Marketing Mojo With Stephanie Fierman

After graduating from business school, I found an apartment on New York City’s Upper East Side.  Two main factors drove my choice: (1) It was one of the few in the big, bad city with which my mother was comfortable, and (2) It was maybe the best value for the dollar.

At the time, I was completely unaware that Reason #2 was not exactly what my beloved neighborhood was known for.  In fact, it’s quite the opposite.

My zip code for over 15 years - 10021- surpasses all others in New York City for the number of wealthy households.  Founded by John Jacob Astor over 150 years ago, the zip is home to more than 1,300 households with more than $2 million in income-producing assets.  Sure, the zip has its wanna-be’s - 10023 and 10024 aspire to the throne with 826 HH (2.07%) and 689 HH (2.1%) who meet this criteria, respectively - but 10021 is the king.  Do 10023 and 10024 have blogs dedicated to them, like 10021 NY Socialites?  I think not.

It would be terribly uncouth of you to doubt me but, just in case, here is incontrovertible proof:  The CW’s Gossip Girl takes place in 10021!  And ABC has decided that the zip is posh enough to merit its very own show called - what else? - 10021.  Evening-soap-opera TV has spoken.

So while I was a bit sad and nostalgic when the U.S. Postal Service split 10021 into three, smaller zips,  some of my richer neighbors were downright apoplectic - and in major denial.

Real estate agents have clients specify the now-smaller 10021 zip and refuse to see anything else.  “I spent my whole life wanting to get into that zip,” said one home-seeker.  And stationers catering to the hoi polloi have displaced clients who still insist that their notecards and matching envelopes say 10021: even though their addresses now reside in the new and unknown 10065 or 10075.

So while Shakespeare asked, “What’s in a name?” shall we now ask, “What’s in a zip?”  Apparently so.  For many of the wealthy who either grew up in 10021 or who were able to move there based on their net worth, those now stripped of those 5 little numbers feel exiled.  And for others whose assets are nowhere near $2 million in investable assets, the zip code was a silent endorsement:  while we may not be afford Birkin bags, we certainly did not have to correct outsiders who drew their own lofty conclusions based on our zip code.

So once again we see that the definition of product differently from that of brand.  The product is 5 digits like any other.  But the 10021 “brand?”  How it makes people feel and the conclusions drawn by the rest of the world based on a 10021 address?  That’s another thing entirely.

Me?  It’s strange, but I am getting used to 10075.  Then again, I never derived any part of my sense of self-worth from my zip code.  But try to take away my 212 home area code or my 917 cell area code??  Let’s not even think about it.

Friends: Take a look at my new daily blog Stephanie Fierman - Marketing Observations Grown Daily for shorter takes on news and trends of the day.

212 area codegossip girl10021

BlogHer and Compass Partners have just released what may be the first significant study of women and social media.  FYI, in case you are not aware, BlogHer is a network founded by three female bloggers in 2005. Today, it is backed by Venrock and boasts 1,500 contextual ad-targeted blogs created by women. Yours truly posts pieces from this blog as well as http://www.stephaniefiermanmarketingdaily.blogspot.com to BlogHer on an increasingly-regular basis.

So back to the study…

BlogHer/Compass Partners surveyed a nationally-representative sample of 1,250 female Internet users plus 5,000 visitors to BlogHer. What they found is notable in sheer numbers, passion and experience:

* 36.2 million women actively participate in the blogsophere every week. 15.1 million do so by publishing (and reading/commenting) and 21.1 million (just) read and comment on blogs.

* 44% of female blog publishers maintain one blog and the remaining 56% write two or more. 56% have been writing for 2 years or less – I was surprised that this number was so low.  27% have been writing at least one blog for more than 3 years. Was “blog” even in my daily vocabulary 3 years ago?

* Women are so passionate about blogging that many say they would give something up rather than surrender their blogs, with 50% saying they would sacrifice their PDAs and 43% willing to stop reading newspapers or magazines to maintain their bloggy existences. They’d have to give up something, for sure, because 55% of blog publishers write and 56% of readers do so on 2 or more days each week. It helped to discover that only 20% are willing to give up chocolate (so at least we’re not all crazy…).

In the general Internet sample, 24% say they are watching less television, 25% are reading fewer magazines and 22% are reading fewer newspapers because they are so absorbed by the blog world. As would be expected, these numbers are higher for BlogHer members because they are significantly younger than those in the general sample (68% to 42% concentrated in the 25-41 age group, respectively). More than 50% consider blogs a reliable source of advice and information and claim that blogs influence their purchase decisions.

So what does it all mean?  Here are some conclusions and tips, plus what I see as a few gaps in the data:

* Me being me, I need to first point out the riskiness in considering blogs to be reliable sources of advice and information. Since I know that you’ve giving up everything else to read my blog… one need only point to my own experiences, the Obama-as-terrorist tale and the JuicyCampus disaster. What I would like to know: what percentage of readers seek to confirm a piece of information they’ve read on a blog from additional news sources (blogs and non-blogs)? How do you determine that a blog is trustworthy?

