does a four-year-old brat have the ability to hold a plane hostage?
* Since when has it become acceptable for adults to subsume the needs and desires of a community to the needs of a spoiled child?
While I understand it may be easier to rely on the indulgence and understanding of strangers rather than risk another catastrophic meltdown, the scenario perfectly explains why the kids of Generation I are growing up to believe that everything centers around their needs and desires.
Rather than describe them as Generation I (as in Internet--that is, the first generation that has grown up fully integrated with the web), perhaps we may want to call them Generation Id--as in, the generation reared to believe that it's ok to be ruled by your id.
The id, you'll recall, is responsible for basic drives such as food, sex, and aggressive impulses. It is amoral and egocentric, ruled by the pleasure–pain principle; it is without a sense of time, completely illogical, primarily sexual, infantile in its emotional development, and will not take "no" for an answer.
I am not a perfect parent. I'm probably average. But I can damn for sure tell you that my daughter would either have worn the earphones or not listened to the DVD. Discovering that the world does not revolve around him or her is one of the earliest and most profound lessons a child learns--withhold the lesson and you render the child a disservice. You foster the Id and indulge the I.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Overheard at Fort Lauderdale Airport...
It's absolutely amazing what you hear when the weather halts airline flights. I'm sitting alongside the status boards at Fort Lauderdale airport, awaiting my flight to Providence. The flight is already three hours late, but a command performance moments ago by a Southwest gate attendant put everything in perspective for me. Too bad the irate flyers didn't hear it.
She gets on the gate microphone and says, "Well folks, I have good news and bad news. Which do you want first?"
Thereupon in gate-land a collective grown arose, audible throughout the packed hallway. After the groan, the gate attendant said, "Here's the bad news: In addition to the weather delay, the plane at the gate is broken. So we won't be taking off for a long while."
The groan grew to a growl. From the crowd, the question is fired like a bullet: "What's the good news?!"
To which she responds, brightly, "The good news is, we're on the ground."
And that, my dear friends, has put this entire delay in perfect perspective for me.
Still, I have to wonder: Why is it that we can put a man on the moon, we can fly unmanned drones from thousands of miles away, and we can't fly in bad weather?
She gets on the gate microphone and says, "Well folks, I have good news and bad news. Which do you want first?"
Thereupon in gate-land a collective grown arose, audible throughout the packed hallway. After the groan, the gate attendant said, "Here's the bad news: In addition to the weather delay, the plane at the gate is broken. So we won't be taking off for a long while."
The groan grew to a growl. From the crowd, the question is fired like a bullet: "What's the good news?!"
To which she responds, brightly, "The good news is, we're on the ground."
And that, my dear friends, has put this entire delay in perfect perspective for me.
Still, I have to wonder: Why is it that we can put a man on the moon, we can fly unmanned drones from thousands of miles away, and we can't fly in bad weather?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
As Quoted in the Chicago Daily Herald:
Yesterday I received an email inquiry from Anna Marie Kukec; she asked me to comment on a "free gas" promotion going on in a Chicago suburb. Her query was interesting from two perspectives:
1) Generally the Market Research Association doesn't field these types of queries (we respond mostly to "pure" market research or polling/surveying questions)
2) It conveyed to me the simple point that inasmuch as PR folks are encouraged to research and become familiar with the "beat" of the reporters to whom we pitch stories, so should the latter take a moment or two to discover a little more about the organizations to whom they turn for professional insights/remarks.
Regardless, I enjoyed parsing responses to her questions, and as you'll note from the article below, she found my responses sufficiently compelling as to devote significant space to them--and generate a nice unexpected media hit for the MRA.
Gas giveaways hottest new promotion for businesses
By Anna Marie Kukec (Daily Herald staff)
Forget the free toaster or $50 added to a newly opened checking account.
Gasoline has become the hot new promotional must-have.
As that prized commodity exceeded $4 a gallon, it has taken on celebrity status in corporate contests and giveaways. Automobile manufacturers, travel firms, even a politician and a candy company are using gasoline as part of their marketing and promotional events.
The Holy Grail of such promotions came Tuesday as hundreds of cars lined up for free gasoline at a filling station in Romeoville -- sponsored by a candy bar. One Hummer driver reportedly saved about $130 with the gimmick, sponsored by The Hershey Co.'s PayDay and Skor candy bars.
The national kickoff for the Hershey contest aimed to help fuel your appetite and your tank. But the use of gasoline as a marketing or promotional tool has been fueling a new spin on getting your attention -- and ultimately more of your dollars.
