Was the Featherbone Parlor a forerunner of NikeTown and the Apple Store?

There’s a myth that Millennials don’t like marketing and are indifferent to brands.

The reality is, as my friend Rishad Tobaccowala reminded me last week, that Millennials are ‘besotted with brands‘.  While that may seem like a strong choice of words, he isn’t far off the mark. It’s easy to engage a Millennial in a conversation about brands.  They love to talk about what their favorite brands are doing, as the buzz about Old Spice Guy and Nike’s World Cup marketing attests.  They understand the ‘language’ of brands and the role they play in communicating about culture. And many choose to friend or follow their favorite brands in social media so they can stay up to date on the latest news or provide their feedback. Insider information about brands is strong social currency.

What Millennials actually dislike is interruptive advertising.

This is traditional advertising that is designed to appear everywhere and anywhere, irregardless of context, without personalization, with the single goal of gaining awareness and conveying an idea that may or may not have any relevance to the person seeing it at the moment.  This type of advertising is becoming less and less effective because Gen Y (and others) don’t see any reason why they should put up with it and — and don’t.

As marketers look for new ways to engage empowered consumers, ironically they are returning to the origins of marketing.  Marketers are finding ways to add value that may have nothing to do with purchase, but everything to do with making consumer’s lives more informed, more interesting, or more convenient. This is marketing that aims to get noticed, even engaged with, by promising that the marketing itself will improve consumers’ lives.

The book having the greatest impact on my thinking at present is Bob Gilbreath’s, The Next Evolution of Marketing: Marketing with Meaning. Gilbreath points out that there’s nothing new about thinking about brands as offering real service and real value independent of purchase. He points out that David Ogilvy’s first ad for Guinness was a reference guide to selecting oysters. The 100-year-old Michelin guide was originally a travel guide for car owners in France ‘complete with information about auto maintenance, lodging, restrooms, and restaurants’ that created awareness for its tires and emboldened consumers to take to the roads.  Betty Crocker cook books helped consumers try new recipes and gave them confidence in the kitchen.

Gilbreath believes that the answer to today’s challenge of consumer avoidance of ‘interruptive’ marketing tactics is to return to meaningful approaches like these  that connect brands more directly to their target audiences.

I think he’s right. We could learn from these old school marketers. Here’s another example, dating back to the 1880’s. Warren Featherstone was the inventor of the ‘featherbone stay’, a replacement for whalebone stays in corsets created from by-products from the manufacture of feather dusters. Featherstone knew a thing or two about branded utility and community building.

“Featherbone Parlors were established in major cities and fashion shows were held to demonstrate the latest uses of featherbone to customers. With changing fashion styles, Warren kept adding new products and promotional campaigns. Featherbone bustles, bust extenders, featherbone-stiffened fabric, different weights and widths of feather bones, collar and belt foundations were among the new features offered. Promotions included instruction booklets and in 1893 Warren began publishing the Featherbone Magazinette for distribution to dressmakers and retailers plus advertisements in Ladies Home Journal and other women’s magazines. To further reach the home market and dressmaker, Warren patented and market a featherboning attachment for the home sewing machine in 1895. This 3-1/8″ long attachment mounted on the bed of the sewing machine and aided in the insertion of featherbone or stay.” – http://www.fabrics.net/joan905.asp

Think of the ‘featherboning attachment’ as an app and the ‘Featherbone Parlor’ as a 19th Century Apple Store, you can see just how far, or little, we’ve come from those early days.  But there’s more. Warren Featherbone also understood the power of philanthropy. In 1917 he “acted on his vision to help create a better world for future generations by establishing the Warren Featherbone Foundation.” The foundation was intended to establish new methods for everyday people to engage in philanthropy. and led directly to the donation of properties for parklands and wilderness areas in the State of Michigan, known as Warren Dunes State Park and Warren Woods.

As we move from an interruptive model to an engagement model for marketing and brand building, brand strategies will also need to evolve, and perhaps what was old will be new again.

Marketers are investigating the power of  ’branded utility’, ‘community building’, ‘user generated content’ and new forms of ’cause marketing’ as means for adding value and meaning to their brands.

We may look back and see the ‘Mad Men’ era of mass media as the exception, not the rule in the evolution of marketing.

For some great examples of campaigns that made participation the goal, see “Five Fantastic  Campaigns that Put Digital First” by Jim Nichols of Catalyst.

However, difficult it is, new research from Syncapse suggests that recruiting customers to a Facebook fan page may be a goal worth pursuing. The research shows fans are much more valuable than other users and put a dollar and cents value on the difference.

They concluded,  ”A fan base is a self-segmented group of highly valuable customers“.

Syncapse used a combination of a 4000 member survey  and “in-depth proprietary research and data analyses of two-years available data across millions of interactions, Syncapse was able to compare the worth of a fan relative to non-fans for the top 20 brands on Facebook –Nokia, BlackBerry, Motorola, Secret, Gillette, Axe, Dove, Victoria’s Secret, Adidas, Nike, Coca-Cola, Oreo, Skittles, Nutella, Red Bull, Pringles, Playstation, Xbox, Starbucks, and McDonald’s. Results are broken out by brand and results vary a lot across and even within brands. Yet the overall pattern is clear. They conclude Fans were found to spend more on products, be more loyal, are more likely to recommend the brand to a friend:

Syncapse has observed that an average fan may participate with a brand ten times a year and will make one recommendation. But, an active fan may participate thirty times and make ten recommendations. The impact this has on fan value is quite dramatic. In the case of Coca-Cola, the best case for fan value reaches $316.78 but is $137.84 for an average fan. In the worse case scenario, a fan is worth $0. This degree of variability in the value of a fan must be a major consideration in determining how brands address different types of fans in efforts to move them up the value ladder. In short, the goal must be to reduce fan variability while moving the average fan value to the active end of the range.

