Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Starbucks Revives The Unique Selling Proposition


The Unique Selling Proposition, or “USP,” is a marketing proposition that originated in the early 1940’s at the Ted Bates advertising agency, some 20 years before what’s depicted on Mad Men. The USP originator was advertising pioneer, author, and agency VP, Rosser Reeves. USP got picked up by agencies all over the world, and quickly became a pretty ubiquitous concept, although the actual use of the term has faded somewhat into advertising history. The approach, however, is alive and well and currently residing in Starbucks “Barista Promise” ads.

Before discussing the ads, it might be worth it to offer up some background to the concept, given the concept is nearly 75 years old. According to the writings of Mr. Reeves, the USP was supposed to give an ad campaign a little extra jolt. Something that would impel the consumers across the line of indecision to preference and, ultimately to loyalty. Back then “Unique” referred to an inimitable feature of the brand and (back then) that usually referred to a rational aspect or feature of the product or service. “Selling” referred to value. Did the unique thing you were trumpeting make a big enough contribution to what we call “brand engagement” today, so that consumers felt the product better met their expectations? Finally, “Proposition” was the promise that if the consumer went with your brand with the certain unique aspect or claim, i.e., the selling point, that they would receive a specific benefit.

Not a bad theoretical foundation. Actually a pretty good one. Even today where process and production re-engineering has essentially changed the rational, functional aspects of most categories into table-stakes, and where the “jolt” consumers feel comes more fluidly and effortlessly when it is emotionally-based, being able to point to a meaningful point of differentiation can, indeed, end up being the critical factor consumers use to choose you versus the competition.

Mr. Reeves had a couple of caveats to all this: The proposition had to be something the competition could not say or – wait for it – was not currently saying, an important nuance. And, of course, the USP had to be important and engaging enough to engender positive behavior toward the brand, i.e., make money, attract new customers – good stuff like that.

Starbucks has been running full-page newspaper ads and TV ads under the heading “Our Barista Promise: Love your beverage or let us know. We’ll always make it right,” which we have to say is a great example of a USP, particularly one where the competition could do it, but isn’t. Talking about it, we mean. Differentiation can come from a brand talking about something that the competition isn’t. And it doesn’t get any more emotional than loving something, be it your car, or your smartphone, or your beverage. If you can do that in a meaningful and engaging way, you’ll wake something up in consumers and you’ll see consumers behaving more positively toward your brand.

All that said we took a look at the Out-of-Home Coffee category in our Customer Loyalty Engagement Index to see how consumers of these various coffee purveyors rated them as to barista-prep of their beverages, which turned out to be the most-important engagement driver in the category.  By drilling-down into this driver we can see how satisfied consumers of these various coffee providers were with barista-created coffee beverages, measured against their collective category Ideal (100%). Here’s how they measured up:

Dunkin’ Donuts        96%
Starbucks                 95%
Tim Hortons             93%
MacDonald’s            92%
Coffee Bean             91%   


Not as much difference as one would like for a truly differentiating brand positioning statement, but certainly well within the parameters Rosser Reeves set for a “Unique Selling Proposition.” Now all they have to do is make it their own. It was Bette Midler who advised, “Cherish forever what makes you unique, because you’re really a yawn if it goes away.” And we think it’s fair to predict that last thing purveyors of caffeinated beverages want in return for its brand positioning efforts is a yawn.



Connect with Robert on LinkedIn.

Find out more about what makes customer loyalty happen and how Brand Keys metrics is able to predict future consumer behavior: brandkeys.com. Visit our YouTube channel to learn more about Brand Keys methodology, applications and case studies.

Wednesday, April 09, 2014

Most Loyal Fans In Baseball


Last week the cry of “Play Ball” echoed across the nation, and baseball fans cheered. Some just louder than others. Normally, we would have released the results of our 22nd annual Brand Keys Sports Fan Loyalty Index before the first pitch, but because being a fan is such an emotional phenomenon, this year we decided to wait for fans to put just a little distance between opening day buzz and the actual fan loyalty scorecard.

