Archive for April 1st, 2009

Cap & Trade … the Nuclear Dilemma

April 1, 2009

Factoid: 79% of France’s electricity is nuclear generated.

* * * * *
Excerpted from WSJ, “The Carbon Cap Dilemma”, March 28, 2009

On the one hand, environmentalists claim that climate change is a “planetary emergency,” perhaps the greatest threat ever to face humanity. On the other, nuclear energy is still verboten in the green catechism — despite the fact that it provides roughly one-fifth of U.S. electricity, all of it free of carbon emissions. Without more nuclear power, it is nearly impossible to see even the glimmers of any low-emission future.

* * * * *
A lot of companies stand to make a bundle off cap and trade.

Ironically, the nuclear industry stands to benefit as much as any “green” business from a carbon crackdown.

So, if Congress does create cap and trade, expect the next populist outcry to be for a windfall profits tax on nuclear.

* * * * *
Ken’s Take: … and don’t expect any more nuclear power plants to be brought on line.

* * * * *
Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123819777143661833.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

* * * * *
Want more from the Homa Files?
     Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

Posted in Cap & Trade, Energy, Environment - Green, Oil & Energy | Leave a Comment »

Money’s important … time is dear.

April 1, 2009

Excerpted from Stanford GSB News, “Focus on Time Sells More Products” by Cassie Mogilner and Jennifer Aaker, March 2009

* * * * *

“It’s Miller Time.” “Live Richly.” What do these vastly different marketing campaigns—one selling beer, the other financial services—have in common? They both focus on experiencing, rather than possessing, products… both are vastly more effective campaigns as a result.

“Because a person’s experience with a product tends to foster feelings of personal connection with it, referring to time typically leads to more favorable attitudes—and to more purchases,” says Jennifer Aaker, the General Atlantic Professor of Marketing at Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Very little research has been done on whether the focus on time actually changes consumers’ purchasing decisions or overall satisfaction with what they buy. Mogilner and Aaker hypothesized that marketers themselves weren’t aware of the value of stressing time. “What our work contributes is that they can trigger very different attitudes and behaviors just by mentioning time rather than money.” she says.

One explanation is that our relationship with time is much more personal than our relationship with money. “Ultimately, time is a more scarce resource—once it’s gone, it’s gone—and therefore more meaningful to us,” says Mogilner. “How we spend our time says so much more about who we are than does how we spend our money.”

Previous research had demonstrated that mentioning money makes people more self-sufficient, physically withdrawn, and less likely to help others. “On the other hand, when you refer to time, there’s a big social component that integrates the products you use with the people in your life, which makes the product experience more meaningful and richer,” says Mogilner.

In their first experiment the authors set up a lemonade stand—operated by two six-year olds, to make it appear authentic—for which they used three different signs. The first sign read “Spend a little time and enjoy C&D’s lemonade”; the second one, “Spend a little money, and enjoy C&D’s lemonade”; and the third, neutral one said simply, “Enjoy C&D’s lemonade.” Only one of the signs was displayed at a time. Customers were told they could pay between $1 and $3 for a cup of lemonade; the exact amount was up to them. After they made their purchase, they were surveyed to determine their attitude toward the lemonade.

The results were instructive: The sign stressing time attracted twice as many passersby—who were willing to pay almost twice as much—than when the money sign was displayed.

In a second experiment college students who owned iPods were either asked: “How much time have you spent on your iPod?” or “How much money have you spent on your iPod?” Students asked about time reported more favorable attitudes toward their iPods than those asked about money. “We were very surprised at how strong the differences were,” says Aaker.

But Mogilner and Aaker were interested in investigating even more complex ramifications of the time-money relationship. One theory is that references to money will always be negative because consumers are reminded of the cost of acquiring a product rather than the pleasure of consuming it. To explore this possibility, Aaker and Mogilner surveyed attendees at an outdoor music concert in San Francisco. Although the concert itself was free, people had to wait in line for long periods of time to get decent seats. Aaker and Mogilner asked random individuals: “How much time will you have spent to see the concert today?” or “How much money will you have spent to see the concert today?” Even in cases where the real cost of the product was time rather than money, asking specifically about time increased participants’ favorable attitudes toward the concert.