Before you can ‘move customers up the ladder’, you have to encourage them to join in the first place.

Research shows that fanning a brand is all about content. 67% join to get news or product updates, 64% to get promotions and 41% to view or download music or videos. This is consistent with research I heard presented yesterday at iMedia Brand Summit by the Online Publisher’s Association (OPA) which indicates online users spend 40% of their time on content.

The second most important reason for friending a brand is to interact with the company or other users.  36% say they friend a brand to ‘submit opinions’ and another 33% say they want to connect with other cusotmers. Again the OPA study confirms this insight – 28% of online users’ time is spent on ‘community’ activities.

While this data is about fans and brands in general, it is especially true of Millennials. Gen Y joins brands to gain social currency (content and offers) and to interact with the company and other fans. Paul Parkin of SALT branding in San Francisco was interviewed recently by MediaPost on the subject of Gen Y and their ‘trust’ for brands. The article was widely tweeted for its insight that Millennials trust ‘channels’ over brands (“Fickle Gen Y Trusts Channels over Brands“). Farther down in the article, he commented on the need for Gen Y to interact.

Q: How important are demographics?

A: In some ways, very. Baby Boomers have one set of expectations of brands, and an idea of what it means to trust them. Gen X is quite different. In many ways, they are the brand generation. They latched onto powerful brands that emerged in the 1980s and ’90s, and if you asked most people in that group to name 10 brands that define them, they could probably do it. Gen Y is completely different — they want to multitask, and are much more into “we,” in the sense of collaboration. They want to interact with companies, and with each other.

This conclusion fits with everything we know about Millennials.  The key to attracting brand friends may be primarily promotions and content, but to retain Gen Y fans, its essential to let them speak out to the company and to each other. A brand fan page is really a platform for a conversation, a modern day ‘salon’. The brand hosts the salon, but if it is wise, will ensure that it’s really more about the guests than about the host.

Readers of this blog may be surprised to hear me advocate for non-age specific branding! Yet the most successful brands are in fact ‘for the ages’.

Study after study of the strongest brands among Gen Y reveal very few that are specifically designed for them — I can think of only a few: Van’s, Herbal Essence. Even Facebook is for everyone now.  Favorite Millennial brands like Apple, Nike, Jet Blue, Trader Joe’s, Coach, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola, to name a few, have multi-generational appeal.

Millennials don’t particularly like brands that overtly go after their specific demographic.  (See earlier blog posts: “Gen Y discusses the iconic brands of their generation” and “Why Aren’t there more iconic Gen Y brands?“) When brands try to act cool, they end up looking like an uninvited guest — out of place and uncomfortable.

We know that reaching a Gen Y target requires a different approach than traditional media and messaging as usual. They are hard to reach, connected, have high expectations of personalization and interactivity and are highly suspicious of any claim to superiority. In contrast, they consider ‘iconic brands’ that have withstood the ‘test of time’ to be uncontrived and authentic. They are more trustworthy.

Marketing to ‘everyone’ is, as every marketing student knows, a recipe for disaster. Gen Y is a special and different target audience. But in a remarkable turnabout, they may in fact be the new mainstream.  There is a remarkable convergence happening, and marketing to Gen Y actually has more resonance with other demos than vice versa. It was not always this way. The youth target traditionally was the ‘niche’, and 25-49 was the mainstream. Now, with Gen Y trends rapidly migrating across demographic lines, what works for youth is  likely to work for older age groups, as well.

Gregg Lipman makes this point quite eloquently in his recent Ad Age article, “What Generation Gap?” (June 4, 2010).

“We see this not only in the video-game world, but also in other brands: moms and daughters with matching Ugg boots, Juicy Couture sweatsuits, Abercrombie hoodies and Coach handbags. Fathers and sons comparing fantasy football rankings on matching iPhones or killing precious productivity hours on YouTube. Teachers and students sipping from matching Starbucks latte cups or ordering the same items from Pinkberry. Moms and daughters rooting feverishly for their favorite “American Idol” contestants or shaking their heads in utter disgust at the shameless and hygienically dubious conduct of the latest batch of “The Real World” participants. Moms and their adults friends, with or without their daughters, attending Jonas Brothers concerts, or standing in line for midnight premiere showings of the brow-furrowing fest that is the “Twilight” franchise. Aunts and nieces perusing the same Kiehl’s or MAC products. Uncles and nephews cracking open cans of Red Bull. Grandparents, parents and their children conversing freely on Facebook or Skype.”

Jonas Brothers? Really? Yet I agree with Lipman’s central argument that brands should aim to transcend age categories, by going after Gen E (Everyone). I also agree with his conclusion about how it should be done –  by focusing on the ever narrowing cultural gap between Millennials and their Gen X and Boomer counterparts.

