Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Tomasz Pirc
Thinker
Thinker
About
Posts

Post has shared content
Solving the wrong problem with Marketing by spending loads and loads of money: Case Study: Bose

Bose was founded in 1964, Beats was founded in 2008. Bose revenues: $3.3 bil. Beats: $1.5 bil. Beats pockets 62% of the money spent on premium headphones (with their premium profits). Bose, 22%.  Take all other numbers, social followers, growth in key areas, etc. and Bose is not doing well, or at least has an opportunity to massively improve.

This is especially true for it's Marketing team. Even the most closed-minded Bose employee would see that Beats has them... well... beat there by gigantic proportions.

So, the solutions by the Marketing team at Bose?

Put it's headphones on old, mostly, white men.

? ?

Scroll, checkout the collage I made.

NFL contracts don't come cheap. I'm sure this is costing Bose an arm and a leg and most of the heart and lungs.

Old, mostly, white men. Who are not listening to music. 

Are these the "brand ambassadors" that are supposed to bring glory back to Bose? To help it beat Beats, and other wannabe competitors?

Who are these men connecting with? Is Bill Belichick causing young folks to run out and buy Bose?

Oh, and jump over to Bing, Baidu or Yandex right now, search for non-brand premium headphones, soundbars, iphone accessories, surround sound speakers, and any queries you like. Do you see Bose there? I did that after creating the collage you see in this post. 90% of the time answer for me is no.

So. 

Bose is not solving for when people are proactively looking for music/audio solutions. Yet. It has its logo every Sunday, Monday and the occasional Thursday on the heads of old men.

Problem solved.

Snark aside, old companies have a hard time seeing  reality, and creating solutions that help them get out when they are stuck in quicksand. They rely on the fact that their technology is superior or some other old clunky belief. Everyone in the company buys into it. That is how SGI died, and I was laid off.  Technology is necessary, but rarely sufficient.

It is close to astonishing that Bose does not see the conflict between the problem it faces, and how it is spending money on Marketing. That their Marketing is solving the wrong problem.

Or, that Marketing is the way to re-think their current business strategy and go out and win bigger.  

It would hurt less if this was just some silly corporation losing its way. Bose had incredible innovation and inspiring values. Bose founder, Amar Bose, donated most of his stock to MIT so that profit from Bose could help students. 

Let's hope that this changes. Before it's too late. 
Photo
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
Hmmm...
Sometimes you change the metric, and your worldview explodes!

This is from the Times. In addition to measuring how long the home page of a website takes to load on mobile (been there, done that!), they measured how much does it cost you. How many cents of Cell Data?

The resulting graphic is fascinating. Every time you visit the home page of boston.com, it costs you 32 cents in Cell Data to load the ads and 8 cents to load the editorial content. How crazy is that?

What is masked when you just look at page load is the case of NY Post. It takes a long time to load, but 9 cents cost for ads and 17 cents cost for content as they use lots of large photos.

That is the value in changing the metric you use. It is powerful.

The grand champion is +The Guardian. Almost not cost to load data, seven cents for content. Bravo, Guardian. Bravo!

Let's focus just on ads.

Cost, of course, is not the only cost. You battery life is lower. The pages take longer, you waste time. And, so on and so forth.

All this combines to in a way disrespecting the customer. How can you ask for so much more, and give so little publisher? Remember, in every relationship, you want the other person to orgasm first if you want it to last.

Consider the above, and look at the data below in the smaller box with details of boston.com. Would an ad blocker be appealing to you? It would. Right?

There are two culprits here.

1. The owner of the website first. They take a selfish perspective when it comes to user experience, they care so little about the cost (cell data, patience, page load, slower phones) they foist on us. See advice above re orgasms.

2. The advertising companies themselves. It's a freaking ad. Optimize the F*@% out of the technology and delivery of the ads to make them faster and lighter!!! Jebus. You've been in this business only for 20 years, how are your platforms so freaking inefficient! Why so many scripts, data, gifs, images and crud! 

If you want to cry about #2, just look at the LA Times picture.

Publishers need to make money. Ad Blockers are not the answer. But, there is a default tendency to blame the customer for using ad blockers. Publisher, meet mirror. Mirror, meet publisher.

Lots more data, drill-downs, and information about your fav site is here, courtesy of the NY Times: http://goo.gl/Dnj4tv
Photo
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
"Since the end of last year when Ljubljana Tourism upgraded the website with online bookings and payments, our sales have risen significantly. We might be a proof that DMO-based online bookings are not dead yet and we are totally excited about that." – Uroš Črnigoj
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Tisto o odstopu je sicer malo pretirano - saj bodo kmalu volitve in bomo povedali kako in kaj - ... ostalo pa precej na mestu.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded