Jen Berman

I recall when Ben & Jerry’s was purchased by Unilever, and I thought — oh no, there goes their soul. I’m happy that I was wrong. I am impressed how the brand has stayed true to their core beliefs, and continues to raise their voice in the calls for social justice and environmental concerns. The fact that they have been doing this throughout their existence gives them so much more credibility than so many of the other companies and brands who seem to have jumped on the bandwagon in recent times. For some of those “activist-come-lately” style brands, taking a stand can be risky. For Ben & Jerry’s, it’s part of their mission. I don’t think they have any concerns about losing customers because they take a stand. They want to be on the right side of history.

Great read. I think your “wildfire” comparison is very apt. I would assume that there are many great minds working on this issue, and it seems they’ve yet to come up with a solution. My fear of the consequences of this wildfire have kept me from using some of the amazing advances that are available. I have a particular fear of health information being used against me (or others) to either deny insurance or charge exorbitant rates for it. Perhaps the new administration will start to tackle this issue to some degree (maybe unlikely considering the balance of congress). Let’s hope this happens.

In my case, I feel a job will make you get a car. When shopping around for a car and just starting on credit, I was looking for something cheap, and it was an added benefit if it was stylish. Now that I’m 70% finished with my car note, I can’t say that I’m looking to upgrade to a hybrid. I don’t want another car note for starters, and my gas only costs between $10-15 when I feel it up, which is around every other week. Hybrids aren’t the cheapest, so If they worked on their market towards younger consumers, then maybe. Also, hybrids tend to come in car sizes with more space than I’d need for a single person who mainly uses their car for work and school-related purposes. If the same hybrid power fueled my phone and car in a way, I think that would convince me down the line to upgrade. My phone stays charged and would take out the need to stop for gas and the bill that comes with it.

Great post Jen! Just like you, I also despise cars, but realized that we need them now that public transportation is an exposing area for COVID. It is really interesting how the idea of electric cars is starting to be caught on by the larger companies, like GM. At some point, all cars will be electric, but right now, hybrid is the best option, since it combines gas and electric. I actually do agree that other regions like Europe and China will adapt the hybrid/electric idea faster compared to the U.S. since the big oil companies are not willing to give up their power. Although Tesla is the leader right now in electric, other companies might have a niche in this industry, like said Nikola, and even NIO, a company based in China, who is trying to compete directly with Tesla. I personally can’t wait for the time to come when everything is either electric or hybrid; I just need the money to afford these cars someday.

I can relate to your opening sentiments, Jen. When you really think about it, all the driving we do is really absurd in many way, with the sharing of roads and highways with so many drivers everyday. I spent a long time using public transportation and walking and biking to work and places I wanted to go. Now that I have a job that requires me to drive over an hour each way, I am forced to deal with it. I still cannot fully enjoy driving a car. I just don’t like to drive, and I even bought a car last year that I really like! Do you feel it drives as good as non hybrid vehicles and have you noticed savings? It is the way of the future. I read recently that California will no longer sell gasoline powered cars by 2035. In the same article it points to the comparissons you are making to the European market and how they are selling many more electric cars than the U.S. I believe car manufacturers need to compete by offering truck and SUV selections (especially to the U.S. market), enhanced performance, and safety, and I believe the environmental impact will be a driving force.

This is a great discussion on the life cycle of a brand. As a marketer, we have to know where our product is in the curve. Each segment responds to marketing different and needs to be targeted in different ways. To your point of reaching laggards. I would ask is it worth the effort. If you put $5 million into trying to get laggards to buy your product, is that market big enough to justify the expense. Or are you better off not focusing on them, and just accepting the fact that certain people will never buy your product.

I am a *laggard* in responding to this post, haha. Seriously, though….. I think you raise a great point about this word, and we should look at its usage here more closely. It’s quite a derogatory term. Here are some synonyms: sluggard, layabout, slacker…here’s a good one for you… “fainéant.” None of them are positive descriptions.

Perhaps when Geoffrey Moore came up with this adoption map back in 1991 – at a time when the world was perhaps less conscientious about the dangers of negative labeling — he would have not known how widely used his theory would become, never known that Digital Marketing students in 2020 would still be studying his work.

The question becomes, is it fair to characterize this group of people so negatively? As long as we think of this group in that way, how can we treat them with respect? I really like how you’ve explored the issue, to get in the mindset of someone who is, rather than a “lazybones” or “slowpoke,” simply cautious, perhaps skeptical, or maybe a bit frightened. As you point out, addressing this group’s needs with clarity, safety, and familiarity, you have a better shot at them understanding your product or service.
As marketers, we need to think of all customers (and potential customers) as valuable, with valid concerns. Why not simply “Late Adopter?”

