Summer+2009+Section+09-PJ+Week+2

=Class Discussion For Week 2=

- Segmentation
 * Market Analysis**
 * We talked a bit about how this is manifest in today's market: anything from Google AdWords, Facebook ads, website traffic tracking, to coupons generated at retailers like Target based on past purchases you made with the same debit/credit card. How has this changed the landscape of market segmentation?
 * Three "generalized" groups: Innovators (I), Early Adopters (EA), Followers (F). What entices an I to buy? Are I's necessary to influence (thank you, mirror neurons) EA's and F's? Are I's fickle customers, not ever capable of being brand loyal, but rather loyal to the next big thing?

- Customer lifetime value - Demographics should be avoided - Real Time Market Analysis--> www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBaiKsYUdvg


 * Select Target Market**
 * Consumer segmentation: Christensen argued that the consumer purchases a product because it fulfills a "job" for the consumer; products get "hired" to perform some function.
 * Needs and benefits: Yanklevich & Meer argued that segmentation allows firms to ID the most profitable customers; this analysis is constantly revised based on changes/trends
 * Need “gravity”: Yanklevich & Meer argue that consumer purchasing behavior is a function of their "gravity" of need
 * Purchasing behaviors


 * Differentiation and Positioning**
 * Vertical (BMW vs Camry, price difference)
 * Horizontal (Camry vs Corola, Taste difference)


 * Consumer Products**
 * Christensen argues that almost every product does three jobs:
 * The fact that customers hire a product to fulfill a purpose is both insightful and common sense. Once you realize this, the next challenge is to put yourself in the customers position and attempt to understand whatn the customer needs your product for and what services you can provide. This is requires either a need for the service yourself or a great deal of empathy which is easier said then done. For example, The Fashion Channel which delivers 24 hours of fashion related entertainment defies the understanding of many men including myself. Clearly there is a demand for the service but truly understanding the customers functional, emotional and social needs can be very difficult. Data and statistics can not capture it all.
 * 1) functional
 * 2) emotional
 * 3) social
 * These three functions are determined by Maslow's hierarchy of needs:
 * 1) Self-actualization
 * 2) Esteem:
 * 3) Love/Belonging: Friendship, Intimacy, Having a supportive family.
 * 4) Safety: Personal security, financial security, health and well-being, safety net against accidents/illness and the adverse impacts.
 * 5) Physiological: Needs in order to survive. Examples: food, clothing, shelter and water.
 * Most __successful__ new brands do #1 and #2, but __great__ brands are able to move up the Maslow hierarchy of needs
 * It has to be noted though that the Hierarchy of Needs is different for everyone and the same product will satisfy very different needs from one person to the next.

Regarding Christensen's article, //Marketing Malpractice,// and the main topic of "Purpose Brands," he made reference to brands that are not solely built upon a tangible product, but the intangibles such as service. For example, Lexus isn't a company that sells cars and happens to provide service, they are a service based company that happens to sell cars. Intel has recently taken this approach. For the first time ever, they have launched a marketing/advertising campaign that focuses on the intel brand as opposed to the intel product line (computer chips). As seen in this [|blog post], Intel is establishing their brand presence as the "sponsors of tomorrow."

Deborah Conrad, Intel Vice President and General Manager of the Corporate Marketing Group says, “For more than 40 years, Intel has been delivering tomorrow’s ‘normal’, and our new marketing campaign is a way for the world to be made aware of this fact. We’re hoping to convey that __**we’re not just a microprocessor company, but a move-society-forward-by-quantum-leaps company.**__” Intel is a great example of company that is providing a solution to a problem, not just a product. They understand that their products (primarily computer chips) are being "hired" for jobs that solve problems for their customers! A valuable example to take note of.

In Monday's class, it was interesting to hear from Paul that the most successful new businesses stem from the "Rule Breakers". A good question was raised regarding a "rule breakers" decision to start a business: How is this potential business supposed to know the right types of questions to ask (when doing marketing research) in order to determine if their "Rule Breaker" business will be successful or not?
 * Strategy as a Revolution**
 * Rule Makers: industry leaders, firms that set the terms of the market; sustaining or disruptive innovators
 * Rule Takers: smaller or less-innovative firms that get what the makers don't want; disruptive innovators
 * Rule Breakers: revolutionary firms that overturn the "curse of incrementalist change"; sustaining innovators

It was also stated that the if the Rule Breakers do succeed in creating a new business they will eventually become Rule Makers as the needs of day to day work change.