The Brand Keys Sports Fan Loyalty Index provides metrics that correlate very, very highly with viewership and purchase of licensed merchandise, and via interviews with 250 self-declared fans in each team’s SMSA it provides more than just gate-count. The Sports Loyalty Index was designed to help professional sports team management identify precise fan loyalty rankings in their home and national markets and provide insights that identify areas, particularly emotional ones, that need strategic brand coaching.

Current 2014 MLB top-5 loyalty leaders and bottom-5 basement team standings are listed below (Note: #’s in parentheses are team rankings for 2013)

Top-5 Teams – 2014                      2013 Rankings

1. St. Louis Cardinals                             (#4)
2. Philadelphia Phillies                           (#2)
3. Boston Red Sox                                 (#6)
4. Atlanta Braves                                    (#5)
5. San Francisco Giants                         (#3)

Bottom-5 Teams – 2014               2013 Rankings

30. Houston Astros                                 (#30)
29. New York Mets                                  (#26)
28. Seattle Mariners                                (#27)
27. Arizona Diamondbacks                     (#20)
26. Colorado Rockies                              (#21)

The four emotional drivers of fan loyalty include:

Pure Entertainment:
 How well a team does. But more importantly than the win-loss ratios, how exciting is their play? Sure, everybody loves a winner, but it’s important to note that win/loss ratios do not entirely govern fan loyalty. Even winning a World Series doesn’t immediately jump a team to the top of the loyalty list. It can add up to 20% to a team’s loyalty strength and that certainly moves you up the list, but it doesn't load the loyalty bases for a team if you are deficient in the other three areas, which are emotionally-based factors that must be taken into account:

Authenticity: How well they play – as a team. And what support is provided for that? A new stadium is an icon for genuineness and substance being invested in the team. But more often – because it happens more often – a new manager can help lift this driver. It signals a change and when it is seen to affect how the team plays as a team, loyalty levels usually move up. It certainly didn’t hurt the Phillies. But you can’t buy Authenticity. The Yankees (now #6) had the highest payroll in baseball last year, nearly twice that of the Cardinals. Look who’s #1.

Fan Bonding: Are players particularly respected and admired? We recognize that professional baseball players are the best-of-the-best, but if you really have to think about “who might that be on my team?” or “Hmmmm, let me think,” or “Wait! Jeter. Oh, right. Never mind,” your score on the Fan Bonding driver is likely to take a bad hop.

History & Tradition: Is the game and the team part of fans’ and community/family rituals, institutions and beliefs? This is most emotional of values when it comes to Major League Sports, and is the driver that drives fans to angry outbursts when their team is at the bottom of the loyalty roster. It is also often the fan loyalty driver that accounts for nearly all the loyalty that exists for a team. For example, it’s worth noting it’s been 106 years since the Chicago Cubs won a World Series, and 69 years since they won a National League pennant, but they always fall into the top-5 teams when it comes to strength on the History and Tradition driver. It’s good to be strong there, but you need some strength in the other drivers as well. Otherwise, after a while, the team can find itself being called “out” by the folks who are supposed to be fans.

All teams – all brands, for that matter – can benefit from increased loyalty levels as they are leading-indicators of positive consumer behavior (however you define that for the category in which the brand competes), but as baseball is traditionally called America’s “National Pastime,” there’s a real emotional connection for fans. And, as this just the start of the 2014 season, we can offer fans whose teams are not at the top of this year’s list, a nod a and a quote from Hall of Famer, Yogi Berra: “It ain’t over till its over.”

For fans of other sports, 2014 rankings for the NBA will appear just before playoffs later this month, the NHL in time for the Stanley Cup, and the NFL rankings in time for their kickoff in September.

In the meantime, “Go (FILL IN THE NAME OF YOUR TEAM HERE)!”



Connect with Robert on LinkedIn.

Find out more about what makes customer loyalty happen and how Brand Keys metrics is able to predict future consumer behavior: brandkeys.com. Visit our YouTube channel to learn more about Brand Keys methodology, applications and case studies.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Gods of Retail War 2014



Watch out, GameStop, Walmart has a double-barreled shotgun pointed at you! Or a neutron ray gun. Maybe even the Sword of Sparda. Not literally of course, but in that Walmart kind of we-have-you-in-our-sites way they get when they sense a market opportunity.

