I was puzzled by the name change. In this case, why would you essentially just reorder the words in the name? Yes, the sculpture park is beautiful and unique in the metro Boston area. It is well worth a visit I might add. However, the museum is excellent as well. There was a fascinating exhibition called Drawn to Detail which I saw last fall.
Perhaps, the ICA in Boston is cornering the contemporary art museum “market”, with the recent Shephard Fairey show and before that an Anish Kapoor exhibition. It also has received a lot of attention for its new building and new location on the waterfront in Boston. The deCordova’s name change might be a bid to distinguish itself from the ICA. If that is the case, I am not convinced that re-branding is the answer. But if you are going to re-brand, at least be consistent.
The website uses the new name at the top on the right…
The top of the deCordova home page
and then uses the old name under the History and Mission title.
Bottom of deCordova home page
I must admit that I am skeptical of re-branding efforts because they can be expensive and difficult to quantify. I always want to know the return on investment. But in this case, I think that the deCordova needs to go back to the 4 Ps:
1. Product
2. Pricing
3. Placement
4. Promotion
Their product is contemporary art with a focus on American art, especially from New England. The ICA tends to focus on national and international artists. However, a strong regional focus could be an asset at a time when people are enjoying localvore cuisine and taking staycations.
Their pricing, in this case admission fees, is slightly less than the ICA – $12 versus $15 for general admission. In addition, general admission is $5 less than at the MFA.
Placement is where I see the greatest challenge faced by the deCordova. They are located in Lincoln, MA, a suburban, almost exurban town West of Boston. You don’t just drop by the deCordova as you might the ICA. Further, the closest form of public transportation is probably the commuter rail station in Lincoln Center. Thus, they tend to attract visitors for whom the deCordova is the destination. I am reminded of the Barnes Foundation and the fight over moving the collection into Philadelphia, PA in order to attract more visitors.
In terms of promotion, a very unscientific sample suggests that they receive less national attention than the ICA. However, national coverage may not be necessary to gain the attention of their target audience. Their current exhibition was covered by a local NPR station recently.
The deCordova should play to its strengths and recognize their core “customers”. Because of their location, they will not be able to attract some of the same visitors as the ICA. However, suburbanites, families, and art-lovers will be thrilled with what the deCordova has to offer. Unlike the ICA, the deCordova has a sculpture park to be admired by adults and children alike. You can picnic in the park or use the walk between sculptures to work off some excess energy. There is a hands on area, The Art ExperienCenter, that is perfect for inquisitive little (and maybe not so little) hands. In addition, their exhibitions change regularly and there are often opportunities to hear artists talk about their work. Finally, there is free parking. I hate to admit it but it is nice to have.
Through surveys or focus groups, the deCordova could learn or confirm what its current visitors and members value most and use that information to shape its marketing, particularly its acquisition strategy. The challenges faced by the deCordova and many other arts organizations in this tough economic climate require more than a just a name change.
Thursday’s Wall Street Journal had a quote from Carol Bartz, the CEO of Yahoo, “Are we leading up to “I’m both too old and too stupid to know what the Internet is’?” Her remark was in response to a question about her experience but it made me think about a potential generational gap in Internet usage.
At a book club meeting almost a year ago, several members asked for a description of Twitter, as if it was a foreign country or new-fangled religion they had heard about. One member provided an excellent summary based on his usage of the site but several were left trying to get their heads around why anyone in their right mind would use Twitter. Once again Twitter came up during a recent book club meeting. No one new had tried out the service in the 10 months since our last discussion. It made me wonder if the technological gap is not just rich versus poor but also young versus old. As the remark by Carol Bartz indicates, there is a general perception that the Internet is a young person’s game. High profile anecdotes have reinforced that assumption. According to a July 2008 Frank Rich Op Ed piece in the New York Times, John McCain doesn’t know how to use a computer.
For marketers, this represents a challenge and an opportunity. To me, it is further proof that we need to develop integrated campaigns with both online and offline channels for outbound communication and inbound response. You cannot assume that everyone will be on the Internet 24/7. Broadcast media, print ads, direct mail, etc. can play an important role in reaching an older audience that may not be on the Internet as frequently and they reinforce your message to those who are active on the Internet. A recent report found that displaying a URL within a Yellow Pages print ad drove an increase in online leads. Of course, you should measure the interaction of online and offline behavior to see what drives the most responses and to optimize future campaigns.
Modeling is a powerful tool that is worth considering when determining how best to spend your marketing dollar. At its simplest, modeling looks for patterns in data to predict future behavior. That data could be past behavior. If someone bought diapers last week, it is very likely they will buy them again this week. It could also include demographics such as age and gender or, in a B2B context firmographics, the number of employees and annual sales volume. Attitudinal information, such as willingness to purchase a product, could also be used in a model. The power of modeling comes from the fact that it weighs all of the factors and results in a unique algorithm that predicts future behavior. Instead of the usual “spray and pray” approach, modeling enables you to focus your dollars where they will have the most effect.
Two articles in the Wall Street Journal last week offered real life examples of how models can solve business problems. I have seen clients use attrition models and proportional hazard models to determine which customers are likely to leave. Google is building an attrition model to identify which of its employees are most likely to leave the company for another opportunity. Presumably Google will target those employees most likely to leave and be able to retain valuable talent that might otherwise walk out the door.
