TT, you seem to always get me an interesting topic. :-)

Perhaps there's just too much creativity and too less professionalism in marketing? I love to see "creative" commercials, yet it upsets me very much when I see that there was noone with marketing background behind it.

Take the Sony Bravia sample:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP5J4W5GQ3w

Nice, you have colors. You have money to spend on long commercials with great effects and music. Now... where's the logo? You know, there's a lot of color TV's around today. So while you're communicating yours, customers go to the store and perhaps buy "Sanyo" color tv? :-)

This is just a small sample I think. Marketing is just tooooo often done by "creative" people or programmers. :-) Where's the real knowledge of consumer behavior (memory, learning, contrast, attitudes, effects of fear, joy,...)? Or all the other aspects of marketing (pricing, distribution,...).

As for the product development, that should be part of marketing... I think that's like something we hear here and there. The technologists are still affraid of havin marketing people too near to themselves. :-)

Ted sorry for the TT, it was just too quick typing. :-)))

Right, Dusan: "Perhaps there's just too much creativity and too less professionalism in marketing?"

While creativity is an important aspect of marketing, since it hopefully allows us to make unique, lasting impressions, it isn't the "end all, be all". Creativity comes partly from the gut and partly from our right brain spheres, but as fellow blogger Paul Barsch often points out in his terrific posts: it has to be balanced by real data and insights collected from doing substantive consumer research. Then it has to be analyzed, and that is a left brain function. Bottom line: we need to take a whole mind approach to marketing to be successful, don't we?

Thanks for commenting, Dusan. I appreciate your input and your kind remarks.

Hi Ted, how high is the correlation between impression of my brand and sales? Ex: Article mentions only an aided recall of 37% for Iphone - but sales of iphone are robust and have become a major differentiator for AT&T.

Paul,

In a way, I'm not surprised that the data showed a 37% recall for the iPhone. Think of how bombarded consumers are with new products, and advertising every day. A lot of it gets shut out. But then, something revolutionary hits the marketplace like the iPhone.

iPhone has become a new icon for Apple and a boon for AT&T, as you point out. WOM by iPhone users and Apple brand advocates have spread their absolute love for this product. As president of a design consultancy, you have to know that the Mac and the Apple brand are among my favorites. Just received the iPhone as a birthday gift, and I absolutely love it. People like me, talking to friends at home,at work, and n the blogosphere, make strong, memorable impressions that directly correlate to sales growth among consumers. We are the secret marketing tool for Apple, I guess. . .

Thanks for "asking" such a savvy question, Paul. I appreciate it.

Is it really a failure of marketing or just an overload of data?

My guess is that most people have a difficult time trying to recall something from the last year. News of the iPhone has been out for over a year, even though the launch was about 9 months ago. People may assume it's been around forever, or at least longer than 1 year.

Another aspect may be that people think they have just noticed something and started to use it but didn't recognize it as a product launch. That could explain the popularity, but low recognition of the brand extensions.

Just my 2 thoughts, worth the proverbial $0.02

NW Guy,

I really like this statement because I think it has great validity: "My guess is that most people have a difficult time trying to recall something from the last year."

You're right in pointing out that we all live with data overload these days. That could account for some of the failures with new products out there. I also think, as I stated to Paul, we're so bombarded with messages, we block a lot of them out. Self preservation, I guess. . .

Thanks for adding your $0.02, NW Guy. To me, they were worth much more than that. I appreciate it.

The recollection rate of introductions is poor because the introduction date has absolutely no importance to the shopper, only a discovery and usage date (regardless of time-in-market) is relevant.
I would like to add that the growing volume of private-label products in retail channels has diminished our need to identify and remember brands. Packaging design, improved product quality, and competitive prices have made the purchasing decision easier for shoppers.

Mario,

You make a couple of interesting points. When large companies launch new products, they generally put a lot of advertising and promotion behind them. Thus, they expect to get consumer recognition after a while, and a pop on those products when they debut in the marketplace.