Even more strikingly, people who stood in line longer—who actually incurred a higher cost in terms of time spent—rated their satisfaction with the concert higher. “Even though waiting is presumably a bad thing, it somehow made people concentrate on the overall experience,” says Aaker.

The exception to all this: When marketing products that consumers buy for prestige value, stressing money spent seems to be more effective. Designer jeans, expensive jewelry, and high-status cars all fall into this category. “With such ‘prestige’ purchases, consumers feel that possessing the products reflect important aspects of themselves, and get more satisfaction from merely owning the product rather than spending time with it,” says Mogilner.  

Edit by NRV

Full article: http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/aaker_time.html?tr=research

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link => The Homa Files Blog

Posted in Mktg - Positioning | Leave a Comment »

"Don't touch my jug" … Tropicana cans new packaging

April 1, 2009

Excerpted from brandchannel.com, “Packaging: Lessons from Tropicana’s Fruitless Design” by Jennifer Gidman, March 16, 2009

* * * * *

It’s a revamp-gone-wrong tale that has already secured its place in the annals of packaging: PepsiCo retains Arnell Group to redesign its Tropicana Pure Premium orange juice cartons as part of its new ad campaign. Said cartons make their aisle debut in January, minus the familiar straw-punctured orange and sporting a modernized depiction of—well, fresh-squeezed juice. Consumers revolt and demand the old packaging back. Two months and a reported US $35 million later, PepsiCo reverts back to the original Tropicana packaging, straw between its legs (and back on the carton).

There’s nothing unusual about a perennial product revisiting its packaging, labels or logos in an attempt to bring outdated aesthetics up to par with an enduring brand message…But if the brand is still enjoying hefty market share, why putter around with its packaging?

Tropicana has historically dominated number-two Minute Maid in the OJ category. “Sometimes [package redesign] has nothing to do with the business at all—it [comes] down to the new personnel working on the brand, hell-bent on making a mark on their career,” says Dyfed “Fred” Richards, executive creative director for global branding consultancy Interbrand, which also produces brandchannel. “It’s sometimes difficult for brand managers to demonstrate growth of a brand they’re being tasked to manage and grow. But a new package design associated with those changes demonstrates these changes.”

The agencies commissioned for a redesign may also share some of the blame for failed packaging overhauls. “Sadly, many [of these] companies enjoy the design process so much that design for design’s sake takes over, and all reason jumps out of the window for the benefit of a trend or effect they’ve wanted to try.”

With properly ascertained research and consumer feedback.. a brand can, and should, make an informed decision to redesign its packaging or logo.  “If a brand is in a leadership position, then it should be protecting and leveraging those key equities at all times in an effort to reinforce the reasons why it’s the market leader.” Richards says.

All parties involved need to carefully tread the redesign waters. “Understand the brand’s history,” Richards explains. “Talk to and listen to loyal consumers. This isn’t about sticking a pretty label on a box and hoping you win a design award. All the assets of the brand need careful evaluation to find out equity stretch points and equities that are sacrosanct to the consumer. More often than not, you’re not designing for your client, and certainly not for yourself—you’re designing for the consumer.”

Tropicana’s carton conundrum is a compelling story on a couple of fronts. First, there’s the juicy, schadenfreude-esque media obsession—the panned carton was one of the most blogged topics the week of February 23–27, behind only the machinations of President Obama’s new administration, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s New Media Index.

But even more unusual has been the astonishing backlash from a usually silent, brand-loyal contingent, and PepsiCo’s eventual acquiescence to these vitamin C devotees. Feedback on the design, relayed to PepsiCo via letters, phone calls and e-mails, has ranged from deeming the cartons “ugly” to expressing outright confusion—some customers passed right by Tropicana cartons on store shelves, mistaking the new packaging for private-label offerings. “What’s evident from my experience and perspective is that key equities of the brand were thrown away for a generic offering, and consumers reacted,” Richards says.

So it’s back to the drawing board (or maybe not) for Tropicana. The old cartons are expected to reappear on store shelves this month. The only remnants of the US $35 million Arnell experiment will be the cute, orange-shaped plastic caps, which will be retained on cartons of low-calorie Trop50. The advertising campaign that’s currently in place will also continue.

Perhaps this could have all been avoided if PepsiCo had sought out real consumer input in the first place.