Starting today, Walmart is focusing their aim on the used videogame business. Used videos are a sore spot between retailers and the nearly $25 billion videogame industry, a kind of Blades of Chaos weapon in the battle for profitability. Right now nearly 10% of those billions are spent buying used video games at GameStop. That represents nearly 45% of the retailer’s gross profits for the last fiscal year. At retail, new games go for as high as $90 each. Used games go for a lot less and the used games represent a much higher profit margin.

In this case, Walmart intends to make it easy for shoppers. Consumers trade in used video games for Walmart gift cards, which could end up being as much as $35. Walmart is counting on the fact that customers will use the gift cards to buy groceries, or clothing, or anything not currently available at a specialty retailer like GameStop. Kind of like earning an extra life, if retail was a video game.

Anyway, Walmart ran a kiosk test program like this half a decade ago, but it turned out to be hard program to institute. Apparently there are really complex logistics to trading in used video games. You wouldn’t think it would be that hard, but there you are. And if it’s hard for a company like Walmart, it’s probably really hard.

For example, you have to take a used video game’s overall condition into account. And then you have to be pretty precise at approximating its worth. This is a business we’re talking about, after all, not a game. Well, you get the difference. And because they're used, you have to know how to refurbish them, and after that you have to keep an accurate inventory of what you have. If you don’t do that you end up with thousands of used copies of Double Dragon II: Wander of the Dragons, which MetroGame Central called, “the interactive equivalent of irritable bowel syndrome and one of the most bizarrely awful video games ever made,” so you probably don’t want to have lot of those sitting on shelves in the back room. See? OK, not quite the Battle for Middle Earth, but hard, like we said.

But these complexities – and good and bad gamer reviews – also raise a question regarding actual demand. Not demand for used videogames generally. There’s a lot of that and that’s already been established. No, how about demand for a specific game itself? The game’s brand, their franchise, if you will.

For how video game brand and franchises leverage among the gamer community, we took a look at how consumers rated this year’s Major League Video Games in our Customer Loyalty Engagement Index. Here are the results. For what it’s worth, it’s worth noting how many of the top-11 games have Roman numerals or a subordinate title after their name, a pretty good indication that it’s not the first of the game’s brand offerings.
 

  1. Call of Duty: Ghosts
  2. Grand Theft Auto V
  3. FIFA 14
  4. Assassins’ Creed IV
  5. Tomb Raider
  6. The Last of Us
  7. Batman: Arkham Origins/Bio Shock: Infinite
  8. Battlefield 4
  9. NBA 14
  10. Madden NFL 25

This time around Walmart, the country’s largest retailer with nearly 5,000 U.S. stores and who has already has a credit-for-used-tablet-and-smartphone program in place, is teaming up with trade-in expert, CEx-change, hoping to add a secondary armament to their retail arsenal, a partnership to unlock some extra weapons to use against competitors. Walmart announced they’ll selling used video games later this year, so the proverbial line has been drawn in the digital sands of Retailing World.

Right now GameStop isn’t ready to call in the Army of Hades for backup but they have said that when it comes to the used video buy-sell game they are the top player for now. GameStop has an affinity program, which tracks consumer purchases and trade-ins and develops customized outreach, a kind of Batman Glue Grenade used to create a gamer loyalty bond with their brand. Real loyalty and engagement – something that can't be jimmied apart even with a Grand Theft Auto crowbar – can also help in changing consumer habits, like migrating them to Internet games.

So the war of the used videos games has been declared. We’ll see how it goes and who changes the rules first. One thing for sure: retail is a lot like video games. No matter how good you get, there’s always someone out there with some weapon looking to cut your margin!


Connect with Robert on LinkedIn.

Find out more about what makes customer loyalty happen and how Brand Keys metrics is able to predict future consumer behavior: brandkeys.com. Visit our YouTube channel to learn more about Brand Keys methodology, applications and case studies.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Which Came First, The Consumer or the Brand?


