A Bunch of Chrismas Creep: How Starting the Season Early Doesn't Yield Intended Results

Image from http://oceanswavesbeaches.blogspot.com/

The topic of this posting has been floating around in my head since September when I saw the first Christmas trees and holiday decorations out on display at my local Home Depot store. Ah yes, early fall was my first, 2008 sighting of the infamous “Christmas Creep." According to Wikipedia, “Christmas creep is the commercial phenomenon of merchants and retailers exploiting the commercialized status of Christmas by moving up the start of the holiday shopping season. The term was first used in the mid 1980s.” Every year this exploitation seems to occur earlier and earlier in the season. We see retailers tangling Jack-O-Lanterns and monster masks with evergreens and snow globes, mingling turkeys and pilgrims with nativity scenes. Christmas in November, then October, then September, and now some reports say this year it was extended to August? What happened to Christmas in December??? I mean we all joke about Christmas in July, but the way things are going, maybe next year we'll see just that. Surfing Santas anyone?

As a consumer –and- a marketer, Christmas Creep is one of my biggest marketing pet peeves. And it appears I am not alone. Peruse message internet boards and articles about the topic and you will find massive numbers of consumers complaining about “creeping” retailers. Some threaten not to shop at the first store they see with Christmas decorations up before Halloween or Thanksgiving. One poster writes: “It’s insulting…and they need to be boycotted. It completely ruins any given holidays because the holidays no longer represent a specific time of the year. If Christmas is 24/7 365 days a year, why bother doing anything about it?”

When we think about the marketing reason behind starting the holiday season early, we understand that retailers are attempting to influence consumer buying behavior. For example, last year The New York Times quoted several retailers regarding why they had put out Christmas decorations in October. L.L. Bean's spokesperson stated: "It's safe to say there is always anxiety. [The ad] serves the marketing purpose. It gets people thinking that the holiday is coming." But does it really? Consumers aren’t stupid. They know Christmas falls at the end of December every year, no matter when the retailers put up their decorations. So, with that said, has Christmas Creep really yielded the desired results? Many of us would argue it hasn't done anything other than annoy consumers and dilute the holiday spirit.

-

The National Retail Federation (NRF) conducts holiday surveys every year and defines holiday retail sales as sales in November and December. Looking at past data, today is no different than it has been over the past four years: around 40% of consumers say they’ll start their holiday shopping in October or earlier. Additionally, data collected since 2002 shows ~30% of consumers will have 10% or less of their shopping completed by the second week in December. In other words, people who tend to start early and plan their shopping will continue to do so and the Christmas Creep isn’t convincing holiday shopping procrastinators to start buying presents any earlier in the season. Finally, if we look at U.S. Census data, we see that total retail sales (excl. motor vehicle and parts dealers and food services) for November/December from 1998-2007, have consistently been in the 17% range. If you look at sales from October through December, they’ve consistently been in the 25% range and from September through December in the 33.5% range. In other words, Christmas Creep doesn't appear to be doing much to encourage consumers to spend more or buy earlier.

In March 2006, Wharton Marketing Professor Stephen Hoch wrote about Christmas Creep. "Are consumers going to revolt against it? No. Will it get people in a holiday mood? No; people will get in the holiday mood during the holidays. Does it give retailers a chance to set displays up sooner? Sure. Does it make stores more crowded? Yes. Decorations and special displays tend to make stores cluttered and hard for shoppers to move around." His article also quoted Herb Kleinberger, a partner and retail store practice leader at IBM Business Consulting Services. Klinberger stated: "Jumping the gun too soon can create an emotional pushback. In a certain sense, the consumer has to be emotionally ready to shop, and that may not happen until the weather [becomes colder]." In other words, your panic to turn your store into a Winter Wonderland in August could end up alienating shoppers.