“When you go back and look at packaging through the ages, especially the power brands that have stood the test of time through decades of changes and consumer trends, they offer a unique insight of how to develop and manage key equities and remain relevant to the consumer of today and tomorrow.”

Edit by NRV

Full article: http://www.brandchannel.com/start1.asp?fa_id=469

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link => The Homa Files Blog

Posted in Mktg - Packaging | Leave a Comment »

“Don’t touch my jug” … Tropicana cans new packaging

April 1, 2009

Excerpted from brandchannel.com, “Packaging: Lessons from Tropicana’s Fruitless Design” by Jennifer Gidman, March 16, 2009

* * * * *

It’s a revamp-gone-wrong tale that has already secured its place in the annals of packaging: PepsiCo retains Arnell Group to redesign its Tropicana Pure Premium orange juice cartons as part of its new ad campaign. Said cartons make their aisle debut in January, minus the familiar straw-punctured orange and sporting a modernized depiction of—well, fresh-squeezed juice. Consumers revolt and demand the old packaging back. Two months and a reported US $35 million later, PepsiCo reverts back to the original Tropicana packaging, straw between its legs (and back on the carton).

There’s nothing unusual about a perennial product revisiting its packaging, labels or logos in an attempt to bring outdated aesthetics up to par with an enduring brand message…But if the brand is still enjoying hefty market share, why putter around with its packaging?

Tropicana has historically dominated number-two Minute Maid in the OJ category. “Sometimes [package redesign] has nothing to do with the business at all—it [comes] down to the new personnel working on the brand, hell-bent on making a mark on their career,” says Dyfed “Fred” Richards, executive creative director for global branding consultancy Interbrand, which also produces brandchannel. “It’s sometimes difficult for brand managers to demonstrate growth of a brand they’re being tasked to manage and grow. But a new package design associated with those changes demonstrates these changes.”

The agencies commissioned for a redesign may also share some of the blame for failed packaging overhauls. “Sadly, many [of these] companies enjoy the design process so much that design for design’s sake takes over, and all reason jumps out of the window for the benefit of a trend or effect they’ve wanted to try.”

With properly ascertained research and consumer feedback.. a brand can, and should, make an informed decision to redesign its packaging or logo.  “If a brand is in a leadership position, then it should be protecting and leveraging those key equities at all times in an effort to reinforce the reasons why it’s the market leader.” Richards says.

All parties involved need to carefully tread the redesign waters. “Understand the brand’s history,” Richards explains. “Talk to and listen to loyal consumers. This isn’t about sticking a pretty label on a box and hoping you win a design award. All the assets of the brand need careful evaluation to find out equity stretch points and equities that are sacrosanct to the consumer. More often than not, you’re not designing for your client, and certainly not for yourself—you’re designing for the consumer.”

Tropicana’s carton conundrum is a compelling story on a couple of fronts. First, there’s the juicy, schadenfreude-esque media obsession—the panned carton was one of the most blogged topics the week of February 23–27, behind only the machinations of President Obama’s new administration, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s New Media Index.

But even more unusual has been the astonishing backlash from a usually silent, brand-loyal contingent, and PepsiCo’s eventual acquiescence to these vitamin C devotees. Feedback on the design, relayed to PepsiCo via letters, phone calls and e-mails, has ranged from deeming the cartons “ugly” to expressing outright confusion—some customers passed right by Tropicana cartons on store shelves, mistaking the new packaging for private-label offerings. “What’s evident from my experience and perspective is that key equities of the brand were thrown away for a generic offering, and consumers reacted,” Richards says.

So it’s back to the drawing board (or maybe not) for Tropicana. The old cartons are expected to reappear on store shelves this month. The only remnants of the US $35 million Arnell experiment will be the cute, orange-shaped plastic caps, which will be retained on cartons of low-calorie Trop50. The advertising campaign that’s currently in place will also continue.

Perhaps this could have all been avoided if PepsiCo had sought out real consumer input in the first place.

“When you go back and look at packaging through the ages, especially the power brands that have stood the test of time through decades of changes and consumer trends, they offer a unique insight of how to develop and manage key equities and remain relevant to the consumer of today and tomorrow.”

Edit by NRV

Full article: http://www.brandchannel.com/start1.asp?fa_id=469

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link => The Homa Files Blog

Posted in Mktg - Packaging | Leave a Comment »