“These companies [iconic brands] have successfully created branding stories that resonate across a spectrum of ages because they have largely ignored age-based demographic “insights” as they were, and instead focused on harnessing societal (the blurring of the generation/cultural gap) and technological (the desire to be ever more connected) trends to their benefit….Appealing to Generation E requires a massive shift away from the standard “What are they looking for in a product?” to “What does this brand say about me as a person?”"

The key sentence here is the importance of is basing a brand’s appeal on something greater than the product attributes that have traditionaly formed the foundation of brand strategy. Successful brands are becoming more culturally-driven than attribute driven.

Marketing to Gen Y today — and Gen E tomorrow– is more about organizing content and conversations around common interests and passion points than about message points.

This trend has important implications for research and brand strategy.  While traditional research still has a place, there is a greater need for understanding customer interests beyond the category or even ‘lifestyle’.  Social media offers a new way to strategically differentiate a brand and build customer relationships by shifting the focus of the conversation on shared purpose and common cause.  And isn’t that the definition of community, anyway?

Lipman concludes his article by saying “We don’t think that the generation gap will ever totally disappear, and that’s probably a good thing, but in this age of hard-core partisanship, perhaps we as marketers can soften the rhetoric between the generations and create stronger brands at the same time.”

Or said another way, perhaps ‘purpose‘ provides a clue as to how to make a brand ‘ageless‘?

Many companies are still deciding whether to redirect marketing spending, and more fundamentally, whether it offers a new platform for brand differentiation.

There are three tests for determining whether a new idea is a fad (something people talk about) or a real change (something people actually do).

1. What is driving it? Real trends are more likely to be supported by underlying changes in demographics, values, lifestyle or technology, not just pop culture, fashion or media

2. How accessible is to the mainstream? How much of a change in habits is required?  How high are the barriers or costs in time and money?

3. How broadly based is it? Is it expressed across more than just a few categories or groups?

By these standards, social media is a fundamental change in how brands connect with customers. The underlying drivers are solid. Millennials, the first wave of adopters, represented a significant shift in demographics and values.  Accessibility requirements were met via rapid broadband penetration and low prices or even ‘free’ access. And the rapid spread from young adults to near ubiquity across geographies, generations and cultures suggest it has utility beyond a niche.

A new Razorfish Outlook report reveals that social media represents just 4% of their client’s average media spend (although they acknowledge this may underrepresent the investment since much of the cost is in labor).  A joint study by Facebook and Nielsen that covered over 800,000 users, 70 advertisers and 125 campaigns concluded that Facebook advertising provides measureable lift in such key brand measures as Ad Recall, Brand Awareness, and Purchase Intent. “Homepage ads increased awareness of the product or brand by 4% on average, but exposure to both homepage ads and organic ads increased awareness by a delta of 13% versus the control group.” With results like this, you would expect many brands to be rushing to take advantage of ‘earned media’ impressions to be gained through social media.

Whether marketers should be spending more is the question. The answer depends on whether you see social media as just another tactic or as a new strategic brand building tool.

The methods of brand building have always been dynamic.  Regis McKenna, an early pioneer in high tech marketing, writes “the discipline of marketing — if one can call it a discipline — change with new generations and eras of technology.”

We have come a long way from the days of Unique Selling Propositions and product performance-based brand strategies. In the 80′s, user lifestyle and brand personality became a recognized way to create differentiation for brands that offered no inherent product-based differences, such as apparel, luxury goods, soft drinks, cosmetics. Then companies like Apple, Dell, and Nike showed how a distinctive customer experience based on better design, user experience and customer service could also offer powerful ways to build a strong, differentiated brand.

As each new innovation was explored, brands learned how to borrow from these new ‘toolkits’ to strengthen their own position, even if the basis of their differentiation (product, lifestyle, etc.) remained the same. Social media may in fact represent the latest in the evolutionary line of brand building approaches.

The goal is still the same – a differentiated, strong brand. Social media offers a new toolkit for reaching that goal. The question facing many brands now is whether to adopt that toolkit. Social media has proven to be an especially powerful way to reach Gen Y due to their greater comfort with technology and passion for customized experiences. But is it the best way? Who benefits most? And when is it most appropriate?

The first step to answering these questions is to first define what we mean by ‘social media’.  David Teicher, Social Media Manager & Digital Strategist at McCann-Erickson, has suggested the term ‘social media‘ is not all that useful (“There’s no such thing as Social Media”, 1.5.10). He proposes “we stop using the term social media (though, we can still discuss social networks, platforms, or vehicles), and start referring to living, breathing, evolving dynamic media, because that’s what it is.” To Teicher, it is this dynamic aspect that makes social media so powerful:

“…every time I retweet an article or show a friend a funny video, or post a product review or campaign analysis on my blog, I’m not just restating existing content – I am reconstructing it, which is so much more impactful than simple reiteration. Furthering its spread, yes, but irrevocably altering it in the process, and thus making it my own.  And when I, or more importantly, when consumers can claim partial ownership of content – such materials become more influential over behaviors, both social and commercial. …The key is to provide users, consumers, with inherently moldable content, subject matter that can exist on its own – that has innate appeal – yet is receptive to reshaping and reinterpretation, along with the tools to do so, so that consumers can take branded content and create something personally meaningful from it.”

Dynamism is precisely what makes ‘social media’ a challenge for brand marketers. Strategists are accustomed to thinking in terms of key messages and themes, not content that can be adapted and molded. How can social media be considered a brand building tool, when you literally have no control over what is being said?

