The Consumerologist

I cited four main reasons in a previous post (http://consumerologist.posterous.com/no-longer-an-option-mobile-websites):>

·         Your audience is no longer tethered to a computer for information. 

·         Your audience reaches out to your company/brand on their smartphone. 

·         It is more useful to your shopper. 

·         There is a new generation growing up on smartphones. 

I believe that these four reasons are still relevant—actually more so now.  There are more reasons to revisit this.

·         Smartphones are the last thing owners check at night; they are also the first thing they turn to when they wake up.  Over one-half of American smartphone owners sleep with their phones.  They use them as more than phones; these devices serve as their alarm clocks and even their remote controls.  However, they also serve as their first access to news and the outside news in the morning.  In short, smartphones are the adult security blanket.

·         The devices are increasingly becoming the first pathway to the Internet.  Outside of the home, we already know that consumers are frequently turning to their smartphones for information when in a store, walking down the street or at a coffee shop.  It acts as a quick source for information, directions guide, and decision influencer.  Yet, the smartphone is playing this role for its owner at the home too.  Owners tend to have their mobile phones by them when watching TV, making out the grocery list or having a discussion at the kitchen table.  They turn to their smartphones quickly.  It is seen as the convenient Internet appliance vs. even the laptop.

Mobile has evolved our perception and behavior.  It has altered our decision-making paths.  Smartphones are providing instant access to the Internet for many.  Adolescents are coming of age in a world where the Internet has always been at their fingertips…anytime they needed or wanted it.  We truly live in an always-on society.

If mobile websites and applications are becoming a consumer’s/user’s first access wave to your web presence…they why aren’t companies still treating it as such?

Posted via email from Consumerologist’s posterous | Comment »

You are at a store about to purchase a new bike (maybe new dishes, a new TV, etc.).  You notice on a comparable model a symbol…one that lets you know what energy supply source was used in the manufacture of the product.  Does this change your decision of what model or brand to purchase?  Would you find this important to know? Is it a right to know?  Does this logo create “purchaser empowerment”?  Or does it add confusion?

WindMade believes it can have an effect.  By introducing a new logo (see the top of this post for the new logo), it strives to have a consumer pull impact; consumers will become more informed in the energy used to create products, they will look for the logo, and demand that more products carry the logo (thus, be made by wind-powered energy vs. non-renewable energy sources).

The impact will be felt in purchasing behavior.  However, the general public and consumers must first be informed of the logo; more importantly educated about the “what’s in it for me?” or “why should I care?” elements of wind power. 

My mind goes to other broad-base issue campaigns.  Some successful, some not.  Here are a few to ponder: “Made in America”, LEED Building certifications, anti-littering, and anti-smoking campaigns.  How would you position this campaign?  Will the logo change the general buyer populations’ perspective?

Posted via email from Consumerologist’s posterous | Comment »

You are at a store about to purchase a new bike (maybe new dishes, a new TV, etc.).  You notice on a comparable model a symbol…one that lets you know what energy supply source was used in the manufacture of the product.  Does this change your decision of what model or brand to purchase?  Would you find this important to know? Is it a right to know?  Does this logo create “purchaser empowerment”?  Or does it add confusion?

WindMade believes it can have an effect.  By introducing a new logo (see the top of this post for the new logo), it strives to have a consumer pull impact; consumers will become more informed in the energy used to create products, they will look for the logo, and demand that more products carry the logo (thus, be made by wind-powered energy vs. non-renewable energy sources).

The impact will be felt in purchasing behavior.  However, the general public and consumers must first be informed of the logo; more importantly educated about the “what’s in it for me?” or “why should I care?” elements of wind power. 

My mind goes to other broad-base issue campaigns.  Some successful, some not.  Here are a few to ponder: “Made in America”, LEED Building certifications, anti-littering, and anti-smoking campaigns.  How would you position this campaign?  Will the logo change the general buyer populations’ perspective?

Posted via email from Consumerologist’s posterous | Comment »

Posted via email from Consumerologist’s posterous | Comment »

The logo is an updated look of its mermaid symbol.  Missing is its traditional tri-color scheme, border, and most prominent to the eye, the words: Starbucks Coffee. 

Gap faced a deluge of protests when it tried to change its brand logo last autumn.  Yet, Pepsi seems to be able to evolve its logo continuously throughout the years as its seeks to remain modern and relevant; to little or no fanfare or notice nor uproars from its community. 

As Starbucks seeks to extend its offerings, a few general questions arise that any company should ponder as its changes an embraced community symbol:

• How does the updated logo reflect its consumers?  its business vision?  its business promise?  its relationship to its consumers? 
• How can you take your customers on the business journey with you so as not to alienate them from their core “love” or “embracement” of your brand?

Posted via email from Consumerologist’s posterous | Comment »