Bruce Mendelsohn, spokesman for Glastonbury, Conn.-based Marketing Research Association, notes that "substantial anecdotal evidence" indicates the more scarce the resource, the more likely companies are to use it in marketing and promotional campaigns. This is especially evident when the resource ties into the company's line of business, Mendelsohn said.
"We think it's another example of the incredibly creative ways some businesses are adapting to challenging economic circumstances," he said. "As market researchers, we're always studying and evaluating consumer behavior; we're curious to discover how successful businesses will be by using gasoline as a marketing and/or promotional tool."
Using gasoline in a contest or promotion isn't unique. Similar contests, although not as sophisticated, happened during the oil embargo in the 1970s.
On alternate rationing days, some companies conducted "Are you odd?" or "Are you even?" campaigns, seeking to draw consumers to their respective stores, Mendelsohn said.
"While there's no doubt the exponentially increasing gas prices are depleting consumers' wallets, businesses that find ways to relieve the pressure on consumers are certain to be viewed favorably by consumers and generate some media attention," Mendelsohn said.
The Hershey promotion, for example, hinged on its new "Cash 4 Gas" instant-win game, which will give away cash for more than 100,000 gallons of gasoline through December. The Romeoville kickoff offered more than 5,000 gallons of free gas to roughly 380 customers, the company said.
"High gas prices continue to be a concern for everyone and The Hershey Company is excited to offer a fun and delicious way to save on gas costs," Hersey Product Publicity Director Jody Cook said in a statement.
Another such attention-getter was Democrat congressional candidate Dan Seals' campaign event to help passing motorists fill up their tanks at cut-rate -- $1.85 a gallon -- at a Lincolnshire station last May. That was the price of gasoline when his opponent Mark Kirk as well as President George W. Bush came into office in 2001. The political ploy, like the Hershey giveaway, also jammed traffic and was a boost to about 50 drivers.
More promotions are expected to continue, including Chrysler car dealerships nationwide offering $2.99 a gallon with the purchase of a vehicle as well as Meijer grocery stores with gas stations trimming 10 cents a gallon when its Meijer credit card is used through Labor Day.
Some industry experts said more companies are likely to use gasoline as a carrot, needing to entice consumers to look at their products or service. After all, companies need such incentives to stand up to competition. So, don't expect these promotions to end anytime soon, especially as the price of gasoline climbs even higher.
Also, such enticements create a psychological impression on consumers, said D. Joel Whalen, associate professor of marketing at DePaul University in Chicago.
"When you have a shortage of gasoline and an increase in price, it creates scarcity," said Whalen. "And that creates an unmediated response in consumers. It's something they don't think about, but they then attach an increase in value to that scarce item."
1) Generally the Market Research Association doesn't field these types of queries (we respond mostly to "pure" market research or polling/surveying questions)
2) It conveyed to me the simple point that inasmuch as PR folks are encouraged to research and become familiar with the "beat" of the reporters to whom we pitch stories, so should the latter take a moment or two to discover a little more about the organizations to whom they turn for professional insights/remarks.
Regardless, I enjoyed parsing responses to her questions, and as you'll note from the article below, she found my responses sufficiently compelling as to devote significant space to them--and generate a nice unexpected media hit for the MRA.
Gas giveaways hottest new promotion for businesses
By Anna Marie Kukec (Daily Herald staff)
Forget the free toaster or $50 added to a newly opened checking account.
Gasoline has become the hot new promotional must-have.
As that prized commodity exceeded $4 a gallon, it has taken on celebrity status in corporate contests and giveaways. Automobile manufacturers, travel firms, even a politician and a candy company are using gasoline as part of their marketing and promotional events.
The Holy Grail of such promotions came Tuesday as hundreds of cars lined up for free gasoline at a filling station in Romeoville -- sponsored by a candy bar. One Hummer driver reportedly saved about $130 with the gimmick, sponsored by The Hershey Co.'s PayDay and Skor candy bars.
The national kickoff for the Hershey contest aimed to help fuel your appetite and your tank. But the use of gasoline as a marketing or promotional tool has been fueling a new spin on getting your attention -- and ultimately more of your dollars.
Bruce Mendelsohn, spokesman for Glastonbury, Conn.-based Marketing Research Association, notes that "substantial anecdotal evidence" indicates the more scarce the resource, the more likely companies are to use it in marketing and promotional campaigns. This is especially evident when the resource ties into the company's line of business, Mendelsohn said.
"We think it's another example of the incredibly creative ways some businesses are adapting to challenging economic circumstances," he said. "As market researchers, we're always studying and evaluating consumer behavior; we're curious to discover how successful businesses will be by using gasoline as a marketing and/or promotional tool."