Social media is more about the time and place (context) and favorability (sentiment) of the message than than the content.  For brand marketers, this represents a fundamental challenge — how to build a brand by putting the focus on affinity as a means rather than an end. This is particularly challenging as ‘affinity’ is not even defined necessarily in terms of the brand as it is in CRM (think Harley clubs), but instead in terms of what the consumer wants to talk about. The focus is on ‘resonance’ not on the underpinnings of image, benefits or attributes.

This approach to brand building is not for the faint of heart. It requires a dedication to understanding users and potential users in a deep way. It means turning the focus away from the brand and onto customers and potential customers, giving them opportunities to take brand content and make it their own. As Teicher puts it, “consumers are producers too.”

“People don’t want to create content from scratch. We live in the heart of remix culture. Intrinsically valuable materials need to be provided to consumers, accompanied by both the means to impart a personal, individualized meaning – the added value, be it emotional, contextual, cultural, or otherwise – and the tools to easily share their product.”

The brands that seem to be experiencing the most success with this approach  put the tools for self-expression into the hands of their customers, rather than relying on viral videos or gimmicks. Here is a list of the top 10 brands on Facebook, according to number of fans, excluding Facebook itself which is the leader with over 9 million fans.

#2 Starbucks 7,266,488 Fans

#3 Coca-Cola 5,567,046 Fans

#4 YouTube 5,114,322 Fans

#5 Red Bull 3,727,372 Fans

#6 Disney 3,488,088 Fans

#7 Victoria’s Secret 3,470,724 Fans

#8 Converse 2,749,691 Fans

#9 McDonald’s 2,270,109 Fans

#10 H&M 2,062,377 Fans

#11 MTV 1,924,744 Fans

A visit to each of these pages reveals that each of these brands uses social media to give their customers a voice. The conversation is less about the brand than about shared interests or passion points. None of these brands is using social media as its only brand building strategy, but social media is providing an extra dimension of differentiation, above and beyond what they are able to do with a product, lifestyle or user experience approach alone.

My conclusion is that dynamic social media may in fact represent a new way to build a brand, but will not replace other methods as the primary means of differentiation for some time.

Instead it offers an additional layer of differentiation, particularly for brands that have already set themselves apart via a more classic brand strategy approach, it is a potent new tool and one that should not be ignored, particularly if the answer is ‘yes’ to any of these three questions:

1. Does your brand target Millennials?

2. Does your brand share significant passions with its target that are not directly related to the brand’s key performance characteristics or image such as a cause or environmental interest?

3. Does your brand connect with its customers primarily at the corporate rather than product level? (i.e., span multiple products or have an evolving product offering?)

First, a word about the methodology. One hundred five iconic brands were rated by a panel of 448 people, with an average age of 28.5 and . The sample included individuals from 45 countries including the U.S. (68%) and was limited to respondents who are on a ‘trajectory to earn more than $100,000 in the short-term and double their income within the next five years.” The questions used to determine rank included awareness and ‘sentiment’ (unspecified).

The survey  revealed that Gen Y men and women both admit to being “brand conscious” (65% of women and 61% of men). However they only consider a few brands to be ‘epic’ — although it’s not clear what this means exactly. Many more fall into the classifications ‘whatever‘, ‘tired‘ or ‘off the grid‘.

The top ten ‘epic’ brands for women are heavily weighted toward high end fashion and hotels:

1 Chanel (Fashion)

2 Ritz-Carlton (Hotels)

3 Four Seasons (Hotels)

4 Marc Jacobs (Fashion)

5 Cartier (Watches & Jewelry)

6 BMW (Auto)

7 Mercedes-Benz (Auto)

8 W Hotels (Hotels)

9 Prada (Fashion)

10 Audi (Auto)

The list for men is focused on Auto and Hotel brands:

1 BMW (Auto)

2 Ferrari (Auto)

3 Porsche (Auto)

4 Lamborghini (Auto)

5 Audi (Auto)

6 Aston Martin (Auto)

7 Four Seasons (Hotels)

8 Mercedes-Benz (Auto)

9 Ralph Lauren (Fashion)

10 Ritz-Carlton ( Hotels)

The report gives special kudo’s to Fashion brand, Marc Jacobs, and Audi for their efforts to engage Millennials with its brand through Foursquare and other social media.

It’s not that ads aren’t welcome in social media, they just don’t register.  Beyond just not getting attention, some students say Facebook ads can be a nuisance. In the words of student, George C, “The consumers’ tolerance for pestering advertisements on social networking sites is relatively small.”

The results of an intriguing research study by neuromarketing firm, NeuroFocus, revealed Facebook ads can not only be effective, they can be more effective than TV advertisements.

The commercial tested was “Trip For Life,” part of VISA’s multimedia campaign built around the 2010 Winter Olympics. (Click here to see the ad tested) Neurofocus conducted these tests for its own research purposes, not because they were commissioned by the advertiser, which lends extra credibility to the findings.  The results were surprising. Facebook ad placement outperformed the TV and web site performance on overall effectiveness, purchase intent (tied with TV), and messaging. The only place TV was a clear winner? Brand perception.

Intrigued, I asked my students a follow up question, “What companies, products, and services do you think would benefit from advertising on Facebook or MySpace.com?”

Not surprisingly, students were most likely to indicate apparel brands and retailers. Their reasoning: These brands are available online and already familiar to young adults.  Other frequently mentioned categories were technology, educational institutions and movies/entertainment.

