Star Signs Predict Purchasing Behaviour?

Star (or sun) signs have been proven to correlate with certain personality attributes. It pains me to say this as I would like to right the whole star sign industry off, and what I am talking about it a long way off people being able to predict their future by reading the back page of Woman's Day.

However, brilliant, scientifically grounded psychologists such as Hans Eysenck have found much evidence to support the link between personality and star signs. It must also be said that others have also attempted to debunk these findings. However, there remains strong pockets of belief that star signs are predictive of personality.

Further, read any introductory consumer behaviour book and you will see that personality, influences our purchasing behaviour. For example: Extroverts are more hedonistic, looking for purchasing stimuli to keep them 'entertained'. Conscientious people are normally more planed and deliberate in how they spend.

Therefore is should come as no surprise that your star sign may have an influence of the types of things we purchase and why we purchase them. Mitchell and Haggart in their study 'Star sign astrology in segmentation' found that:

"Astrology does have a significant, and sometimes predictable effect on behaviour in the leisure, drinks and tobacco segments".

What does this then mean? For example

• Do Virgo's purchase more Beck's (pure, clean, Germanic, orderly)?
• Do Acquarians purchase more Little Creatures (colourful, creative, interesting)?

This is about the end of my knowledge on the subject. It's an interesting area. Bullshit or brilliant? I put a vote in each camp at the moment!

Russel Brand: Brand Failures Build Brand's Brand

I saw Russell Brand perform last night. Talented, intelligent, controversial, cute and likeable - all belie his real talents. That is to build his own brand through a series of failures.

The 90 minute gig largely consisted BBC radio show after a controversy involving him Brand having sex with a young lady and then leaving messages on her famous grandfathers phone informing him of the act

b) His balls up attempt at hosting the MTV VMA's.of his two biggest failures:

a) Having to leave his top rating He didn't read the American audience and, well insulted them.

He has taken his two biggest mistakes and turned them on their head and is using them for a sell out world tour (hyperbole allowed). What I like about this approach is that is is both clever marketing, and extremely empathic. He is saying that Brand, as a brand and person, is fallible and will make mistakes. He is not a perfect entertainer (very far from it). By embracing his mistakes and sharing them he was further endearing himself to the audience.

This is the opposite of how many brands still insist on presenting themselves today. Overly glossy, and never prepared to show flaws or admit mistakes when they happen. People respond well to humility and being a little fragile - why then do many brands still insist on maintaining a shiny, glossy, pompous image of themselves to the world?

Interestingly, the most well known brand mistake of all time, the launch of New Coke by then CEO Roberto Goizueta had an amazingly positive impact on sales when Coke realised its mistake and began to reproduce coke (calling it classic). I read somewhere recently, that suggests Goizueta was a marketing genius and did the whole thing on purpose to increase loyalty - regardless of whether it was intentional or not - it worked.

Brands can learn from Brand. Stop taking yourselves so seriously, acknowledge your mistakes, and don't be afraid to make them. Not sure if people agree or not - but a little frailty, and the ability to let others in may create stronger brand relationships.

Nerd Humour

Thought this was quite funny. It's from an interesting blog with great links called Geary Behavioural Economics Blog

Are You Marketing Savvy or Saturated?

Younger people (say 13 to 25ish) are not necessarily a marketing savvy segment, but they are marketing saturated. They have grown up in an environment where brands have infiltrated many aspects of their lives, and image is everything. They have never experienced a time when brands were largely constrained to TV and the shop shelf. Brands these days (are a welcome) sponsor (of) all aspects of their lives.

To say youth are marketing savvy is potentially wrong. Savvy implies they understand the marketing process and use it to their advantage. With society experiencing growing rates of youth debt and psychological issues, it seems to me the time is ripe to redefine what marketing savvy actually means. I suggest:

Marketing savvy people are those that know how to consume brands (and marketing) in a way that makes them genuinely happy.

They can understand when brands offer false promises, verses those that make life better. They may know the work of Hsee and Tsai, as well as all the work of Seligman and others. Perhaps not directly, but at least they understand the principles of how their consumer behaviour links to their own happiness. Being savvy means you understand something and can make it work for you. In truth it has less to do with age than it does a willingness to examine your own behaviour. However, growing up in a marketing saturated society makes this harder than ever before.

I would like to know do you feel like you are marketing savvy? Do you feel like you make consumer decisions that make you happy? Or do you feel like your just marketing saturated? Or neither or both?

TV Advertising Can Make TV Viewing More Enjoyable

New research has found that TV advertising actually makes TV viewing more enjoyable... but only for TV shows that people were not finding all that enjoyable to watch! Although this seems obvious, the implications are quite interesting, and should (but probably wont!) lead to more interesting media planning practices.

Instead of interrupting the TV shows that people are highly engaged with and love to watch, media planners could instead be aiming to place ads in shows that people watch passively - and enhance the viewing experience of these shows. That is, media planners should potentially avoid the high rating, highly involved TV shows, and go for a second tier, passive viewership. Thus media planners enhance the consumers viewing experience, and do not pay as much in media spend. This could result in a far more effective and engaging media buy for their clients.

This is interesting research, and so far only the press release has been made public. I noticed it published in the weekend paper. The actual research piece is called 'Enhancing the Television Viewing Experience Through Commercial Interruption'.