‘Please don’t litter’ – a marketing success story

Back in the day (that is when I was much younger), littering was a notable problem in the United States. There were seemingly constant campaigns delivered under the ‘Keep America Beautiful’ organization banner. The crying American Indian “Iron Eyes Cody”: was prominent and is one of the most famous print and TV (from Marstellar) PSA’s (Public Service Ads) of all time. At the time it was all called…pollution.

Before those brilliant ad campaigns came out littering was something people did not think much about. Flicking your cigarette butt was even thought of as kind of cool. Someone else would surely clean up what you throw out of your car window.

The first thing this marketing success story accomplished was awareness. Awareness is always the first step in successfully changing a behavior. And the behavior did change as Keep America Beautiful (founded in 1953) reports that the actual count of overall litter has decreased by 61% since 1960 (see below). In the case of litter – simple awareness was tantamount to solving the problem. Beyond the print and TV ads, there were billboards, posters and rallies all designed to make people aware so that they would self-regulate.

Therefor the awareness was enhanced with a second element – the frequency and ubiquity put out by Keep America Beautiful.

A decrease of 61% over 53 years (1960-2013) is an incredibly impressive statistic. Even more so because in 2013 there were 135 million MORE people in the United States than there were in1960. More people should equal even more litter. But instead of staying flat with population and overall litter rising 75%, overall litter decreased 61% over the period. That’s a lot of litter that did not happen.

Today the fight is far from over with tens of billons of dollars annually being spent in combating litterbugs. Yet there’s not a current ongoing campaign asking people to not litter or pollute. And you see people litter and pollute every day and it’s both puzzling and aggravating to me. Personally I’d love for our team to work on a new ‘Don’t Litter’ campaign with the full knowledge that it would be big shoes to fill to approach the success of the original campaign.   Below is an excerpt from a study by the Shelton Group that I found interesting.

In Shelton Group’s 2013 Green Living Pulse™ study, “throwing trash out of the car window was the only environmentally related behavior that a majority of Americans (63 percent) would be very embarrassed to get caught doing.

People “get” this issue. It’s tangible. Hollywood makes movies about it (i.e., Wall-E). Children of the ’70s have the PSA image of the “crying Indian” and Woodsy Owl’s admonition “Give a hoot! Don’t pollute!” burned into our brains. “Dispose of your trash responsibly” has become one of our nation’s cultural norms.

According to Keep America Beautiful, the actual count of overall litter has decreased 61 percent since 1969. So what’s created this success? It’s taken 40 years of pushing multiple behavioral levers, including education and fines and making the desired behavior incredibly convenient. 

Children’s perceptions were influenced in the ’70s with well-executed PSAs (Woodsy is still around: His updated mantra is “Lend a hand — care for the land.”) and supplemental classroom curricula. Municipalities instituted fines for littering and began seriously investigating illegal dumping sites. Finally, curbside trash and recycling pick-up has become the norm. Green Living Pulse 2012 found that 60 percent of recyclers have access to curbside, mixed-bin recycling. If you make it easy, Americans are much more likely to participate.” 

Do you remember? Do you still litter?

Posted in Advertising, Marketing stuff, Television advertising | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Smartphone prices are not based on their utility

My Samsung Android phone is 19 months into its two-year contract-life and of course the battery is losing its ability to hold a charge.   And before you iPhone acolytes speak out, I’ve heard first-hand that iPhone’s batteries are no better or worse after 500 or more charges.

This has happened to me with virtually every smartphone I’ve owned. Six months or so before I can turn in the phone for the newer version, the battery life peters out and I’m forever looking for an outlet or carrying around a portable charger. It’s highly aggravating.

Most Americans have become accustomed to purchasing smartphones as part of a contractual agreement with a mobile carrier such as Verizon, T-Mobile, AT& T, Metro PCS or Sprint. The cost of the phone is subsidized by the contract price so it does not feel like the user pays $600 or more for the phone. This is not the case in China, or Europe as smartphones are not sold tied to a contractual obligation. Today in the U.S. people can decouple the arrangement and pay for the phone separate and then purchase a data plan with ‘no contract’. It’s more expensive than the lock-me-in plans to nobody’s great surprise.

When I was traveling frequently to China several years ago Chinese people would scrimp and sacrifice to buy the latest iPhone for $700 U.S. when their salary might have only been a $1,000 U.S. per month. It was partly status but also the general utility that a good smartphone provides. After all, what other possession do people of planet Earth have today that gets more attention and use than a smartphone?