Alex I: “Companies or organizations that should consider advertising on Facebook and MySpace could include: Universities, employment websites such as Monster.com and clothing stores with online shopping capabilities such as Nordstrom and Nieman Marcus. A study done by the New York Times indicated that 45% of the individuals using social networking sites were also likely to make a majority of certain purchases such as clothing and electronics online as well.”

Katie H: “Food products and clothing retailers would be good companies to put their ads on the social sites. These products rely on ad frequency to remind people to purchase the goods. The clothing industry also uses positive peer advertising to get customers. When people see a clothing line on a social site that millions of their peers use, they will be more willing to purchase the products, too. Coke, American apparel, NIKE, Inc, and American Eagle have used Facebook and other social sites to advertise to their target markets.”

Nneka E: “Nike and other shoe stores that sell common shoe brands and styles would be great advertisers for social netowrking sites because they are already popular amongst consumers. If a consumer sees a creative advertisement for a shoe style that he or she is interested in, they can go online to nike.com to place their order befcause chances are they possibly already own one pair of Nikes or are at least familiar with the sizing. Pouplar clothing store for all age groups would also be a great category for social netowrk advetising. Popular stores for men and women such as Express, Victoria’s Secret and Forever21 can benefit in a way similar to Nike.”

Sarah C: “I think the companies that would most benefit from advertsing on Myspace or Facebook would be companies that provide online products or services such as games or shopping and companies selling music or promoting bands and artists. These types of products are easiest for online customers to access after seeing an advertisement.”

Jackie B: “Companies that would benefit from advertising on Facebook or Myspace are those that meet the wants or needs of the 14-25 age group. These companies could include cosmetic products like ProActive, technology companies like Apple, other websites like SparkNotes and upcoming movies.”

Some students indicated that interest in Facebook or MySpace ads could be enhanced by targeting messages to specific interests:

Veronica B: Companies can use the location, interests, and relationship status of individuals to advertise their products and services. For example, local college and universities can advertise to students based upon their recorded location. Dating services, travel and resort agencies, airlines, banks and credit card companies, music groups and concerts, and electronics companies can greatly benefit by advertising to younger individuals based upon their recorded interests.”

Danielle D: “Some companies and products that I think would benefit from advertising on Facebook or MySpace are music companies and band promotions, Apple’s iPod, television shows and movie promotions, political events and campaign promotions and sports promotions. I also found that Facebook targets to college students that can be specific to their universities through scholarship promotions, storage unit promotions, airline promotions, “ND Off-campus housing.”

A few students indicated that Facebook has the added benefit of peer to peer advertising, although others indicated this could be ‘creepy’ or off-putting:

Alex K: “One major benefit of Facebook is that it can promote a product in the user generated content section if a user’s friend becomes a fan of the product. This creates a word of mouth added benefit.”

Parker K:  ”Some companies are encouraging happy patrons to write testimonials about the product on Twitter and Facebook. With the advent of Twitter posts being displayed in Google searches, this may be a brilliant plan. If an advertisement does its job of piqueing interest, the positive testimonial can come in to finish the task, instilling desire and action.”

Tim G: “Advertisements on Facebook can be tailored to the interests that you have posted on your profile, making for a much more personalized experience with a company. However, this experience can sometimes not only be creepy, but off-putting. Advertisements for “Cute Cathlolic Singles near Notre Dame!” do not appeal to most individuals. The best advertisers will match you to your interests without the consumers’ knowledge.  An ad on Facebook saw my passion for soccer and asked if I wanted better soccer coaching. The ad was personalized for me, but was not overbearing.”

Nick G: “Advertisers should consider tailoring ads to consumers based on their interests to draw more attention to the products or services to be advertised.  Banks and investment companies like Chase and ETrade might benefit from advertising on the social networks as well to attract more consumer loyalty by using relationships, e.g., my friends do their banking at Chase, so I will too.“

Finally one student suggested that the more the ads look like the content that students are on social networks to see in the first place, the more effective they will be.

Claire K: With each of these different products and services, their choice of promotion should include some type of media to watch or listen to rather than requiring clicking through to another website. Viewers are on the social networking sites in order to view media and content in the first place and have no intention of searching for products by going out of their way to surf through a website.  By using fun media that entertains the viewers as well as informs them of a product or service, companies can create an interest or buzz about the product. These areas or products and services are also similar and related to the media that users are viewing on the social networking sites to begin with.“

I read these responses as permission for at least some advertisers to experiment with advertising on Facebook, albeitly cautiously, and in the most targeted possible way.

While Gen Y may not welcome ads on Facebook and Myspace, they do think some advertisements are appropriate and relevant, especially if they offer an immediate way to follow up on the interest by clicking through to a web site or learning more about the product or service. Another way to add relevance is to offer entertainment value.

Photo by Shakirah Shakirah

Jim Nichols (aka @catalystjim) is an expert marketer and Senior Partner  at Catalyst SF. On Monday, Jim  gave me a flattering ‘shout out’ on iMediaconnection. Now it’s my turn to return the favor. His insightful article, “Digital Demographics: 11 Brands That Are Doing It Right” spotlights eleven campaigns, six of which are targeted to Millennials.

