Chapter 4: Consumer Vs. Big Business

Throughout this small capsule of blog topics I’ve investigated two groups that seem to be polar opposites of each other. As the social anthropologist I’ve attempted to give insight into each of the distinct target markets I have chosen. I’ve explained the differences between the two and how each of these groups benefits the advertising world in different ways. In today’s social anthropology blog I delve into a massive topic that could spawn hundreds of blogs devoted to it. Today I attempt to explore the differences in consumer advertising versus business advertising. More specifically, I’m interested in the success of emotional advertising. Does a corporations’ attempt at do gooder ad campaigns actually work in swaying public opinion?

Consumer advertising is clearly very different from business advertising, even on the surface level. Consumer advertising usually works to sell a single product, or line of products. The consumer knows who makes the product, but they do not know much about the corporation itself. The corporation remains faceless because the focus is on the actual product. For example, you see a commercial for whitening toothpaste. You know the toothpaste is made by Crest because they keep telling you over and over in the commercial. They do this so you can remember the toothpaste you want from the commercial is a Crest tube and do not confuse it with the similar Colgate whitening toothpaste. I’m an Arm and Hammer toothpaste fan myself, but both of these companies make a decent product. Anyway, after the commercial you may remember the product and the company that makes the product, but you often know little to nothing about the actual company. What are the company’s values? What is this company’s history? It doesn’t matter, just buy this toothpaste. Consumer advertising is all about selling an item to a consumer. The company itself is not really that important.

Business advertising on the other hand, works to sell the actual corporation to the consumer. It sounds more abstract because it is. They’re trying to sell you on the company itself, not on the company’s products. The specific product advertising may come before or after this type of advertising. Businesses normally advertise the corporation after a giant catastrophe or PR disaster. British Petroleum is a recent example of this. After a disastrous oil spill they spent billions cleaning up not only the actual mess they had made, but the ruined relationships with consumers. For many months after the spill there was advertising geared towards showing how they were decent people. It wasn’t enough that they had to clean up their mess, they wanted people to know they were cleaning up the mess.

Does this type of cover-our-ass advertising really work? It’s hard to say. The advertising may have worked or the whole thing may have just been healed by time. The backlash for BP was bad for a while, but as most high school students who have been the victim of gossip know, it eventually goes away. People continue to buy gasoline at BP, regardless of the immoral things they have done in the past. Sometimes companies will hype themselves in advertising without a major scandal. Last summer I started seeing commercials for Dow chemical corporation. Many people would have no idea what this company even does. They manufacture chemicals used by other companies in many items that we interact with everyday- cleaning products, shampoos, food preservatives, plastics, etc. Dow’s advertising was geared toward reminding people that they use science to make innovations that help our day-to-day lives. But Dow chemicals does not sell to consumers directly, they sell hundreds of gallons of chemicals to other businesses that use them in their products. Consumers would use these chemicals indirectly but they would never purchase a thousand gallons of propylene glycol for themselves.

So why was Dow suddenly promoting themselves to a small-scale consumer market?  I believe the answer is that they wanted to cover their ass, but in a more subtle way than BP. In recent years, there has been a huge push for “green” products. There has been a public backlash against chemicals. According to the consumer chemicals are bad, cancerous, and the public no longer wants them. Plastics are evil and environmentally toxic. Chemical companies were becoming as vilified as other industries. Dow began this campaign to remind consumers that perhaps chemicals weren’t so horrible after all. Dow didn’t have a major scandal on their hands, but in this case self-promoting advertising was used to try and change a consumer’s mind about an entire industry.

The success of businesses promoting themselves (rather than specific products) through advertising still remains to be seen. It probably doesn’t help a ton, but it can’t hurt either. Maybe if the company has a couple advertising dollars left in the budget at the end of the year and no new products to roll out it would be beneficial to remind consumers that they’re buying from a trustworthy, ethical, company.

In the past few weeks I have explored target markets that we are all pretty familiar with. I thank my few readers for becoming engaged in this series. In the future, I plan on getting deeper into target markets and furthering my blog career as the Social Anthropologist.

Chapter 3: Safe Markets vs. Alternative Subgroups

This week’s exploration into the depths of target marketing centers on two more opposite segments: the mainstream American and the minority niche market. Who makes up these groups and how heavily is each of them advertised to? Chapter 3 takes us into the worlds of the conformist and the anti-conformist American purchaser.

 Who is the mainstream American? This question has plagued scholars and social researchers nearly since its conception. We do know that at one time, all Americans were generally the same. We came from England to kick the natives off their land and begin a new life free of persecution from our mother country. Despite these similar beginnings, American citizens have changed heavily in the past two and a half centuries. We are no longer just an entire nation of white people from the same country of origin. Today’s Americans are multi-racial, with diverse careers and interests. And yet, it seems that in advertising the original idea of the mainstream American has not changed all that much since these early days. When one thinks of the average American, many mental images are still conjured of a white, averagely wealthy, person with a job who is not very young but also not very old. They fall in the middle of the age spectrum, and in the middle of just about every other spectrum as well. If we were to create this person they might be 35-45 years old, married, two children, living in an average house in an area with an average population. Nothing about them is extreme in any way. Everything about them would be simply average: income, housing, cars, even physical appearance. If this person seems kind of boring it’s because they probably are. And yet, Advertisers seem to play to this stereotype of the average American.