 * Role of Innovation**
 * Two Types of Innovation
 * Sustaining Innovation
 * Disruptive Innovation
 * Lower price
 * Help people do what they're already trying to do
 * Lower barriers


 * Group Presentations**

All of the group presentations focused on what segment of the market they selected to cater to and why. Team: The Known and Unknowns

Our plan focused on the fashionistas in an attempt to maximize profits(CPM) by way of commercial revenue. With this plan the idea was to use the adjacent marketing model where we would first focus on our target audience, fashionistas, and substantially bolster network programming to appeal to that audience. Next we would focus on program that would entertain fashionistas while simultaneously appealing to the planner/shopper audience. We targeted fashionistas because of the audience demographic who fell within that category. The fashionista segment of the network audience was a high advertising target audience, thus we decided to focus our efforts on this audience to increase CPM.

Team: Dead Tigers

Did not want to risk losing any money because the board wouldn't approve any plan that didn't cover the 350 million. went with option 2(Fashionista and Planner/Shopper) and Spanish programing.

The team presented the case by outlining the bottom line (their target $ goal) and what the board of directors would be looking for, which is the best possible way to make and maximize profit. The team presented several options with the conclusion that any combination of options can be utilized as long as it meets the profit goal.



Team: Top Gun

Focus on Planner and shoppers to increase market share, also wanted to market to situationalists

The idea of a Fashion Guru is insightful because without that, what makes you the expert in fashion. You would need to find an already established person to take this role but that person could be central to the marketing campaigns. I also thought that targeting the younger market was a great idea because even though there are limited resources, they would be the most impressionable and the word of mouth advertising through them would be massive compared to that of an adult.

In looking at competition for fashion television market share, it appears that TFC's two top competitors offer a broader, more diverse programming offering. Top Gun struggled with a way to match this diversity without eroding the core purpose of the brand, which is to supply "Fashion for Everyone". One way this might be attained is through better establishing the channel as the best place to go for fashion advice; better establishing themselves as a purpose brand. CNN and Lifetime already have their "purpose brand", expert news and television for women respectively. Off of this, their diversified programming provides new purpose brands (i.e. diverse programming) off of the orginal, endorser brand. I might be stretching a bit here, turning shows into brands, but I think the general idea is the same. Once the channel is certain that they are known for being the best in fashion (through advertising efforts, the aboved named celebrity endorsement, etc.), they can begin to compete with the other 2 channels by diversifying their offerings.

The other side to focusing on the "Situationalist" group is that these people have the kids who will be shopping and looking to be fashionable with their friends. We have already captured the parent and now are bringing in the second generation. It is much easier to keep a client than to go obtain a new client. So if the channel can market/advertise to people who we already take advantage of The Fashion Channel's offerings, they win on three levels, 1.) Renewable client means a more predictable stream of revenue and income, 2.) The client will stay loyal, 3.) There is the possibility that the client may move to different levels as they age.

Our team also reviewed its actual programing. We considered airing movies at certain times of the day which were relevant to fashion or wardrobe such as the Devil Wears Prada and Thomas Crown Affair. By adding movies to the channel, it would allow the Fashion Channel to branch out to both these audiences as well as not rerun Fashion show segments as frequently.



Team: As A Team We Thought That...

They focused the ad campaign primarily on Planner/Shoppers while still allocating some money to achieve secondary goals of maintaining the established Fashionista brand image and converting some Situationalists to Planners/ Shoppers. In practice, the focus on Planners/ Shoppers would create a halo effect that would allow for penetration into both the Fashionistas and Situationalists. Disposible income played a large role in determining which consumer segment was the most important to advertisers and thus the campaign. As stated in the case study, the campaign's goal should be to increase ad revenue by delivering quality audiences to advertisers without increasing risk on what the Fashion Channel had already established - a wide distribution primarily among Fashionistas. This team's strategy of increasing the number of Planners/ Shoppers who identify with the Fashionista culture avoids alienating the established Fashionista audience, while pulling a percent of those most likely to watch the new fashion shows on CNN and Lifetime.

= =