Pesquisar este blog

29/11/2011

The Christmas Shopping: Beware of Shopping Momentum


Going Shopping? Beware of Shopping Momentum

John Gress / Reuters
John Gress / Reuters
Shoppers ride an escalator at a Target Store in Chicago, November 25, 201.
The Christmas shopping season is upon us, and if you decide to indulge in the shopping frenzy, be careful. Not just of your health, but of your wallet. Buying at bargain prices is a worthy thing, but once you start shopping it can be tough to stop. This isn’t just an urban myth, either. Research from the Stanford Graduate School of Business suggests that shopping really can lead to more shopping.
Here’s a quote from the press release that announced their findings:
When such savvy marketing researchers as Uzma Khan of Stanford, Ravi Dhar of Yale, and Joel Huber of Duke noticed that shopping sometimes proceeded unchecked even in their own private domains, they decided to get to the bottom of things.
Setting up a series of tests of purchasing behavior, they found that for most people buying that fateful first — and often innocent — item seems to open the purchasing floodgates. This realization, they say, has important implications for how stores are laid out as well as for understanding individual behavior.
Apparently, shopping is a two-stage process. To begin, the shopper decides whether to purchase the first item. She takes time, weighing the pros and cons. But after this initial “deliberation phase” has ended, once the shopper has made the decision to buy, less effort is put into evaluating future purchases on the same trip.
(MORE: Black Friday 2011: By the Numbers)
In other words, once a person decides to buy one thing, this creates “shopping momentum,” increasing the likelihood that that shopper will buy more stuff. If you pick up an impulse item (like a magazine or candy bar) as you enter a store, this can serve as a trigger to encourage you to buy more.
This is certainly true in my own life. If I’m in outdoor retailer REI trying to decide whether to buy a new backpack, it’s easy to leave with nothing if I steel my mind. But as soon as I give in and pick out a pack, it’s much easier to buy a sleeping bag. And trekking poles. And hiking boots. It’s almost as if my choice isn’t “should I buy this pack?” but “should I buy anything?” Once I decide “yes,” I’ve essentially given myself permission to buy as much as I want.
So how can you prevent shopping momentum? The best way is to avoid temptation. If you can’t afford to spend (or don’t want to spend), then stay away from places that might lead you to spend. For me, that means no bookstores — and no REI. For you, that might mean no malls or no auto parts stores. To avoid shopping momentum, it’s best to avoid temptation completely.
If you still want to go shopping this holiday season, minimize the risks of overspending by shopping with a list. Base your buying decisions on a plan, and don’t get swept up by the sales. This is the best way to approach all shopping, of course, but it’s even more important when you’re intentionally putting yourself into a shopping frenzy. At times like this, you really need to beware of shopping momentum.


Read more: http://moneyland.time.com/2011/11/29/going-shopping-beware-of-shopping-momentum/#ixzz1f6PQHBd8

