Motherhood – It is the best of times, it is the worst of times

Spring is here. And the warmer weather and blooming flowers remind us that Mother’s Day is near by. For the first time, I get to celebrate Mother’s Day as a mom. This title is quite new for me—my son is only four months old—yet I can barely remember the days before his arrival. Of course much of that amnesia comes from too little sleep and too many diaper changes.

I find myself asking my own mom endless questions about what she did when I was a baby. It’s fascinating to hear how alike, yet how different her experiences are to my own. She was the only caregiver of four children (my dad not lending a hand too often), used only cloth diapers, and had no fancy toy to hold my attention. Yet, she didn’t fear germs, strangers or turning on the T.V. BabyCenter.com recently conducted a survey among its mom readers about “what modern motherhood is really like, and how it compares to previous generations of motherhood.” The results were very insightful, and highlighted in the article, The best and worst things about being a mom today.

Interesting to hear that “53 percent of [mothers surveyed] said the previous generation had it easier” siting examples of how modern technologies, work/home balance, “mommy guilt” and the media onslaught bring stress to everyday living. In particular, we read how conflicted moms are about consumerism today:

“[Moms] love how convenient shopping is now, when anyone with an Internet connection can snap up bargains, necessities, and splurges with the click of a mouse (24 percent), but [moms] hate the increased materialism and consumerism of modern life (39 percent).”

It’s hard to resist purchases when adorable baby outfits, convenient gadgets and interactive toys catch our eyes so frequently. In the BabyCenter survey, mom’s listed “sheer variety of things to buy” as their second-favorite feature of modern motherhood. There is something for everyone out there these days. The vast quantity of products in the marketplace is welcomed by moms, because it gives them options to fit their lifestyles that prior generations didn’t have. But on the flip side, the sheer volume of merchandise is overwhelming, and moms begin to glaze over much of it.

To help them sort through the clutter, moms are turning to modern tools to help them make purchase decisions. “Upwards of two-thirds of online moms of young children research products online,” according to the eMarketer Report Moms Online: Browsing, Researching, Buying. “Among those who do research online, the three top information sources are search, e-newsletters and branded product sites.” (Prospectiv, April 2008). What’s more, online social networks allow moms to converse with other moms beyond their local communities. And you can bet that sharing product reviews are hot topics among moms online. Moms not only welcome the variety of products, but they welcome information that will make shopping for them more convenient and efficient.

The survey also revealed that moms feel guilty because of all the things they are expected to buy for their children, so moms are buying more than they need. Before we know it, our homes are piled high with ‘stuff,’ most of which gets outgrown or tossed to the side in favor of something faster, cooler, greener and so on. This cycle of guilt, purchase and more guilt frustrates moms. How can brands take the guilt out of consumerism for moms? Some have linked special causes to their products, so moms feel better about their purchases. One mom even created a new company called Baby Plays, where moms can RENT toys. Children can interact with a toy until they get bored with it, and then mom gets to send it back in exchange for a new toy. This service allows moms to consume products without having to own and store them. So rather than developing new versions or entire lines of new products, perhaps brands should consider innovating how people consume them. Moms don’t necessarily need something better and bigger to make their lives easier. Sometimes they just need something simpler, that’ll bring them back to the good old days they envy—without losing all of our modern day conveniences of course.

New Moms Generate Buzz

According to Babycenter, today's pregnant women and new moms engage in one-third more word of mouth conversations per day than the total public. They have an average of 109 word of mouth conversations per week about products, services and brands, most of which are positive and considered highly credible by other moms.

http://www.babycenter.com/prkit.htm?id=5231305

New Shortcuts, a service of AOL, selects Lucid for W.O.M. and online media marketing promotions.

Shortcuts ( http://www.shortcuts.com ), a new free service for paperless online coupons from AOL, is making it even easier for grocery shoppers to save money by linking online coupons to their store loyalty cards. The first retail partner to endorse this program is The Kroger Co., the largest pure grocery chain in the U.S. with 2,487 stores in 31 states. General Mills, Kimberly-Clark and Kraft are the first partners to sign on to participate with coupons for their popular consumer brands.

Lucid Marketing will define and execute geo-targeted online media and word-of-mouth marketing promotions in support of the Shortcuts launch. In addition, Lucid is consulting in creative development and the tactical management of customers from registration through member retention.

For more on Shortcuts, visit http://www.shortcuts.com.

--
John King

President
Lucid Marketing
609 208 2152
john.king@lucidmarketing.com

turn segmentation on its ear

Martin Reilly and Deb Rapacz write a great short piece, Psycho: Why We're Scared, in an issue of BrandWeek magazine about how psychographic segmentation needs to be turned on its ear. Recommended reading!

Let me read a quote, “The grouping of consumers into these like-minded segments doesn't mean that they are like-behaved. The underlying trouble is that most psychographic studies are starting at the wrong end of the stick. Where they ought to begin their segmenting is on a behavioral basis with conduct that relates to actually buying the brand in that category.”

There are examples of this everywhere and pervasive in our language. A print magazine created a new label, hybrid mom. And there are many more. “Helicopter mom”, “Wired mom”, “Boomer mom”, “Gen Y mom”. I can go on. You get the point. The curious thing is, I've yet to meet a mom who describers herself with one of these labels.

Society is more complex and diverse than it has ever been. Paying attention to behaviors and attitudes, and minimizing segmentation labels makes more sense.

Yahoo's Shine by Andrea Learned

Critical review of Yahoo's Shine by Andrea Learned.