We already know that people look at their phones an amazing amount of times each and every day. We also know that the smartphone that Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet and Oprah Winfrey use are basically the exact same phones used by non-billionaires like you and me.

Back to the utility of smartphones: In an article from 2015 Time Magazine noted that people look at their phones on average 46 times per day with 18-24 year olds looking at their phones 74 times per day on average. I think this is possibly a low number since I recall seeing people I am with look at their phone 30 times during a meeting.

If you leave your home or office without your phone you will almost always go back to retrieve it.  As in the old American Express card ads with Karl Malden ‘Don’t leave home without it’.

Why shouldn’t a smartphone cost $1,000 or more? By the end of each year (if you average the 46 times per day), you will have looked at your phone 16,790 times. Over two years that’s $.06 each view. And I bet you look at it more often than 46 times so it’s even less expensive per view.

The end result for me is that when it comes to a smartphone I am suggesting that if you can, go for the best you can buy – battery performance, storage, warranty etc.  You will not find a better bargain around.

Posted in Smartphones, Technology | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

AARP – does it have a long-term future?

In April of 2012 I wrote a post on what I felt was the need for AARP to change its messaging and to re-brand. Some of the recent television spots feature AARP CEO Jo Ann Jenkins in which she promotes AARP can help by being a resource. However the spots also indicate that AARP recognizes it can do a better job of communicating its value proposition and connecting with its core audience.

It’s important to note that AARP is a non-profit organization. The overall revenues are impressive none-the-less. According to its 2015 Consolidated Financial Statement, AARP’s largest sources of income were*:

  • royalties for the rights to use AARP’s intellectual property (name, logo, etc.) paid by commercial providers of products, services and discounts available to AARP members ($838,649,000);
  • membership dues ($295,180,000); and
  • advertisements placed in its publications ($149,604,000).

*source Wikipedia

That adds up to $1,283,433,000 for those of you scoring at home.

In order to be a member of AARP you have to be 50 or more years old. In the United States as of the 2012 census there were more than 108,000,000 people 50+. Today, 5 years later ,there are even more. As of 2014 there were roughly 37.8 million AARP members. That there are more than 70 million Americans saying NO (I am one of them) to AARP represents a huge business opportunity for AARP.   Yet as in the past, the organization continues to miss on the messaging.

While the official name of the organization remains AARP, in 1999 it ceased to represent the American Association of Retired Persons and instead focused on people over 50. Of course that change did not register in the minds of actual people.

So really AARP is a 50+ club where we special people get things that the under 50’s do not. Exclusivity IS cool and simply aging into a deal is also kind of cool. So why not change AARP to something like the ‘50+ is fabulous’ club?   Sure there are many people (yes BOTH men and women), that do not wish to be identified as being 50 or more. Well it was unlikely AARP was going to get them to become members easily in the first place. Why bother trying to appease and appeal to them?

In its two minute spot a clear depiction of benefits is in evidence. The support could have gone further in noting how much John saved on coffee and donuts this year at Dunkin’ Donuts. Or how much Mary saved on movie tickets in a year with their 25% discount on tickets. The fact that 7 million Americans get their health insurance via AARP branded insurance is also interesting.

It’s questionable at best whether the offer of a free tote bag and the AARP magazine is really a benefit to the member or just a way for AARP to put more ads in front of the member. My opinion is that the premium does nothing but reinforce the dowdiness of the organization.

AARP can and should do better. What’s stopping them?

Posted in 50+ market, Marketing stuff | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Alibaba still wants to win in the United States

Last week Alibaba and Jack Ma, (Chairman Jack Ma that is) arranged to host a Gateway 17 conference in Detroit, Michigan. It was the first time Alibaba has hosted such a conference outside of China. ‘Gateway ’17 is Alibaba’s road show to promote greater U.S. exports to China, where a growing middle class — already some 300 million or more strong — is showing an insatiable appetite for consumer goods.’ From the Detroit Free Press

The purpose was to sell American small business on the ‘Chinese Dream’.

