I’m talking about the invisible mental burden, the pressure that still exists to feel and appear in control of everything in the domestic domain, that keeps me up organizing and sprucing until 11pm the night before my in-laws come to town, even though my husband declared the house clean and ready at 7pm.  (Okay, so maybe I am kind of talking about those vexing bathtub stains – but not really.)  It’s the same invisible burden that splits me between pride and embarrassment when I tell someone that my husband is the chef in the family.  And it’s the same mental burden that intensified when I first became pregnant, for instance, turning something as simple as my lunch choice into a divergent life path for my child to be. Pick organic soup from Whole Foods and I was setting my child up to be intelligent, well rounded, and graduate-school bound.  Pick the fried sandwich from Chick-fil-a I was really craving, and I was dooming my child to early-childhood obesity and repeating second and third grade.

76% of moms in a Babycenter poll said they felt pressure to be the “perfect” mother.  Not good, not great, but perfect.  Why is this pressure so intense for moms?  Is it regulation-issued at birth, or is it driven by outdated societal expectations that have yet to catch up with the 50-hour workweek realities of many moms?  Have we taken on more without mentally taking anything off of our collective plates?

Whatever the cause, the effects of needing to feel in total control of the domestic domain lead to less satisfaction and joy in moms’ life, and more stress.  In fact, a UT Austin study found that in households where fathers help out equally or more with domestic duties, moms feel an increased sense of satisfaction in the marriage, but a decreased sense of self-esteem.  So, right or wrong, and whether she chooses to act on it or not, mom still derives a large part of her sense of self from how she contributes at home.  This is not to say that moms don’t want dads to help out more in the household, just that there are strange and complex mental side effects associated with dad’s help.

Additionally, a recent Canadian study found that new moms who feel the need to be perfect are more likely to suffer from postpartum depression.  And moms who dealt with those feelings by trying to appear that they didn’t have a problem had the strongest link to postpartum depression.

The lesson for moms and marketers is to work together to relieve the invisible burden.  We’re exploring moms’ pressures through our Mom Tugs framework, so that we can help brands better understand the pulls and pressures moms feel in their category and help them resolve the tension (and make the sale).  And moms are already banding together on blogs, message boards and over dinner and drinks to share and laugh about their unreasonable self-expectations, slowly releasing the perfection pressure valve created modern society.  Is your brand a part of the laughter and release, or a still part of the problem?

In February, a study was fielded to 475 respondents with children under the age of 19 living at home. Among the many subjects on which this study probed was the behavior modifications moms have experienced re: product and retail brands.

Not surprisingly, some key measures of saving behavior actually increased during the period. For example, in the June ’09 study 66% of moms reported being more cognizant of in-store offers. In our most recent study that number has increased to 72%. Similarly, 58% of moms reported using more coupons in June. By February, that figure had increased to 63%. These numbers are hardly shocking. Undoubtedly, given the ebb and flow of the economy, some households that had not previously been impacted have experienced a personal downturn in the last eight months.

Conversely, many families who had felt the economic sting prior to last June have seen their personal situations improve in the interim. Lost jobs have been replaced; salary cuts have been restored, etc. Even more likely, people expecting the worst back in the summer of 2009 never realized it. How have these moms’ behaviors changed?

As a result of these economic realities, we anticipated that a large portion of our sample would have migrated back to their previously established brand relationships. But, while some brand migration is evident, it is nowhere near the levels anticipated.

On the product side, 65% of the respondents reported making substantive changes in the brands they’ve purchased. Of that number, only 9% said that they have returned to many or all of their previously favored brands. Of special interest are the influences on the decision to revert to prior brand behaviors.

In some instances (33%), comfort level with an old brand was identified as a major influence on moms reestablishing their relationship. Other brands benefitted from a lack of performance on the part of the competition. 37% of respondents identified dissatisfaction with their alternative selections as a primary driver of their return to prior purchase patterns. Of equal importance, however, were the steps their original brands took to woo mom back. 34% cited lower pricing and 31% reported more aggressive promotions as major influences on their decision to return to their historic brand relationships.

Retailer loyalties, while significantly impacted by the economy, have not experienced the same degree of migration as product brands have. 54% of moms reported substantial outlet switching. Of these only 8% have returned to most or all of their previously favored retailers.