Perhaps more important then the question of who the average American actually is, is the question of what the average American spends their money on. I see many commercials for products that cast this exact type of person. The actor or actress is average looking. They are usually white, and they are not phenomenally gorgeous nor are they unpleasant to look at. The product being sold in the commercial is of average price, it is not ridiculously expensive nor is it extremely cheap. The setting is not anything outrageous, usually a modest house in what looks to be a modest suburban neighborhood. The dialogue may have humor, but it’s not raunchy or overtly funny or sexual in any way. These types of “safe” commercials can be seen in anything from toilet paper to cars to garbage bags to underwear. I just realized that it seems like I talk a lot about toilet paper in this blog, I also mentioned it last week as a product example. I guess I’m really interested in toilet paper advertising. But I digress. Commercials of this nature seem to be very popular because they feed into our idea of what the average American life is supposed to be. The American Dream means different things to everyone, but for many people this type of quiet, consistent, life is the equivalent to making it in America. Advertising is a mirror of our culture and a mirror of what many people wish they had. We buy things because we want the lifestyle that is portrayed along with it. These types of commercials show that, apparently, our culture places a high importance on this simple American lifestyle.

But what about markets that do not play into this average American prototype? Where is the advertising for them? On the opposite end of the “safe” mainstream market lie the alternative subgroups. Alternative subgroups often summon mental images of goth kids hanging out in seedy motel rooms with drug paraphernalia littered across the nightstand. Although the word sounds extreme, alternative subgroups actually aren’t all that out there. Gays, lesbians, and minorities are all examples of target markets that are not heavily advertised to, even in this modern age. It seems that even when they are advertised to, it is a watered down alternative subgroup. Even when other races are portrayed in mainstream advertising, they still follow the stereotype of inoffensive hair, clothing, and housing. This is one of the criticisms of advertising; even when it tries to be diverse it stills comes back to the same American archetypes we are used to seeing. MTV Tres, an offshoot of MTV networks is a channel geared toward MTV’s Spanish speaking viewers. I have noticed that even when the actors in the commercials on Tres are speaking Spanish, they follow the same white American Dream look, dialogue, and mannerisms as the commercials meant for the safe market.

True alternative advertising is rarely seen, and when it is it seems to be shoved into an equally alternative medium. The gay and lesbian channel LOGO, also owned by MTV, plays advertising that is targeted directly toward gay and lesbian subculture. Commercials shown on LOGO often take more risks than commercials shown on other networks. They also show many public service announcements about issues that pertain to the gay community, such as gay marriage and HIV testing. Gay marriage and HIV testing PSA’s would never be shown on a primetime network television show. It seems that even in 2012, with all the progress we have made, alternative subcultures are still being put on the backburner in favor of the mainstream target market.

This general lack of diversity in advertising still begs the question: Does advertising build and shape our values… or merely reflect them? Do we only see safe white American values because that’s what we actually want? Or is that what they want us to want? Ponder this until next time when I dive into business markets vs. consumer markets and how they each play with our emotions.

Chapter 2: Emerging Target Markets vs. Dying Target Markets

Last week I left off explaining what social anthropology is, and what the goal of this blog will be. Today I explore the age-old issue of age itself. How does age play into pinpointing target markets? Chapter 2 explores the two most contrasting target markets: the elderly and the young.

They say youth is wasted on the young, but are advertising dollars also wasted on the young? “Tween” is a word that makes me cringe. It’s one of those pop culture hybrid words that people think sounds cool but it actually sounds really dumb, like celebrity mash up names. Tween was intended to replace the category of “pre-teens” which technically only accounted for people who are not younger nor older than twelve, because twelve is the only age where you’re actually a pre-teen. So now we have tween, which generally represents ages 10-12. Then of course there’s the regular teens, who make up the age group of 13-18 and are arguably the most obnoxious people on the planet because of all their brain chemicals and such. Teens are a huge age range and this makes them difficult to market towards. Everyone knew that creepy guy (or girl) in high school who was 16 and dating a 13 year old, right? It was creepy mainly because the age difference is only 3 physical years but in emotional years they were worlds apart. Advertisers know that what you like at 12 is not the same as what you like at 17. Teens are a coveted section of the market. The advantage of advertising to them is that they supposedly have the most disposable income because they are generally not burdened with adult responsibilities such as bills. Therefore, they have more money to throw away on Twilight merchandise and Miley Cyrus CD’s. However, adults still have a steadier and greater income overall. Teens as a market segment also have the disadvantage of short attention spans. What they like today is suddenly uncool by next weekend. Advertisers must be conscious of this and because of the unpredictability of teenage tastes, they can be a tricky segment to market to.

