Will Golden State Warrior fans buy Nike sneakers to go along with their team jerseys?

Last night we discussed how the need to belong to the tribe is a driving force for all of us.  After all, no one wants to get eaten by a bear. 

Marketers have discovered that they can use the need to belong to persuade people to buy, among other things, clothing that proclaims their allegiance to the tribe.  But the question is whether that allegiance can be extended to include products that are not directly linked to the tribe.

The NBA has announced that this season they will allow teams to wear 2.5 x 2.5 inch Nike swoosh patches on their uniforms.  The costs of the three year deals with the teams ranges from $24 million to $60 million.  Sounds like a good deal for the teams.  But what about Nike?

According to NASCAR, their alliance with key sponsor Monster Energy has provided Monster Energy with numerous marketing opportunities and opened up new channels of fan activation for NASCAR.  A win win for both. (Janoff, 2017)

But buying a $2.50 drink at a sporting event is a far cry from making a special trip to the store to spend upwards of $60 on a pair of sneakers.  

Meanwhile, Nike just announced that their revenue was flat this quarter versus year ago, with sales up +9% in China, but down -3% in the U.S.  (Thomas, 2017)  They also announced in June that they will begin selling direct on Amazon for the first time.  So perhaps they are gearing up for more NBA fans from China?

So, what do you think?  Will the tribe buy in?  Will wearing Nike along with team jerseys become the new norm?  If you are an NBA fan, will the patches move you to buy?  Have you ever bought something endorsed by your tribe that wasn't specifically designed to show your allegiance to them?  If so, what did you buy?

Janoff, B. (2017, September 26)  Nascar Advice To NBA: No Such Thing As Too Many Logos.  mediapost.com.  Retrieved September 27, 2017, from https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/307840/nascar-advice-to-nba-no-such-thing-as-too-many-lo.html

  

Thomas, L. (2017, September 26) Nike's China sales are booming, as demand wanes in North America. cnbc.com.  retrieved September 27, 2017, from  https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/26/nike-q1-2018-earnings.html

Is Gen Z's intolerance of free speech driven by fear?

When my mother, a member of the Silent Generation, was dying, she told me that she was the best mother she knew, because she raised two such strong and independent children.  As a Baby Boomer, I was also raised in an era of hope, when we all believed we could have a coke and teach the world to sing in harmony.  We also believed in free speech.

That's why the recent controversies over free speech on college campuses caught me off guard.  

But when you think about it, the defining childhood event of Gen Z was 9/11.  And, it's easy to see why this led to helicopter parenting and a generation for whom safety is a priority. 

Based on her research, Dr. Twenge of San Diego State University notes that Gen Z's are more risk adverse than were previous generations; perhaps because they are more aware of their own mortality.  And because their world revolves around social media they have learned that words matter, and that every social interaction carries the risk of being hurt.  So, opposing viewpoints must be shut down because merely hearing them can cause harm. (Twenge, 2017)

Assuming that is true, it poses huge challenges in terms of persuasion.  How can you persuade someone to change their mind if they won't even listen to you?

So, what do you think?  Do you agree that Gen Z has been raised with fear?  Has it impacted their ability to entertain alternative points of view?  And if so, is there a way to get past it and connect so that we can begin to find common ground again?   Which of Robert Cialdini's principles might apply?

Twenge, J. (2017, September 1)  The Smartphone Generation Vs. Free Speech.  wsj.com.  Retrieved September 20, 2017, from  https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-smartphone-generation-vs-free-speech-1504274890?mg=prod/accounts-wsj

Can you use research that failed the reproducibility test?

In 2015, the University of Virginia led a new Reproducibility Project that repeated 100 classic psychological studies and they were only able to successfully replicate one-third of them.

But the article goes on to allow for the possibility that one of the factors causing reproducibility failures could be the passage of time.  Specifically, in 1988, a study was done which concluded that our facial expressions can influence our mood - so the more we smile the happier we'll be. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3379579

The stimuli for the experiment was a Far Side comic by Gary Larson.  I'll bet you have never heard of it or him.  Humor has changed quite a bit since the 80's so I wouldn't be at all surprised if the experiment could be replicated now, but only with a contemporary comic.

The failed University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands replication study also had a problem of its own - subject bias.  As with most psychology studies it used psychology students for the sample.  And since this was a classic research study, they may have already been familiar with it.

https://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/08/26/psychology-secrets-most-psychology-studies-are-college-student-biased/

So what do you think?  Does this invalidate the results of the initial study?  Which issue concerns you more?  Would you use the results?  If so, how?  Have you seen other evidence supporting the basic thesis that facial expressions can influence mood?

(2016, September 26) MacDonald, F. Two More Classic Psychology Studies Just Failed The Reproducibility Test.  sciencealert.com  Retrieved September 11, 2017, from

https://www.sciencealert.com/two-more-classic-psychology-studies-just-failed-the-reproducibility-test

Will a shift in approach be effective for Prudential?

For years insurance companies have tried to get people to save more money for retirement with little success.  In fact, according to a recent study the situation is "worse than you thought," and the average American couple has only $5,000 saved.  (Malito, 2017)

Back in December 2015, Prudential launched a new campaign focusing on social proof as a means of persuasion.  You can look at the commercial here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QIBj__R7ec

My students that semester had high hopes for the campaign.  You can read their comments here...

http://pjlehrer.blogspot.com/2015/12/is-using-social-proof-secret-to-getting.html

But since that campaign was discontinued, and I can find no trace of it currently on the website, one has to assume it was not effective. 

And now it is being replaced by a new campaign.  According to Niharika Shah, VP head of brand marketing and advertising "rather than throwing out stats and facts the formula allows us to tell a people-powered story." (Pasquarelli, 2017)

You can look at the new commercial here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIPrH4XYDKs

So, what do you think?  Which of the approaches that we discussed in class last night are they using?  Are they using them well?  Do you think they will be successful this time?  Or are Millennials more likely to use new disrupter brands such as Ladder, Fabric and Tomorrow? 

Malito, A. (2017, May 20) It’s worse than you thought: Americans are drastically under-saved for retirement. marketwatch.com.  Retrieved September 6, 2017, from

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-amount-of-americans-not-saving-for-retirement-is-even-worse-than-you-thought-2017-02-21

Pasquarelli, A. (2017, September 1) Prudential Taps Real-Life Couples to Push Retirement Services. adage.com.  Retrieved September 6, 2017, from http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/prudential/310313/