The reasons for switching back mirror the rationale provided for returning to historic brand behaviors. Comfort with their prior stores was noted as a primary influence by 36% of the moms who’ve reverted to at least some of their old outlets. 30% cited dissatisfaction with the product assortment offered by their alternative choice. And, as was the case with product brands, many retailers had to win customers back with better deals. 36% cited lower prices and 35% noted more aggressive promotions as primary motivators in switching back to their old retail relationships.

The economy, while more stable than it was last summer, remains in flux. As a result, there are continuing pressures on brands’ relationships with moms. The longer this situation continues, the greater the likelihood that the attitudinal and behavioral shifts we have seen will remain permanent. The result will be more cautious and demanding consumers, particularly among those responsible for family. Retailers will continue to go out of business and brands will disappear from the shelves. The winners will be those organizations that understand the true needs and wants of their audiences and can successfully strengthen their customer relationships at every touchpoint.

If you are interested in connecting with moms, email Nicole, our mom team lead.

Find out more about how we talk to mom»

In January 2009, Trone^® reported the results of a consumer study that identified six unique segments of pet owners. These attitudinally and behaviorally based groups displayed distinctly different relationships with their pets which were reflected in their pet-related spending.

As a follow-up, in December 2009, Trone launched another pet owner survey utilizing our opinions@trone database and infrastructure. This study, while confirming the findings of the previous work, uncovered interesting new information about the relationship between pet owners and veterinarians. The degree to which pet owners are dependent on the veterinarian is also a strong predictor of spending behaviors. And, it is not limited to spending exclusively done in the clinic.

Of the 945 pet owners surveyed (559 dog owners and 386 cat owners), 43% of dog and 34% of cat owners were deemed to be veterinarian dependent. Many of the behaviors distinguishing this group were definitional. As you would expect, owners who are veterinarian dependent are appreciably more likely to take their pet to the veterinarian two or more times a year. And they expect to spend significantly more on veterinary services over the lifetime of their pet than do their non-vet-dependent counterparts.

Veterinarian-dependent pet owners and their non-dependent counterparts share many common attributes.

Not surprisingly, dependence on a veterinarian is somewhat income driven. The vet-dependent group was 72% more likely to have an HHI over $75,000. But, households with incomes greater than $75,000 were less than 23% of the sample. Trust in the veterinarian and concern for the pet are even less likely than income to explain the dependence. 95% of the vet-dependent audience indicated a high level of trust in their veterinarian’s recommendations which was mirrored by the 90% of non-vet-dependent respondents who also trust their vet. The study included a number of measures of concern about their pets. On most of the questions there were only marginal differences demonstrated by the two groups. For example, when asked about the importance of protecting their pets from common parasites (fleas, ticks and heartworm), agreement numbers didn’t vary as much as 10% for the two groups.

The level of engagement differences between veterinarian-dependent and non-vet-dependent pet owners is evident in a range of behaviors.

While both groups have modified their pet-related spending as a result of the economic downturn, the veterinarian-dependent group has widened the spending gap. They’ve reduced their already higher spending levels less than the non-vet-dependent segment.

The vet-dependent group demonstrates a higher degree of product brand loyalty. They are 22% more likely to agree with the statement that they shop the stores that carry the brands they like rather than buying the brands that the store they like carries than their non-vet-dependent counterparts. As a result of this attitude, they are much more likely to shop the breadth of available outlets, including online. The sole exception is mass merchants which attract more non-vet-dependent customers in all categories from food (77% v. 56%) to flea and tick medications (43% v. 22%).

Veterinarian-dependent owners are also much more likely to have consulted with their veterinarian on purchases made outside the clinic. For example, they are more than three times as likely to have sought input on non-prescription food choices. And, they are more likely to act on the input they receive. 62% of vet-dependent pet owners have changed a basic product (i.e. food, shampoo, flea/tick treatment, etc.) in the past two years based on advice they received from their vet while only 11% of the non-vet-dependent group has taken such actions.

The challenge for marketers is to influence the influencer.

