CEREAL BRANDING /MARKETING: You'll Never Look At Cereal Boxes The Same Again

You'll Never Look At Cereal Boxes The Same Again

The Huffington Post  | by  Emily Cohn

Posted: 04/03/2014 11:00 am EDT Updated: 04/03/2014 3:59 pm EDT

Print Article

• Sha

Kids Cereal MarketingMarketing to KidsCereal BoxesCereal Box CharactersKids CerealKids Cereal BrandsFood News

The next time you stroll down the cereal aisle at a grocery store, blindfold your child. Because the characters on kids cereal boxes are literally staring at your children.

According to a recent study from Cornell University's Food and Brand Lab, cereals that are marketed to children tend to be placed on lower shelves (not so weird) and feature characters that often look downward toward children (very weird). In other words, Cap'n Crunch and his other sugar-loving friends make eye contact with kids, which in turn builds brand loyalty.

The same can't be said of adult cereal boxes, in which characters often gazed straight ahead, the researchers found.

To arrive at this conclusion, the Cornell team examined 65 different types of cereal at 10 different grocery stores, or a total of 86 cereal "spokes-characters." The team measured the angle of the character's gaze four feet away from the the shelf. Of these characters, 66 percent were targeted at kids and gazed downward.

This eye contact isn't just a matter of being polite. The study found that trust for and connection to a brand are significantly increased when eye contact is established. The researchers came to that conclusion after participants viewed two versions of a Trix cereal box, one in which eye contact was made and one in which it was not. They found that when the Trix rabbit made eye contact, "brand trust" increased by 16 percent and "feeling of connection to the brand" rose 28 percent:

Tal said that in many cases, the characters on cereal boxes are actually just looking down at the cereal pictured on the box, so it's not entirely clear that the boxes are designed to deliberately seduce kids. But incidental or not, the findings are striking. Here are some examples the researchers provided of characters gazing downward:

Comparatively, this box of Wheaties, a cereal made of wheat and bran, features NBA star Kevin Garnett looking straight ahead (we found this photo ourselves):

But are cereal companies subliminally brainwashing us? It's unclear.

When contacted for comment, Kellogg's did not directly address the study, but noted that it follows industry guidelines on marketing food to children.

"Personally, I don't think it's a deliberate strategy." Aner Tal, a post-doctoral research associate at Cornell, told The Huffington Post on Wednesday. "I think it's incidental... But the finding could be used for good."

One way? The findings could help companies market healthier cereals to younger kids, Tal suggested. For now, Tal recommends some basic advice for those who want to make conscious, smart decisions at the grocery story: "Stick to the shopping list."

Here are some other good examples we found of cereal characters looking down:

HEALTH ALERT: Eating 7 Or More Daily Portions Of Produce Could Reduce Premature Death Risk

Eating 7 Or More Daily Portions Of Produce Could Reduce Premature Death Risk

Posted: 04/01/2014 8:32 am EDT Updated: 04/01/2014 8:59 am EDT

Print Article

• Share

MORE:

Vegetables Premature DeathPremature Death FruitsProduce Cancer DeathFruits Vegetables Premature DeathProduce Premature DeathProduce Heart DeathFood News

Getting plenty of fruits and vegetables in your breakfast, lunch and dinner could help to protect you from dying early, a new study suggests.

And the effects seemed to be especially pronounced the more servings of produce people ate each day, found researchers from University College London.

The study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, included data from 65,000 adults age 35 and older, who participated in health surveys in England between 2001 and 2008. Researchers tracked deaths in this group of participants for an average of 7.5 years; by the end of the monitoring period, 6.7 percent of the participants -- or 4,399 people -- died.

The study participants reported consuming just under four portions of produce, on average, the previous day. Researchers found an association between consuming seven or more portions of fruits and vegetables each day and a 33 percent decreased risk of dying from any cause over the study period.

And when researchers excluded deaths within the first year from the start of the study, consuming at least seven portions of fruits and vegetables was associated with a 42 percent lower risk of overall premature death, as well as a 25 percent lower risk of dying from cancer and a 31 percent lower risk of dying from stroke or heart disease.

Vegetables seemed to confer a greater protective effect than fruits. Specifically, consuming two to three portions a day of vegetables was associated with a 19 percent decreased premature death risk, versus a 10 percent decreased risk with fruit.

However, frozen and canned fruit was actually associated with a higher risk of death from all causes over the study period. "As far as we know, no other studies have shown this result," the researchers wrote in the study. "This may be due to confounding for example by (poor) access to fresh groceries in deprived areas or among people with pre-existing ill-health or a more hectic lifestyle."

