- UID
- 1342530
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2018-5-18
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
内容：Melody Bao 编辑：Winona Wu
Part I: Speaker
Bitcoin. Sweat. Tide. Meet the future of branded currency
Paul_Kemp-Robertson, June 2013
Source: TED
https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_kemp_robertson_bitcoin_sweat_tide_meet_the_future_of_branded_currency
[Rephrase 1, 10:04]
Part II: Speed
Why Marketing Analytics Hasn’t Lived Up to Its Promise
Carl F. Mela and Christine Moorman, MAY 30, 2018
[Time 2]
We see a paradox in two important analytics trends. The most recent results from The CMO Survey conducted by Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and sponsored by Deloitte LLP and the American Marketing Association reports that the percentage of marketing budgets companies plan to allocate to analytics over the next three years will increase from 5.8% to 17.3%—a whopping 198% increase. These increases are expected despite the fact that top marketers report that the effect of analytics on company-wide performance remains modest, with an average performance score of 4.1 on a seven-point scale, where 1=not at all effective and 7=highly effective. More importantly, this performance impact has shown little increase over the last five years, when it was rated 3.8 on the same scale.
How can it be that firms have not seen any increase in how analytics contribute to company performance, but are nonetheless planning to increase spending so dramatically? Based on our work with member companies at the Marketing Science Institute, two competing forces explain this discrepancy—the data used in analytics and the analyst talent producing it. We discuss how each force has inhibited organizations from realizing the full potential of marketing analytics and offer specific prescriptions to better align analytics outcomes with increased spending
The Data Challenge
Data are becoming ubiquitous, so at first blush it would appear that analytics should be able to deliver on its promise of value creation. However, data grows on its own terms, and this growth is
often driven by IT investments, rather than by coherent marketing goals. As a result, data libraries
often look like the proverbial cluttered closet, where it is hard to separate the insights from the junk.
In most companies, data is not integrated. Data collected by different systems is disjointed, lacking variables to match the data, and using different coding schemes. For example, data from mobile devices and data from PCs might indicate similar browsing paths, but if the consumer data and the data on pages browsed cannot be matched, it is hard to determine browsing behavior. That’s why understanding how data will ultimately be integrated and measured should be considered prior to collecting the data, precisely because it will lower the cost of matching.
What’s more, most companies have huge amounts of data, making it hard to process in a timely manner. Merging data across a vast number of customers and interactions involves “translating” code, systems, and dictionaries. Once cohered, vast amounts of information can overwhelm processing power and algorithms. Many approaches exist to scale analytics, but collecting data that cannot be analyzed is inefficient.
[432 words]
[Time 3]
An irony of having too much data is that you often have too little information. The more data and
fields collected, the less they overlap, creating “holes” in the data. For example, two customers with the same level of transactions could have very different shares of wallet. While one represents a selling opportunity, the other might offer little potential gain. Data should be designed with an eye towards imputation — so the holes in the data can filled as needed to drive strategy.
Perhaps worst of all, data is often not causal. For example, while it is true that search advertising can be correlated with purchase because customers are in a motivated state to buy, it does not follow that ads caused sales. Even if the firm did not advertise, consumers are motivated to buy, so how does one know whether the ads were effective? Worse, as data grows, these problems compound. Without the right analytic approach, no amount of investment will translate to insights.
Companies should do two things to harness the power of analytics in their marketing functions. First, rather than create data and then decide what to do with it, firms should decide what to do first, and then which data they need to do it. This means better integrating marketing and IT, and developing systems around the information needs of the senior management team instead of creating a culture of “capture data and pray.”
Second, companies should create an integrated 360-degree view of the customer that considers every customer behavior from the time the alarm rings in the morning until they go to bed in the evening. Every potential engagement point, for both communication and purchase, should be captured. Only then can firms completely understand their customers via analytics, and develop customized experiences to delight them. The CMO Survey we referenced above shows that firms’ performance on this type of integration has not improved over the last five years, challenging companies’ ability to answer the most important questions about their customers.