It was David Ogilvy who said, “Consumers don’t say what they think and they don’t do what they say.” And he was right about that. At least most of the time. And in a more complex marketplace it’s only gotten harder to measure what consumers really think today. Not what they say they think. Measuring that is easy. But measuring what they really think, and how they’re going to behave? That’s an entirely different kettle of fish.

We specialize in predictive metrics and in identifying what consumers really expect, and how they are going to engage with brands, and we’ve found that sometimes it’s the consumers who take the lead, and sometimes it’s the brands that change the paradigm, so it’s nice when customer values and brand values come together. You can pick any category value and turn it into a “which came first, the chicken or the egg” discussion, but you can always see when a mutual accord of consumer and brand values makes themselves felt in the real marketplace.

For example, for years expectations regarding healthier food were something that kind of ambled along on relatively parallel tracks for consumers and brands. Neither consumer nor brand completely followed through for a lot of reasons, but mostly because consumer expectations – or more precisely, not enough real consumer expectations – were there to make it a worthwhile investment for brands.  But when consumer expectations go unfulfilled for a long enough time, through either scrupulousness or serendipity, some brand finally recognizes the opportunity and steps in to fill that gap between what consumers really expect and what brands currently deliver. And when they do, the brand usually does real well. And when one brand does real well, others follow.

But like we said, it can be a chicken-and-egg debate, or, following our theme, more precisely a chicken-and-egg whites discussion as to whether the consumer or the brand drives category change. As a value, “healthier food” has been around for years. It finally delineated itself, as something not quite a “quest for fitness,” but close, and something that sidled very near to “nutrition,” and has now, ultimately, resolved itself as a desire for “free-from” foods. You know, free-from. Free-from too much salt, or fat, or free-from preservatives, or antibiotics. Free-from artificial stuff. Like that. And that value is showing up and making itself felt as regards consumer emotional engagement and brand selection.

When we look, for example, at a menu of restaurant brands in our January 2014 Customer Loyalty Engagement Index, we find that – just like every other category – consumers better engage, i.e., behave better towards brands they see better meeting their expectations, and those brands that can do that end up at the top of their respective category lists. Being No. 1 is nice, but in the case of engagement being No.1 shows up more tangibly in sales, market share, and profitability, something brands love serving up to their shareholders. Here’s this year’s top-5 brands consumers see as doing the best job delivering against their expectations for healthy, free-from food:
  1. Subway
  2. Chick-fil-A
  3. Panera
  4. Chipolte
  5. Dunkin’

What, in particular, are these brands doing to meet customer expectations? Glad you asked.

Subway announced it was eliminating azodicarbonide, something commercial bakers use to increase softness of dough. BTW, it’s also used in manufacturing yoga mats. Chick-fil-A announced it would no longer sell chickens raised on antibiotics. Panera marked a decade of using meat raised free-from antibiotics. Chipolte has instituted new standards having to do with nontherapeutic antibiotics and says it will look to source meats that have never been given antibiotics. And last year Dunkin’ announced they were developing a line of gluten-free offerings.

There’s a Yiddish saying that goes, “Health is a relationship between you and your body.” And these days, consumers are extending that relationship to restaurant brands that better meet their emotional engagement expectations for, well, everything that drives loyalty in their respective categories. But as regards, this one particular value, it’s worth noting that while free-from food is generally more expensive than food that is traditionally processed or sourced, it appears that both customers and brands are putting their money where their mouths are.

No matter who came first.



Connect with Robert on LinkedIn.

Find out more about what makes customer loyalty happen and how Brand Keys metrics is able to predict future consumer behavior: brandkeys.com. Visit our YouTube channel to learn more about Brand Keys methodology, applications and case studies.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

For Rent: Lots Of Space (Not Digital)



It was Andrew Carnegie who advised, “Invest in land. They’re not making any more of it!” Of course those were simpler times. Steel mills, railroads, libraries. They all needed some sort of physical space. Not anymore, apparently. Well, not so much the steel mills and railroads, but retailers are feeling what can only be called, the digital pinch.