So what should retailers be doing INSTEAD of putting up holiday decorations months before Christmas and calling early-bird sales "Holiday Sales." They should be working to identify some important consumer insights and determine what drives consumer behavior. For example, why do holiday procrastinators behave as they do? Lorraine Cohen, Life Strategist and author of the Powerfull Living blog, notes seven reasons why people procrastinate: Fear of success or failure, lack of desire, no inspiration, loss of momentum and motivation, negative self-talk and beliefs, overwhelmed by too many options, and too many distractions/loss of focus. In other words, a holiday shopping procrastinator is probably someone who can’t decide what they want to purchase, thinks there are too many choices (which causes them confusion and makes them feel overwhelmed), they don’t know where to start, and they don’t like shopping to begin with and are hence delaying the pain by shopping late. Knowing these insights, any decent marketer should be able to come up with ideas of how to appeal to this particular consumer set -and- potentially get them to both spend more money and shop earlier in the season. So with that said, I am personally challenging all you "Christmas Creepers" out there. In 2009, prove to us you know how to execute a pull rather than a push marketing strategy, show the consumer you actually understand them, and finally, quit acting like the people you want to purchase your products aren't intelligent!

To conclude, it's refreshing to see that not all retailers have jumped on the Christmas creep bandwagon. Some of you may recall Nordstrom's 2007 ad: “At Nordstrom, we won’t be decking our halls until Friday, November 23rd. Why? Well, we just like the idea of celebrating one holiday at a time. From our family to yours, Happy Thanksgiving. Nordstrom will be closed Thanksgiving Day. On Friday, our doors will open to welcome the new season.” Their company policy dictates this and I am pleased to report they followed it to a "T" again this year. "Merry Christmas" to that!

Celebrity Endorsements: Do They Work?

Last week, USA Today published an article calling out favorite brands of the Obama family. In the write-up, Bruce Horovitz stated if the president-elect were to advertise the favorite brands of his family(Hart Schaffner Marx, J. Crew, Planters, Fran’s Chocolates, Honest Tea, Nicorette and Ford), these companies would most likely receive an increase in exposure and/or sales. One example he mentioned involved Michelle Obama. "During a Tonight Show with Jay Leno appearance, she [Michelle] wore — and talked about — a $330 outfit she had bought online. Shoppers snapped the look up. 'All the items were gone the next day,' says Jenna Lyons, creative chief at J. Crew." When reading this, I was brought back to an often discussed marketing/advertising question: Do celebrity endorsements really work? And even if they do, are paid celebrity endorsements a good business investment (i.e. is the ROI worth the (most times) extremely high premium)?

In early 2007, innovations report wrote about research conducted by the University of Bath (UK) and University of St. Gallen (Switzerland) on this exact topic. The article noted that research results questioned the effectiveness of using celebrities to sell products since it was discovered “...that many people were more convinced by an endorsement from a fictional fellow student… because many people feel a need to keep up with the Jones’s when they buy.” Furthermore they found that people “...like to make sure their product is fashionable and trendy among people who resemble them, rather than approved by celebrities...So they are more influenced by an endorsement from an ordinary person like them.” Besides this study, Brand Republic reported that some celebrities plugging products may actually turn off the consumer. In an article published in November of last year, survey results revealed “...that one in five mothers said the sight of Victoria and David Beckham plugging something in an ad would be more likely to put them off. Only 16 per cent were prepared to admit that celebrity endorsement would persuade them to buy a product.” Based on these reports, would you spend millions of dollars on a celebrity to advertise your products?

Besides the obviously monetary investment, when companies use celebrities in their ads they also take on the risk of damaging their brand/company/product image. For example:

• Overexposure: If a celebrity is representing too many products or is in too many ads, that person may lose their credibility and/or lose their "turning heads" factor. Also, we may end up tying our brand/product to something we didn't particularly want to be associated. One case of celebrity endorsement over-exposure I can think of off the top of my head is Tiger Woods. Over the past few years he has represented General Motors, Titleist, General Mills, American Express, Accenture, Nike, Tag Heuer, Gatorade and Gillette. I know Tiger is popular, but honestly, do you really listen to him in an advertisement anymore since he's in so many of them?
• Credibility: If your product is not something the celeb representing you would realistically use, then a partnership is probably not the best idea. Keeping with the Tiger Woods theme, a consumer could totally see him using Nike and Titleist products, what what exactly does he have to do with management consulting (Accenture)? Some other examples of bad celeb-product matches? Do you think Jessica Simpson would be caught dead eating greasy pizza in public or could you honestly see Fran Drescher shopping at Gap's lower-end chain? Probably not so much.
• Reputation: We try to control our brand's image, but the fact is, even when a celebrity agrees to our contract terms, we can’t really control what they say or do, and a mis-step could lead to years of damage to our brand(s). For example, many companies could not have predicted the negative publicity Michael Vick would bring upon himself. About.com reported: "Just one day after Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick pleaded not guilty to federal dogfighting charges, companies began distancing themselves from the controversy. Nike suspended its contract with him, Reebok stopped selling Vick jerseys and trading card companies Donruss and Upper Deck removed Vick's card from the rest of their 2007 card pack releases. The NFL also pulled all Vick jerseys, autographed items and other memorabilia from its NFL Shop site."
• Consistent Brand Image: When we put our products out into the market place, it's important we present a consistent image to the consumer. It brings trust and recognition to our brand. However, continually swapping celebrities is one way we can take away that consistent image. One brand I can think of who constantly changes their celebrity image is the Gap. Since the late '80's, Gap has relied on the use of celebrities in their ads with a laundry list of probably 40+ including the likes of Sarah Jessica Parker, Joss Stone, Lindsay Lohan, John Mayer, Mekhi Phifer, Claudia Schiffer, Sarah Silverman, Liv and Steven Tyler, Michael Vartan, Madonna and Brittany Murphy. In August, Marketing Daily quoted marketing consultancy Brand Keys' president Robert Passikoff as saying the Gap has a "sustained problem with brand identity that isn't solved by using stars in ads."