The researchers noted that because frozen fruit is considered nutritionally equivalent to fresh fruit, the reason behind this particular finding might be that canned fruit generally contains higher sugar levels, especially when packed in syrup, or even fruit juice.

In a related editorial, experts from the Institute of Psychology, Health & Society at the University of Liverpool noted that the "burning question" now is, "whether the refined sugars added to 'processed' fruit products might reduce, negate or even reverse the fruit potential benefits." Indeed, current health recommendations that include canned fruit and fruit juices as being part of daily produce consumption might need to be changed, considering the amount of sugars in these products, they said.

IMPROVING BUSINESS PERFORMANCE PART 5: Beware these 6 Big Data mistakes

Beware these 6 Big Data mistakes

Mitchell Osak | January 28, 2014 8:00 AM ET
More from Mitchell Osak

Getty CreativeWhen it comes to Big Data, "Managers should be mindful of hamstringing themselves by not following a common-sense and continuous-learning approach to project design and implementation," writes Mitchell Osak.

•  
• Twitter
 
• Google+ 
• LinkedIn 
• Email 
• Comments
•  More

Big Data is all the rage across many enterprises.   The potential payoffs are compelling.  For example, research out of MIT found that firms leveraging Big Data  achieve, on average, 5-6% greater productivity and profitability than their peers.  McKinsey calls Big Data a game changer for sales and marketing along with other areas of the business. But like anything else, getting the most out of data means knowing what not to do. Companies looking to extract value from their terabytes of data should make sure they avoid the following 6 mistakes.

Boiling the ocean

Big Data can be big work. It is easy to burn through a lot of time and cost finding insights that don’t materially address major business challenges like getting closer to customers or improving operational performance. One way to ensure value is to ask research questions whose answers will directly impact key corporate goals. This focused method also enables your company to ‘learn as they go’ and develop quick wins that justify further effort and investment.

Only considering data in silos

In many organizations, the majority of data resides in functional areas or business units — not in an enterprise-data warehouse. Only analyzing siloed data reduces your chances of finding key insight that can affect a company because you are limiting the number of variables and quantity of data under consideration.  However, bridging these silos is easier said than done; organizational and data issues may hinder an enterprise-wide data mining effort. In other cases, managers often limit their analysis to existing digital data. This approach could miss out on insights that are discovered when analog data (such as social feedback and qualitative research) is ‘datafied.’

Ignoring bias

There are good reasons why Big Data resembles science. The analytics can be challenging and methodological errors are not uncommon. “There is significant risk of the analytics being wrong,” says Neil Seeman, founder & CEO of global online data collection firm, The RIWI Corporation. “Systematic bias can easily slip into enormous data sets. Or, not understanding unknown bias in the data set results in false conclusions. Case in point was the early analysis of large HIV data sets; this did not consider the influence of intravenous drug use.”

Related

• If great customer service is your competitive differentiator then you’d better be ready to go above and beyond
• Four keys to selling innovative ideas to company decision makers
• Lies, damn lies and metrics: Why metrics should be used sparingly to improve performance

Focusing on cause instead of correlation

Understanding precise cause and effect is difficult and impractical. What’s more actionable is uncovering correlations — patterns and associations that help predict what will happen next time. Managers should be mindful of looking for and expecting data perfection. For example, the shelf life of market-based insights could be measured in days or even hours. Often it is better to quickly make decisions with 80% confidence in the data than to wait for perfection farther out in the future.

Disregarding qualitative knowledge

Data analytics can deliver many insights but it often cannot tell the entire story. Take the drivers of consumer behaviour as an example. It is difficult to comprehend what drives action without looking at qualitative research tools like behavioural psychology or anthropology as well as expert opinion. These tools should be used to fill in knowledge gaps.

Forgetting about instinct and creativity

At a certain point in the future, the leaders in each sector will have comparable Big Data capabilities and access to the same data. To wit, the Open Data movement is making terabytes of the same data available to everyone. Like other innovations, the greatest returns will flow to those who use the tools and methodologies in the most creative way. As well, management instinct will continue to play a key role in setting Big Data priorities and figuring out how to combine disparate information into more powerful conclusions.

A dangerous assumption made by some companies is to think your entire team should be made up only of credentialed “data science” experts. According to Seeman, “Experience in this fledgling field of data science often eclipses the value of fancy degrees from prestigious universities. What are needed are curiosity seekers with demonstrable experience in pattern recognition and exploiting data for real value. In my case, everything I learned about Big Data came through experimentation, failure, and asking really dumb questions — through efforts to solve the problem of how to collect a unique data stream from every country and territory in the world.”