RadioShack announced that they are closing 1,100 U.S. stores. They had a really bad holiday season what with deeply discounted competition from the likes of Best Buy, but mostly from online retailers. Same-store sales were down 19% and 4th Quarter losses were $192 million, nearly 3 times the loss from a year earlier. So they’re closing a fifth of their stores, which opens up a lot of space for someone to rent.

Staples, the largest office supply company in the U.S. indicated that they too were going to close stores – up to 225 of them, or about 10% of them disappearing by the end of next year. So a lot more space for rent. Ronald Sargent, Staples’ Chairman/CEO indicated that the stores had fallen short of expectations and that they had to “fundamentally reinvent” themselves. You think? So fewer physical stores and lot more e-tailing efforts.

It’s estimated that e-tail currently accounts for about 7% of total retail sales, and is looking at a compound annual growth rate of about 10%. And why not? Ninety-eight percent (98%) of the nearly 16,000 consumers who participated in our 2013 Holiday Survey indicated that they were going to shop online. Apparently they did, and will continue to − even more of it.

Why? Well, increased use of mobile devices has led consumers to shop online more and more. Online integrated selling tools such as zoom, adjustment of color configurations, and product customization makes it very nearly like being in the store without, of course, having to actually get up and leave your home. Oh, and then there’s that sense online offers better deals than bricks-and-mortar retail à la flash sales, daily deals, and loyalty programs. The rumors of Amazon’s delivery drones notwithstanding, consumers also have a feeling that they can get same-day delivery for virtually everything without actually having to carry their purchase home.

So who is going to rent all this empty space? We can’t say right now. What we can say though, is that any space  – digital or physical – occupied by a brand has to be able to meet the consumers’ rational and emotional expectations if they expect to see increased transactions and profits. Mr. Sargent also said, “stores have to earn the right to stay open.” Understanding what those expectations are and addressing them via your brand is a really good start.



Connect with Robert on LinkedIn.

Find out more about what makes customer loyalty happen and how Brand Keys metrics is able to predict future consumer behavior: brandkeys.com. Visit our YouTube channel to learn more about Brand Keys methodology, applications and case studies.

Wednesday, March 05, 2014

Are Phablets Finally Here?




Five years ago, while examining leading-indicator values and expectations in our annual Customer Loyalty Engagement Index in the then-nascent “tablet” category, we noticed that consumer values dealing with tablets and smartphones were blending.

This was back in 2009, and what we saw was that tablet attributes, benefits, and values were combining with one of the basic smartphone attributes, the one that let you make a call. Anyway, back in 2009 we called the fusion of smartphone and tablet technologies a “phablet.” OK, not the most creative of titles, we admit, but at that juncture it really didn’t matter what we called them because there weren’t enough of them to matter or measure. We did, however, mention they might require larger pockets in clothing. Just saying.

But, as regards brands’ desires to measure meaningful consumer values ahead of the competition, it’s worth calling out that some sort of amalgam of the two categories had shown up on the engagement radar screen back then. A little ahead of its time? Maybe. But that’s the nice thing about real loyalty and emotional engagement metrics. They’re leading-indicators, meaning they’re signs of what’s going to happen down the road, and what consumers really want, usually before these values get articulated in focus groups. We did mention this was back in 2009, right?

So, here it is five years later and we were gratified to read in Molly Wood’s New York Times “Machine Learning” column, “. . . despite a somewhat mocking moniker, the ‘phablet’ (phone plus tablet) is here to stay.” BTW, we weren’t mocking the concept when we called it that back in 2009. How customer values in categories shift can have serious repercussions for brands, and it seemed to be pretty self-explanatory. Anyway, Ms. Wood went on to predict that seven and eight-inch phones will replace tablets of the same size. And also that they might require bigger pockets. If only she had emotional engagement assessments the way we did, she might have written her column five years ago.

But corroborating Brand Keys’ initial insights and Ms. Wood’s current opinion piece, the big call by handset makers at this year’s Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, was. . . wait for it. . . bigger smartphones. It’s always nice to have your insights and metrics validated in the real marketplace, and, apparently, the new big thing is a big screen.