What We Learned from the Black Friday-Cyber Monday Shopping Extravaganza



What We Learned from the Black Friday-Cyber Monday Shopping Extravaganza

Eric Thayer / Reuters
Eric Thayer / Reuters
Customers take the escalator as they shop at a Toys "R" Us store in New York, November 24, 2011.
Shoppers have dropped tens of billions of dollars in stores and online over the last five days. What does such an impressive outpouring tell us about today’s consumer mentality, and the state of the economy as a whole?
There are still nearly four prime shopping weeks to go before Christmas, but now that the Black Friday-Cyber Monday consumer bonanza is over, some observations seem in order:
Consumers like the idea of shopping at midnight on Thanksgiving. Though considered controversial, family un-friendly, and even unpatriotic in certain circles, the decision by many retailers to open stores at midnight (or even earlier) on Thanksgiving night is being viewed as a success. Mere hours after finishing turkey dinners, millions of shoppers showed up stores and eagerly opened their wallets, leading the biggest day for Black Friday sales ever. Because the midnight openings have been deemed successful—“well worth it for both retailers and shoppers,” according to the National Retail Federation—the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, among others, speculates that Thankgiving night openings won’t be a passing fad. Going forward, expect the late night Turkey Day store openings to be standard practice.
Consumers like shopping (from home) on Thanksgiving Day too. The market research firm ComScore reports that online retail sales totaled $479 million on Thanksgiving Day 2011, up 18% from last year’s Turkey Day e-commerce tally. The rise in e-commerce on Black Friday was even greater, hitting $816 million compared to $648 million on Black Friday of 2010—a 26% increase.
Younger consumers and men are more likely to shop late at night. The early pre-morning Black Friday shopping adventure has traditionally been a mostly female phenomenon, dominated by moms checking off their holiday shopping lists. This isn’t the case for late-night store openings on Thanksgiving evening. The New York Times reports that 18- to 34-year-olds who went shopping on Black Friday were far more likely than 35- to 54-year-olds to be in stores by midnight—36.7% vs. 23.5%, respectively. Men were also more likely to shop on Thanksgiving night as opposed to the pre-dawn of Black Friday:
“Men really aren’t willing to pull themselves out of bed at 4 a.m. for a bargain, but they will go” late at night, [NRF vice president Ellen] Davis said. “Men are increasingly budget-focused, and like the idea of looking for good deals.”
Even after splurging in stores, consumers will splurge online. After shoppers turned out in full force over the Thanksgiving weekend, a slight lull in Cyber Monday spending would have been understandable. Instead, according to a MarketWatch report, early online sales for Cyber Monday were booming—up 30% compared to the year before.
Credit card use appears to be on the rise. Oh, so that’s how consumers are paying for all of their Black Friday-Cyber Monday purchases! A Javelin Strategy & Research study indicates that, after several years of declining credit card use among consumers, traditional plastic is poised for a comeback. Beth Robertson, Javelin’s director of payments research, says: “Despite the nation’s very rocky economic recovery, consumers appear to have halted their belt-tightening and bank incentives to use credit cards rather than debit are gaining appeal.” Over the next five years, credit card use for online purchases is expected to rise by 63%, compared to an increase of just 2% for debit cards.
Black Friday shoppers are capable of pretty horrendous behavior. Another Black Friday weekend, another series of ugly shopping incidents. The rundown this year includes a Walmart shopper pepper-spraying other customers during a scrum over Xbox gaming consoles, and mobs of shoppers who stepped over a dying man who collapsed in a Target store in West Virginia.
The “Occupy” protesters can protest shoppers too. Plenty of the 99 percent demonstrated over the weekend that they have no qualms about shopping and supporting capitalism to their heart’s content. This opened shoppers up to being the subject of protests, right alongside Wall Street fat cats. Protesters gathered outside stores in San Francisco’s Union Square, for example, where a boy held a sign reading: “What is in your bag that’s more important than my education?”
Big sales numbers don’t necessarily mean good things for economy. The weekend’s monster sales figures have been welcomed as an indicator of consumer confidence, but, as a USA Today column points out, “The previous top weekend was in the depths of the recession in 2008.” As in 2008, 2011 shoppers could have turned out in huge numbers in an attempt to stretch their already-stretched budgets and secure the absolute best prices on the few gifts they can afford this year.
According to a new Bankrate poll, 42% of Americans (including 49% of parents) intend to spend less than last year on holiday purchases, while only 10% plan on spending more. The Washington Post reports that, despite strong early season sales numbers, retailers aren’t adjusting projections for overall holiday sales—which are still expected to experience meager (not robust) growth this year.
Brad Tuttle is a reporter at TIME. Find him on Twitter at @bradrtuttle. You can also continue the discussion on TIME’s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.


Read more: http://moneyland.time.com/2011/11/29/what-we-learned-from-the-black-friday-cyber-monday-shopping-extravaganza/#ixzz1f6OtMrYw

Celebrating the hidden heroes of technology

Celebrating the hidden heroes of technology
The BBC's technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones reports from the Hidden Heroes exhibition at the Science Museum in London.
Where might you expect to find a paperclip, a clothes peg, and a teabag? Probably not in a museum where the other exhibits chronicle the progress of science and technology.
But those items are amongst the stars of a new exhibition at London's Science Museum.
Hidden Heroes celebrates the everyday objects that we take for granted - products like the paper tissue, the egg box, and the zip fastener - and tells the stories behind their invention.
Who knew, for instance, that the rawlplug that millions of us use in DIY jobs every day was invented in 1910 by an engineer called John Joseph Rawlings?
He had been contracted to install electrical fittings at the British Museum with the stipulation that the walls should be damaged as little as possible.
He came up with a plug made out of jute fibres that had been saturated with glue.
d Got it pegged: Without the humble clothes peg laundry day would be a lot more trying
Fifty years later a German inventor developed a plastic plug that used the same principle of "grip by expansion".
Then there is the clothes hanger. It looks very simple, but 189 patents were issued for various models between 1900 and 1906.
One was for a wire hanger invented when Albert Parkhouse arrived at work on a cold winter's day to find all the coat pegs taken - so on the spot he bent a piece of wire into a hanger.
Perfect product "It's not always a eureka moment," says Dr Sue Mossman, the Science Museum material sciences specialist who is overseeing the exhibition. "Sometimes there are a few steps before you get to the perfect product."