[334 words]
[Time 4]
The Data Analyst Challenge
The CMO Survey also found that only 1.9% of marketing leaders reported that their companies have the right talent to leverage marketing analytics. Good data analysts, like good data, are hard to find. Sadly, the overall rating on a seven-point scale, where 1 is “does not have the right talent” and 7 is “has the right talent,” has not changed between the first time the question was asked in 2013 (Mean 3.4, SD =1.7) and 2017 (Mean 3.7, SD =1.7).
The gap between the promise and the reality of analytics points to a disconnect that needs resolution. Companies need to better align their data strategy and data analyst talent to realize the potential that analytics can bring to marketing managers. In the absence of talent, even great data can lie fallow and prevent a firm from harnessing the full potential of the data. What are some of the characteristics that companies should look for in good data scientists? They should:
Clearly define the business problem. Managers who rely on data scientists to know what might be possible to do with the data often find great value in simply having that person help define the problem. For example, a marketer coming to a data analyst asking questions about driving conversions might not realize that there’s also data at the top of the purchase funnel that might be even more germane to driving long-term sales. Rather than taking requests as they are stated, data analysts should take requests as they should be asked, integrating advice tightly with the needs of the company. For example, a request to assess how marketing promotions affect sales should also account for the effect of promotions on brand equity.
Understand how algorithms and data map to business problems. Companies will see more effective data analytics if teams are clear on firm objectives, informed of the strategy, sensitive to organizational structure, and exposed to customers. To enable this understanding, data analysts should spend physical time outside of data analytics, perhaps visiting customers to give them an understanding of market requirements, attending market planning meetings to better appreciate the company’s goals, and helping to ensure data (IT), data analytics, and marketing are all aligned.
[370 words]
[Time 5]
Understand the company’s goals. Data analytics is beset by multiple requests, like a waiter serving too many customers. A clear recognition of a firm’s goals enables data analysts to prioritize projects and allocate time to those that are the most important (those that have the highest marginal value to a firm). Requests should be centralized, and then prioritized by a) whether the findings have the potential to change the way things are done and b) the economic consequences of such changes. Several companies develop standardized forms to ensure requests are assessed on an equal footing. An attendant benefit of this process is that it mitigates the potential for opportunistic research clients to approach analysts asking them to conduct a study to support a preconceived strategy for political reasons, instead of deciding between strategies that are in the best interests of the firm.
Communicate insights, not facts. Communication theory tells us that the transmitter and receiver of information must share a common domain of knowledge for information to be transmitted. This means analysts need to understand what the firm’s managers can understand. Small font sizes, complex figures and equations, the use of jargon, and an emphasis on the modeling process instead of insights and explanations are common errors when presenting analyses. Why should one use a complicated model to present information when a simple infographic would suffice? Presentations should be organized around insights, rather than analytic approaches. This is another reason it is critical for analysts to connect externally with customers and internally with the managers using their work. Plus, instead of reporting a “parameter estimate,” an analyst should communicate how results point to tangible strategic actions. This requires analysts to structure their analysis in a decision framework that helps managers assess best and worst case scenarios.
Develop an instinct for mapping the variation in the data to the business questions. That means two things. First, analysts need a comprehensive understanding of all the relevant drivers (e.g.,
marketing and environmental factors) and outcomes (e.g., purchase funnel metrics). For example, to ascertain the effect of advertising on sales, one would need to recognize that concurrent changes in product design can affect sales, lest one misattribute the effect of product changes to the advertising that announces them. Second, analysts must have a means to ensure that drivers lead to outcomes instead of outcomes leading to drivers. Once again, this requires the analyst to understand the nature of the markets being analyzed. Regarding the latter, no complicated model that purports to control for missing information can ever compensate fully for lack of causal variation. Likes drive sales and sales drive likes. However, disentangling the two means having some factor that can independently manipulate one and not the other.