Over the past couple of years it appears more and more companies are realizing consumers may not buy something just because a celebrity face is linked it. Brand Republic commented: “In 2001, 17 per cent of TV ads the company was testing featured a celebrity. Last year, that fell to 8 per cent, and this year it's at 6 per cent." About.com reported on Pepsi dropping celebs from their ads stating the company “...said the celebrities were too big and the Pepsi brand didn't get the promotion out of the ad campaign that the stars were getting." On a similar note, Chrysler dumped Celine Dion after signing a 3-year, $14 million dollar deal with her. "Insiders at Chrysler say the commercials featuring Dion driving a Pacifica produced great sales...for the singer, not the car.”

Corn Syrup's Sticky Situation: Can You Change Consumer Perception?

Have You Heard? Corn Syrup is Good for You!

Alright, so that's probably not the complete truth. We all know high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) isn't the next "health food." But recent commercials released by the Corn Refiners Association attempt to convince consumers that corn syrup in "reasonable amounts" is completely safe. This campaign (www.sweetsurprise.com) according to CRA president (Audrae Erickson), "is designed to correct the record...not a campaign to drive consumption (of corn syrup)" (per AP article posted on MSNBC).

See the commercials:

Commercial Version 1

Commercial Version 2

Corn syrup has faced public criticism, primarily due to studies linking obesity problems to sweetened beverages. Per the Mayo Clinic, "...research has yielded conflicting results about the effects of high-fructose corn syrup. For example, various early studies showed an association between increased consumption of sweetened beverages (many of which contained high-fructose corn syrup) and obesity. But recent research — some of which is supported by the beverage industry — suggests that high-fructose corn syrup isn't intrinsically less healthy than other sweeteners, nor is it the root cause of obesity."

Recently I've written entries about how deceiving consumers can negatively impact a brand. And although I think the corn syrup campaign message is misleading and also don't think it will be completely effective in "re-educating" consumers, I don't plan to turn this into another "what you shouldn't do" entry. What I am going to talk about is how the issue driving this campaign is a realistic marketing problem. For example:

• What do you do if your product/brand has a bad reputation in the public eye – because the consumer is misinformed?
• What does it take to change consumer behavior/perceptions about your brand/product(s)?
• Will an ad campaign like this set consumers straight and be able to re-educate them/make them change their beliefs?
• Is changing perceptions possible when the message isn't consistent? (i.e. various external sources are promoting different “facts” about your product)

Changing the way consumers view a company, product, brand, etc. is one of the largest challenges a marketer will face. It is difficult to break perception since it has been developed over time from a variety of influences – psychographics, knowledge, feelings, family, culture, etc. The good (or bad) new is that perceptions are dynamic, changing as the consumer becomes more or less familiar with things. And thus, as marketers, we try different things to change the consumer's mind. Most of the time we look to the 4-P's: Product, Placement, Pricing, and Promotion. For example:

• Product: Is there a component of the product that is turning off consumers? Should we change the product all-together?
• Placement: Is there any way to re-position the product so it will appeal to a different customer or fit into a different product category?
• Pricing: Sometimes reducing the price will cause a consumer to purchase the product (although many times this may cause a temporary rather than permanent change in behavior unless competition is high and the products in the category don't have many differentiating factors other than price).
• Promotion: You can change the affect a product has on consumers through pairing the product with a desired stimulus or put out appealing advertisements. You can put out advertising or materials that make the product or its attributes a compliment the target consumer's beliefs. You can attempt to re-educate a consumer.
• A Combination of the Above: In an extreme case, some people would say the solution is to "brand, brand, brand." In other words, change multiple "P's"...update your image, release new information, redesign the product's packing, etc.