“The secret behind them is that they are all idiot-proof”

Dr Mossman says the aim of the exhibition is to make people think about things that they use every day. But Hidden Heroes also tells a story about the industrial revolution.
"You need industrial processes and manufacturing before you can get these inventions. So without drawn wire you wouldn't get the paperclip."
The rubber band, for instance, arrived in 1845, but only after Britain's Thomas Hancock and the American Charles Goodyear discovered that heating rubber with sulphur - vulcanisation - transformed an unstable raw material into something much more useful.
The idea for Hidden Heroes came from a company called Hi-Cone which makes another simple but durable product, the plastic strip used to carry six-packs of drinks.
An eggbox Eggcellent discovery! It may not be an iPhone, but we are more likely to still be using this in 20 years
"Our product is used by millions of people every day but is rather invisible," says Ton Hoppenbrouwers from Hi-Cone.
"We looked around and found that there are lots of products at home or at the office that are simple in design, used by millions, and haven't changed over the years."
Idiot-proof In collaboration with the Vitra Design museum in Germany, Hi-Cone selected 36 such products and mounted the Hidden Heroes exhibition, which is now arriving in London after winning all sorts of awards.
What, then, do the Hidden Heroes have in common that makes them last so long?
"The secret behind them is that they are all idiot-proof," says Ton Hoppenbrouwers.
"Once you see them you know how to use them, and they operate in the way you like."
When I asked Mr Hoppenbrouwers to choose his favourite products he plumped for the rawlplug, the coat-hanger, and the clothes peg - "like our product they are all very simple, very minimal but they carry a large weight".
Rows of jars The classic Kilner jar has been keeping food preserved since the 1800s
One striking thing about an exhibition of products that are used by everyone is that only one of the hidden heroes was invented by a woman. In 1908, German housewife Melitta Bentz invented an effective coffee filter by lining a perforated metal beaker with blotting paper.
It was 30 years before this evolved into the form it has today, but despite the arrival of all sorts of smart and expensive machines, the simple paper filter is still the easiest route to a good cup of coffee in millions of homes around the world.
Sticky business More recent products that already look destined for longevity include the sticky note seen plastered on computer screens, notice-boards and documents just about everywhere.
This all began with a failure in the late 1960s, when an American scientist at 3M's research lab, Dr Spencer Silver, was trying to develop an extra-strong adhesive.
Instead, he developed a weak glue that allowed things to be joined and taken apart equally easily. A decade later Silver's colleague Arthur Fry, irritated by paper bookmarks which kept falling out of his hymnbook during choir rehearsals, decided to coat them with the weak glue. The Post-It note was born.
You will not find anything that looks remotely hi-tech in the Hidden Heroes exhibition.
A range of pencils Sometimes the most mundane inventions have the biggest impact over time
Visitors wandering in after seeing a steam engine, a spacecraft or even a smartphone on show elsewhere in the Science Museum may wonder what objects like an ear plug, an egg box or a rubber band are doing in a place that chronicles the progress of technology.
But, as Dr Sue Mossman explains, the supposedly mundane is often remarkable. And when I asked her which object people would still find useful a decade from now - an iPhone or a rubber band - she was clear: "The rubber band, because by then the iPhone will be a dinosaur because it is not simple enough."
From the paperclip to the Post-It note, simple and very cheap products have proved that they can have lasting appeal, and make some of their inventors very wealthy.
Today's innovators may find inspiration for the products of the future in this exhibition of the hidden heroes of the past.