Huawei introduced their “MediaPad XI,’ which they are now calling a “phablet.” ZTE introduced a 6-inche model, but they’re calling it the “Grand Memo II.” Samsung introduced their Galaxy S5 (at 5.1 inches). It’s reported Apple is skeptical about the consumer engagement power of phablets, but we’ll see. They’ve been technological leaders, of course, but there are all those iPads out there. Technology is, indeed, driven by corporate innovation, but it’s also driven by consumer expectations. Brands that better meet those expectations always do better in the marketplace than those that can’t – or choose not to.

As it was insights from the Customer Loyalty Engagement Index that initially pointed us at the phablet, we turned to the 2014 results for the Tablet and Smartphone categories and “fused” the consumer assessments for four brands represented in both categories just to see how well they met consumer expectations regarding design and size. Here’s how customers of each brand rated those brands versus an Ideal (100%):

Samsung      95%
Apple            89%
Sony             86%
Google          84%

Keep in mind, that these ratings are how customers see the brands vis à vis phablet values. And, that there are a lot of other brands out there focusing on the phablet, too. So what do you think? Which values will supersede others? Smartphones? Tablets? Something else? Does size really matter? Will consumers call on this new configuration? And here’s one of our own based on our current category engagement metrics, where can I get one?

Four things for sure: First, consumer expectations will continue to grow when it comes to fusing technologies that have previously engaged consumers. Second, predictive loyalty and emotional engagement assessments can help answer questions like the ones cited above in the early stages (We did mention these value shifts showed up five years ago? Imagine what you might do with predictive metrics like that for your brand?). Third, These metrics can be a predictive call-out of non-presumptive innovation. And, finally, you really want those kinds of insights, because it prevents brands from confusing the art of possibility with the art of profitability.



Connect with Robert on LinkedIn.

Find out more about what makes customer loyalty happen and how Brand Keys metrics is able to predict future consumer behavior: brandkeys.com. Visit our YouTube channel to learn more about Brand Keys methodology, applications and case studies.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

The Academy Award Winners And Losers. Odds For Movies And Odds For Ads


The 86th Academy Awards being broadcast this Sunday, March 2nd often ranks as the second-most viewed TV event of the year. Last year viewership was up about 3% Y-O-Y. Seth McFarland was host and the Academy’s dream for younger viewers came true: +19% in the coveted 18 to 49 demos. This year Ellen DeGeneres will host. This will be her second time.

ABC sold out their 30-second ad spots pretty quickly, with prices upwards of $1.8 million. One can never be sure whether that price-value equation and increased viewership is driven by who’s hosting or the mix of nominated movies and stars, but it’s probably a little of both. However you do the calculations, you also have to factor in the X-factor power of a live telecast in the digital age, which provides advertisers an opportunity to leverage a live show and some sort of social media and mobile outreach synergy in an attempt to engage viewers.

Attaining real brand engagement for the sponsors, of course, is more than just identifying an audience and running funny/exciting/sexy/emotional commercials, no matter who hosts, no matter how socially networked the viewers, and no matter how much they share, tweet or “like” the ads. If you want to see ROI, you don’t want to know the audience was amused, you want to know they were engaged. And much as some marketers would like to believe it, the Academy Awards, sometimes called the “Super Bowl for Women,” has not yet reached the lofty Super Bowl heights where people tune in to see what the advertisers are doing as much as (or sometimes more) for the show itself. No, people tune in to the Academy Awards looking for answers to four questions:

  1. Who’s on the Red Carpet?
  2. What are they wearing?
  3. How’s the new host going to open the show?
  4. Who’s going to win? 
For advertisers, there’s really only one question that should matter to them:

  1. What did I get for my $1.8 million + production costs?
We can’t comment about those first 4 questions, but we can about that last one. Using a validated process we quantify how exposure to the advertising on a particular show causes the viewer to “see” the brand as better meeting the expectations they hold for the Category Ideal in which the brand competes. You know, see if they were engaged or not, and not just that they saw the commercial. Or even liked it. This can be done predictively for virtually any marketing or advertising opportunity, but in this case we were looking at whether advertising the brand on the Academy Awards, got them thinking better about the brand.