Now back to the "Sweet Surprise" campaign. The situation facing the Corn Refiners Association is unusual. The issue consumers have is with the product itself. The CRA can't add something to the product to make it more appealing - it is what it is. They also can't sponsor a study proving HFCS is completely safe because first, consumers won't listen to the results (CRA study = self-serving agenda) and second, consumers know corn syrup is not all-natural, it's chemically processed. Further, the CRA isn't able to change the consumer's ideals - you won't be successful in making processed/artificial the new ideal for food when the trend is going towards healthy, organic, natural, etc. Nor will you be able to make a consumer put "being healthy" lower on their list of priorities. Finally, corn syrup faces a non-compensatory consumer strategy. Lars Perner from the Marshall School of Business at USC quotes: “A compensatory decision involves the consumer “trading off” good and bad attributes of a product…Occasionally, a decision will involve a non-compensatory strategy. For example, a parent may reject all soft drinks that contain artificial sweeteners. Here, other good features such as taste and low calories cannot overcome this one “non-negotiable” attribute.”

Based on the television ads, the strategy the Corn Refiners Association has decided to pursue is to attempt to re-educate consumers. However, with all of the negatives mentioned above, what do you think they should do? Maybe it's time for the CRA to come up with a new product to market that actually benefits consumers (Innovation people! Give the people something they do want...consumer tastes have changed!) and give up on the stale, sweetener of yesteryear that is leaving a bad taste in consumers' mouths.

Making Mud Pies: Mudslinging's Impact on Brands and Consumers

Photo: Brand Week

It’s crunch time in the U.S. presidential race and (to no surprise) we find ourselves being exposed to a plethora of political mudslinging. Since big bucks are involved (in 2006, most of the $164M spent on political advertising went towards attacks on the competition (USA Today)), I have often wondered whether or not these ads actually achieve the intended results. Notre Dame Marketing Professor Joel E. Urbany conducted research after the 2004 election and showed political mudslinging could work - to an extent. One article quotes his research: “Negative advertising, in spite of the fact that we don’t like it...can shift opinion...14% percent of those surveyed changed their minds about their favored candidate after watching negative ads.” Additionally, John Geer a political science professor at Vanderbilt University wrote a 2006 book (In Defense of Negativity) about how attack ads actually help the democratic process and can make campaigns more focused and productive. However, in a USA Today article, Ray Seidelman, a professor at Sarah Lawrence College said: "Negative ads only work in two situations — when you are incredibly desperate or when you're incredibly close to the end.” And ND's Urbany has said he is now reconsidering his 2004 study based on the fact that this year the number of negative political ads outnumber the positive ones (he wonders if they will actually have a reverse effect).

Although typically we think of mudslinging when it comes to politics, brands have also used attack ads over the years to try to bring more business their way (or prevent people from purchasing competitors' products). Some of the culprits? Mega brands Miller vs. Anheuser-Busch, Pepsi Co. vs. Coca-Cola, Progresso vs. Campbell’s, Apple vs. Microsoft, and Arby’s vs. McDonald’s and Burger King. Some examples? How about Progresso claiming Campbell's was a child’s brand - a battle that has recently evolved into Campbell's ads attacking Progresso's ingredients (photo above). Then there are "classic" blind taste test ads between Pepsi and Coke. In 2006, many of you may recall Arby’s claiming they used 100% chicken in their sandwiches unlike McDonald’s and Burger King (who only used 70%). And what about the never-ending "I'm a Mac" vs. "I'm a PC" saga? Or who can forget the continual battle of the brewers? Even right now, when some of us may have thought the "low-carb" fad was over, there's an ad for MGD Light 64 that shows someone asking for a Michelob Ultra "64" and the server pouring out half of the bottle of beer. Yes, attack ads have become a staple in modern day advertising. But what do experts say about this practice? What is the impression you’re creating on the consumer? And are you doing your brand image - one that you've spent a lot of time building up - a disservice by resorting to negative advertising? Although there could be a legal/libel risk in bashing your competitor, could you also make your brand less appealing to consumers?