Big Data is still in its infancy. The first cases studies are still being written. Of course, success will be a product of a strong top-down mandate, having sufficient resources and working with competent partners. At the same time, managers should be mindful of hamstringing themselves by not following a common-sense and continuous-learning approach to project design and implementation.

Mitchell Osak is managing director of Quanta Consulting Inc.  Quanta has delivered a variety of strategy and organizational transformation consulting and educational solutions to global Fortune 1,000 organizations.  Mitchell can be reached at mosak@quantaconsulting.com

IMPROVING BUSINESS PERFORMANCE PART 4: Stuck in a rut? 6 steps to strategically reset and revitalize your company

Stuck in a rut? 6 steps to strategically reset and revitalize your company

Mitchell Osak | February 24, 2014 8:00 AM ET
More from Mitchell Osak

REUTERS/Chip EastApple's launch of the iPod and, more importantly, iTunes helped turn around the fortunes of tech company teetering on the brink. Many organizations today, including Live Nation, the Wall Street Journal and Blackberry are experiencing similar scenarios today. Getting out of their ruts will require a strategically planned, timed and executed "reset", writes Mitchell Osak.

•  
• Twitter
 
• Google+ 
• LinkedIn 
• Email 
• Comments
•  More

For the last five years, companies have been struggling to cope with stagnant growth, shrinking margins and reduced product differentiation. The next five may be downright dangerous, especially given today’s powerful headwinds. For some organizations like Volvo, Canada Post, Barnes & Noble and Olympus, their very reason for being is increasingly in doubt. To prosper, all companies need to soberly assess whether its time for a strategic reset — before it’s too late.

A strategic reset is a deliberate (but not rash) pivot away from a stagnant market towards new growth market(s), often driven with a revitalized business model and management practices. Resets are often needed for mature brands, divisions and even entire companies. Many firms like IBM, Cisco, Apple and Xerox have adroitly managed these pivots while others like Blackberry, The Wall Street Journal, and Live Nation are currently struggling to pull them off.

Symptoms of decline usually include deteriorating financial returns, limited pricing and channel power and high levels of customer dissatisfaction. According to our experience and research, firms should start worrying if they find themselves facing:

Falling market attractiveness: The size of the market by revenue and volume is flat or declining. At the same time, your costs continue to grow leading to shrinking margins.

Minimal brand differentiation: Customers perceive little, meaningful difference between products and tend to switch often.

Looming external threats: Large markets are appealing for disruptors when barriers to entry are falling and incumbents appear complacent.  New players (think Apple’s iTunes circa 2003) unencumbered by legacy assets or culture can exploit new technologies and channels to leapfrog incumbents and reorder markets to their advantage.

An underperforming business model: In many cases, your business model is not delivering a sustainable competitive advantage. For example, your patents have expired or have been bypassed; it is difficult to maintain cost competitiveness or deliver meaningful product innovation; and, finally, the way you create value has become obsolete due to industry developments like the emergence of open-source software.

The strategic danger is further magnified by the economic realities of the day such as globalized competition, increasing regulation and the rapid dissemination of new ideas. Declining internal performance combined with this dynamic environment can create a perilous situation where adverse changes in a firm’s competitive position can come quickly and out of the blue.

Yet, decline is not inevitable and management is not powerless. The saying “adversity brings opportunity” holds much truth. Many firms — even those on life support — will still retain key competencies and assets such as intellectual property, customer relationships, cash reserves, trusted brands and institutional knowledge that can be leveraged into other products and markets. Moreover, a fear of decline can be a powerful wake up call for organizational transformation.

To strategically reset their business, we recommend CEOs follow these six steps:

Acknowledge the strategic challenge: All executives need the facts and courage to face reality, as well as the alignment and perseverance of the organization to move forward.

Know your core competencies: Pivots are easier and faster to execute when you leverage your core capabilities. It is vital to understand what these are in terms of skills, assets and market relationships.

Find a winning value proposition for an appealing market: Recognizing your future is not an easy process and should be undertaken as an iterative strategic and innovation process, not a static exercise. Not surprisingly, successful pivots will target your existing customers in existing or new segments.  You will need to deeply understand their current and unmet needs to fashion a powerful, new value proposition.

Redesign your model: Winning in your target market will often require a re-tuned business model to profitably deliver your new value proposition. To move forward smoothly, it may be necessary to cast aside traditional management practices such as how you determine ROI, organize your staff and measure results.