[454 words]
[Time 6]
Identify the best tool for the problem. On the analytics side, it goes without saying that years of training and practice are necessary. One cannot play an instrument without learning it, and the same is true for analysts. Most important is knowing which tool, of the many available, is best for which problem. At a very granular level, experimental methods are especially adept at assessing causality; supervised machine learning excels at prediction where non-supervised machine learning can decompose non-numerical stimuli into tags or attributes for further analysis. Economics and psychology afford deep insights into the nature of consumer behavior, and statistics can help us excel at inference. A strong understanding of marketing grounds all of these tools and disciplines in the business context necessary to produce effective advice.
Span skill boundaries. Some marketing analysts excel at math and coding, and some excel at framing issues, developing explanations, and connecting to business implications. A far smaller set excel at both. Companies either need to wrap these variegated skills into one person through training and accumulating different types of experiences, or, more likely, assemble a team that is sufficiently facile with the techniques that they can interact productively, ensuring that there is some mechanism to match the approach (and the analyst) to the problem. This match requires senior talent, with the breadth of perspective to align analytical resources and business problems.
In light of the exponential growth in customer, competitor, and marketplace information, companies face an unprecedented opportunity to delight their customers by delivering the right products and services to the right people at the right time and the right format, location, devices, and channels. Realizing that potential, however, requires a proactive and strategic approach to marketing analytics. Companies need to invest in the right mix of data, systems, and people to realize these gains.
[303 words]
Source: Harvard Business Review
https://hbr.org/2018/05/why-marketing-analytics-hasnt-lived-up-to-its-promise
Part III: Obstacle
5 Surprising Findings About How People Actually Buy Clothes and Shoes
Jeremy Sporn & Stephanie Tuttle, JUNE 06, 2018
[Paraphrase 7]
Retail has been constantly reinventing itself, and participants race to keep up with what feels like a series of epic shifts in consumer preferences. Apparel brands are investing especially heavily in online shopping capabilities and introducing interactive features that complement apps and websites. Retailers and manufacturers are rushing out new products to keep pace with the leaders of fast fashion such as Zara, H&M, and Forever 21, which launch new fashions every week or so.
But do consumers actually crave all of these changes? And which approaches can generate growth in this changing environment? Many manufacturers try to answer these questions using point-of-sale data, which often comes filtered by the retailers that gather the information; media coverage, which tends to focus on the new; and previous sales of their products, which reflect the past.
To get a clearer, more-complete picture, we studied actual decisions made by 1,500 apparel and footwear shoppers in the United States. We asked them about everything from their initial motivation to shop, to the shopping journey itself, to how they felt after making their purchases. The results showed that retailers need to look beyond the buzz surrounding retail and instead focus on specific aspects of consumer behavior if they hope to improve their businesses and drive growth. According to our research, many assumptions about the ongoing revolution in retail are, in fact, myths.
Below are five of our most surprising findings.
Myth: Shopping has become truly omnichannel.
Fact: Most journeys are still overwhelmingly single-channel, though this is changing.
The buzzword of recent years has been omnichannel, meaning that consumers are thought to combine store visits and online interactions during their shopping journeys. However, while omnichannel is growing in importance, our study suggests that 83% of shopping journeys still happen within a single channel — overwhelmingly in traditional stores, which account for almost
80% of apparel purchases today.
Apparel companies and independent retailers need to continue to focus on making their physical
stores attractive to visit so that they ultimately become more-effective contributors to brands’
financial results. One area where they trail is knowledge of the customer. Online sites have a wealth
of data on shoppers — from their tastes, as indicated by previous purchases, to demographic
information and preferences. In a store, however, a sales associate tries to guess a shopper’s tastes in real time. As a solution, technology could be used to customize the in-store experience by
encouraging customers to swipe their smartphones as they enter, so that their profile could then be used to tailor the experience and offers. Stores should also make shopping memorable — through drinks and other hospitality services, for example — and encourage customers to complete their transactions online.
Myth: The sales channel doesn’t matter.