Looking into the future of Epson

Looking into the future of Epson

A shot of an Epson printer They may make printers now, but Epson originally specialised in wristwatches
Each week we ask high-profile technology decision-makers three questions.
With a history that spans more than 100 years, the company as it is known today was officially founded in 1942. Since then Epson has grown into a household name in printing.
Originally a watchmaker, the company now specialises in compact, energy-saving and high-precision products.
Minoru Usui, chief executive of Epson Mr Usui's company is focusing on what it considers to be the "core" businesses
With a workforce of 78,000 working across some 99 companies, Epson is seeking to adapt in a world where its technologies are changing rapidly.
Chief executive Minoru Usui, who also acts as the firm's chief technology officer, gave the BBC a rare interview to discuss where he is taking the company in the coming years.
What's your biggest technology problem right now?
Epson has a lot of businesses and a lot of technologies. However, the problem we've had in the past is focusing on the ones that can provide the most value for our customers.
We obviously had to put a lot of money into research and development. But because we couldn't focus on our strengths, it was spread around a lot of businesses and it was difficult to find profitability.
We had this problem of a lack of focus in our business. So we did a review to see where our true strengths were lying. We came to the conclusion we had core technologies in areas like printing, projection and sensing.
In the past we were only focused on some very narrow customer groups, but now because we're actually focusing on these core technologies we've been able to spread them into various other markets.
And so our issue was then to focus on these technologies and leverage them.
At present the biggest issue we're facing is that each employee, each engineer, has got to be fully aware of what mega-trends exist in the world, understand what exactly do people in each market want, and then link that to the core technologies that I mentioned earlier and develop products that actually find value for the customers in these markets.
It's essential that all the engineers don't lose sight of those goals. We have to create a structure so that everybody can actually focus on what the customers want. That's what we're working on right now.
In the past Epson divided its businesses into two main categories. One was finished products - for example printers, projectors - and the other was electronic components, for example semi-conductors.
We had this division, but what we found was, especially in the electronic components category, we were unable to maintain our technical leadership. We had to stay ahead of the game the whole time but the trends changed so fast, the technology wasn't able to keep up.
What's the next big tech thing in your industry?
Environmental technologies. Our core technologies all have three main attributes: they're energy saving, they're compact and they're high precision.
These technologies that we have we think are very well suited for this environmental technology growth.
3D printing is very possible, we're developing 3D at the moment. We think in a few years it will be possible to print on demand in 3D. We have to check the market as well - it's just a development project at the moment.
We think it's possible that it may exist in the home one day, but the first step would be business, or the office, or industry.
We think that inkjet printing is the most simple type of printing method - it's good for the environment, you basically just fire the substance you want at the media and it's printed. It cuts out a lot of the intermediate processes that you find in industrial printing.
We think the way the industry is moving is that this inkjet printing is suitable for a number of techniques that are currently used in industry - for example printing on textiles, printing labels, even things like wallpaper.
With regards to the cloud, we think this offers excellent opportunities, it's obviously going to grow and grow. We're not just talking about, for example, cloud printing. We have a background in making watches. Now it will be possible to put on a wristwatch-type device which will check your body condition and feed it up into the cloud and get feedback. In October we launched a similar product in Japan.
Last week, we announced a mobile viewer that will allow you to watch movies or check the internet while you're on the go. We think the cloud offers excellent opportunities, there's going to be a lot of growth there - you're going to be able to check, see whatever you want, whenever you want, when you're at home or in the office. We also think that our core technologies - the compact, the energy saving and high-precision technologies - make us ideally suited to get on this trend.
We've got emerging markets coming on very strongly now and previously perhaps we've had just one type of product fits all.
But now the big thing going forward is to customise our products exactly to customers in each individual market. That's another thing that's going to become very big.
What's the biggest technology mistake you've ever made - either at work or in your own life?
I worked on something called a video printer. This used a thermal type of print head - it was a completely unique print head. There were very high expectations for this in the company.
It was a photo printing technology linked up to the TV and you could print what was on the screen. However, this was back in the 1980s so there were two big problems with this. The first was that there weren't any images on TV that people wanted to print.
The second problem was that the quality of the screens wasn't all that good, and to actually print images from a TV screen, you need large amounts of memory.
Perhaps if you did it now it wouldn't be such an issue, however at the time, memory was extremely expensive and so for the amount of memory that we needed, it meant that the product itself was going to be astronomically expensive. You could only make a really high-end product.
Printers have very high photo-quality now. And memory was a lot cheaper than what it was back in the 80s. It would be a much better product and much cheaper than when I tried it back in the 80s and 90s.
We would certainly not do it again with the thermal format that we tried in the past. However the thought behind this failure was that people would one day want to print out photos whenever they wanted. In a way, although that product failed, the idea behind it was actually the drive behind our current business.
It was a pioneer - a bit ahead of its time.
Mr Usui spoke to the BBC via an interpreter.

