Something I stumbled upon while on the net
(mediavillage.com) According to the new Emotional Connections Study conducted among 4,000 adults by Jack Myers Media Business Report, African Americans watch significantly more television on average than other ethnic groups; have more television channels on their primary TV sets; own more television sets in the home; watch more Pay TV; spend more time on the Internet; spend more time listening to radio; and are slightly more likely to own a digital video recorder but significantly less likely to skip through commercials and are more likely to stop and view selected commercials.
[...]
When asked to identify the three media types that are most valuable to them among 13 options, there are significant disparities among ethnic groups…Among African Americans and white audiences, broadcast television is ranked first and cable/satellite basic TV networks second by both groups. However, while both audiences rank E-mail third most valuable, 49% of white respondents include E-mail among their three most valuable media while only 35% of Black audiences include E-mail. (source)
Notice how newspapers are not listed here for any of the ethnic groups included in this survey. This is EXACTLY why I still accuse Black newspapers of excessive whining and playing the race card when they began to go after advertisers and T.D. Jakes a while ago for not spending “enough” money advertising in their publications (read “black tax“).
Related
Barking up the wrong tree
Didn’t they pull this with T.D. Jakes?
***UPDATE***
Just found this on Blackenterprise.com this morning:
“To this broader point is that corporate America has to do more work to reach a truly diverse audience. Long gone are the days of one-size fits all when it comes to marketing. African Americans or minorities in general can not be reached in one wide stroke. The panel agreed that segmenting niche groups even further is the way of the future. “Before it was about broad reach; how can I reach the most people as cheaply as possible?,” explains Swinand who goes on to say that there is now a fundamental shift occurring. Swinand says Starcom has broken the African American group alone into 12 segments.” (source)
May I remind you again who is doing all the complaining here—Black marketing shops. What is also missing from this article is the fact that “one-size fits all” type marketing DOES work with the minority market and has done so for years for the simple reason that (a) we watch more TV and advertisements than Whites and (b) we have been responding to these advertisements for years by the simple fact that “…African-Americans have the highest buying power of any minority group, at $532 billion, up 73 percent since 1990. (Securities Industry and Financial Market Association: SIFMA). And we have been using that buying power.
The article continues…
Nonetheless, most mainstream advertisers wishing to reach people of color are still not spending the bulk of their money with multicultural media outlets.
This is sounding more like a shakedown. The only ones that are suffering here are Black marketing shops who are finding it hard to accept the fact that the average Black Joe isn’t sitting at home wishing that advertisements on television or in his local newspaper are produced by Black marketing shops. As long as he knows about the product, that is all that counts to him. All the studies tell us that if there is a product out there that we want, we will usually buy it–regardless of who is doing the advertising.
A “shakedown”?
I’ve got my share of criticisms on Black-owned media, especially as most of them are run like Mom-n-Pop corner grocery stores. But their grievance here is legitimate. Only a tiny amount of corporate ad dollars go toward buys placed with Black-owned ad agencies — an amount that’s disproportionately low given the audience numbers many Black-owned and/or Black-formatted media generate, especially radio.
I believe this behavior illustrates, at minimum, a notion in corporate America of Af-Ams as a monolith of thought and action. At worst, it indicates a contempt toward Af-Ams as equal partners in commerce. The challenge is what actions, if any, can Black-owned and/or Black-formatted media outlets and ad agencies take to remedy the situation.
First, no remedy will be effective without the Don Colemans and Spike DDBs coordinating efforts with Af-Am broadcasters and publishers. In my experience, ad agencies and media outlets tend to behave more like rivals than interdependent entities. Since the ad agencies are better situated to craft ad campaigns for meeting client’s objectives, the media outlets could concede to them marketing incentives that enhances the agencies’ value and in turn stimulates sales. This strategy would also suggest different Af-Am media companies work together across disciplines (e.g.; newspapers and radio stations), but such relationships are commonplace in today’s media industry.
Second, Af-Am media and ad agencies should prepare alternative sales and marketing strategies and implement them as part of diversifying their respective operations. There’s no reason why, for example, Johnson Publishing shouldn’t seek a working relationship with Clear Channel or Katz, and vice versa.
Comment by MIB | June 22, 2007
I believe this behavior illustrates, at minimum, a notion in corporate America of Af-Ams as a monolith of thought and action.
What corporate America has learned a long time ago is that based on our own spending habits, when it comes down to every day commerce, there is not a such thing as loyalty to race in the Black community as you would find in many ethnic communities with ties to their country of origin. This is very sad but true nonetheless.
But again, let’s say that I am company X (which happens to be White owned). If my sales have always been pretty good with Af-Ams, why should I feel obligated to spend money with Black-owned ad agencies if the agencies that I am currently using are bringing in the customers?
Is this just about courtesy here? And if so, to whom?
Certainly not to the average Black consumer because as I mentioned earlier most folks do not care who is doing the advertising–just as long as they know about the product and have the means to get it. I have yet to enter into a discussion with other Black folks who are concerned about the lack of Black-owned ad companies being used. At best, the greatest complaint I used to hear was that there were a lack of Black faces in most ad campaigns.
I totally agree with your last point.
Comment by Duane | June 22, 2007
The Af-Am market remains largely a mystery to corporate America. What little its executives do understand can be summed up best as, ‘We’ve recently discovered this underdeveloped $700+T niche. Let’s go get that money’. That’s when the marketing people enter the picture.
