There are many different reasons why consumers buy specific car types and models — even in the United States. But, how different are purchase motivations around the world?
To answer this question, Nielsen recently conducted a large-scale online survey in 60 countries:
“’Linking global automotive demand with consumer sentiments and media habits is vital to developing marketing strategies that connect the right consumers with the right automotive brands,’ said Pat Gardiner, president of Nielsen Automotive. ‘The Asia-Pacific and Latin American regions, as expected, represent large areas of growth opportunity for the industry, but capturing this opportunity hinges on marketers successfully identifying, understanding’ and effectively connecting with the needs and desires of these buyers.’”
“One key to unlocking the demand drivers is discerning what role a car plays in the consumer’s life. Is it for utility — simply a mode of transportation to get you from one place to another? Is it to express status — a symbol of the success you’ve achieved in life? Or is it more purely emotional — you just love to drive? While each of these sentiments may play a role in the car-buying decision process, connecting with the emotions that pull at the heartstrings draws consumers more powerfully along the path to purchase.”
Click the image to read more.
A clear , desirable, and distinctive product/brand positioning message is essential for companies to be successful in today’s competitive marketplace.
What is sometimes under-appreciated is how crucial the corporate culture is in establishing and maintaining the correct product/brand position in consumers’ minds.
Take a look at this infographic for an innovate perspective on this from masters-in-marketing.org. Click the infographic for a lot more background information.
As we’ve noted before, marketing can be a great career field. There are millions of diverse and interesting marketing jobs in the United States alone. And marketers are often paid well, too.
According to Forbes, the total annual compensation for each of the top fifteen chief marketing officers (CMOs) in the United States was at least $3.3 million in 2013. Kathryn Dill reports that:
“Chief executive officers may be the face of an organization, but it’s often chief marketing officers who are responsible for the branding and identity by which consumers readily identify a company. So how are c-suite-level creative forces being compensated? To get a sense of what top tier marketing executives earn, Forbes worked with executive compensation firm Equilar. The 15 names appearing on the list have the highest salaries of executives with the word ‘marketing’ in their job title at all publicly traded companies in the U.S.”
“Topping the list this year is David B. Fischer, Vice-President of Business and Marketing Partnerships at one of the country’s most recognizable brands, Facebook. An alum of Google and the U.S. Treasury Department, Fischer joined Facebook in 2010 and is credited with building the social networking giant’s robust advertising platform. In 2013, Fischer earned a whopping $8,009,343.”
Click the image to access a Forbes’ slideshow and to read more.
According to Barbara Kahn, a Wharton professor, we are likely to consume more if we believe we are buying an “incomplete” product. Is this you? Read on.
In the Knowledge@Wharton video below, “Kahn talks about how a complete product encourages more consumption: A person is likely to eat two pieces of cheese with holes in them but only one if it is solid, for example. It’s a matter of perception, Kahn explains. She also discusses her research on the attention that consumers pay to large assortments of goods and how it influences their choices when information is presented visually or verbally. In addition, she describes a study on how consumers behave when goods are stacked vertically versus horizontally.”
For years now, we’ve been conditioned to buying a new cell phone every two years. Why? More features, longer battery life, cooler design, status, etc. And mobile companies have sure made it easy for us to do this. In return in for agreeing to a another two-year contract, we get a state-of-the-art shiny brand-new smartphone for a relatively low price. The service carriers subsidize the price of new phones by having us subscribe to contracts that promote high-margin services.
With the above in mind, let’s consider a rather radical idea espoused by Farhad Manjoo, writing for the New York Times. If Manjoo’s ideas are accepted, there will be a substantial impact on our smartphone purchase behavior — and on service providers’ bottom lines.
Here’s Manjoo’s perspective: “Despite their small size, smartphones are expensive, resource-hungry goods, and they deserve a better life cycle than two years of use followed by an eternity in a forgotten desk drawer.” So, “use your phone for more than two years, ideally three; when you run into trouble, try to repair, not replace it; and when you’re done with it, trade it in. When you’re looking for a new phone, don’t just consider the latest high-end devices; many people will find last year’s best phone just as useful as the newest one. You might even consider buying a used phone instead of a new one.”
Manjoo’s tips are to
- hold on to your smartphone for a longer time.
- sell or trade in your old phone to a company such as Gazelle (there is a growing aftermarket).
- buy a used phone (there are many great choices out there).
Click the Gazelle image to read more from Manjoo.
What are the two major goals of many companies? To grow sales and to grow profit. And while most companies say that being innovative is also a key goal, do they really mean it? The typical company tends to spend two percent or less of revenues on research and development. And the great majority of “new” products are usually simple line extensions or new models. At a large number of companies, innovation may not be dead — but it is certainly in a deep slumber.
With this in mind, let’s take a look at a terrific article called “Why Companies Stop Innovating” by Steve Blank for Inc. According to Blank:
“There’s been lots written about how companies need to be more innovative, but very little on what stops them from doing so. Companies looking to be innovative face a conundrum: Every policy and procedure that makes them efficient execution machines stifles innovation.”
“Facing continuous disruption from globalization, China, the Internet, the diminished power of brands, and the changing workforce, existing enterprises are establishing corporate innovation groups. These groups are adapting or adopting the practices of startups and accelerators — disruption and innovation rather than direct competition, customer development versus more product features, agility and speed versus lowest cost.”
“But paradoxically, in spite of their seemingly endless resources, innovation inside of an existing company is much harder than inside a startup. For most companies it feels like innovation can only happen by exception and heroic efforts, not by design. The question is: Why?”
Click below to see Blank’s detailed answers to this question.