Chrysler’s digital agency has designed a media modeling system according to the Wall Street Journal. It sounds like a marketing mix model and is being used to allocate Chrysler’s marketing dollars. At a basic level, this model tells Chrysler how much money needs to be spent on marketing to drive a certain number of vehicle sales based on the web traffic generated. By monitoring online activity and tying it to their marketing campaigns, Chrysler has determined how many web visits translate into sales. The media modeling system, including enhancements based on the ongoing performance of television advertisements, has helped Chrysler determine how to structure their marketing campaign and tweak marketing in real time to drive results.
These two examples may not fit your exact situation but they highlight the power and value of modeling.
Let’s face it. It takes time and patience to develop a good e-mail subscriber list. First, you have to make it easy for individuals to add and update their e-mail addresses. Second, every time you e-mail them, you run the risk that they might unsubscribe. Third, maintaining the e-mail list requires that you clean the file (e.g., remove hard bounces), e-mail frequently to keep subscribers engaged and send targeted, timely and relevant e-mails.
It is not surprising then that I am routinely asked about purchasing e-mail addresses. My standard answer is to be prepared to pay a lot and to get few responses relative to your investment. A recent Limeduck post illustrates what can happen when you purchase e-mail addresses.
Accountable marketing is a lofty goal. It is the idea that marketing can and should be measured. It sounds simple but is difficult to implement and execute. It starts with planning and identifying metrics for success up front and ends with calculating ROI and other relevant metrics as well as incorporating lessons learned into future marketing efforts.
I have written about metrics before. In fact, my New Year’s Resolutions post included a suggestion to test, measure and learn. Even in social media there are now agreed upon metrics. The Interactive Agency Bureau (IAB) has released social media ad metric definitions.
Given the current tough economic climate, there is no reason not to measure and evaluate your marketing efforts. How else can you know what worked, what did not work and whether your efforts have met your threshold or definition for success?
James Surowiecki writes in the April 20, 2009 edition of The New Yorker that during hard economic times, companies cut costs including labor, advertising spend, and research & development, as well as forego acquisitions even though prices are lower. However, companies that remained market leaders during the 1990-1991 recession increased spending according to a McKinsey study. Research by Bain found that recessions can be opportunities for companies to leapfrog over their competitors.
Thus, CEOs and senior management have a difficult choice. They can choose to slash costs in order to win a war of attrition — becoming lean to survive the recession assuming that their competitors drop out of the market or business altogether. Alternatively, they can invest in advertising, research & development and acquisitions in order to grow market share and transform themselves into market leaders. However, there is no guarantee. Do you risk sinking the boat in order not to miss the boat?
I was recently in Austin to give a presentation and I joked with the client that what would really make me happy would be if they used my results. Routinely I find myself fighting against the option to do nothing. Even during final presentations, when the work is done and paid for, I find an unwillingness to change the status quo. Rather than battle the silos, the culture, or the project approval process to put in place recommended strategies and tactics, it is easier to put the final report on a shelf and call it a day.
On new business pitches, I worry more about inertia more than I do the competition. Has the client or prospect really committed to making changes to their business? If so, we can have a discussion about the many ways to solve the business problem at hand. If not, there is little I can do if someone is unwilling to commit time or resources.
I ran a 5K race recently and so I have been thinking about my pre-race routine. I may not have a lucky rabbit’s foot but the morning of a race I have a ritual of sorts. I eat my usual breakfast and of course drink coffee. There are some things I just can’t do without! I wear the same clothes and sneakers for the race as I wore training. I will not do anything new or different.
This ritual keeps me from being distracted so that I can concentrate on the race. In this case, my ritual helps me. But in the office, rituals can be limiting. Always doing something the same way can get old and stale. A colleague asked me about identifying best customers. My first thought was an RFM or RAD segmentation because I was in the midst of a RAD segmentation. It would have been easy to stop there. However, I couldn’t stop until I also suggested clusters and CHAID. If she had let me, I would have added modeling and NPV. The trick is knowing when to stick with rituals and when to avoid them.
The print edition of the Wall Street Journal has introduced a daily sports page and when I say sports page, I mean it is just a page. It seems like an odd choice, introducing more sports coverage to a business oriented newspaper. However, it may be an attempt to increase advertising revenue and grow the subscriber base, similar to the earlier introduction of the Weekend Journal.
The sports coverage is supposed to be analytical, high-level and statistical. That does not mean it is dry. I laughed out loud when I read this excerpt from yesterdays’ journal, written by Bernie Lincicome.
“The visual highlight of the week was Henrik Stenson, a particularly tidy sort who avoided splashing mud on himself by taking off nearly all of his clothes. It takes a lot to upstage Tiger Woods, but a Swede golfing in his skivvies in a water hazard will do it every time.”
As more entertainment and news have moved online, it seems like more and more things can be had for free. I can watch a clip from a cable television show on Hulu even though I don’t subscribe to cable. I can read a New York Times article even though I dropped my print subscription. As Tangyslice write in a post last month, there are lots of things you can get for free — software and international phone calls included.
So you can imagine my surprise when I read that Disney is starting a web portal that will require a $75 annual fee. Subscribers will get access to Disney news, entertainment and merchandise. In addition, they will receive a quarterly magazine. While I understand that Disney wants to generate revenue, I wonder if consumers are willing to pay for the features offered. The online Wall Street Journal has been effective at generating revenue with a subscription model but they offer financial reporting and insight. Is Disney news and entertainment as desirable? In addition, will consumers be able to find most of the information provided other places (e.g., youtube, other fan sites, etc)? If so, the value of the portal will be diminished.