I think how you pivot your company will be important when addressing laggards- for early adopters, it may be all about branding and making a big impact on how people view your company as you come on the seen- but it seems like laggards are not impressed by big brand names or names that have become popular in the market. Instead they seem to make a conscious focus on what added value a company will bring to them, and need particular sets of tools or knowledge points to be shown how the product or service will directly relate to their life. Products will also have to make clear that the tech proposed can address all aspects of the product they are using now- my company is considered a laggard in our tech adoption model and that’s because my company feels there is no better suited program than our in-house legacy system for CRM, when programs like SalesForce are much more advanced. The issue is the fear that SalesForce will not replace all value our legacy system represents to us now.

A lot of times, I am definitely an early adopter of Apple. I just bought the new iPad last week and I am looking to buy the new MacBook Pro with the M1Chip next week. I definitely feel safe with Apple because I have been using their products, but one thing this time is the unknown of the M1Chip. They share clarity on their products for sure and the familiarity is definitely there.

I believe you need to communicate so clearly and show your vision to the laggards. Laggards want to see the benefits and want to see that the product works. Product demos and usages would be helpful to them. They need to BELIEVE the products will work.

I also found this interesting article about the how laggards help decision making: https://physics.aps.org/articles/v13/175

Hi Jen! Great points here! I think you ask a lot of great questions, and I think your point to how companies are unaware how making a new platform, device, or application can change what happens to the information collected is key. Nowadays, it is easy to collect information throughout the purchasing process- phone, email, name, address, etc. but it’s only now that people and companies are questioning how/why/where to collect data as data security breaches happen across the nation. Though after the initial purchase, it may seem to be an asset for a company to keep a customer’s information to use for internal (or external) marketing purposes, but as we’ve seen today, this may actually be more of a risk than an asset (like the Twitter hack or the Marriott breach). Companies may want to start pitching themselves as a company that doesn’t collect information, and instead as a gatekeeper to their privacy by making sure their information wasn’t saved by them or any 3rd party site.

Great article Jen. It makes you wonder how Lowes could use our data stored in the profile and create target marketing for products that they put on sale or need to promote. If they have our mail address and/or email, they could easily capitalize on this. When 4th of July comes around and they know I already bought a grill a couple months prior, they could send me an email highlighting grill accessories to get prepared for the upcoming holiday. I wonder if anyone does this to the extent I am mentioning? Hmmmm.

Another thought that came to mind, I wonder how the credit card companies are using our spending data to market to us or even sell the data to 3rd parties. I doubt the 3rd party selling is happening from the credit card companies but I guess it’s possible. Then 3rd parties would then be able to target specific marketing content based on your buying habits. This in one reason I like to pay cash for as much as I can. I just feel like the government is watching us through every swipe we make.

I really like your idea of streamlining all privacy standards across all industries. I think that would help solve the lack time within Government to establish regulations. However, with the unbalanced power of lobby groups (a topic for another day), it would be hard to get something that sweeping approved. The more industries you touch, the more stakeholders get involved, and the more likely one of them will fight to stop it. Or multiple ones will team up to become even more powerful. I wish we had a Government system that would allow for cross industry standards on something like this, sadly I do not think we do.

Jen – this is super interesting, thank you for sharing! As someone that works for a healthcare system and a medical school, COVID was a really scary yet BUSY time for us. Of course there is data gathered by the physicians about the COVID patients – and then there is the science that our researchers are tirelessly working on to develop life-saving vaccines, but if there was a possibility that we could use AI to predict an infectious disease like this in the future, I am all for it. Like you said, the more we can use AI to be useful and life-saving the better.

Just recently, I updated my iPhone’s software, and it included COVID-19 tracking capabilities. COVID-19 tracing app uses smartphone data to prevent the spread of the virus. Being digitalized, I believe health care providers should inform consumers of this service rather than just installing this on phones. The newer models of iPhones already have COVID-19 tracing marked yes in settings. Even with tracking people, that’s somewhat of an invasion of privacy if consumers aren’t informed properly. You mention limitations, and I was thinking to help coincide with a privacy limitation would be to track using Bluetooth because it tracks proximity rather than an actual location.

It seems to me that the American consumer is becoming more in tune with your points. Within the finance sector it is all about profit still. However, I am seeing more companies advertising on positive impact to life aspect. Price seems to show up less in commercials now than they did 10 years ago. Now it is more about quality of life. I cannot find it now, because all search results about a country’s economy now come back with COVID results, but I know some of the Nordic countries have been working with measuring their economies in more social terms, not strictly a GDP concept. It would be interesting to see the US utilize quality of life in conjunction with GDP to stimulate capitalism growth within the US.