Fact: When consumers purchase online, they tend to buy more.
Shopping journeys concluding in online purchases have baskets that are 25% larger, on average.
When someone first visits a physical store and then purchases online, the effect is even more
pronounced: Baskets are 64% larger.
One reason why is that free shipping often comes with a minimum basket size, so customers often
select extra items to reach this threshold. Another is the greater product range available online
without the need to carry inventory in a prime-location store. Moreover, it is relatively easy to create impulse purchases online from information gathered about the shopper and to incentivize larger basket sizes.
To benefit, retailers with physical stores should make a concerted effort to drive in-store customers
to their website to make their purchases. This is what Bonobos does: It encourages shoppers to
experience a product in its “no-inventory” stores and then complete the order online.
Myth: Online shopping is about instant gratification.
Fact: Online journeys tend to be longer than in-store.
Shopping with clicks sounds like a speedy process. But consumers actually take more time online
than when shopping in physical stores, and they make more stops. In fact, 57% of shopping journeys that conclude with an online purchase begin with a consumer either first looking at another website (29%), visiting a brick-and-mortar store (15%), or both (13%) before ultimately transacting online through any particular retailer. The other 43% of journeys that conclude with an online purchase are one-stop journeys that begin and end with the same online retailer.
This means that online shoppers are doing a lot of comparison, so online retailers should work harder to close sales quickly while they have the attention of the consumer. They can do this by actively sending cart recovery messages or creating loyalty programs for a particular site. Removing hassles could help: More than 10% of consumers indicated that they had abandoned a cart on a website and then bought the items elsewhere simply because they didn’t like the first site’s shipping or return policy.
Myth: The retailer doesn’t matter.
Fact: Spend is dramatically higher at brand stores and websites than in multi-brand stores.
Direct-to-consumer brand stores and websites generate revenues 86% higher than purchases of those same brands elsewhere — and, of course, better margins. A specific store or site may make a brand feel more valuable and differentiated to customers, inducing them to spend more than they would otherwise. Direct-to-consumer channels also help to develop (or maintain) a brand’s image.
This means brands could benefit from driving consumers toward their own sales channels, though of course in a way that does not jeopardize their relationships with retail channel partners such as
department stores. One important strategy is stocking unique products available only from a brand’s website or store. Nike has had some success with this strategy, and has gone one step further by allowing people to customize their products on its website. Other apparel brands might seek to attract customers through differentiated and personalized products.
Myth: Consumers always want something new.
Fact: Very often, they are happy to rebuy the same or a similar item.
Fast fashion has become a buzzword for apparel makers, but many consumers are simply looking to replace an item they already have. This is especially true in intimates and basics, but also in fashion, where the aim of 83% of shopping journeys is repeat purchases, and athletic products (87%).
Brands should, to some extent, change their mindsets: Success could mean finding consumers that like a product and reselling it to them, and not always trying to reinvent the wheel. The customer, not the product, should come first. Repurchasing of products previously bought could be made easier through promotions on similar items, tailored advertising for new versions, reminders when product likely needs to be replaced, and even subscription services. To get to know customers better, brands might encourage them to go online during trips to physical stores and to comment on products through apps. Manufacturers can then follow up and encourage repeat purchases.
Acting on these findings implies going beyond technology fixes and making changes to a company’s
organizational structure. At a minimum, physical stores and e-commerce operations would benefit
from better links. For example, internal financial systems need to accurately reflect a customer’s
buying an item online and later returning it to a physical store. Eventually, brands and retailers
should integrate their e-commerce units into the rest of their commercial organizations, replacing
channels that compete for sales from the same customer with a structure that puts the customer first. In the future, customers will decide where and how they shop, and the apparel business must make this as smooth — and profitable — as possible.
[1236 words]
Source: Harvard Business Review
https://hbr.org/2018/06/5-surprising-findings-about-how-people-actually-buy-clothes-and-shoes
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2019-10-25 16:06:51
收藏
收藏