This brings me to the next end of the spectrum whose tastes and habits almost completely clash with the last market segment. The elderly. It seems that the elderly have a lot of clout in this country. And sure, it’s arguable that they have earned it. They get to cut in line, they get discounts on things, and they’re the main focus of politicians. This is also a heavily focused on market within advertising as well. But why? Well for starters, it’s clear that old people buy things. They buy a lot of things, and this is because they have time. They have nothing but time after retirement. I admit that I sometimes watch the Jewelry Channel before I fall asleep. I find the sparkly colored gems soothing after a long day. The jewelry itself is completely tacky and I find myself asking, “who actually buys this?” and then it hits me: the elderly. My suspicions are confirmed when people call in to rave about the products. In a series of super scientific tests I can confirm that 9/10 callers are older people. 2010 US Census Data reports that only 16.2% of the entire US population is 62 and over. That seems like a small percentage, but 26.4% of the population is ages 45-64. The majority of the US falls into the age range of 18-44 with a percentage of 26.6%. So 16.2% may not seem like a lot but with the other percentages being split between gigantic age ranges, it actually is a sizeable chunk. The elderly are predictable. They often shop at the same places and they have the same general amount of income each month. Their lives are at a stable place and they are ideal candidates for advertisers because even though they may not live 20 more years, for the years that they do live we can count on them to purchase goods. They are generally a safe investment.

So the disadvantages of each group are becoming pretty clear. The tweens don’t know what they want or like and may or may not buy something with their limited income. The elderly may not have long to live but they’re predictable purchasers of moderately priced items. Both are good markets for advertisers to focus on for short periods of time. Ideally, advertisers would find a product that people need for their entire lives. That way, advertisers could market to us when we’re young and then switch it up as we grow. The products would grow with us, like an old family friend. Does this product and advertising strategy sound familiar? Well, it used to exist. It existed in tobacco advertising. Cigarettes were the holy-grail of products to advertise; reasonable enough for everyone to afford, a habit that people continue for a lifetime, and something that people buy often. After legislation passed that cigarettes could not be marketed to teenagers because of the health implications, nothing since tobacco advertising has quite covered that lifetime spectrum. These days, I’m hard pressed to find a product that is marketed to young and old alike. Even if people do use a product for their entire lives, they are rarely pushed to buy it at several different times in their life. People need toilet paper for their entire lives, but products like that are generally marketed to the person in the household who does the purchasing and that person is usually neither young nor old. It is difficult to find a balance between marketing to the young and marketing to the old.

Next time I explore two more equally diverse target markets: the mainstream, heavily advertised to 35-50 age range and the alternative niche market segments that are rarely advertised to. I explore minorities in advertising next week as well.

Chapter 1: The Social Anthropologist is Born

My name is Rachel Plotkin and I’m the Social Anthropologist.

I’m currently a junior studying advertising communications at the International Academy of Design and Technology in Chicago. I’ve always been fascinated by categorizing people. I even enjoy categorizing myself. I’ve always loved questionnaires where I’m asked to describe myself in three words: introspective, semi-cynical, wordsmith. Even as we are all told not to “label” people, I like to label people because frankly, it’s just fun and can be useful. Personalities are intricate and they often have many layers. Humans are multi-dimensional. I like to break down complex personalities into shorter descriptions because they are easier to digest that way, easier to relate to and process. I’m observant and I believe this is one of the keys to being a good social anthropologist. Throughout my life I have taken all the extras out of personalities and stripped them down to the essentials by grouping them. Some people claim to read people’s “auras” and I don’t know what an aura is but I do enjoy reading personalities.

So you may be asking yourself, “What is a social anthropologist and why do you keep using that word? What does this have to do with advertising? Why am I asking questions out loud to myself in my living room?” Anthropology, as defined by the Internet is “the study of humans.” Within this study of human beings, I focus specifically on the social groupings we assign to ourselves along with the ones that society assigns to us. The intent of this blog is to explore different target markets and how they play into current advertising. Target markets are in essence, social anthropology. Marketing seeks to categorize and classify groups of people and then convince them to purchase products that are meant for their peer group. Each week I will be choosing two opposing target markets on opposite ends of the spectrum. Within the posting I will compare and contrast these target markets and discuss triumphs and challenges pertaining to advertising within these specific social categories.

Next week I discuss dying target markets vs. emerging younger target markets and tackle such topics as: Which one is more heavily advertised to? Are there any products that people actually buy for their entire lives? Why advertise to an entire market segment that will die within the next decade?

(If you read this entire first blog and were disappointed to find that it was about advertising target markets, I also empty my brain at theplottt.tumblr.com)