McKinsey’s Lesson for Marketers – Focus Less on Push and More on Pull

For years marketers have used the metaphor of the “funnel” to explain the process consumers go through when making purchase decisions. The theory being that consumers begin their journey towards purchasing a product at the top of a funnel where they have several, if not more, brands on their short list.

As they proceed down the funnel, so the theory goes, consumers become more familiar with the features and benefits of each brand. Ultimately, the funnel narrows and those brands deemed less desirable are rationally and deliberately eliminated by consumers save for the one that best meets their needs and requirements. At least, so the theory goes.

For better or worse, this framework has been at the core of many a marketing plan for a good part of the last half century. The result - marketing plans that almost exclusively focus on pushing messages (or offers, discounts, etc) at consumers at each stage of the funnel with the intent of moving them towards a purchase.

The Consumer Decision Making Process in the Digital Age
Not surprisingly, many have questioned the validity of this model on grounds that it’s overly simplistic, too rational, or that it fails to account for the increasing media fragmentation of the digital era. Now, a new study and report from McKinsey validates these skeptics.

The report, “The Consumer Decision Journey,” issued earlier this week was the output of a study McKinsey fielded that examined the purchase decisions of nearly 20,000 consumers across five industries: automotive, auto insurance, cellular carriers, personal computers and skin care. The key finding: the Internet, the rise of consumerism and a marketplace marked by an increasing array of product options have made push based marketing less relevant and, in many instances, less effective.

http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/The_consumer_decision_journey_2373

The study partially discredits the funnel metaphor and makes the case for a consumer decision making process that is less linear and more bi-directional where the consumer has increasing control over where, when and how they engage with a brand.

But what I find really interesting about the study was the finding that, incredibly, two-thirds of purchase influences during what McKinsey calls the active-evaluation phase involve consumer-driven activities such as Internet reviews and word-of-mouth recommendations from friends and family.

Two-Thirds of Purchase Influences are Driven by Consumer-Driven Activities

In the Digital Age Consumer Outreach to Marketers is More Important

If anything, the study confirms the urgent need for brands to invest less in push-based advertising campaigns, and more in pull-based experiences that deliver relevant and informative brand-to-consumer interactions where decisions are being made.

The obvious places to start would be by delivering more engaging and usable Web and point-of-sale experiences. It’s also clear that leveraging the word-of-mouth power of the social Web should also be at the top of the list.

While there is clearly a continuing place for push-based marketing, an over emphasis on these types of tactics will not only prove ineffective, they might also indicate that a brand is out of touch with its consumers. In an industry where perception is reality what can be worse?

Universal Music / YouTube Deal Could Help Save the Music Industry

Wired magazine reported this week that Google’s YouTube and the Universal Music Group confirmed the launch of their music video collaboration, Vevo.com, for later this year. Think of it as a Hulu for music videos (which, it appears, was the inspiration for Vevo). Revenues will be shared between YouTube and Universal.

The service will be advertising based and will serve up Universal’s music video assets (including artist interviews and concert footage) that will be of higher quality than the standard YouTube fare that is currently available. In addition, it’s likely that YouTube, and eventually AOL and Yahoo, will also have access to Vevo’s video library. Ultimately, the goal is to add other labels to the service as well.

If it works, Vevo would be a significant win for both parties. For YouTube it would mean the end of Universal’s licensing violation claims. And, as a premium YouTube property, Vevo would likely generate premium fees from advertisers. For Universal it would be a solution to their repeated efforts to monetize their music video business.

Music videos have been licensed to YouTube for several years now. But they have not generated the level of advertising revenues that either YouTube or the music companies had hoped for. This is most likely a result of the motley nature of music videos available on YouTube.

Ultimately, Universal (and the whole music industry for that matter) has nothing to lose by this venture. After years of declining record sales and profits caused by the rise of file-sharing, to say the music business is in dire need of new revenue streams is putting it mildly.

