Targeting markets by race: authenticity and transparency

Posted June 28, 2011 by Elizabeth Taddonio | Permalink

A couple of months ago, Tim Peterson wrote about the problem of marketing to specific races — not just recruiting, but also making sure messages are not boiled down to the point of stereotyping. This feeds into the question of exploitation, including using cultural holidays and symbols to sell to a specific market.

This issue touches on a larger question — a question that involves ethnographers, sociologists, and market researchers alike. How do we, as researchers, work outside of our subjectivity?

Google “ethnography + subjectivity” or “ethnography + authenticity” and dozens of academic studies show up. How do we study cultures other than our own without “Othering” them?*

According to Peterson, “be transparent about it.” In other words, it’s ok to say “we’d like to increase our brand’s presence among Hispanics.” That’s what targeting by demographic and segment is all about, afterall. Tip-toeing around race makes it even more of an issue, whereas being upfront and acknowledging a person’s subjectivity lends a moderator credibility. I’d much rather know a company needed to know my opinion because they were interested in increasing visibility among white women in their 20s than have them sneakily tie in questions about the early 90s and how into Titanic I was in 1999. Right?

Additionally (and I’ve been campaigning for this since college [and by "campaigning" I mean "talking about how problematic it is to my coworkers"]), Peterson makes a great critique of the boxed identity problem. He writes:

“Use any consumer interaction with your brand to ask for demographic information but don’t use a drop-down that limits responses to “white,” “black,” Asian,” “Hispanic,” etc. Instead you should let the consumers fill in their own identities, be it Hispanic or Latino or South American or Ecuadorean or Californian. This will give you an idea of how consumers want you to perceive them, and with the right opt-ins, could give you peeks into the behavioral differences among Hispanics and Latinos and South Americans and Ecuadoreans and Californians as they relate to your brand.”

Bingo! Let people define their own subjectivities.** Ask people open-ended questions and dig deeper about where their interests come from. The question of race and ethnicity does not have to be touchy — we’re often just too scared to get it wrong to really focus on doing research right.

*For further reading on the concept of Othering, check out Edward Said’s Orientalism (a synopsis here) and bell hooks’ essay “Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance”

**For more on drop down menus and critical cultural analysis, please check out Lisa Nakamura’s “Menu-driven identities: making race happen online” in Cybertypes: Race, ethnicity, and identity on the Internet (2002). It’s a great read.

Posted in Branding, Features, Survey | Bookmark Bar

Tech Crunch: LinkedIn “Men are More Savvy Networkers than Women”

Posted June 22, 2011 by Elizabeth Taddonio | Permalink

So, the headline says it all. LinkedIn (apparently following in the footsteps of OKCupid by publishing findings based on user data/behavior) “measures networking ‘savviness’ based on the the ratio of one-way connections that men have to connections that women have, and the ratio of male members on LinkedIn to female members.” Which — WHAT? I’m not quite sure about the science behind that data, or the idea of conflating “followers,” “friends,” or “connections” with influence, but let’s give LinkedIn the benefit of the doubt and assume that men are more savvy networkers. Why would that be?

(Image via Keppie Careers)

I mean, one might point to the fact that in a lot of industries (mine included), women are the minority, or in less prestigious roles. Or that women are still making less money to the dollar than men. Or that women haven’t occupied corporate roles for as long as men.

Or maybe women think LinkedIn is kind of stupid.

A few months ago Gail Collins wrote an Op-Ed commenting on the Obama “state of American women” report that came out in March. Go ahead and read it — and then return to the LinkedIn story.

Are women less savvy online networkers than men? What do you think of this data, and how have you seen women network in your industry?

And what might this data say about the state of women in America?

Posted in News, Social Media | Bookmark Bar

NYT: The Online Looking Glass

Posted June 13, 2011 by Elizabeth Taddonio | Permalink

Yesterday’s New York Times Op-Ed by Ross Douthat explains that social media exacerbates egotistic, self-centered behavior. And this is the first time anyone has ever said something about the “Facebook Generation” being narcissistic, so I was stunned! The funny thing about “The Online Looking Glass” is that it accuses the Facebook generation of narcissism while using the 46 year old Representative Anthony Weiner as its exemplar. And while there is certainly something to say for a generation of people who grew up always connected and always prompted to share (and yes, media does affect our messages), I still believe that chalking it up to narcissism is too easy. I believe there’s more there.