* This study would certainly imply that any party with a message to disseminate should consider blogging. What I would like to know: how closely do these opinions align to those of men? And does this trust extend only to blogs written by women “like me,” or does it extend to corporate/institutional blogs, as well?

* The time-shifting aspect of the study is fascinating and enough to get anyone’s attention. What I would like to know: what kinds of television programming, magazines and newspapers are women willing to swap out? Are they giving up hard news, or are blogs replacing pop culture information sources?

* 38% of blog publishers and 29% of blog readers say that blogs have influenced their decision to purchase goods or services. What I’d like to know: are there particular goods or services that appear to be discussed more/most on blogs? Are there any patterns we can discern as to the characteristics (e.g. complexity) of goods and services most discussed on blogs? If I’m the CMO of one of these widget companies, what is it about non-blog sources of information that I might be able to improve, and how can I build credibility in the blog universe?

* By design, the study specifically confirms that women trust blogs at a fairly high rate so, as a marketer, I’d think hard about how to leverage this phenomenon in other ways. For example, I’d consider companies that recruit female consumers to personally talk up products to other girls/women (such as Mr. Youth, Alloy and P&G’s Tremor).

And lastly, the #1 reason that female bloggers (65%) say they blog is for fun. 60% say they do so to express themselves and 40% to connect with “others like me.” In other words – even in this new and blogerrific world – it’s about them, not us. Marketers who make a connection that feels personal relevant for a female consumer are the ones that succeed. Those that don’t? We’ll be reading about them in the blogosphere…
bloggingwomen weblogsblogsocial media

If I’m just not writing enough to suit you, please check out my new *daily* blog at http://www.stephaniefiermanmarketingdaily.com.

Many retailers and other merchants still use the old “Green Stamps” method to deliver their loyalty programs: they give you a card and punch it (only 8 more slushies to go ’til you get one free!). You are then supposed to keep track of it, and put it somewhere so it’s handy the next time you show up. All of this assumes you remember you have it in the first place.

As with gift card breakage, this is why these programs have such low redemptions rates and - for most consumers - become so unsatisfying: they’re just too hard to use. And if you’ve ever handed an over-worked counter clerk a paper card and asked for a stamp or a punch during the lunch rush, you know that that’s not a happy face he’s giving you. I’m not missing the fact that having a program that no one uses creates a certain amount of practically-free good will for the issuing company, but that’s a tremendous amount of work for an effort that does not ultimately generate the loyalty these merchants desire.

Now comes a loyalty technology company called Chockstone, which is introducing the newest generation of “single swipe,” a functionality that allows POS-based retail loyalty programs (QSR, department stores, gas stations, etc.) to be administered on the same major credit cards we all use today. For a single issuer, such as Subway, this makes the program easier to use and more likely to bring the customer back. It seems to me, though, that the overall potential of this technology could far more significant.

The average U.S. household is signed up for 12 loyalty programs. If multiple programs are administered on a single credit card, then “presence of” (information) and my usage of all of those programs will reside at a single source. Imagine the benefit to the credit card issuer, the administering retailers and other non-participating retailers and merchants:

* Mastercard, Visa and the issuing banks could all tinker with their loyalty efforts based on an assessment of the programs you have loaded on the program and your usage patterns. The issuers could also create an incremental revenue stream by selling various levels of data to participating and non-participating retailers via the creation of a loyalty database co-op.

The early movers could also create their own added loyalty by providing information and custom incentives delivered as a message printed on your monthly card statement.

* The owner of each loyalty program could adjust the levels, incentives and form of its program based not only on their own results, but potentially, your use of competitors’ (or complementary retailers’) programs as well. And customized reward programs could be administered at a cost close to zero. Subway, for example, may want to increase your rewards if it knows that you also have Quiznos’ loyalty program loaded on your credit card.

* Paneros (which, let’s say, may not have a program or might want to be smarter about the one it has) could purchase blind transaction data from the co-op showing your activity with Subway and Quiznos. It could then be quite surgical about testing and defining the value it would take to get you to shift to their program - not too much, not too little. It could creat one mass program, a “best customer” initiative or both.

Most functionality that would be required for all of the above to happen does not yet exist, but the potential for everyone involved is huge. At a macro level, every party in the value chain could achieve higher loyalty, with the right customers, at a reduced cost.  And I could throw away that paper Burritoville punch card I never have with me, anyway.

And, friends: I’ve started a new daily blog at www.stephaniefiermanmarketingdaily.com, offering shorter takes on news and trends of the day. I’d be delighted if you’d take a look.

loyalty marketingmarketingcredit cardsubway restaurantchockstonemarketingloyalty marketingloyalty program