Here are highlights of his descriptions and critique of the six Millennial-targeted campaigns:

(Hint: Jim included lots of video in his article, to see the campaigns, click on the numbered brand names)

1. The U.S. Military

“No organization has a greater interest in appealing to teens than the military. It’s certainly no accident that the imagery in many armed services ads shows great similarity to that of a first-person shooter game. Gaming might be a keystone in military marketing, but so too are social networking, video, mobile, and tailored peer-to-peer experiences that enable prospects to speak directly with soldiers and hear firsthand accounts of life in the military.

Believe it or not, values and ideals are the central themes in all of these executions. In the sponsored games, virtue triumphs over evil. In daily activities, soldiers are more likely to be shown as relief providers after tsunamis than street-to-street fighters. You might disagree with such portrayals for moral or political reasons, but make no mistake — they are central to virtually all of these communications. And that’s because they are central to the sensibilities of today’s teens.”

2. Axe

“I am now going to talk about Axe, for no other reason than to see if iMedia Connection will let me discuss a viral effort called “Clean Your Balls” on these hallowed pages. There’s certainly a seminal idea here..Some 200,000 people are also fans of Axe and the campaign on Facebook. Axe has heavily integrated mobile into the mix as well, most notably in its “Hair Crisis Alert” SMS campaign.  Overseas, the Axe brand has appealed to teens with an IM-delivered spin-the-can game that encourages teens to reveal sex secrets. Since few teens have a high privacy threshold, it offers the brand a prime opportunity to get intimate.”

3. Ford Taurus

“Ford’s Taurus effort in partnership with car lifestyle magazine Dub reflects many of these characteristics. By talking to real millenials, not actors, Ford honestly addresses past image problems, thereby making the ultimate family car relevant to the new family values of millennials. The nice rims didn’t hurt, either. But that’s part of being a millennial too: Family? Flash? Doink! Let’s have both! There was a lot more than video to this effort, with digital outdoor, social media, and brand integration on the Dub site, to give just a few examples.”

4. eHarlequin.com

“Yes, Virginia, Harlequin romance novels are definitely not just for Grandma anymore. There are still pirates with hearts of gold and dusty but decidedly unstinky cowboys on some of the covers. But Harlequin is working hard to evolve and be culturally relevant to millennials. According to Book Business, Harlequin is at the forefront of e-publishing and “enhanced editions” that combine updated potboiler text with rich content, websites, and interactive experiences especially for Gen Y. Harlequin is a leader in ebooks, offering titles on all the major platforms. In addition, the publisher offers blogging support, widgets, and badges, and extensive online marketing programs designed for the demo. Now, there’s nothing to say that all this interactivity isn’t relevant for all ages, but its success at attracting millennials is getting significant attention.”

5. I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter

“From where I sit, I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter’s new campaign is genius. How do you do health product news for a not-health-obsessed target, on behalf of an irreverent brand? Cue Gloria Estefan song! This seems quintessentially Gen X to me both because of the vintage of the song the brand parodies, and the surreal nature of the whole darned thing. There’s also the ironic fun. A thankfully non-jail-baity boy band behind our faux everywoman female lead, Megan Mullally. Majestic lyrics to boot.”

6. FreeCreditReport.com

“The ad campaign for FreeCreditReport.com, based on the fear of mundane, menial jobs, seems to be pointed squarely at Gen X. I mean, the idea of having a McJob as a result of a bad credit rating — Douglas Coupland couldn’t have written it better. While the reality of low-paying jobs is sadly known to far more people than just unlucky Gen-Xers, one of the ads comes straight out of “Fast Times at Ridgemont High.”

In Conclusion….

The article goes on to cover five additional campaigns each targeted to older cohorts, then draws this conclusion about the differences (or similarities) to the Millennial-targeted efforts:

“There is certainly evidence of demo-specific targeting across age cohorts in digital. But having witnessed hundreds of examples in the course of writing this article, I am struck by how the medium is less central than the messages and values. Which is as it should be. It’s apparent that digital has matured to a medium that begins with an idea rather than an executional form…. Teen campaign ideas should be different than senior campaign ideas. We should talk to millennials differently than we do to Gen X or boomers. But the tools we use can come from a common list.” – Jim Nichols

Amen.  Generational marketing has a tendency to focus on the question of media choices and ‘how’ we reach each age group differently. But with the rapid adoption of social media by all ages, the question becomes less about the target-appropriate platform and more about target-appropriate content. It comes down to ideas.

The idea that the idea comes first, media second (what we used to call media-neutrality)  is not new. Whether we were talking about radio, TV or billboards, or are now talking about Facebook, FourSquare, or text, the idea should come first. (Perhaps this should be called platform neutrality?)

Thanks for the shout out, the terrific article and especially the reminder of what’s most important, Jim.

One of my favorite branding books is “The Culting of Brands: When Customers Become True Believers” by Douglas Atkin. The book explores the relationship between brand choice and identity. Atkins concludes that brand choice is about individual expression, not conforming. Atkin calls this the ‘central paradox of cult belonging‘.

“The common belief is that people join cults to conform.  Actually, the very opposite is true. They join to become more individual. At the heart of the desire to join a cult, in fact any community to which you will become committed, is a paradox….As one cult member unequivocally put it, ‘Belonging allows the individual to become more himself.” – The Culting of Brands, page 4

Millennials know that the brands they choose to associate with telegraph who they are.  As cultural ‘artifacts’, brands form a clear ‘language’ for Gen Y. It’s a language they understand and accept.