Move boldly but prudently: A reset involves a balancing act between safeguarding current revenue and investing and re-organizing around a new business. Furthermore, it will not always be clear where the next home run will be. Savvy managers will test a lot of promising innovations before making any big bets. Given the risks and urgency, firms will need to foster world-class execution efforts.

Nothing breeds complacency like success. The CEO and board cannot let this happen. It is better to manage your destiny than wait for events to overtake you. A strategic reset, however, will take guts and guile. Most managers will find it easier to ignore realities and resist change than to embrace it. A healthy first step is to recognize that renewal is about building a bridge to the future without burning the bridges from the past.

Mitchell Osak is managing director of Quanta Consulting Inc.  Quanta has delivered a variety of strategy and organizational transformation consulting and educational solutions to global Fortune 1,000 organizations.  Mitchell can be reached at mosak@quantaconsulting.com

FOOD LABELING: MEAT INDUSTRY LOSES ROUND 2 IN COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN LABELING CHALLENGE

MEAT INDUSTRY LOSES ROUND 2 IN COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN LABELING CHALLENGE

Published April 1, 2014 in Food Product Design

Posted in News, Meat Products, Processed Meats, Regulatory, Lawsuit, US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agriculture, International, Business, Economics, Labeling

WASHINGTON—The meat industry has lost another round in its legal challenge of 2013 regulations that require certain meats specify the country where an animal was raised, born and slaughtered.

The March 28, 2014 ruling by a federal appeals court leaves in tact the Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) rule, which the Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) adopted.  AMS' rule also prohibits comingling of meat cuts, which means meats that derive from different countries cannot be combined in the same package for retail, according to a lawsuit the American Meat Institute (AMI) and other organizations filed last year.

AMI argued the rule violated the First Amendment, exceeded the authority of AMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and was arbitrary and capricious because it imposed undue burdens on the industry. Several organizations joined AMI in the lawsuit, including the American Association of Meat Processors, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, Canadian Pork Council, Confedaracion Nacional de Organizaciones Ganaderas, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council, North American Meat Association and the Southwest Meat Association.
“We disagree strongly with the court’s decision and believe that the rule will continue to harm livestock producers and the industry with little benefit to consumers," AMI Interim President and CEO James H. Hodges said in a statement. “At this point we are evaluating our options moving forward."
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) held that AMI is unlikely to succeed on its claims challenging the COOL rule, affirming a lower court ruling that refused to preliminarily block implementation of the rule.

"AMI’s argument that the rule unlawfully 'bans' commingling fails at a key first step—the 2013 rule does not actually ban any element of the production process. It simply requires that meat cuts be accurately labeled with the three phases of production named in the statute," Senior Circuit Judge Stephen Williams wrote. "It appears that under current practices meat packers cannot achieve that degree of accuracy with commingled production."

The lawsuit, filed last year in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argued the rule failed to offer any public health or food-safety benefits. According to the complaint, the government estimates the rule could impose up to roughly $192 million in costs on the meat industry.

The costs will be incurred mostly by packers and processors of muscle cut covered commodities and retailers subject to requirements of the rule, according to AMS. The agency has estimated the rule could cost anywhere from  $53.1 million to $192.1 million with a midpoint of $123.3 million.

Other organizations have intervened in the case as supporters of the COOL rule, including the United States Cattlemen's Association (USCA), National Farmers Union, American Sheep Industry Association and Consumer Federation of America.

It's possible AMI will ask the entire D.C. Circuit Court to hear the case. If that occurs, "USCA will continue to defend the revised regulations before the Court," the cattlemen's organization said. "Defending COOL is USCA's highest priority and we are prepared for any eventuality."

AMS adopted a COOL rule in 2009, but Canada and Mexico challenged it before the World Trade Organization (WTO). According to the D.C. Circuit Court, the organization found the rule violated a WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and AMS was given until May 23, 2013 to bring the rule into compliance.

IMPROVING BUSINESS EARNINGS PART 3: ‘Swinging for the fences’: 3 ways to tell if your company can win big-innovation bets

‘Swinging for the fences’: 3 ways to tell if your company can win big-innovation bets

Mitchell Osak | March 12, 2014 8:00 AM ET
More from Mitchell Osak

Michael Ivins/BloombergHarvard researcher Anita Elberse found companies in the entertainment and publishing industries with superior financial returns had strategically focused their efforts and capital on producing movie blockbusters, recruiting superstar athletes or signing popular authors. To use a baseball metaphor, these firms always swing for the fences instead of playing it safe trying for singles and doubles.