Sometimes, the hype begins long before the products debut to build anticipation.
Long before the iPhone was released, for example, Apple hyped it and the bloggers did as well, to create demand for a revolutionary, and very expensive item. This can help consumer recall substantially.

About private label retail lines: I do agree that if retailers market and position these well, they can develop a great following for their store brands. However, I'm not sure whether these PL brands diminish major national brands and their offerings in all cases. There may be some categories where that is true, especially in the food business, where PL brands are long-established and pretty entrenched. . .but many national brands still carry considerable consumer recognition and clout.

Thanks for adding your insights to the conversation, Mario. I appreciate it very much.

True, I was thinking primarily of CPGs especially within the Food, Drug, and Mass channel where PL is strong and return store visits are high.

For other product categories with higher technical complexity, the brand CAN still carry a lot of value. Car stereos, digital cameras, and cell phones are quick examples. But the importance of branding for flash memory and other electronics that have become commoditized gradually diminishes (with micro-category time in market).

Is the question of brand recognition among new products still relevant? For macro studies, I say no. These reports are published every year and the summary findings and trends are practically the same. Channel complexity and the rise of PL have only made the analysis more difficult. But for those folks who undertake the research challenge, opportunity assessments & strategic placements will be much more fruitful.

• Which new products can you recall from 2007?

I didn't think of any. As NW Guy said, some tech products are hyped to no end (Vista and iPhone from your examples). Unlike the bulk of people on the Internet, I don't buy hype--I buy function and value.

• Were you motivated to purchase a new product last year?

I'm not sure if this is "new" as in something that just came out or "new" as in a new brand or model to me personally.

That said, I believe it was 2007 when I started using Method cleaning products. They've been around for a little while, but I love them and hope to not have to go back.

• What should marketers do to make new products more memorable when there are so many new items hitting the retail stores?

Focus on function, status, and value to cover all the bases. It works, you'll be ahead of the Joneses, and it lasts.

In a world where I block as many banner ads and skip as many television or radio commercials as I can, I'm a freeloader; and as someone in the marketing world I realize there's hardly a captive audience to be found anymore. And I'm okay with that. To me, it means using more brain and less "smoke and mirrors."

Interesting perspective, Mario, and I thank you for shedding more light on your reasoning. As you stated, I think national brand and product recognition are higher in some categories than others. Retail channels are very relevant to any consumer product marketers' endeavors and bear studying. Thanks for pointing that out, Mario.

I always appreciate the fact, Michael, that you take the time to answer the questions I ask in my posts. It's also nice that you're so honest in your replies. Really loved these two statements: "Focus on function, status, and value to cover all the bases. It works, you'll be ahead of the Joneses, and it lasts." You're so right. These are the most important components to launching any and all new products. However, the marketing function is still necessary to get the word out. Static advertising doesn't do it all by itself. A mix of interactive media along with conventional advertising is being increasingly experimented with. In fact, I just discussed this issue in my latest marketing article in last week's MP newsletter. Did you happen to see it, Michael? I'd love your take on it, also, if you have a minute or two to read it and opine. Thanks for commenting here, Michael. I appreciate it.

No problem, Ted. I always appreciate the fact that you respond to nearly every comment individually and value my opinions even though they are usually in the minority.

I do realize that static advertising is not enough today, but I think the message still needs to be function, status (for lack of a better word), and value. When an entire 30 second spot is dedicated to the look of an HDTV, for example, it does no good to me. And I'm not saying spout out contrast ratios, but explain briefly in layman's terms how your HDTV is the best for the consumer you're targeting. Sony would be 1)status 2)function 3)value. Vizio would be 1)value 2)function 3)status. Same benchmarks, different message, different target.

Actually I have not read your MP newsletter article, as I'm not on the mailing list. If you'd like to email it to me, I'd be more than happy to read it. My email address is on my about page.

Michael,

Everyone's opinions, yours included, are valued, whether we always agree or not. I find everybody has a unique perspective, experiences and insights that add substance and interesting conversation to the posts.

You can access the new article at this link:
http://www.marketingprofs.com/8/blurring-lines-between-advertising-entertainment-mininni.asp. If you get a chance, please read it and let me know what you think. Thanks again, Michael.