Clash of the titans: Email v social media

 
Heart monitor Vital signs: Is your email inbox hanging on by a thread, or are reports of its imminent demise greatly exaggerated?
The headlines were unequivocal - Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg had announced that email is dead.
The truth however was a little more prosaic. At the launch of the social network's new messaging platform, he had said "we don't think a modern messaging system is going to be email", and that the new system was "not email".
Mr Zuckerberg wasn't the first to suggest that email is obsolete, and neither has he been the last.
Email has come a long way from the first message sent by programmer Ray Tomlinson across a network back in 1971.
Senior citizen The @ symbol separated the names of user and machine, and the message was sent from one machine to another over the precursor to the internet, the ARPAnet (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network).
Today email is ubiquitous. Technology market researchers Radicati see the number of email accounts worldwide growing from 3.1bn in 2011 to nearly 4.1bn by 2015.
Mark Zuckerberg Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg claims his network's messaging platform is not email
Email use is lower among teenagers - but whether this changes when they start work is unknown.
So just how likely is it that the creaking inboxes that haunt many of us will soon be replaced?
Writing history One man with more reason than most to have an opinion on the matter is email specialist Mimecast's chief scientist Nathaniel Borenstein, co-creator of the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) protocol.
This is the internet standard that lays down how messages are formatted. It lets your email contain different characters, have attachments, and contain other types of files, among other things.
Mr Borenstein says it is used more than a trillion times a day.
"Email is still growing," he says. "There's no real sign that social is making a major dent in it.
"For the most part I think they fill different functions, but that they connect with each other. I think they're symbiotic. I'm reluctant to cast them into opposition."
They may have more in common than you think.
Nathaniel Borenstein Nathaniel Borenstein: "People have asked me if I get money every time MIME is used." (He doesn't)
"Nowadays people will tell you that email is something sent to a name at a domain. And that was not the case certainly 20 years ago," says Mr Borenstein.
"Twenty years ago there were lots of independent email systems with different addressing schemes that either didn't interoperate at all or had complicated gateways.
"So over time people have come to think that email is this one thing with universal addressing, and universal addressing is good, but that's not the definition of email."
This would mean that messaging systems like Facebook's could equally be seen as email.
Unlimited storage The overflowing inbox should also be a thing of the past, thanks to cloud computing.
"There are business, legal and technical reasons [for restricting inboxes]," says Mr Borenstein.
"The technical reasons no longer hold water. It's increasingly the case that you just can't begin to believe that there's not enough storage."