Just last month, David Dunne, a professor of Marketing and Advertising at Toronto’s Rotman School of Management wrote an article about attack ads. He states: “Attack ads work in politics because political campaigns are different from advertising soap or shampoo. Voter psychology, timing and competition make it inevitable that one or both sides will use negative ads during a campaign.” The key idea here is that in political campaigns, people are more likely to distrust politicians and thus believe bad things about them, and that compressed timing works to an advantage. “In business, advertising campaigns are designed to build brand equity over time.” The WSJ reports: "Attack ads, when they get too intense, can confuse consumers. Several years ago, an ad war between SABMiller's Miller Brewing (now MillerCoors) and Anheuser-Busch got so heated that it was hard to keep track of which ad was for which brewer..." And just today, Brand Week posted an article noting expert opinions on the increase in business-related attack ads. They reported this tactic could actually hurt the brands involved and put entire product categories at risk: "If I'm a consumer, all of a sudden, I might say, 'Canned soup might be convenient, but I know it's not as wholesome as soup I might buy at a Whole Foods or gourmet shop,'" said Paul Kurnit, a marketing professor at Pace University, New York." CEO of the Wisner Marketing Group, Jim Wisner stated: "Private labels tend to get a boost when big brands engage in a category battle."

But even with these risks, attack ads are on the rise. A couple of weeks ago the Wall Street Journal reported: "The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, which acts as the ad police, is fielding many more complaints from marketers who believe they are the victim of misleading comparison ads...September also saw complaints jump about 50 percent from last year..." They also wrote that Russ Klein (president of global marketing strategy at Burger King), said "over the next 12 months, the company's customers are going to get a "richer dose" of competitive ads than they have in the past 12." I'm not sure this is the direction companies should be taking.

We all know the big thing currently on consumers' minds is the economy. Since people are feeling down in the dumps about money, I highly doubt a bunch of negative ads are going to encourage them to up their spending. To me, most of these negative ads say "I'm a tattletale" -or- "I'm a big bully." Who ever likes someone like that? I think what consumers want to hear right now instead is "I'm a bargain" or "I'm someone you can trust." For example, a better execution of the Campbell's campaign would be to not even mention the competition. Why? Campbell's claims "consumers are reading food labels 60 percent more than they did a year ago (WSJ)." Through ads solely focusing on Campbell's and their ingredients, they should be able to convince health-conscious individuals to buy their product without leaving a muddy taste in consumers' mouths and possibly degrading their wholesome brand image.

What's YOUR Priority?: The USPS and its conflicting messages

A few days ago I wrote an entry on customer deception - about how some brands were relying on short-sizing to keep product prices constant and help preserve their bottom line. Continuing on this theme, I came across a blog discussing how the US Postal Service is yet another brand deceiving consumers to help out their financial state. Bruce Watson from Walletpop talks about what he calls a scam by the Postal Service. He writes: “In an effort to combat its budget deficit of over $1 billion, the United States Postal Service is, allegedly, trying to upsell its premium services while hiding its less expensive options. According to an anonymous source, the USPS has instructed its employees to stop offering inexpensive shipping; whenever customers come in with anything larger than a letter, employees are supposed to ask if they want Express Mail guaranteed overnight delivery or Priority Mail. If the customer asks about cheaper options, the employee is then allowed to discuss First Class, Parcel Post, or Media Mail. The key element here is that the customer has to mention the cheaper options, as the counterperson can't.”

What I find interesting about Bruce's entry is the fact that just this week, the USPS announced their 5 year strategic plan called “Vision 2013.” Vision 2013 "rests on three major strategies: 1) Focus on what matters most to customers. 2) Leverage our strengths to create customer value and profits to invest in continued improvement. 3) Embrace change in the way we respond to emerging customer needs and a rapidly evolving business environment.” Regarding focusing on what matters to customers, the USPS plans to build on trusted relationships, communicate effectively, start with customer needs, and provide excellent customer experiences. In their words, “being "good enough" is not sufficient to increase customer loyalty and gain new business.”