I spent the tail-end of undergrad and then all of graduate school working with adolescents to understand how they were using social media — mainly because I didn’t want teens to be without an advocate or a voice in this debate. And while it’s necessarily true that there’s a certain emphasis on the self while using social media– it’s my belief that the self is communally constructed in this generation like never before. We aren’t inwardly focused when we post links, photos, videos, status updates — we’re really focused on The Other and how we’re going to engage our followers, our friends, our online communities. We want reactions and we want conversations. We are cool if we know what’s going on around the world because it means we know how to use social media to be social.

danah boyd, who is one of my intellectual mentors and an inspiration to anyone interested in how teens and adolescents use OSNs, recently posted a work-in-progress paper to her twitter. Social Privacy in Networked Publics: Teens’ Attitudes, Practices, and Strategies, discusses how teenagers, while they don’t have the social agency that adults have, do have an understanding of how privacy works. The problem is the chasm between their media literacy and their agency — they are living in world where attitudes, practices, and strategies toward privacy differ largely depending on generational understanding of the very word. Additionally, a lot of people in their 20s don’t have access to the Internet — and Facebook is a global network. Isn’t calling out a specific US American, socioeconomic, group being a little short-sighted?

So, while the point of writing an Op-Ed column is to make a very specific argument and stand by it, I always take pause with labelling certain generations with such negative connotations. Indeed, at 25 I’m part of the me generation — a generation that the NYT also claims “doesn’t want to grow up” but then refuses to acknowledge how we’ve come to where we are. Contrary to what many think, my friends would kill for a job with 401k and health insurance guarantee, but too many of them simply can’t find them and have to string together part time jobs. Many of us don’t think that the Tao Lin/ Megan Boyle/ Bebe Zeva phenomenon speaks to us. Most of us roll our eyes and then worry about paying our rent.

What do you think? Is this argument tired? Is it as black and white as it seems? Is there more to the story? Is everyone narcissistic and we’re all going to cave inward from the pressure of our own, sad unexamined and superficial lives?

**Follow danah boyd here. Read more about my research here, and comment below!

Posted in Features, Social Media | Bookmark Bar

Badvertising: Dairy Queen and the highest form of flattery

Posted June 7, 2011 by Elizabeth Taddonio | Permalink

Ok, so I mean I’ve heard that imitation is the highest form of flattery. I physically see people copping other people’s personal jams all the time. It’s how trends happen. But what about when this happens in advertising?

While streaming Parks and Recreation on HULU recently, I was forced to watch an ad for Dairy Queen. Now, I watch ads when I see them featured on ad blogs, but since I don’t have cable I miss out on them a lot. So when my friends and I finally got to see the DQ spot, we collectively rolled our eyes and said “Old Spice with an ironic mustache? Come on. REALLY?!” (BrandChannel mentioned this reaction both here and here – two months ago — but no shame in my game!)

Then my boyfriend asked how an ad agency could possibly think that copying ad styles was a great idea. And I figured I’d ask some respondents age 18-35 who were familiar with the Dairy Queen brand what they thought about the two ads below. My questions pinpointed messaging, fit with brand, and how “new or different’, if at all, the ads were compared to other ads they’ve seen regularly (these are stock questions for ad or packaging tests, by the way!)

Now, since my job isn’t completely devoted to writing blog posts and chatting with respondents, I only conducted seven interviews (4 females, 3 males). Here are the results:

• All of the respondents were not only familiar with Dairy Queen, but also regular patrons
• 5 out of the 7 responents called the ads “random” or “unique” at some point (which Brand Channel mentioned as well)
• 2 had negative reactions to the ads, stating: ”they were odd. i didn’t understand what the purpose of the commercial with the guitar had to do with the sale on the cheeseburgers.” (female, 26) and “I know that it’s supposed to be something along the lines of Dairy Queen doesn’t settle for ordinary, but the ads themselves didn’t really have a lot to do with their products for the most part” (female, 25)
• 6 out of the 7 called the ad “funny” at some point
• AND THE KICKER: 3 out of the 7 said the ad reminded them of the Old Spice ads; out of those three, ZERO felt that this association was a negative choice for Dairy Queen