The challenge for marketers is leveraging the power of this highly influential veterinary group. In some cases the need is obvious. If a product is sold through the vet channel, some degree of engagement is necessary to achieve shelf space. But, taking the relationship beyond the basics and making your brand the preferred and hopefully, recommended choice is key. For products not sold within the veterinary channel the challenge is even greater. How do you engage the veterinarian to speak well of your brand? Must you rely on the pet owner to broach the subject or can your product interject itself into the conversation via the veterinarian? To answer these and the myriad of other questions that arise requires a unique understanding of the brand, the target, the influencer and the environment in which they interact.

If you are interested in connecting with pet owners, email Kimberly, our pet team lead.

Find out more about how we talk to pet owners»

AdAge’s Bob Garfield doesn’t think so. But Bob seems to take pleasure in being the curmudgeon of advertising. If you haven’t seen this campaign on the air, then take a look. I’ll have to admit, this brutal honesty and self-awareness caught me off guard. Sure, I was curious to see if they really made their product better. But more importantly, I empathized with the brand. Not just the brand, but the people behind the brand. Call me naive, but I think they actually humanized the brand.

Focus group poop

We all know how it feels to have our work pooped on, whether the criticism is deserved or not. Those of us who have had our work scrutinized, misinterpreted, and rewritten by a focus group have a unique appreciation for the reaction of the Domino’s chefs as they listen to the feedback about the cardboard crust and the sauce that tastes like ketchup. Of course we can assume that these reaction shots of dejected chefs were staged for this spot, but the emotion has got to be real.

Transparency chic

Transparency is the new black. So many brands are attempting to at least look honest and accessible by letting everyone peek behind the curtain. Even our government is getting in on that action. When you go to the Pizza Turnaround website, you’ll see real time tweets about the new pizza and the campaign. It seems to be unfiltered. I saw plenty of negative comments, but the majority seem to be supportive and appreciative.

Insight that can’t be ignored

When a brand is as plagued by negativity and bad luck as Domino’s, you can’t pretend everything is fine. A “new and improved” message would have been a yawn. I think this was the only move left for this brand. And because I now feel something for them, I hope it works.

As marketers, we’ve all fallen into this trap. We look at the description of the target audience and say, “That’s me!” Then we start thinking we can be the ultimate judge of the creative work and all we have to do is pick the ad that appeals to us personally. But it’s not that easy. No matter how much passion you have for the brand you work on, no matter how much you resemble the target persona, you’re still not the target. Here’s why.

1. You care too much. It’s not possible for you to be impartial when making decisions about the brand’s communication because you have a personal stake in the outcome. Of course you can still make good decisions; it just means you need to remember that the target audience doesn’t want your product. They only want what it can do for them.

2. You know too much. Even your best brand advocates don’t know your brand as well as you do. Your target audience doesn’t know your brand’s quarterly sales figures or manufacturing specs. They might not even remember your tagline. To reiterate the point from above: they only want to know what your brand can do for them.

3. You think too much. You spend a lot of time thinking about the product, the brand, the distribution channels, the competitive environment, the purchase decision process, and so on. The reality is that the target is not going to think that hard about it, even for a so-called high-involvement purchase decision. They may only think, “What can this brand do for me?”

So you’re never really the target. That’s great! Why? Because you don’t have to be the target to communicate with the target.

But what you do need is the right insight about who they are to start a meaningful conversation about what your brand can do for them. And when you’re ready to judge the creative work, remember whose eyes you need to look through.

Billboards saying things such as “Just say no to Bailout Banks. Bank responsibly,” “Did your bank take a bailout? We didn’t,” and my personal favorite that was placed next to the local zoo “Don’t feed the animals” with the word animals crossed out and “big banks” scribbled in.

And while big banks are crying foul saying that TARP money was important and helped a lot of people out, this little bank is growing rapidly. To the tune of $5 million in new deposits since the launch of the campaign. In their own little way, consumers are saying enough is enough with the poor me mentality of big banks.

After all, if we’ve learned anything from the automobile manufacturer Ford lately, it’s that stability is still part of the American dream.

Here is a video about the work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SNCuQ04ang.

Some of the back and forth about the campaign:
http://www2.snl.com/Interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-9218440-12642
http://www.bizpress.net/display.php?id=9849