In November, Jason Potteiger wrote a post for The Next Great Generation Blog, titled, “15 Ways Millennials Think About Brands”. He begins with this observation: “For our entire lives brands have been everywhere and everything. The device of branding has become so pervasive in our lives that we now filter most things through that framework”. The last five ‘ways’ he lists speak directly to the symbolic meaning of brands and the importance of that meaning to the Millennial ‘subculture’. It could be right out of Atkin’s book:

10. My brand associations are important to me, but ultimately a just one of many variables in my daily life/ equation of personal meaning and value. I dislike brands that do not understand their place in this equation.

11. Brands are used to self identify and create personal meaning. We seek out brands that represent who we are, or wish to be.

12. Individuals and groups identify similar people via their similar brand associations; this commonality creates a de facto community.

13. We are fluent in brands. We know the symbols, their messages, and the communities associated with them.

14. We speak a language of brands, we can easily construct other and larger meanings through the combination and layering of brands. (eg. Someone wearing a Red Sox hat, Converse shoes, North Face jacket, Starbucks coffee – add or subtract any element here and their brand equation or association map changes, and so does my understanding of them).

Marketers who want to appeal to Millennials need to ask themselves if they ‘Speak Brand’? This means more than just understanding image attributes; it means decoding the symbolic language of a generation.

To relate to Millennials, marketers need to be ‘culture sleuths’. Is your brand a cult? What does belonging to that cult mean to the participants? Do you understand  how Millennials relate to brands in general. Do you understand how your brand and its strategic associations (celebrities, music, media, retailers) fit into this entire constellation?

Has the world finally woken up to Millennials?

Judging by the media attention focused on Gen Y yesterday, it seems we may finally have arrived at the tipping point. On Feb 24 alone, there were  articles and segments that appeared around the country, sparked by the new Pew Report on Millennials:

Chicago Tribune: “Millennials Dubbed ‘Always Connected’ in Pew Report”

Washington Post: “Under 30 Americans: The Next New Dealers?”

Washington Post: “Story Lab: Quiz: How Millennial Are You?”

PBS News Hour: “Demographic Profile of a Generation”

Christian Science Monitor: “Great Recession Hits Millennials Hardest”

Huffington Post: “Our Generation: More Confident, Less Employed”

A quick Google search returned 56 ‘related articles’ for a search on “Pew Millennials“.  I certainly welcome the attention on this remarkable demographic group, and I applaud Pew for its indepth coverage. But where are the marketing articles? The Pew data so far is mostly attended to by social scientists, political scientists, journalists and academics.

The marketing world, aside from youth-focused marketing firms, as yet are still fairly tone deaf about the coming shifts.

If you are interested in understanding how more mainstream marketers are reaching out successfully to Millennials, you have to dig a little deeper.  MobileYouth’s profile of Ten Brands that connect with Gen Y is a good start for profiles of Ford Fiesta, Monster Energy drink and others. But once you get beyond these high profile stories the cases get a little harder to come by. Here are three less publicized, inspiring exceptions:

Houlihan’s: (Fast Company, March 1, 2010)

“Last summer, it created its own social-networking site, HQ, an invite-only “brand community” of 10,500 “Houlifans” to serve as a virtual comment card. Customers appended that a-little-too-cute prefix to all things Houli-, and they’ve helped the formerly stodgy Irish pub rebrand itself as a contemporary suburban lounge-style hangout.”

StarkSilverCreek Web Publication: (PR Web, February 17, 2010)

All Things West Coast, the company’s flagship brand, is one of the fastest growing digital media properties. Readers value inspired and thoughtful coverage of the west coast including arts (film, stage), wine country, travel, and technology. Alexa Internet, Inc. ranks starksilvercreek.com 93,401 in the US and 285,000 globally. According to Quantcast, readers are affluent (28% earn $100K+), highly educated (67% college/grad school). Generation X and Y (Millennials) account for 68% of visitors.

Herbal Essence: (Business Week, July 2008)

“The shampoo and conditioner bottles are curved so that they literally fit together on the shelf. The nesting shape not only helped Herbal Essences stand out from others on the shelf but also encouraged more young women to buy both products, driving up conditioner sales. To appeal to Millennials, the team also updated the language on the packaging. The ho-hum “dandruff” reference gave way to “no flaking away.” Names for different hair styles were changed to more youthful phrases such as “totally twisted” or “drama clean.” “We totally reframed the proposition,” says Lafley. ….soon after the shampoo was relaunched the brand was growing again, with sales growth rates in the high single digits.”

A lot is known now about how to build a more appealing brand that connects more directly with Millennials. It requires a different approach, because as anyone who reads this blog or the Pew Report knows, it’s a different kind of audience.  Getting results like these requires a more collaborative approach to research and a more engaging approach to marketing.

Marketers will be wise to begin now. The rewards for early movers in categories like banking, wine, leisure travel, retailing, and media will be great, both in immediate sales lifts (like Houlihans) as well as in better positioning for future consumers. Gen Y trends have a way of migrating up the generations.

Soon it will be more than just the wine industry that is experiencing ‘classic market disruption’, it will be most industries as this 75-million strong demographic recovers from the Recession, and gets about the business of creating homes and careers. Will your brand be ready?

Meanwhile, we are launching a new page on our MillennialMarketing.wikispaces.com wiki to aggregate successful Gen Y marketing case studies. Check it out and feel free to contribute your stories.