Even though the respondents saw a connection between two advertisements, why didn’t they think this kind of imitation was as stupid as I did? WHY? Well, they said that the ads were funny and fit with Dairy Queen trying to stand out and be less traditional:

“The tone of it reminded me of the Old Spice ads some. it’s different from any other food place ads I’ve seen lately” – Female, 31

“They use a kind of comedy that seems familiar but the ideas they’re using are new. I’d say they’re somewhat new and different.” Female, 29

“I think that’s a more modern approach to commercials. It reminds me a lot of the Old Spice commercials.” – Female, 25

And you know, even with only seven respondents I was still able to get a better suggestion for DQ ad (ARE YOU LISTENING, DAIRY QUEEN? THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE WANT!)

“Maybe have a dolphin that responds or have a band that each instrument plays a different animal sound. Then they rock out.” – Male, 31

So my question is — what do you think of derivative advertising? Does it annoy you as much as it annoys me? Am I only annoyed because I love good advertising so much?

Oh, and here’s an example of the Old Spice campaign, in case you’ve forgotten:

Posted in Advertising, badvertising, Checkin' It Out, Just for fun | Bookmark Bar

On The Road: Pacing Interviews for Precision

Posted June 2, 2011 by Elizabeth Taddonio | Permalink

In the early ’90s Chris Farley created “The Chris Farley Show” sketch for SNL, where he spent 5 or 10 minutes interviewing a celebrity, breathing heavily, and asking them if they remembered certain scenes from their films or moments in their careers. The result was an awkward (AND HILARIOUS) clip in which celebrities sat wondering what would happen next. Zack Galifianakis does a brilliant take on it with “Between Two Ferns” as well.

One of the major problems with these interviews (to be fair there are bigger problems than this), and one of the biggest differences between doing an interview in person and doing one online, is pacing. This means making sure you’re asking questions at a good rate and not bombarding a respondent or leaving them in moments of dead air or silence, while also keeping that respondent on track and checking in with them if their responses are taking longer than usual.

Generally qualitative research online yields about 3-4 exchanges every 5 minutes. This means the moderator can expect to see responses within 1-2 minutes. For this reason, it’s imperative that researchers create a chat guide with time factored in, and that they prioritize talking points accordingly. You can download our sample discussion guides, which have marked off time for pacing, if you’d like a quick reference.

The CDC offers an online guide to pacing interviews that can also help. Though their advice applies mainly to conducting phone surveys, similar guidelines can be used online:

• “One effective interviewer technique involves reading the introduction section a little quicker. Because this is a common place for respondents to quit or hang up, don’t pause for very long at the end of the introduction—read the first question right away.” — This is true for online interviews, too. Having preloaded questions means being able to quickly let the respondent know not only that you’re there and you’re engaged, but also what they’ll be discussing with you for 30 minutes. Hooking a respondent right away is important, and it also gives you the opportunity to reject a respondent and start over (with GutCheck, if you do this within 5 minutes you won’t be charged).
• “A mistake made by some interviewers is to speed up at the end of an interview because they are getting tired and no longer have the patience they had in the beginning. Respondents can feel this and often interpret it as a lack of caring. They can feel your restlessness and will often just quit.” By the end of the chat, you might feel like you’re ready to get out and leave. But showing a respondent the same kind of dedication you showed at the beginning — probing, asking follow up, mirroring their language — will keep the quality of your results from waning.
• “There are other times where you may ask the respondent a question that needs some thought to give an answer. In this case you may need to slow it down to get a good response. Sometimes you simply need to wait for a response from the respondent.” A lot of times, I am asked how long to wait before checking in with a respondent. If the moderator asks an involved question that needs more thought and time, give the respondent sufficient time. Keeping in mind about a minute or two for response requires patience. Practice!

The bottom line is that keeping your time limits in mind, and shaping a guide around those limits, will keep a respondent engaged and motivated, and will ensure that you’re hitting all of your objectives in the priority you see fit.

On The Road is an on-going series on how to conduct one-on-one qualitative interviews. Previously: Using Objectives. Next up: Probing, follow up, and getting more.

Posted in On The Road, Uncategorized | Bookmark Bar