Women Bloggers study

The BlogHer network has produced a report titled, “2008 Social Media Study” , but it's really just about women bloggers. That's not to say it's not valuable. A few highlights:

• 36.2 million women actively participate in the blogsophere every week (15.1 publishing, 21.1 reading and commenting)

• Time shifting from traditional media is accelerating. In the Blogher network population:
  24% percent of women surveyed watch less television because they're blogging
  25% read fewer magazines because they're blogging
  22% read fewer newspapers because they're blogging

• Bloggers believe the biggest impact they have is around fostering relationships with people who care about the same things they do.

• Blogs are considered a good source of information, advice and recommendations. Only 4% consider them not reliable for information and advice.

• 29% of blog readers have made a purchase decision as a result of a recommendation or customer experience posted on a blog.

Full report download: BlogHer. CompassPartners. Social Media Study

The Other Side of the ROI Coin

I last wrote about a means to calculate a Return on Investment (ROI) for the purpose of comparing marketing programs that may produce several outputs, some that are not directly tied to sales.

Tim Calkins and Derek D. Rucker then wrote an interesting piece challenging the application of ROI in funding marketing programs and how it is just not always the best idea.

“Don't Overemphasize ROI as Single Measure of Success"
Variety Counts: It Takes More Than One Benchmark to Assess Overall Effectiveness
Published: February 04, 2008”

I liked much of their common sense evaluation and thought this a good forum to play off their effort. Their backgrounds follow this article. (It’s pretty easy to defer to them as experts in this area.)

Like it or not, we’re in bed with ROI as a widely accepted measure to evaluate marketing programs and gauge spending levels. It’s the food of financial types, making marketing less subjective.

Perhaps more important, a good return makes it easier to defend marketing initiatives and to justify our jobs.

But to Calkins and Rucker, “there is a fundamental problem with overemphasizing ROI as the single measure of marketing success: It is often impossible to accurately quantify the impact. Although the world of marketing has come a long way in terms of analytic capabilities, applying financial numbers to the marketing equation is not always possible or preferable. That's why using ROI to evaluate the overall effectiveness can be a problem.”

Blasphemy…but, they offer proof…

”Take branding, for example. For many companies, brands are their most valuable assets. (Even if) determining the precise value of a brand at any given moment is near impossible. …brand valuation calculations generally rely on an assumption, built on an assumption, built on another assumption, built on, yes, another assumption. That means that trying to determine the impact…on a brand's value or equity might produce numbers that are directionally right but certainly not precise.”

They go on to say, ”If the value of a brand cannot be precisely calculated, and thus known, then it would appear impossible to use solely ROI to evaluate the decisions that impact the brand. Either the impact on the brand has to be ignored, which seems incorrect, or it has to be put in as an assumption, which makes the analysis suspect. That creates the potential for sub optimal decision making.”

And Branding is not alone on this. What about customer satisfaction, loyalty, employee morale and differentiation? All are important but very slippery when calculating ROI.

So, here's the danger: “A company that uses ROI to guide marketing decisions might focus only on initiatives that come with strong, quantifiable returns. The company might then reduce spending on programs that build the brand (or) increase customer loyalty and strengthen differentiation. That (behavior) increases the focus on short-term initiatives at the potential expense of more-valuable long-term gains.”

Where’s this proof I speak of?

'McStarbucks'
”There's no clearer example of this than Starbucks. Over the past several years, the ubiquitous coffee chain has rolled out a series of initiatives to boost short-term profits at the risk of potentially damaging the brand. The ROI on each decision was probably very positive. But as CEO Howard Schultz admitted, the initiatives have hurt the brand and weakened the company overall. The new breakfast sandwiches, for example, might generate incremental revenue, but leave the stores smelling like cheese factories and make the baristas feel like they are working at McDonald's. As one rather frustrated barista noted on a recent visit, "Welcome to McStarbucks."
I love these guys.

Now, we all know that regardless of the common sense uttered in this writing, our peers are not likely to allow haphazard spending on nonsense. Marketing executives should manage and be evaluated on the overall financial performance of a business.

Calkins and Rucker conclude that, “rather than focusing on ROI, executives need to use a variety of measures to evaluate marketing programs' success. Those measures should be grounded in the objectives for a particular initiative. If the goal is to strengthen customer loyalty, then loyalty should be measured and tracked. Take a more open-minded approach to measurement, first focusing on a company's objectives and strategies and then identifying measures that can best work for them. Focusing solely on ROI is dangerous and naïve.”

Could not have said it better myself. The ROI model we presented in February’s Clarity blends the academic argument with a practical need to measure traceable results. It compares marketing spend by program when awareness and any mix of other measures are desired outcomes. Is it perfect? Likely, the model has as many flaws as any. But, if the values are assigned to outputs remain consistent from one program to the next, then the model is very effective. Visit (link) and see for yourself.

	Tim Calkins is a clinical professor of marketing at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. Mr. Calkins also serves as co-academic director of the school's branding program.
	Derek D. Rucker is an assistant professor of marketing at the Kellogg School of Management, where he teaches advertising strategy. His primary research focuses on the study of attitudes, persuasion and social influence.

Labels

I often find myself in conversations with other marketers describing a group of moms through a particular label. I'm sure you've heard the same. Former President Bill Clinton put the term “soccer moms” on the map in his election campaign. To my surprise, Wikipedia has a thorough description of soccer moms and accurately has little to do with soccer. “Alpha mom” is repeatedly used by today's marketers in their hopes of reaching influential mothers that will spread ideas to other moms. Wikipedia's 'alpha mom' definition is much less compelling than soccer moms.

Several years back, lucid put together an internal team to build a “moms segmentation model” to create our own labels and definitions, but every attempt met failure. It wasn't that we didn't know how to do it, it was that whenever a category label was defined, it was incomplete, open to misinterpretation, and limiting. It was a pleasure to kill that project. Since then, our approach has been to pay attention and market to moms' behaviors, and minimize the influence of a segmentation label.