Weekly Opinion Editorial
Broad or Segmented Marketing
by Steve Fair
Most business leaders who mass market a
good or service to the public at large avoid controversy like the plaque. They understand the goal of a business is to
maximize profits and not the change the world.
They never talk politics or religion and do everything possible to not
offend any potential customer.
There are generally two ways to go to
market: (1) appeal to a broad customer base, who are not necessarily loyal or (2)
appeal to a more segmented customer base, which is intensely loyal. Most marketers choose the broad approach.
Consumer product companies fear a boycott
will not just damage their bottom line, but will permanently damage their
brand. In the early 1990s, Nike was
having their shoes produced in third world countries using child labor. When word got it, it hurt the company’s
bottom line, but it also changed the way Nike went to market. They not only changed where they made their
product, but became activists to change their image. Proctor and Gamble has spent millions to
combat the rumor their man in the moon logo is a nod to the church of
Satan. The rumor has been around for
twenty years and P&G leaders have went on daytime talk shows to deny the
accusations and to urge consumers to not boycott their huge line-up of products
in the soap aisle.
Some companies take a stand on an issue
and it doesn’t appear to hurt their bottom line, even when they are
boycotted. Chick-fil-A is
thriving despite CEO Dan Cathey’s very public opposition of gay marriage.
Oklahoma’s Hobby Lobby is still profitable despite the Green families’
refusal to provide certain forms of birth control to their employees and taking
the case all the way to the Supreme Court. In both of those cases, the
leaders of those companies understood the risks involved in their taking a
stand, but did it anyway out of religious conviction.
Meryl Streep took a stand on Sunday night
at the Golden Globes. The four time
Academy Award winner said during her speech accepting the lifetime achievement
award that Hollywood, foreigners and the press belong to the most vilified
segments in American society. Streep attacked
President-elect Donald Trump and denounced him as a bully who disrespected and
humiliated others. Streep went over her allotted
time, but they didn’t pull the plug because she was delivering the message for
the vast majority of the Hollywood elite. If Streep’s remarks were meant to re-position
her brand from a mass to a niche(small/loyal) market, she may have been successful.
Three observations:
First, Streep has a right to her
opinion. Just because someone is a
public figure doesn’t mean they give up that right. Streep has a constitutionally
protected right to offend a significant amount of the movie going public-at
least half of America’s voters- if she wants..
Those offended people pay the overpriced ticket prices and concessions to
watch her movies and to keep her up in the manner in which she has become accustomed. Unlike Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby, Streep’s
stand doesn’t appear to be based on a deep rooted conviction, but rather on her
disappointment with who won the election.
Taking a public stand has consequences and it remains to be seen if
Streep will reap reward or retribution as a result of her remarks.
Second, people can and should vote with
their dollars. A boycott of Streep’s
movies is being organized. Brayden King
of Kellogg’s Management & Organizations department did a study on boycotts
and found that most boycotts are ineffective because organizers fail to get
enough dedicated participants to boycott long enough to make a significant impact.
Streep is counting on the public having
a short memory. If she suffered a loss
of income or damage to her reputation by taking a controversial stand, her
candor would likely be tempered. If
those who bankrolled her movies looked at Streep as toxic and unprofitable, she
might rethink her political commentary.
Third, Hollywood is fantasy-land. Most people in the entertainment industry are
liberal thinkers. They live privileged lives
and are out of touch with the average person.
When they talk about what is wrong in America, they are filtering it
through the prism of swimming pools, movie stars, Champaign and caviar.
The fundamental reason Donald Trump won in
traditional Democrat states was because America is unemployed and
underemployed. It’s about jobs! Trump’s insulting bombastic style turns off
most everybody, but the average American is willing to overlook it if he can
make America great again. As a rule of
thumb, watch what Trump does- not what he says.
No comments:
Post a Comment