Although it has a long and enduring brand heritage, it's no secret the United States Postal Service does not have the most sterling reputation. In January of 2006, Brand Channel wrote an article criticizing the brand ("USPS - Return to Sender") stating "presently, a country's postal service is a necessary evil." They noted that "...the brand image of the postal service is largely shaped by its customers' visits to the local post office, and occasional undelivered or late mail." And based on their documented experience (a visit to a Post Office in NYC near Columbia), the brand image was definitely not a positive one.

Since the USPS obviously needs to take some drastic measures to help improve their brand, Vision 2013, seems like it should be a way to help turn around this "brand gone bad." However, I wonder when exactly this 5-year-plan is slated to be kicked into high gear - now or later? If the rumors circulating the internet are true, being deceptive about your product offerings isn’t really a good start. Communicating effectively? Building on trusted relationships? People are going to think this is a joke. Well, then again, maybe it is...and if so, the joke's on us.

Let's Be (dis)Honest: How Short-Sizing Can Impact Your Brand

Vs.
Deception
De*cep"tion\, n. [F. d['e]ception, L. deceptio, fr. decipere, deceptum. See Deceive.]
1. The act of deceiving or misleading. --South.
2. The state of being deceived or misled.
3. That which deceives or is intended to deceive; false representation; artifice; cheat; fraud.
Usage: Deception usually refers to the act, and deceit to the habit of the mind; hence we speak of a person as skilled in deception and addicted to deceit. The practice of deceit springs altogether from design, and that of the worst kind; but a deception does not always imply aim and intention. It may be undesigned or accidental. An imposition is an act of deception practiced upon some one to his annoyance or injury; a fraud implies the use of stratagem, with a view to some unlawful gain or advantage.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. MICRA, Inc. 30 Sep. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deception>.

DECEPTION
Today I decided to talk about something that has been all over the media lately. Consumer deception. In regards to marketing, deceiving the customer is not generally viewed as a healthy practice, or something that gives you any sort of competitive advantage in the marketplace. So why is it many major companies use deception on a regular basis (whether or not they acknowledge they are doing it)? And why would these companies resort to such measures that could have a negative impact on their brand's reputation?

The answer is (surprise, surprise) M O N E Y. Most companies have regular, focused efforts towards cost cutting to help improve their bottom line and keep them competitive in the market place. Although this is a common exercise, in times of economic hardship and rising raw material costs, an organization may struggle to find creative ways to reduce costs without impacting their customers. Since the bottom line becomes the primary focus for survival, when all of the "good" ideas are used up, a company is forced to move on to the “tough choices.” I worked at an automotive company for seven years and am very familiar with the concept of cost reductions – and the fact some decisions are very difficult to make when keeping the end consumer in mind. For example, did you know leather seats in most vehicles aren’t 100% leather? If you have ever see the phrase “leather seating surfaces” or “leather trimmed” or “leather appointed” in regards to seats, that pretty much means the places your back and bottom touch on the seat will be leather, but the backs, lower trim and possibly sides of the seat are made out of vinyl. Through reducing the amount of leather in a seat, the manufacturer is able to save a ton of cost while still providing a durable seat that “appears” to be 100% leather. Is this deception? Definitely. The key here is in the way the seats are described to the customer. The wording doesn't clearly call out that synthetic materials are also used in the seats.

Deception is an embarrassing practice that companies have grown to rely upon. And it’s definitely not something that helps obtain or retain customers. So how often do we as consumers have the “wool pulled over our eyes?” More often than we might think. The automotive leather seats an... just one example. Another? In 2006, there was debate in the meat packaging industry over the use of carbon monoxide to help keep meat look bright red. Consumers were upset thinking this practice was going to "trick" them in to purchasing meat that wasn’t as fresh as it appeared. Recently, we have been reading and watching news reports talking about food companies short-sizing products to help protect their bottom line as the cost to produce products continues to increase. Andrew Martin of the New York Times reported (“Ate a Whole Pint? Check Again”) about a study Consumer Reports had done on this practice. "The magazine surveyed consumers in July and found that 75 percent had noticed that packages were smaller and that 71 percent believed that the main reason for the change was to hide price increases from consumers.”

Short-sizing isn’t a new phenomenom. In January of 2001 (yes, almost 8 years ago), Greg Winter wrote an article entitled “What Keeps a Bottom Line Healthy? Weight Loss.” In it, he discussed how Frito Lay had been putting fewer chips in a bag to help cut costs – i.e. conducting "weight-outs." He stated “It is a subtle way of earning more from everyday products without scaring off price-conscious shoppers, and it is quite legal as long as the package accurately describes what is inside.” But even if the box says how many ounces it contains, is the practice really ethical? Currently, when looking at some short-sized products placed side-by-side to their former model, you can't immediately discern a difference. An Apple Jacks box, for example, is the same height and width but is thinner on the sides and Skippy Peanut Butter looks the same unless you turn over the jar and compare the indentations at the bottom.