Google: According to blogger, Sam McRoberts, aka Samantics, Google is the ‘Millennial deity’. “While search engines in general have had a major impact, Google is very nearly the deity of Gen Y. They are dedicated to providing as much information and tools as possible, absolutely free. Sure, they charge for some things, but they have done more to bring down the cost of music, news, movies, games, and data in general than any other company.”

Under Armour: Under Armour is the brand my students pick most consistently for their semester marketing projects.  According to Gen Y blogger, Greg Rollett, “those that play (or played) high school sports, or college for that matter, know that the majority of players choose Under Armour as their performance wear.”

Trader Joe’s: Trader Joe’s was one of the 15 brands named by Outlaw Consulting’s trendsetter panel as being loved precisely because they do not fit the conventions of being hip. Like Napoleon Dynamite, it is an unapologetically “dorky alternative to cool”. Other brands that fit this description? In N’ Out Burger and Jet Blue.

What makes their appeal even more remarkable is that they have accomplished it by rejecting the usual trappings of big brand marketing.

None of these big brands has a significant advertising presence. All of them are famous for not behaving like, well, a ‘big brand’. What characteristics do these three brands share that can help marketers understand what gives a brand “Millennial Appeal”?

For starters, there are qualities all three are not!

• They are not known for their overt sexiness. Is there anything less sexy than a search engine, a Hawaiian shirt or a hoodie?
• They are not known for Apple-like bleeding edge design. Trader Joe’s signs and web site have a homely, handmade appearance. Google’s simple home page has been more or less the same since day one.
• They do not have an irreverent attitude. None of these brands are known for their youthful sass.

In each case the foundation of the appeal lies more in who they are, and how they deliver value rather than what they do or their clever youthful take on marketing. Here are three qualities they all share:

1.  They Are All ‘Trailblazers’.

All three brands creatively tried to do something that had not been done before. And each continues to go its own way, with little acknowledgement that they even have competition. They are originals, with a one of a kind identity. Millennials resonate with this go-your-own-way individualism. They do not feel a need to respect tradition. Here’s Sam McRoberts again:

“We detest mindless tradition. If you want us to do something, you better have a very good reason, not to mention the good sense to get out of our way and let us innovate and improve the process…”just because” doesn’t work for us, and neither does inefficiency.We epitomize creativity.”

2. They All Exhibit a Low Key Style of Marketing

Google just ran its first television commercial in the 2010 Super Bowl. Until now, it has relied almost entirely on word of mouth to support its consumer-facing and largely free services.

Likewise Trader Joe’s does little advertising and sells nothing online. It’s web site is purely informational.

Under Armour relies heavily on product placement for publicity. Despite its presence on the athletic apparel at the Olympics, it is not running Olympics-themed advertising.

The absence of overt marketing serves to heighten credibility with Gen Y. According to Outlaw’s Strategic Analyst, Holly Brickley,“Generation Y trendsetters are more drawn to brands that speak to them in a straightforward and stripped-down way, use plain packaging, and avoid excess,and stripped-down way, use plain packaging, and avoid excess.”  Not shouting their message allows Gen Y to feel as if they discovered the brand on their own, enhancing their sense of ‘ownership’.  Discovery is a key part of the appeal of each of these brands.

3. They All Have Strong Gen Y ‘Lifestyle Relevance’

While each brand has a pedestrian side (sports apparel, non-branded groceries, search engine), each transcends its category and has come to symbolize a way of life and a system of values that resonates with Millennials. These brands’ values are strongly aligned with Millennial values of simplicity and appreciation for the ‘non-corporate’.

Google famously strives to ‘do no evil’.  Its services make life easier and more efficient, a core Gen Y value. What’s more, Google provides its services free of charge.

Trader Joe’s web site talks about itself as ‘your neighborhood grocery store. It emphasizes that its products are ‘unbranded’, ‘unconventional’ and ‘a shopping adventure’. It has a designated person in every store to handle charitable donations.

“At Trader Joe’s, you won’t find a lot of branded items. Instead, you’ll find unconventional and interesting products in the Trader Joe’s label as well as everyday basics. We buy products we think are winners and that’ll find a following among our customers. Sometimes it’s a product we intend to stock as long as it sells well; and sometimes we buy a product which is in limited supply, sell through it, and you won’t find it again. It’s all part of the shopping adventure at Trader Joe’s.”

Under Armour relied on the authenticity of real players wearing its products from its earliest days. According to Business Week, Kevin Plank, UA’s young founder spent four years tireless pitching his product to college and NFL teams.

“We convinced these big tough football players to start wearing tight-fitting synthetic shirts, which was completely new and different,” he says. In addition to stars such as Jeff George, Jerry Rice, and Plank’s Maryland teammate Frank Wycheck, big names in other sports, such as pitcher Roger Clemens, became Under Armour fans. The pros’ acceptance brings Under Armour an authenticity that advertising alone can’t create.”

Other brands with similar bases for appeal among Millennials include Zappos, Jet Blue, In N’ Out Burger, Red Bull, Target, Vitamin Water, and more.  All of these brands rely less on advertising — network or viral — and more on their innate authenticity to connect with Gen Y.  They don’t do things ‘by the big brand book’ and ironically that is their secret to becoming big brands.

The lessons of these three brands? Becoming ‘big’ with Gen Y is more about restraint than overt action. By avoiding many of the trappings of a mainstream brand, they become mainstream. This may be the ultimate paradox of Millennial Marketing.