•  
• Twitter
 
• Google+ 
• LinkedIn 
• Email 
• Comments
•  More

Companies could learn much about innovation from the Spanish general, Hernan Cortes.  In 1518, Cortes was instructed to sail to Mexico and overthrow the Aztec empire. According to the story, he proceeded to scuttle his boats after putting down a mutiny of some of his staff. This sent a powerful message to his soldiers that there was no retreat. They would conquer Mexico or die in their efforts. History judged his decision successful (if not immoral). His small army of 500 soldiers conquered the country in a mere two years.  What management lessons can be gleaned from this historical episode?

An “all or nothing” strategy seems counter-intuitive when looking at the best way to commercialize risky innovations.  Conventional wisdom says that launching small, measurable experiments or pilots is the best, lowest risk approach to introducing new products or technologies. Though this seems like a prudent tack, it has not necessarily produced market wins. Numerous studies show that the success rate for new products has stubbornly hovered around 10-20%. Fortunately, there may be a better way to commercialize innovation.

A professor at Harvard Business School, Anita Elberse, has studied creativity-driven industries like music, sports, movies and publishing.  In her book Blockbusters, Elberse found that the companies with superior financial returns had strategically focused their efforts and capital on producing movie blockbusters, recruiting superstar athletes or signing popular authors. To use a baseball metaphor, these firms always swing for the fences instead of playing it safe trying for singles and doubles. According to her data, these industries exhibit a ‘winner take all’ dynamic; less than 10% of projects, teams or entertainers produced more than 90% of industry revenue and profit.

In “winner take all” markets, the best strategy is to singlehandedly aim for blockbuster products.  The best way to do this is to focus investment and management attention on proven entities, assets or projects, like a movie sequel, a superstar free agent athlete or a popular book franchise.  Funding a limited number of major innovations is not enough. You also need to front-load your sales and marketing effort to boost initial channel distribution and trigger word-of-mouth effects. Elberse considers a blockbuster strategy a lower risk approach because it improves the odds of success early on and enables firms to cut their losses if results do not pan out.

Applicability to other markets

While Elberse studied the creative and sporting industries, other information-driven sectors may experience similar blockbuster dynamics. Industries with high fixed costs, a low marginal cost (when producing more) and a high marginal profit (on each additional sale) can quickly evolve into “winner take all” markets, particularly when digital technologies reduce customer search costs and eliminate the need for physical proximity between the buyer and seller. There are many reasons for all CEOs to consider this approach for their business:

Rallying the troops

Big innovation bets focus employee and supplier attention, create positive urgency and prevent individual or departmental agendas from stealing resources.

Reduces complexity

Many R&D projects, particularly small ones, can develop institutional momentum making them difficult to cancel.  Managing this portfolio can generate significant complexity, increasing organizational cost and diffusing effort.  A blockbuster strategy eliminates these wasteful costs plus allows managers to best leverage scale economies in areas like media buying and raw material purchases.

Satisfy real customer needs

Movie studios concentrate investment and time on stories, actors and directors with proven consumer appeal (e.g., a sequel).  The discipline of only targeting key customer needs in profitable segments with real innovation improves the chances of market success.

Elberse’s learnings are relevant to many other industries including education, training, professional services and software. However, not every firm is a good fit. We believe enterprises should have three characteristics:

1.  Self-awareness

Companies that are good at placing the right innovation bets tend to have a good sense of what their core competencies are and where they need to partner or bypass.

2.  Decisiveness

Though having a good innovation evaluation process is important, management still needs to make tough calls quickly in periods of uncertainty.  Moreover, following a blockbuster strategy requires firms to have a culture and performance measurement system that is tolerant of failure.

3.  Nimbleness

Rigid plans lead to risky, binary decisions. Even in the movie industry, extensive consumer research still takes place.  Producers don’t hesitate to make edits or change endings based on focus group research.

Utilizing a blockbuster approach goes against conventional wisdom.  However, there are many examples of hurting companies like Apple, IBM and Xerox that followed this strategy and have re-emerged as winners.  Managers should understand their operational dynamics, consider the strong financial business case, and analyze theimpact of digital tools like search bots or recommendation engines that create “winner take all” effects.

Mitchell Osak is managing director of Quanta Consulting Inc.  Quanta has delivered a variety of strategy and organizational transformation consulting and educational solutions to global Fortune 1,000 organizations.  Mitchell can be reached at mosak@quantaconsulting.com