The sad thing is not only are these companies being deceptive in their short-sizing, but they aren’t even admitting they are doing something wrong. In fact, many claim these actions have been demanded by the customer. Back in June of this year, ABC 7 News in Arlington, VA conducted an investigation on products that had been short-sized. Kris Van Cleave reported on the following statements from companies. Karen May from Tropicana said the new 89 oz (ilo 96 oz) juice container “makes it easier for any consumer, especially children, to pour a glass of juice.” James Malone, spokesman for Georgia Pacific in regards to Brawny reducing the number of paper towel sheets from 110 to 88 per roll said “It’s a thicker towel…what the research showed us is they (the customer) needed to use fewer sheets per task.” A couple of weeks ago, CNN Money ran a story called the “Incredible Shrinking Cereal Box” They reported “many food companies say their customers accept, and appreciate, the choices they must make to maintain a quality product in the current economic environment." In March, Brandweek quoted Paul Chibe of Wrigley’s with saying that customers wouldn’t mind smaller sized packages of gum because "To them the value goes up because they're getting a better tasting product in a better package. Price is not the way the consumer is looking at this.”

Not too long ago, I remember purchasing cereal that advertised “20% More Free!” at the top of the box. With the latest weight-outs that have been occurring, I wonder why these food companies haven’t been advertising “Now – with 25% less!” OK – I don’t wonder…that’s not something you want to advertise. So if you don’t want to advertise it (or want a bunch of people blasting it all over the web, on the news, etc. when they find out), why do it? Unless you’re talking about a waist-line, most consumers do not think of shrinkage as a good thing. This is America where portion sizes at restaurants are often enormous, fast food meals can be super-sized, and people buy food in bulk at places like Sam’s Club and Costco. So is this practice of short-sizing good for business? Carol Tucker Foreman of the Consumer Federation of America once stated ''If you want to keep faith with the customers, be honest with them.'' As marketers we know sometimes we tend to s t r e t c h the truth. We know that sometimes our ads contain fantasy and dreams, glitter and make-up. We airbrush out flaws. Why? Nothing really looks as good as we want it to and to the customer (we think) bigger, more, flashier is better, right? But is some of this deception harmful to our brands? The answer is a definite “yes.”

Walletpop quoted Harry Balzer of the Consumer Research Firm NPD Group. "People typically spend 10 percent of their income on food and that won't change, he said, so instead they're looking for deals, eating less or changing brands.” So if we think customers may start to switch brands, we panic. We can’t up the price on the current box (we think). So we choose to put less in or change the package so it holds less and see if the customer notices. But when consumers find out about this practice they may feel cheated and start thinking your brand is dishonest. Maybe this isn't the only thing you're hiding from them. Could your plant conditions be unsanitary? Maybe those natural ingredients you list on the box aren’t actually so natural. We know that due to the internet, consumers are now more educated than ever and aren't afraid to share their reviews of products/companies with everyone. So it will be interesting to see, as more and more of these short-sizing actions occur, which consumers will actually bite and which ones will bite back.

When Your Brand is a Teenager - Literally

Alright, so I admit part of this blog entry will border on something you would find on celebrity blogger Perez Hilton's website. But today I wanted to remind fellow "marketeers" of the risk of building a brand tied to an actual person – especially if that person is a teen who is growing up in front of the public eye. Prime example? Disney’s billion-dollar “Hannah Montana” brand.

Sure, many of us business types would love to have the golden touch as it appears Disney has had over the years. They are, first and foremost, very in-tune with their target market(s) and seem to have a knack for taking unknown actors/actresses and turning them into “the next big thing.” Not only this, but they are very good at copying successful models. For example, Disney tends to use a very similar franchise model for popular shows, expanding a lead-character's brand into clothing lines, dolls, DVD releases, novels, bedroom sets, perfumes, board and video games, soundtracks and even McDonald's Happy Meal toys. They've used this model for such characters as Lizzie McGuire, Raven Baxter and now Hannah Montana.