This year’s study was conducted among 1,800 men and women, 18-59 years of age, screened for advertiser category-involvement, and who indicated a top-box intent to watch the Academy Awards this Sunday. Sixteen (16) specific brands mentioned in the press as possible advertisers on this year’s award show were evaluated, a week before the 86th award show. Where this backdrop significantly enhanced a brand’s equity, we’ve awarded it an Engagement Oscar. This year, the winners are.  .  .

American Express
Dove
General Motors
Mars
Pepsi
Samsung
Selsun Blue
Sprint

For the others, all we can offer up is, “Thanks for the memories.”

And yes, before you critics start carping that entertainment and engagement are not necessarily mutually exclusive, we’ll concede that’s true. Attaining both means not only was your creative top-notch, but your brand engagement strategy was as well. But that doesn’t happen as often as you’d think, and not often enough, despite all the pre-event buzz and hoopla.

This year the odds of engaging versus entertaining turned out to be 50:50. We’ll leave it to you decide if you want to take a chance with that kind of money with those odds. Brand Keys has found that engaged consumers are six times more likely to behave positively towards a brand, so just because a venue seems exciting and can generate a large, unified audience, and just because your agency has digitally “inserted” your brand into clips from classic movies, or has paid a gazillion dollars for some really fantastic special effects doesn’t mean it will work for every brand.  It’s worth remembering those wonderful last lines from Pretty Woman, “This is Hollywood, land of dreams. Some dreams come true, some don't.” If you’re a marketer dreaming of real ad success and can take out an option on entertainment or an option for engagement, you should always invest your money in engagement. Odds are you’ll see a better return on your investment.

Speaking of odds, every year we offer some up on the Oscar races based on the same loyalty and engagement assessments that correlate so very highly with positive consumer behavior and sales. Last year we hit 92%, so here are the odds for the “big” categories for this Sunday’s event. These calculations are provided for entertainment value only. If you’re making real bets on the outcomes, you’re on your own – just like advertisers without real engagement metrics!


Best Picture

12 Years a Slave                                                1/4

American Hustle                                               16/1

Captain Phillips                                               200/1

Dallas Buyers Club                                           25/1

Gravity                                                                9/2

Her                                                                  250/1

Nebraska                                                         250/1

Philomena                                                        250/1

The Wolf of Wall Street                                      80/1


Director

Alfonso Cuarón (Gravity)                                   1/20              

Steve McQueen (12 Years a Slave)                     9/1

Alexander Payne (Nebraska)                           100/1

David O. Russell (American Hustle)                   33/1

Martin Scorsese (The Wolf of Wall Street)         50/1


Lead Actor

Christian Bale                                                    100/1

Bruce Dern                                                          54/1

Chiwetel Ejiofor                                                     7/1

Matthew McConaughey                                      10/1

Leonardo DiCaprio                                                6/1


Lead Actress

Amy Adams                                                          16/1

Cate Blanchett                                                      1/14

Judi Dench                                                            50/1

Meryl Streep                                                          80/1

Sandra Bullock                                                      20/1


Supporting Actor

Barkhad Abdi                                                        16/1

Bradley Cooper                                                     69/1

Michael Fassbender                                              11/1

Jonah Hill                                                               60/1

Jared Leto                                                              1/10


Supporting Actress

Sally Hawkins                                                         44/1

Jennifer Lawrence                                                  11/8

Lupita Nyong’o                                                        8/11

Julia Roberts                                                           60/1

June Squibb                                                            44/1

About the hosting duties, Ms. DeGeneres has said, “I am so excited to be hosting the Oscars for the second time. You know what they say – the third time’s the charm.”

For marketers with real engagement metrics odds are 6-1the first time can be the charm for them.



Connect with Robert on LinkedIn.

Find out more about what makes customer loyalty happen and how Brand Keys metrics is able to predict future consumer behavior: brandkeys.com. Visit our YouTube channel to learn more about Brand Keys methodology, applications and case studies.