The quasi-science of marketing is based on a presentation of 5 principles: product, price, placement, packaging, and promotion. Every company in a capitalist economy aims to dominate its market (or at least exploit it to maximum effect) through the clever use of marketing, then seek new market opportunities to also dominate. There’s no place for complacent thinking like, ‘We’ve always done well in Market X, therefore we need not do more’, in modern commerce. Your competitors will eat you alive.
Smart, well-organized companies adhere to the old cliche about minding the customs of Romans when in Rome. Before entering a new market, you always educate yourself to the nuances of that subculture; its traditions and lingua franca. In this way, your business lears how to best serve its (potential) customers. Media buys then aren’t predicated upon whether ‘race loyalty’ exists among Blacks, but the relatively simple ideas of mutual respect and human diversity. If, say, I’m marketing pharamaceuticals to treat diabetes I have to craft a slightly different message to Af-Ams than I do Whites due to factors including diet, health maintenance/access, and media consumption. An Af-Am marketing rep or ad agency is more likely to be a little more aware of these factors than a non-Af-Am and could improve my presentation.
So, it’s not about ‘courtesy’ — which you’re suggesting as tokenism. Naturally people can react with apathy or revulsion when they realize they’re being patronized. I suggest to you for many products and services, even those provided by Black-owned companies, this poor grasp of marketing basics inhibits business growth. It’s a complex issue that I don’t believe laypersons can sufficiently address.
Comment by MIB | June 23, 2007
I meant to write, $700+B niche.
Comment by MIB | June 23, 2007
Again, you can define this what you will, but the only ones that are mifted about this are Black ad shops, not Black consumers who have been outspending most other ethnic groups (including Whites) for years.
“…but the relatively simple ideas of mutual respect and human diversity”
Or just courtesy (or as you said, “tokenism“
An Af-Am marketing rep or ad agency is more likely to be a little more aware of these factors than a non-Af-Am and could improve my presentation.
Or White companies could just hire marketing reps and continue to benefit from our outspending of other races. This sounds very cold, but it is something that has worked for years.
Giving Black-owned ad shops more of the slice of company ad dollars may fulfill a race quota, but the evidence here is that it does very little for a company’s bottom line. For goodness sakes, we are talking about a race of folks who for years made non-Black owned brands a part of “cultural expression” without receiving a dime (or asking for it) from these companies. We have even gone as far as seeing no problem naming our kids with names like Porsche, Mercedes etc. Marketing at this level is a dream for any company.
While I can certainly agree that companies need to continue to target the Af-Am market and all of its various levels, I just do not see how Black-owned marketing firms are key–it seems very logical but our spending habits suggest something totally different.
-
Comment by Duane | June 23, 2007
“… but the only ones that are miffed about this are Black ad shops…”.
That’s not factual. Black media have expressed just as much frustration in making the same point, e.g.; Tom Joyner’s response to the infamous Katz Media memo warning corporations off buys with Black media.
“… not Black consumers…”
A fallacy.
“… who have been outspending most other ethnic groups (including Whites) for years.”
A half-truth that compounds the aforementioned fallacy.
“Giving Black-owned ad shops more of the slice of the company ad dollars may fulfill a race quota, but the evidence here is that it does very little for a company’s bottom line.”
What ‘evidence’? The fact of the matter is most companies in many industries that view the Af-Am market as still underdeveloped.
“… we are talking about a race of folks who for years made non-Black owned brands a part of ‘cultural expression’ without receiving a dime (or asking for it) from these companies. We have even gone as far as seeing no problem naming our kids with names like Porsche, Mercedes, etc..”
That’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read.
Umm… Black people by no means have the market cornered on neologisms. Coke, Kleenex, Vaseline, and TiVo are recognized as generic names for cola, facial tissues, petroleum jelly, and DVRs, respectively. TiVo even has a verb tense (‘I Tivo’ed last night’s show’). How do you think the term ‘podcast’ came about? Portia and Mercedes were commonly used as proper first names long before they were stuck on products. (At least Mercedes, anyway. I’ve never heard of or met a person with the first name Portia spelled ‘P-o-r-s-c-h-e’, but I guess there’s a first time for everything.) Even the brand name Nike has an origin as a human name.
But, I digress.
My point is the Black ad agencies’ grievance has a lot of merit, given the SOP of corporations in using media to advertise. A market comprised of 13-14% of the nation’s population that only accounts for about 6% of the annual economy represents a golden opportunity as a new market for companies guided by fair trade principles and basic business sense.
Comment by MIB | June 26, 2007
… but the only ones that are miffed about this are Black ad shops…â€.
That’s not factual…
Okay, Black Ad shops and Black media. In other words, those who would directly benefit from this.
Show me a Black consumer activist group that is not funded by either a Black Ad shop, publication or headed by Jesse or Al and I would concede here. Good luck!
That’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read.
Then welcome to reality 101 my friend. Most companies have known for years that we there are certain products that we value so much that we have been known to kill each other for it (Gucci, Nike, etc.). In addition, we will also put together chart toping songs that celebrate these labels without having the sense enough to broker an advertisement deal (Jay-Z, P-Diddy immediately come to mind on this). As far as the name-thing goes, I seriously doubt that most of these folks who do name their children things like Mercedes, Lexus, Bacardi, etc were inspired by old European history. I think you doubt it as well. Face it, our culture has made many products cool without asking for a dime. This in of itself takes away the incentive to pour dollars into Black-owned ad companies.
A market comprised of 13-14% of the nation’s population that only accounts for about 6% of the annual economy…
Again, a market that also OUTSPENDS most other ethnic groups including Caucasians.
#
Comment by Duane | June 26, 2007