Time is Running Out for Newspapers

The next year or two (if it takes that long) will most likely be the beginning of the end for many newspapers if they don’t figure out a way to make money on the Internet.

For instance, last week after 146 years in publication, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ceased operations as a print newspaper, reduced its staff by over 80% and converted to a slimmed down, online only publication.

And the P-I is not the only one. Last month Denver’s Rocky Mountain News shut down completely. And there are a host of other newspapers on the ropes, including the Chicago Sun Times, the Boston Globe and the San Francisco Chronicle to name a few.

Even the mighty New York Times recently had to sell part of its company and seek a $250 million loan from a private investor to help address its financial problems.

Of course, all of these newspapers are grabbling with the same challenge: how do they monetize their content online as more readers move to the Web and information becomes more of a commodity.

There are many ideas floating around about how newspapers can become viable businesses again. Here are a few:

• Make newspaper sites a channel for social media – for example, many papers are using Twitter headline feeds on their sites that are grouped by the sections of their paper to keep readers up to date and engaged with their content
• Publish APIs for independent software developers – the New York Times and a few other papers have taken the lead in publishing application programming interfaces (APIs) that allow software developers to create social media apps using New York Time’s content – for example, here’s a Gmail gadget built using one of the NYT’s APIs:

• Jump on the electronic newsreader wagon by bundling content with the purchase of a reader device – for example, Newsweek Magazine might try to get new Kindle owners hooked on Newsweek's electronic version by giving them a free yearly subscription
• Become more deeply integrated into the communities they serve – for example, the Austin Chronicle has thrived despite being a free weekly by becoming active participants in the Austin music and art scene. For instance, the paper started the South by Southwest Conference in 1987, which has grown into one of the world’s premier music and film festivals

Whatever the strategy, I hope newspapers figure this out; and soon. In my opinion, the role of newspapers in investigative reporting , local news coverage and editorial journalism is too important to leave to the anything goes ethos of the Internet. Sadly, they have had 15 years to figure this out so the prognosis is not too good.

What Would Nokia Do?

I just picked up Jeff Jarvis’ new book, “What Would Google Do?” In the book Jarvis deconstructs Google to determine how other companies can think the way Google does as a means to replicate their incredible success. His premise being that our economy and society have been so altered by the Internet that the old ways of thinking are not only outmoded but counter-productive. To Jarvis what’s needed is a new way; the Google way.

After reading the first chapter I believe Jarvis may be on to something. However, I think there’s another company that has a story that is just as, if not more, compelling and relevant for businesses that are trying to find their way in the current environment. That company is Nokia. Here’s what I mean.

The New York Times reported today that an astonishing 2.6 million jobs disappeared in the last four months – a rate unseen during the post-war era. This dramatic decline led the Times to speculate that the growing job loss “may reflect a wrenching restructuring of the American economy…and that many companies [appear to be]…abandoning whole areas of business.” A depressing assessment, but probably not too far from reality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/business/economy/07jobs.html?em

This reminded me of a case history I read awhile ago about Nokia and how it evolved over the years in response to changing conditions.

Nokia was not always the mobile communications giant it is today. It actually started out as a wood-pulp mill in 1865 and eventually, through acquisition, became part of the Finnish Rubber Company in the early 20th century.

By the 1980s, Nokia was a conglomerate that manufactured an array of wares including, among other things: paper products, tires, footwear, personal computers, televisions and telecommunications equipment. It wasn’t until 1992 that it decided to divest from most of its lines of business and focus exclusively on mobile communications. This was in response to a steep decline in paper prices caused by the deep 1990–1993 recession.

Today, 17 years later, Nokia is the undisputed mobile phone leader with 40% market share, and was ranked last year by Business Week as the fifth most valuable brand in the world (Google was number 10, but closing fast).

If there’s any silver lining to the current gloom it’s that companies and industries can turn adversity into opportunity. I’m sure it won't be easy, but Nokia is proof that with a little bit of foresight and some good timing it can be done.