So what's the deal with Hannah Montana? For those of you who don’t have kids and don’t know much about the show, here’s a brief background. Debuting on the Disney Channel on March 24, 2006, Miley Cyrus, the daughter of Billy Ray Cyrus (who also plays her dad on the show) plays the role of Miley Stewart a.k.a. Hannah Montana. Miley lives a double-life, as a teenager (Stewart) and as a rock-star (Montana). If you've ever watched the show, it's definitely not geared towards adults (I'll admit I watched it once just to see what they hype was about and think most adults would find the characters and story lines annoying). But to kids, the allure of being able to change from a normal teenager into someone who is popular and cool is very appealing. In 2006, the show attracted 4 million viewers per episode, growing to 4.4 million viewers per episode in Season 2. Its popularity drove Disney to release Hannah Montana branded products (clothing, jewelry, apparel, dolls, greeting cards, iPod accessories, etc.) in December 2006. And in 2007, Hannah Montana went on tour in the United States, with Disney morphing her from a make-believe TV star into a real-life pop star...one who caused concert venues all over the U.S. to sell-out and tickets to go for over $2500. Hannah's self-titled CD went triple-platinum.

As teenagers grow up, they start experimenting with their own image, interests, etc. Resultantly, tying a brand to a person, specifically a teen, makes it very difficult to keep control over brand image. Hannah Montana is a perfect example of this struggle. Over the past year, there have been several "scandals" involving Miley Cyrus. The first consisted of scantily clad (i.e. Miley wearing only underwear) photos posted on MySpace (later rumored to have been fakes). Then Miley posed for Vanity Fair wearing a bed sheet wrapped around her partially naked torso, outraging parents of fans. Disney had Miley issue a public apology and according to Page Six, a high ranking Disney employee was overheard saying: "You won't be seeing her for a while…The company is keeping her away from events and wants her to keep a very low profile for the next four to six months. They're trying to keep her contained." In an ABC News radio interview mentioned by the New York Post, Hilary Duff (a.k.a. Lizzie McGuire) was quoted as saying, "It's not something that I would choose to do, but if she did them, that's fine. I don't know how her fans would feel about it, but maybe they won't mind." But the point goes back to – this is definitely the risk for a company when banking their brand on a person.

Though Disney has relied on teen-based brands in the past (Raven-Symoné’s Raven Baxter and Hillary Duff’s Lizzie McGuire), a brand image being "scandalized" hasn't really been an issue. Why not? Perhaps it's because the teens playing some of Disney's other successful characters were wise...they knew the business of a brand image, what it means to be a role model and what it takes to appease fans (and their parents). We look at Raven-Symone who at the age of 3 played the role of Olivia on “The Cosby Show.” She then moved on to “Hangin’ With Mr. Cooper” and then to Disney’s smash “That’s So Raven,” a kids show that ran for an almost-unheard-of 4 seasons. Her Raven Baxter character was even spun off - Raven became the lead singer of Disney's hightly successful "Cheetah Girls." Raven-Symoné is now 22 and enjoying a successful career post-Disney which includes a slew of music, TV and movie credits. Throughout her career she has led a pretty low-key life, avoiding the spotlight/gossip headlines and keeps her personal life what it should be – personal. Hilary Duff follows a similar mantra. In an OK! Magazine interview she states: "Everybody makes mistakes, but I just don't think it's for everybody to watch. It comes down to that I want people to focus on my work and I want to have my life completely separate from that."

So back to Miley Cyrus. As of late, Disney appears to have another Hannah Montana brand preservation issue on their hands. Miley, (who recently turned 16), is rumored to be dating Justin Gaston. An aspiring singer who appears as Taylor Hicks' love interest in her "Love Story" video, Gaston is 20 and an underwear model. (I'm guessing the fact that he's 20 and appears in photos half naked won't sit well with parents of teenage girls. What do you think?)

Sure kids need some guidance (so some of this brand image control should belong to Miley's parents). But as we all know, teenagers don’t like to listen - and tend to do the opposite of what we want – especially in cases of dating. So if you were Disney, what would you do? Would you work to hype up the next best thing and hope for the best (i.e. hope these new protegees are more like Hilary and Raven)? Or cling on to the successful Hannah Montana empire for a couple more years, teaching Miley (and her parents) about brand image sustainability (i.e. how she should learn to keep her personal life more personal)? My bet's on the former rather than the latter...