I note that Alibaba ‘still’ wants to win in the U.S. and that’s in part because it’s been kind of trying on and off since at least 2010. Full disclosure – Alibaba was a former client of our company back in 2011 and 2012. Our work was on the business-to business-side. That time coincided with the huge growth Alibaba.com’s consumer platforms Taobao and Tmall and to us it seemed like Alibaba’s enthusiasm on strategic sourcing in China and Asia for U.S. businesses was lukewarm.

This past Monday evening my friend Michael Zakkour of Tompkins International (and Forbes contributor) proceeded to give a very interesting talk at SUNY’s Confucius Institute for Business.  It centered on Gateway 17 as well as other a good amount of considerations related to China. The talk was entitled “The Road to Global Leadership: How China is Using Diplomacy, Steel & Technology to Create the Chinese Dream”.

While I do my best to keep up with China-market related activity the fact is that I have not been in China in four years. Which in China is more like 10+ years at the rate of change I had experienced there prior. Michael discussed the desire expressed on the part of Mr. Ma (now the richest man in Asia to be even more than what many Americans think – ‘The Amazon of China’. Mr. Ma has far higher aspirations than that. Alibaba.com touches Chinese consumers as well as non-Chinese in so many aspects of daily life from shopping (Taobao, Tmall) to payment platforms (Alipay is a giant platform).

“When you get a feel of being successful, problems come,” he said. “We know only if our customers succeed, we will be successful. Serve the people, that was what I learned.”

So why now? Why will this effort to reach U.S businesses be more successful than Alibaba’s efforts in the past? After all Mr. Ma has promised President Trump that he will create more than 1,000,000 jobs in the United States.

According to Bloomberg (and also to Michael Zakkour) it’s for several reasons including creating markets outside of China as believe it or not the growth prospects for Alibaba in China are not quite as bright as they’ve been in the past fifteen years. Mr. Ma wants to help American businesses reach the more than 500 million Chinese consumers (and growing). In Chairman Ma’s eyes when it comes to the future of Alibaba’s influence the world is not enough.

Will Alibaba’s renewed U.S. effort be successful? A big difference today from 6 years ago is that most Americans are familiar with Alibaba to some degree (i.e. China’s Amazon). I think it is dangerous to underestimate Jack Ma and Alibaba but success in the U.S. is far from guaranteed. Jeff Bezos is taking notes to be sure.

Game on.

Posted in Alibaba, Amazon, Internet Marketing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Spotify looks like Amazon once did

As I thought about writing this post Amazon.com announced last Friday morning that it was making an offer to buy Whole Foods for more than $13B. I am thinking a lot about as to what kinds of changes Amazon might bring to Whole Foods.

Spotify.com is also moving closer to an IPO in order to raise cash despite its continued user growth. Expenses continue to outpace revenues – which were in excess of $3B last quarter. It’s a rare occurrence when the phrase “lose money but make it up in volume” isn’t a death sentence. But that’s where Spotify is today, and where Amazon.com was for a very long time.

Given that Amazon is now nearly twenty-three years old (on July 5) and Spotify just turned 11 it’s interesting to compare where Spotify is today to where Amazon was in 2006.   It took Amazon until 2001 to turn its first quarterly profit. Spotify is still seeking its first quarterly profit which does not appear to be imminent.

Back in the late 1990’s I bought a few shares of Amazon stock. I always have liked Amazon’s business model and back then I was aware that all the money Amazon was bringing in was going into creating distribution centers. At the time Amazon was almost solely focused on book selling. Yet by putting money into infrastructure, I (like many) figured Amazon was preparing to ship everyone else’s stuff. And that’s what happened. Of course before that happened a friend of mine who was giving me some investment advice directed me to sell my Amazon shares feeling that Amazon was going to drown in its own debt. So I subsequently did sell my shares for a small profit. We’re still friends (although that one still stings) but the moral of that story is never take advice on equities from a bond trader.

So take Spotify as a comparative. Where Napster failed, and where Limewire, Kazaa and Grokster’s file sharing went afoul of the law and were shut down.; Spotify has ‘succeeded’ in the sense that it has a vast coterie of artists who have accepted its pay-per-use model. Building that infrastructure is expensive. Really expensive. And still many artists like Taylor Swift and others feel that Spotify keeps too much of the fees it charges users. All the while Spotify continues to rack up losses ($600 million last quarter). Something’s got to give right?

