The Evolution of Online Shopping

One of the most fascinating things about the internet for me has been the changes that have occurred in the way we shop online. It used to be that we used the internet to research products before we bought them, and only the most brave actually used it to purchase items. As time went on, e-commerce became more sophisticated and we as consumers grew in our online shopping repertoire.

According to the Pew Internet and American Life Survey released in February 2008, 93% of Americans have at one point participated in e-commerce. Now 20% of us use the internet every day to research a product we're interested in buying. With the way the e-marketplace has grown, I'm almost surprised this number isn't higher, as we have so many ways to participate:

Ebay showed us a way to both buy and sell items in the familiar format of auctions.
PayPal calmed our fears about the safety of online shopping.
Amazon suggests content based on our preferences and the buying behaviors of others who have purchased similar items.
Pandora and the iTunes Genius Bar suggests new music (that we buy online or IRL)
Etsy created a mom-and-pop marketplace for independent artists
PriceGrabber.com and other sites allowed us to comparison shop just like we would in real life, but saving us the time, travel, and energy.

I think it is interesting to note that many of these changes reflect the way we shop in real life. We understood the concept of auctions and were able to integrate that knowledge into our online purchasing behaviors. We follow WOM to find the best products in the categories we're interested in. We trust the suggestions of our friends, family, colleagues, and other peers who share our same interests. More and more, we're seeing online shopping reflecting exactly the way we shop in real life.

An interesting iteration of this trend is the Epsonality website, created by Butler Shine Stern and Partners. It takes the real life experience of shopping in a store with the help of a sales clerk and translates it to an online experience. When you first come to the site, you are greeted by a charming voice who instructs you to select your various printing needs (price, job type, necessary extra features, etc). Once you've done that, it calculates which printer is best for your needs. It then introduces you to your printer and points out some of its special features (each of which are illustrated in a light-hearted, charming way). When you "Meet your Epsonality" it spews back to you what it's got and why it fits your needs. At this point you can either find a retailer or buy it on the spot. You can then download widgets to "inspire your epsonality."

While I love that it walks you through the process and helps with the ever-daunting task of shopping for tech hardware, I know myself and many others don't necessarily do their online shopping at home. We're taking the internet everywhere we go, and suddenly having a voice pop out of your work computer, iPhone, or laptop at the coffee shop isn't necessarily preferable. It'd be an easy fix to just do a title page that tells you to plug your headphones in or let you know sound is coming. A recent ISACA survey called "Shopping on the Job: Online Holiday Shopping and Workplace Internet Safety" noted that 63% of Americans intended to shop online at work this holiday season, while only 55% of companies allowed such behaviors (from an IT standpoint--productivity is obviously a whole 'nother issue). And truthfully, I  imagine that the number of folks using their time at work to do a bit of research is significantly higher than those who intended to make those purchases as found by the survey.

So while I love that the Epsonality website took online shopping to the next level of real-life reflection, it may have been a bit off-mark when it comes to where we're doing our shopping and what that means for the desired user experience.

Toshiba puts its hat in the ring

Just found this ad by Toshiba-- I think it's a pretty good example of something I've talked about here before: in the tech industry, often times the best way to get consumers to consider you is by drawing them in emotionally and then supporting them with the rational and technical information instead of vice versa. For example, the Sony Bravia campaign "Color like no other." I watched "Balls" and "Paint" and thought "Yup, got it."  This commercial has a similar strategy:

Not only is it a cool ad visually, but it reinforces the message that things are changing, technology is advancing, so don't you want to be with the company thats making those innovations happen? Truthfully, I've never thought about Toshiba this way, but they've given me cause to think about it.

I will say that it's not quite as strong strategically as it could be...it talks about sharp, clear picture and the "timesculpture" doesn't necessarily demonstrate this in the way that the Sony commercials demonstrate color, but it's still worth taking a gander at. And who's to say every had has to be rationally strategic? Sometimes finding a way to get eyes on the screen is strategy enough if the product sells itself. But that's a whole 'nother topic for another day...

Microsoft, cont.

Alright, so I was highly disappointed by the new Seinfeld/Gates spot--at 4 minutes and 30 seconds, it did very little to keep my attention. I'm not sure if it was intended for online or if it bought an entire block of commercial time (which is at the very least an interesting media buy,) but either way, I was bored and I don't see Seinfeld and Gates "connecting" with people by being kicked out of the house by the family. It just didn't feel thought through. I liked the first teaser spot, but this didn't seem to know where it was headed.