Ted,
I read the article; do you want me to hijack this post, or do you want me to shoot you an email?

Since the subject matter of the article dovetails nicely with the post today, by all means "hijack" the post, Michael. I think your comments might be of interest to many Daily Fix readers.

Well Ted,
It completely depends on your market, but I'd say blogging is the best of the advertainment options you mention.

The reason for this is blogging allows the flow of ideas in both directions. As they say (and this is why I call my blog Marketer Synergy) "two heads are better than one." So if you get people commenting, all of a sudden you've got a brainstorm that you can harvest. And a blogging community is the best focus group, because in focus groups people tend to only say what you want to hear for the first little while. On the 'net, it's honest (sometimes brutally honest and sometimes just brutal, too). Now, with the blog you have the option to add those other advertainment features you spoke of.

Videos and podcasts are an easy extension of blogs. Take the Daily Fix for example, there are a few podcasts a week and videos with interviews as well. I tend to think, however, that it's too much effort to pod- or vodcast nearly daily. It also makes your content more about YOU than about the consumer. And it's really easy to click to the next page (there's no captive audience on the Internet). And that's why I think podcasts and videos should be support material as opposed to primary material.

The games, to me, are for a completely different target audience. As you point out, they can be very lengthy (and expensive) to develop. A properly executed game could be HUGE. But because of their high "activation energy" they are not for the small businesses. And blogging (with the organic search results it creates) is a great equalizer for local businesses to compete with conglomerates.

You make some very salient points, Michael. I think blogs are most effective when companies really show they are interested in unbiased opinions from consumers. And when they honestly respond to any negatives that might arise, with an open-mindedness, and a willingness to address potential problems. Likewise, smart companies have developed and/or redesigned products and services based on blog communications. When this happens, it's a win-win scenario.

These other forms of social media have relevance, and if they are well thought out and utilized, they can be a boon to business. Podcasts and videos don't have to be generated on a daily or even weekly basis. I do think they can be effective tools because people respond to human beings engaging in conversation on topics that are relevant to them. Games are great for kids, especially, and since kids are growing up in a highly interactive generation, they respond to them in a big way. As is the case with any marketing initiative, these are tools that can add substantially to building company-customer relationships. The key is to develop them with a real strategy and plan in mind. Otherwise, they will represent wasted expenditures and lost opportunities. Thanks, Michael, for adding to the conversation with your insights.

Some launches aren't coordinated properly, so consumers can't remember when the product became available. Tide Free HE was in high demand from certain consumers across the country, and customers were complaining on the Tide message boards it wasn't available. It took more than a year after launch for some consumers to find it in grocery stores and discount chains.
It isn't uncommon for grocery store shoppers to have coupons for new products, which have substantial discounts that are unusable because local stores don't or can't stock the product until after the coupon expires. The manufacturer almost seems to be trying to use customers to buy the shelf space for the product by having them ask about it.
Sure, it is possible to call the manufacturer and receive a better replacement coupon without an expiration date. I don't bother any more.
If the distribution network and the advertising network aren't coordinated, why should I invest time or money shopping for the company's product?

Barbara,

Interesting point: "The manufacturer almost seems to be trying to use customers to buy the shelf space for the product by having them ask about it." That is definitely true in some cases. However, Tide--as an example you cited--is a major Procter & Gamble brand. As such, the power of the Tide brand--it owns just over 50% of total laundry detergent category sales--would have "forced distribution" into supermarkets. The strength of the Tide brand ensures placement at retail. What likely happened in the case of the highly demanded scent-free detergent was that P&G was late getting it to market. That could have been a result of product manufacturing delays or some other obstacle. At any rate, demand surely rose during that period, and probably a bit of aggravation, too, as consumers repeatedly looked for it in the retail stores without being able to find it. At any rate, I'll say this: when manufacturers have built demand well in front of a new product's release, it has a much better chance for success in the marketplace. And, it will be memorable, unlike so many other new products. Thanks for adding your excellent thoughts to this post, Barbara. I appreciate it.