You've got mail

  • 2011: 3.1 billion email accounts
  • 2015: predicted 4.1 billion
  • Typical business user sends and receives 105 messages daily
  • 2011: 2.6 billion instant messaging accounts worldwide
  • 49% of email users live in the Asia Pacific region
Source: The Radicati Group, Inc. May 2011
Social media's strength, according to Mr Borenstein, is allowing you to communicate with customised groups of people.
"They're both useful for business. I do believe that social media is going to be used more and more in business. I don't think that Facebook has gotten that right, I don't even think that Google+ has got that right and they do a better job.
"Surprisingly perhaps the ones I know who have done the best job are IBM with LotusLive, which hasn't got that much traction," says Mr Borenstein (who until recently worked for IBM on Lotus software).
Social future? Not everyone is as sunny as Mr Borenstein when it comes to the future of email, however.
Lee Bryant is co-founder of Headshift, the world's biggest social business consultancy. He believes email's dominance over business communications is coming to an end.
"When email was first developed it was an excellent point-to-point communication tool when nothing else existed," says Mr Bryant.
"I think we've reached the stage where email as means of communicating is overloaded. I think we will see what happens on email today transitioning towards various kinds of both internal and consumer facing social tools."
Young people using computers Young people aged 12-17 are using email less, according to comScore
These are "flow-based" tools such as wikis, micro-blogging and internal social networks, according to Mr Bryant.
"I think fundamentally one of the biggest problems is that social tools communicate slightly more in the open, they create ambient knowledge and ambient awareness for others who are not even in the conversation," says Mr Bryant.
"Email doesn't do that, it's quite a lonely medium.
"You receive a series of messages, you hold them in the inbox and have to move, delete or act on every one. Whereas with flow tools the flow moves past you whether or not you actually open the messages."
But does this mean that important messages will flow past never to be seen again?
"Arguably," says Mr Bryant. "But there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that social networks are actually very effective at surfacing the right information or the right things that you need to deal with."
Nevertheless he says he doesn't see email going away anytime soon.
"You narrow down email primarily to what it was designed for, which is one-to-one communications."
Shiny pennies Head of Microsoft's Envisoneers team and self-confessed "social media luvvie", Dave Coplin, is not impressed.
"I think that email is dead when it comes to social media in the same way that snail mail was dead when it came to email."
Dave Coplin Dave Coplin: "I use email less because I have social media but I can't run... life without it"
"Time and again, it's always the same thing. Enter the bright shiny new technology stage right, therefore old boring technology must exit stage left."
"Of course it never happens that way."
He says the way we use technology evolves.
"When all we had was email we would use email for everything.
"Now we've got this wonderful selection of different kinds of communication. What's nice is that our email starts to be for those communications that do truly need the kind of functionality that email offers."
Mr Coplin says there are lessons to be learnt.
"The functionality offered by email is in many ways not well represented by social media.

“Everything has its place and it's really understanding which is the right tool for the job”

"The asynchronous nature is really important, the ability to attach things, the ability to have a secure conversation, all of those things are crucial."
Mr Coplin sees the tools we use to communicate converging.
"We will have this universal communications platform that means if I'm talking to you via Facebook, Twitter, email or whatever their replacements are, it will all be presented as a common thread, so you couldn't kind of care less what channel they're on, what platform they're using, communication will flow."
But however shiny the future may be, email is in rude health in the present, according to Mr Coplin.
"The key thing for me is to dispel the myth that a lot of social media luvvies would have you believe, that email is dead. To me it's shiny penny syndrome.
"Everything has its place and it's really understanding which is the right tool for the job."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15856116?print=true

26/05/2011

Which Would You Prefer: $1 Million or a Hot Body?

Which Would You Prefer: $1 Million or a Hot Body?

The poll, or rather the Diet Index sponsored by Nutrisystem, also revealed that the vast majority of people (85%) find "a great body more of a turn-on for a sexual partner to have than a lot of money."
This doesn't necessarily mean you can't have both: In a series of research studies, a group of economists concluded that beautiful people—presumably with some pretty darn beautiful bodies as well—are happier mainly because good looks increase the chances that they'll become rich, either by cashing in career-wise on their attractiveness or marrying someone who is wealthy.
Back to the Diet Index: When asked which body they'd most like to have, women were most likely to point to the physical perfection of Jennifer Lopez and Halle Berry. I'd think there are plenty of guys who would prefer to have those bodies over $1 million as well, but in a different sense.


Read more: http://money.blogs.time.com/2011/05/26/which-would-you-prefer-1-million-or-a-hot-body/#ixzz1NV6HgbiU

How Oprah Winfrey Implicitly Endorses Consumerism and Materialism

How Oprah Winfrey Implicitly Endorses Consumerism and Materialism

"For her, transformation is about self-esteem and about buying stuff."
Yes, Oprah famously says to "Live your best life." But when you think about how her show, magazine, and website operate, the life she's suggesting is filled with an awful lot of stuff.
A BusinessWeek story analyzing the marketing lessons of "Brand Oprah" explains that Oprah's popular "favorite things" series amount to infomercials and product placement. The fact that Oprah is not compensated for these product endorsements makes the endorsements all the more powerful. It also allows a subtle, measured but obviously pro-consumerism message to sneak through, as an expert quoted in the BW story notes:
"For her, transformation is about self-esteem and about buying stuff," says Susan Mackey-Kallis, a communications professor at Villanova University. "It's consumerism, but it's not crass."
Well, if self-esteem is somehow tied to buying stuff, that does seem a bit crass. Intentional or not, Oprah's "You deserve it" message, in which the right stuff will help you "live your best life," is product marketing 101. Transformation is a much more attractive concept than contentedness or sacrifice; it's especially convenient that the former is much more advertising friendly as well.