On the flip side, I enjoyed the new "I'm a PC" ads. At first, when I read about their existence, I thought it was a pretty terrible idea. You often come off like an angry, spurned lover if you respond directly to competitors ads (Evidence- much of the bad political advertising out there.) However, these were tastefully done for the most part, and in an industry where Microsoft has the majority share of market but none of the buzz, it was good to be reminded that there are still people out there using PCs. When I watch the Apple ads, I think, "Yeah, that seems about right." But watching these ads, these people felt believable too. I think Microsoft covered a lot of ground with these ads, coming from a pretty lame reputation to a believable, every-day-person reputation. Some of them were even pretty cool (SHARKS!)

So, good job this time around guys, but please, follow-through on your strategies, and maybe keep it to just ONE strategy. (That may be my lack of experience talking, but at least for now, the Seinfeld/Gates pieces don't feel cohesive with the rest of the campaign, and I don't see the pieces coming being able to come together anytime soon, and consumers aren't very patient.)

EDIT: I haven't figured out yet how to pull videos off youtube to embed in my blog, but here's a link to the spot-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBWPf1BWtkw

High Fructose Corn Syrup campaign- comparison with tech industry

So, I saw one of the new commercials for the Corn Refiners Association new campaign, and while the ad itself was painfully hokey (check out the background music and the giggling in "Two Bites,") it actually reminded me of me. I have no idea why high fructose corn syrup is bad. It sounds bad because of the "high," and anything ending in "-ose" always seems suspect when I've learned various nutritional facts, but beyond that, I have no idea. I know people who cut high fructose corn syrup completely out of their diet. But I still don't really know what it's all about.

I went to the website (Success! A commercial that actually drove a consumer to the website) and got a whole lot of information--truthfully, a bit more than I wanted. I did a bit of digging to see where the bad rap may have come from, and this is what I found:

"According to the USDA, high fructose corn syrup accounts for roughly 41% of all caloric (nutritive) sweeteners consumed in the US.

Around the world, high fructose corn syrup accounts for about 8% of all caloric (nutritive) sweeteners consumed."

OK, so sure, high fructose corn syrup isn't any worse than table sugar or honey, but we Americans simply suck at moderation. So while the commercial is just meant to inform that its no different from other caloric sweeteners, it still doesn't change the fact that unless we abstain from SOME of our desires, we're still going to be as obese as ever. HFCS has just unfortunately won the worst reputation, even though it is considered a natural food according to the FDA, no different than honey or sugar.

In terms of the website layout, it was a little information heavy, and could have benefited from more visuals, as it was quite technical and comparisons often had to be made by crossing from one page to the next and back again. It also goes back to the discussion of Apple--I don't care if HFCS is made up of HFCS-55 and HFCS-42, I just want to know what that means for me. The one cool bit about the site: there's a FAQ section on all artificial sweeteners, so I got to learn more about sweeteners, the alternatives, etc.

Bill Gates + Jerry Seinfeld + Microsoft = ??

There's been a lot of chat surrounding the new spot for Microsoft, produced by Crispin Porter + Bogusky. I'll be the first to say that the relationship seems like a bad fit, and that I would have loved for Fallon to get it instead. However, I actually like this new spot, and not just because I interned there and have blind loyalty.

Much like recent Skittles ads, this spot is simply enjoyable, if a bit strange. It's a teaser spot to create buzz about an upcoming product from Microsoft. What more could they have done with it? There was no technical features to discuss yet, and truthfully, ads aren't always the best place for that kind of information--oftentimes in B-to-C advertisements for industries like technology, the best bet is to focus on the emotional rather than the rational. Apple has been doing a great job of showing how it's often more important to tell consumers the emotional benefit (faster, great way to store your photos, thinnest notebook, "Twice as fast, half the price" etc.) rather than the rationial "2.5 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo." ("What?") Naturally, Microsoft can't take the same stance of "personality wins," but they've done a good job of just getting people talking and making them actually watch the strange exchange between these two "celebrities."

Alex got a text today from a friend saying, "Do more stuff like the Jerry Seinfeld Microsoft commercial." My parents, without knowing it was CP+B, both said they found the spot very funny. I think the problem is that a lot of people in the industry hated the ad before it ever came out--they didn't want CP+B to succeed. I certainly had my reservations about the agency choice, but I was pleasantly surprised to enjoy the spot.

Only confusing bit- I thought Bill Gates left Microsoft...why would he know what's coming up?