One thing that’s important to keep in mind is the way Spotify’s users feel about the service. As far as I am aware, users (myself included) LOVE the service. The Spotify platform utility is really good with a great UI, intuitive search and just the right amount of relevant suggestions on other music one might consider based on your prior listening habits. The reward for Spotify is massive adoption with more than 140 million users and still growing rapidly. Jeff Bezos of Amazon has focused on delighting Amazon’s customers. Spotify has that same singular focus which is a long term winning play.

The way it can work for Spotify and artists is for Spotify to continue to get bigger. More users means more revenue for everyone and there’s certainly sure to be a critical mass tipping point where Spotify becomes profitable – and stays there.

Does that scenario sound familiar? It should because in several ways it’s similar to the arc of Amazon. Spotify has not delved deeply into subscription video and publishing, but you can be sure that it’s in their future plans. Video and publishing success for Spotify will not be easy, but with a large user base it has one heck of a good start.

As a musician myself I have been concerned about artist compensation, which will be an ongoing battle with Spotify. However, the ability to listen to a vast catalog of music, anywhere, anytime, has me listening to more music in the past few years than I had in many before that. I assume I am far from unique in that sense. And as a musician, more people listening to more music, makes me very happy.

One last note as it pertains to Apple Music. Apple too has been great for music listening overall. But I feel that it has lost the higher ground to Spotify. The same can be said of Pandora, which like Apple has modified its offerings to consumers to be similar to Spotify in some cases. Does Spotify have too big an advantage? I am willing to bet yes.

Posted in Streaming Music | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Long Tail of Old Jobs

There aren’t many but there are still a few horse-drawn carriages on the streets of New York City – a somewhat controversial subject between Mayor DeBlasio, animal rights activists, and the owners of stables on the city’s west side.

The drivers of those horse-drawn carriages have old jobs. Many old jobs have gone by the wayside over the past century but the rate of job irrelevancy seems to be accelerating.

Growing up in the suburbs when I was young we had a neighborhood ‘Egg Man’. This man seemed older than old (and as I recall toothless) and his broken down station wagon could barely make it down the street. He would deliver eggs (and milk) straight to our door once a week. It’s a safe bet that there are few, if any, egg men anymore. Now we have Amazon Prime, Fresh Direct and Peapod. Yet per capita, Americans still consume 260+ eggs per year. Maybe there is a business delivering a hyper-local premium experience in the form of cage free local laid eggs and other dairy products. But it’s not a big business. The Soda Man is gone too and I don’t think he’s coming back.

Chris Anderson’s seminal book ‘The Long Tail’ from 2004  discussed the opportunity for businesses that catered to smaller niche groups of consistent and passionate customers. It gave hope and opportunity to many and emboldened others to try to make a go of it when they otherwise might not have bothered. The idea that an artist could make a recording and deliver it digitally to their fans bypassing the production and expense of having a label involved and still make a living was exciting even if it did not quite work out that way.

Some old jobs:

B0wling pin setter

Who even remembers?

Toll taker

Even as recently as the 1980’s being a toll-taker used to be a pretty decent public service job. Today that’s not the case. There are a few left and there likely will be for some time to come. The same can be said for NYC subway token clerks.

Printing sales

From personal experience I can offer than being a commercial printing salesman is also an old job. It does have a long tail opportunity since it’s not as if printing is going away entirely. But commercial printing is far from a growth industry. These days it’s a somewhat rare occasion when I get to use my printing chops to specify a print job or come up with an alternative that fits the project need. Yet I expect that core skill to serve me in some fashion for the balance of my professional career. You never need a printer, until you need one. I can say the same things for my friends and colleagues in the ‘data’ industry (which used to be called the mailing and email list industry). You never need a data guy until you need a data guy.

Deliberately bringing back old jobs is hardly a way to move forward. However for all the people that were trained to do a job they’ve done for twenty years or more, who now find themselves in constant peril of being sacked, it’s clear that a little advance warning would have been welcome. Nobody was telling people in the 1980’s and 1990’s to ‘update their skills’ and to prepare for what I am terming the ‘Automation Economy’.

Service jobs will best withstand the automation economy but they too will morph and be different as technology and automation continue to progress. Robocop http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093870/ seemed a bit farfetched when it was made in 1987. But a robotic police force (working in concert with police) would clearly change future employment figures for law enforcement and not in an aggregate positive way. We already know that with the development of self-driving cars, taxi, Uber and Lyft drivers are not long for this world even if it takes twenty years. That old job will not come back but the option of a paid guide to ride with you on a journey offers a personal service of high value. In as such, that would be a long tail job.