Read more: http://money.blogs.time.com/2011/05/24/how-oprah-winfrey-implicitly-endorses-consumerism-and-materialism/#ixzz1NV4yvnTu

Brand Oprah Has Some Marketing Lessons

After 25 years, Oprah's influence remains unparalleled. As she moves to cable, there are signs she's preparing to shift her brand as well

http://images.businessweek.com/mz/11/22/600/1122_mz_20comp_oprah_crowd.jpg Taping her talk show outside the Sydney Opera House in December George Burns/Harpo, Inc./Landov

In 1988, Oprah Winfrey made a decision that would change her life—and eventually the future of television. Her talk show was already getting better ratings than kingpin Phil Donahue and aired in 198 markets. When she renegotiated her contract with King World Productions, which syndicated her show, and with ABC (DIS), which produced it, Winfrey demanded control and got it. Winfrey's Harpo Productions assumed the show's production costs, but it also collected licensing fees from local stations, estimated at $100 million in 1988. Plus, Harpo earned money from a few lucrative moments of advertising each day. "I never wanted to be in a position again in life where I was meant to do something but couldn't do it because somebody was telling me I couldn't," Winfrey later told writers of a Harvard Business School case study.

The impulse to take control of her life—and then enjoy it—resonated with her viewers over a 25-year span that will end on May 25, when she airs her finale on broadcast television and turns her attention to her new cable channel. Over that time, Oprah became a singular brand born of her own personal history. Winfrey's story of childhood poverty and sexual abuse, her struggle with her weight, and her striving and charisma made her the near-perfect peddler of a relentless optimism. She was more than a celebrity: She stood for self-improvement, doing good, and controlling your own destiny. Her motto, "Live your best life," was invoked on her show, in her magazine, and on her website.
It all added up to a brand radically different but no less powerful than Coca-Cola (KO) or the Marlboro Man. It propelled her show, which drew about 12 million viewers in the U.S. at its peak, through more than 4,500 episodes and some 30,000 guests. She stayed on message as she launched her magazine and produced movies and developed a raft of syndicated television shows including those of Dr. Phil McGraw and Rachael Ray. The brand ultimately made the meticulously manicured entrepreneur very rich, with an estimated fortune of $2.7 billion, according to Forbes. "I'm hard-pressed to think of a stronger brand than Oprah, and I've studied 200 years of brands," says Harvard Business School professor Nancy F. Koehn.
Winfrey's other great talent was to combine her message with a rousing consumerism absent even a hint of irony: Treat yourself! You deserve it! Her viewers and readers bought in and bought big. The brand's marketing fairy dust was sprinkled on an array of products she endorsed without compensation, somehow adding to her already robust credibility. One day she might talk about age-defying makeovers, the next about the faces of autism; she went to Ethiopia; she went green; she went vegan. And then she went shopping. "For her, transformation is about self-esteem and about buying stuff," says Susan Mackey-Kallis, a communications professor at Villanova University. "It's consumerism, but it's not crass."
Winfrey, who declined comment for this story, has helped turn her favorite books into bestsellers and her favorite things into instant successes. After she recommended Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth in January 2008, it topped the bestseller list on Amazon.com (AMZN). Within a month, Penguin Group had shipped 3.5 million copies. Her "Oprah's Book Club" plugged 65 books and was credited by some with saving the publishing industry.
Winfrey regularly announced her "favorite things" in shows that were tantamount to infomercials, though far more effective. When DreamTime's Foot Cozys, aromatherapy slippers, were featured on an episode in 2002, the company was selling 3,000 pairs a month. The following month, it sold 20,000. The slippers became DreamTime's best-selling product that year. When Winfrey presented such goodies to her audience, it was the companies (from Williams-Sonoma to Apple (AAPL)) that donated them. The big shows—in which audiences received cars and trips—inspired the fervor of revival meetings. "Product placement is a fair way to describe her 'favorite things,'" says Kevin Lane Keller, a marketing professor at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business. "But she is the one who is brokering those deals for her audience. It's product placement in a funny kind of way because the companies are giving the product away." Her brand could sell everything from croissants to refrigerators. Chicago blogger Robyn Okrant bought everything Winfrey recommended in 2008, spending nearly $4,800.