I ended up writing two very short, but very different posts today, rather than one longer topic. The first one is here.
I’ve been making a few more short notes from the marketing textbook Marketing Essentials as I work through it – here’s part one and part two.
In this section, I was looking at Consumer Buyer behaviour.
Marketing Essentials outlines four different types of buyer: Routine Response Buyer, Limited Decision Maker, Extensive Decision Maker and Impulse Buyer.
Often, this has less to with with the buyers themselves than with the product. For example, you are more likely to put more thought, time and research into buying a new car (Extensive Decision Making) than into buying a pint of milk. Milk would be a Routine Response purchase, as you are likely to go to the same place (the supermarket) to buy your usual product, and if that wasn’t available (perhaps it’s not your usual brand, or there’s only semi-skimmed, not skimmed) then you would buy the next available similar product without really thinking about it.
Limited Decision Making covers both products that the consumer only buys occasionally, as well as when they need to research an unfamiliar product or brand.
Impulse buying, however, involves little or no research at all. Impulse buying is encouraged both in physical stores and online through more elaborate POS (point of sale) displays. Research has suggested that this is becoming more and more common as a form of buying behaviour, and as a result companies are much likely to use add-on items or prominent displays at check-outs etc. However, over time this can backfire somewhat for the company, because people are much more likely to regret their purchases and don’t develop loyalty to a company and brand. It generates better short-term income, but may not create repeat sales behaviour.
I’ve just finished reading this article:
This was definitely an interesting read for me, because a lot of the baseline metrics that I I’ve looked at when reporting on social media just didn’t seem relevant, especially when reporting to senior staff.
One theme here is that level of interaction is important, and I think it’s more important than reach, even though reach numbers can look much more impressive. Rather than the number of people that might have potentially looked at your content, it’s the number of people that read/watched stuff, shared it, talked about it, talked to you about it, that really count.
A number of the interviewed commenters in this had the point of metrics needing to be relevant to your specific goals and your organisation – this is a helpful comment in that you shouldn’t be exactly following other people’s plan, however there are some baselines that need to be followed – Return on Investment for paid media was one, and real bascis like number of followers is absolutely another.
Over the last few days, I’ve been making a massive effort to read other blogs on WordPress. I went through my long-neglected reading list and ended up removing most of my follows from blogs that hadn’t been updated in years, then went searching for some new ones.
Searching the Social Media and Digital culture tags, I noticed pretty much right away that the majority of the posts were from blogs created for school/university courses on social media, covering and discussing the exact same kind of content that I did back in the first year of this blog.
It was surprisingly nostalgic to read through these posts, seeing people discovering (for the first time) the academic topics and issues that I studied and wrote about at length.
It’s interesting that many of the same books, papers and researchers were referenced as when I was at university, despite the massive changes in social media over the last few years. It seems like it’s still quite a niche subject in research circles. Still, it’s prompted me to start looking at some of the ideas referenced in a new light, and perhaps to go back and do some reading up.
So the Online Influencers Conference was going on in Bristol a few days ago. Sadly, I wasn’t there, but fortunately it was being attended by a crowd of people who are sharing good stuff to the Twitter hashtag #OiConf, and the OiConf account itself was full of roundups etc.
I immediately made some phone notes with the best top tweets and made a few notes of my own, so I’m finally getting around to throwing them up here.
I’ve noticed this too, it’s why Facebook videos now only count views of 3 seconds or longer, any less than that and the ‘view’ wasn’t really a view at all.
Definitely one to bear of mind when working with brands – there’s a ‘day of’ for pretty much every day of the year now, (this post from Hootsuite is a good resource, but there’s no point in celebrating the
Influencers and ‘authenticity’ is such as fascinating topic. The internet is full of content creators who are making a living off balancing a carefully cultivated brand and being ‘real’ to their fans, especially when working with sponsored content (I wrote about this years ago in a blog post that barely scratches the surface, it might be time for some follow-up work.)
I’m a bit scared by this last one – but it’s something I’ve since been reading up more up. After all, with the rise of AI in retail, customer service etc., this starts to sound a bit less like hyperbole and actually pretty plausible. In fact, it’s been recently suggested that AI in customer service frontline could be quite beneficial in preventing burn-out in the workforce. On the other hand, if not handled it will remove a lot of lower-income jobs with no alternatives.