More old jobs:


The business of sole practitioner tutoring is a long tail job and which itself has changed in large part due to remote access. We are far from the days where giants like Kaplan and Princeton Review could completely dominate the industry yet they remain relevant companies. What’s changing is that every day more one-to-one tutoring is done online and more people have access to tutors personal and otherwise than ever before. And geography is not a factor.

There remain plenty of other old jobs that will have a long tail. Accounting, Finance, and Legal jobs will change but are far from being made irrelevant. Performing some of those jobs in a large corporate organization may not look like what it does today thirty years from now. There could be many more accounting, financial and legal independent contractors that work with but not directly FOR the corporation. In that case those people become long tail employees in that they are saddled with having to manage multiple gigs in order to not be left out in the cold when one ‘client’ leaves. At that point haven’t they all become long tail jobs?

Professional musician:

How about orchestral and theater musicians? There are not nearly as many professional orchestras as there were thirty or more years ago and a good number of theater musicians have been ‘replaced’ with technology and recorded music. At the same time, being a professional musician will remain an avocation. There just won’t be quite as many of them able to make what might be considered a ‘decent living’.

Old jobs remain old jobs when they stagnate and fail to adapt and change. Working on a machine line offers little chance for individual innovation. The idea of a world of independent contractors has its merits and detriments, which I will not go into here but will in a future post. A talented member of my family is a professional musician (he’s a fiddler – really he is and a good one at that), an accountant and travels the world while delivering services for both from wherever he is via the miracle of digital communication.

What concerns me is the overall social impact of an increasingly isolated work force. The ability to be highly productive independent of the surroundings is a two-edged sword. The abandonment of personal interactions (whether intentional or not) is troubling and will have a variety of significant social impacts. I believe that when people work closely together the opportunity exists to produce the best consistently quality output. And that can be achieved in no other way. How society meets this challenge will be very interesting.

The Long Tail of Old jobs has already begun ready or not. Were you ready? Are you ready? 

Posted in Best business practices, Jobs | Tagged , , , , , | 10 Comments

Go out to lunch for a change

I am nearing the end of my fourth decade of being part of the working world and I’ve always been a fan of getting out of the office for lunch even if it means brown bagging it in the park. Sometimes that’s been necessary.

With so much time spent staring at screens, going out to lunch with someone can be a welcome break from the hour-to-hour grind of the workday. Yet somehow going out to lunch has become either a guilty pleasure or an unaffordable (both time and expense) luxury. That’s more than a shame as far as I am concerned.

So many of my professional relationships have been elevated by breaking bread. Earlier in my career when I had young children I lived by the motto of ‘you can have me during the day but nights are for my family’. Meaning that lunch was the time to meet a client or colleague, discuss business and even talk about personal things like family and travel. In the 1980’s the three martini lunches were pretty much becoming a thing of the past. Inviting clients and prospects to lunch (yes there was a time when a business prospect would allow you to take them to lunch) potentially fostered those relationships in the days before email and being ‘on call’ nearly 24/7.

I’ve written about being too busy to do anything but work, work, work. Despite that I’m here to offer that going out to lunch is an antidote to a mundane workweek in which by Thursday you cannot recall what you did or ate on Tuesday. Yet with the lengthening of people’s work hours (does anyone really only work 9-5 anymore?), instead of taking time to get out of the daily routine, people are forgetting and missing the benefits of changing one’s perspective by getting out and doing something different for an hour or two.

Keith Ferrazzi wrote a book several years ago called ‘Never Eat Alone’ and while I get the point of making eating time a social and professional activity, there are also times when I like being alone, getting a sandwich or salad, and sitting in Bryant Park watching all the people come and go.

I’ve friends who I don’t see as much as I’d like – because we’re all so busy. They are often too busy to have lunch even when we work in the same city. One other thing, I am very good at lunch. Mainly because I enjoy it so much – the change of venue, the atmosphere of different and the community created by engagement, all most often combine to elevate my spirit, and my afternoons. The work seems to always be there when I get back to my desk.

Don’t eat at your desk today. Consider a change to your routine and go out to lunch with a friend, family member or even a client. And then try to do it more often.

Posted in Living in the World Today | Tagged , , | Leave a comment