Using gasoline in a contest or promotion isn't unique. Similar contests, although not as sophisticated, happened during the oil embargo in the 1970s.
On alternate rationing days, some companies conducted "Are you odd?" or "Are you even?" campaigns, seeking to draw consumers to their respective stores, Mendelsohn said.
"While there's no doubt the exponentially increasing gas prices are depleting consumers' wallets, businesses that find ways to relieve the pressure on consumers are certain to be viewed favorably by consumers and generate some media attention," Mendelsohn said.
The Hershey promotion, for example, hinged on its new "Cash 4 Gas" instant-win game, which will give away cash for more than 100,000 gallons of gasoline through December. The Romeoville kickoff offered more than 5,000 gallons of free gas to roughly 380 customers, the company said.
"High gas prices continue to be a concern for everyone and The Hershey Company is excited to offer a fun and delicious way to save on gas costs," Hersey Product Publicity Director Jody Cook said in a statement.
Another such attention-getter was Democrat congressional candidate Dan Seals' campaign event to help passing motorists fill up their tanks at cut-rate -- $1.85 a gallon -- at a Lincolnshire station last May. That was the price of gasoline when his opponent Mark Kirk as well as President George W. Bush came into office in 2001. The political ploy, like the Hershey giveaway, also jammed traffic and was a boost to about 50 drivers.
More promotions are expected to continue, including Chrysler car dealerships nationwide offering $2.99 a gallon with the purchase of a vehicle as well as Meijer grocery stores with gas stations trimming 10 cents a gallon when its Meijer credit card is used through Labor Day.
Some industry experts said more companies are likely to use gasoline as a carrot, needing to entice consumers to look at their products or service. After all, companies need such incentives to stand up to competition. So, don't expect these promotions to end anytime soon, especially as the price of gasoline climbs even higher.
Also, such enticements create a psychological impression on consumers, said D. Joel Whalen, associate professor of marketing at DePaul University in Chicago.
"When you have a shortage of gasoline and an increase in price, it creates scarcity," said Whalen. "And that creates an unmediated response in consumers. It's something they don't think about, but they then attach an increase in value to that scarce item."
Monday, June 2, 2008
A Voice of Reason (At Least in This Case) from Islam
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently called the Rachael Ray Keffiyeh kontroversy an "incredibly silly situation."
A move by Dunkin' Donuts to pull an online ad featuring Rachael Ray after columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin said it was "hate couture," was an "incredibly silly situation," said CAIR spokesman Ahmed Rehab. The ad (see entry, below) showed TV host Ray wearing a black and white scarf that some critics likened to a keffiyeh, a traditional Arab headdress.
"It's sad that Dunkin' Donuts pandered to that kind of fear–mongering. They have businesses in the Middle East, in the Arab world. It's interesting to see how that will affect business there," said Rehab.
Dunkin' Donuts said in a statement Ray had been wearing a silk scarf with a "paisley design" selected by a stylist with no intended symbolism. It pulled the ad due to the possibility of misperception, the company said.
When asked about the ad's removal, Ray's spokesman Charlie Dougiello told Reuters: "Our comment is no comment whatsoever."
In fairness, let's give CAIR the last word: "It seems like anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bigoted expression is the last frontier of accepted bigotry," said Rehab. "There is still racism against African Americans, Latinos and other ethnicities, but the average person would think twice about making their racist feelings public. Not so with Muslims and Arabs. We need to move beyond that."
A voice of reason from a most unexpected source.
A move by Dunkin' Donuts to pull an online ad featuring Rachael Ray after columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin said it was "hate couture," was an "incredibly silly situation," said CAIR spokesman Ahmed Rehab. The ad (see entry, below) showed TV host Ray wearing a black and white scarf that some critics likened to a keffiyeh, a traditional Arab headdress.
"It's sad that Dunkin' Donuts pandered to that kind of fear–mongering. They have businesses in the Middle East, in the Arab world. It's interesting to see how that will affect business there," said Rehab.
Dunkin' Donuts said in a statement Ray had been wearing a silk scarf with a "paisley design" selected by a stylist with no intended symbolism. It pulled the ad due to the possibility of misperception, the company said.
When asked about the ad's removal, Ray's spokesman Charlie Dougiello told Reuters: "Our comment is no comment whatsoever."
In fairness, let's give CAIR the last word: "It seems like anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bigoted expression is the last frontier of accepted bigotry," said Rehab. "There is still racism against African Americans, Latinos and other ethnicities, but the average person would think twice about making their racist feelings public. Not so with Muslims and Arabs. We need to move beyond that."
A voice of reason from a most unexpected source.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)