Market Segmentation:  Is it the answer, or does it just create more questions?

            When you go into a clothing store, you often look around, see if you like something, maybe try it on, and if you are lucky, make a purchase.  Every day people shop and every day people make purchases; it’s nothing complicated (usually).  But what many people do not realize is that the retailers that you shop at specifically pick those products in their stores for people like you.  Every item of clothing in the store you went into was picked for a purpose for a specific group of people.  This process, called market segmentation, is how many businesses make their profits.  But what happens when you go into that specific clothing store you find attractive and find no clothes that you like?  This is a huge problem that many retailers deal with when using market segmentation.  Market segmentation does help retailers gain extra profit and allocate their resources appropriately, however many times it fails to look at the individual consumer rather than a lump of consumers.  Retailers are trying to change market segmentation so that it does more accurately reflect the individual, not the group, however there are still many problems that remain to be solved.

            The process of companies using market segmentation to appeal to their consumers is fairly new.  However, there has been discussion about market segmentations since the early 1900s.  In 1912, A.W. Shaw, one of the first business men to analyze markets, stated that markets should meet human wants more accurately than competition and that businesses need to treat economic and social markets as distinct (Dickson & Ginter, 1987).  Shaw emphasized that fact that organizations should not group people together in one lump sum, but instead need to give the individual consumer what he or she wants.  However, Shaw failed to distinguish product differentiation, the process of differentiating your product from competitors’ products, from market segmentation (Dickson & Ginter, 1987).  Wendell R. Smith in 1956, professor and once president of the American Marketing Association, did make this distinction between market segmentation and product differentiation, and pioneered the discussion of market segmentation.  Smith (1956) defined market segmentation as, “Viewing a heterogeneous market as a number of smaller homogenous markets, in response to differing preferences, attributable to the desires of customers for more precise satisfactions of their varying wants.”  Smith suggested that bending the demand to the will of the supply and using market segmentation to adjust products and marketing efforts to these differences in demand would create more successful profit (Dickson & Ginter, 1987).  Smith stressed the importance of finding out what the consumers want first, then differentiating products and marketing efforts to meet these desires.  Another marketing sales executive who discussed the importance of market segmentation was Mark Chamberlin in 1965.  Chamberlin stressed the importance of consumer perceptions and characteristics and recognized that differences in buyer preferences result in different demand curves, which is also what Smith stressed (Dickson & Ginter, 1987).  Because of this fact, Chamberlin suggested that organizations should adjust their products to the needs and tastes of different buyers to be more successful (Dickson & Ginter, 1987).  Vijay Mahajan and Arun Jain (1978), two analysts of marketing, looked at market segmentation as more than just a way to profit, but as a solid tool for research to identify and allocate resources among market segments (Dickson & Ginter, 1987).  This suggestion even furthered the use and advantages of companies using market segmentation to appeal to consumers.

            Since the initial discussions of market segmentation, market specialists have formulated a more general and specific meaning of market segmentation.  Market segmentation can be broken down as a subgroup of people or organizations sharing one or more characteristics that cause them to have relatively similar product needs (Hair, Lamb, & McDaniel, 2006).   Or in other words, market segmentation groups customers with the same buying requirements into segments.  When businesses segment the market, they are aiming to find a target market, or a group of people or organizations for which an organization designs, implements and maintains a specific strategy intended to meet the needs of that group, resulting in mutually satisfying exchanges (Hair, Lamb, & McDaniel, 2006). 

            Traditionally there have been six basic steps in segmenting: 1. select a market or product category, 2. select segmentation basis, 3. select segmentation descriptors, 4. profile and analyze segments, 5. Select target market, 6. Design implement and maintain appropriate marketing mixes (Hair, Lamb, & McDaniel, 2006).  So say for example I want to create a new company.  First I must pick a market to sell my products in; I choose the clothing industry.  Then I must decide which segmentation bases I want to focus in on; I decide that I want to focus on the geographic location I am in and who lives in the area where my company will be.  Thirdly, I pick some of the specific traits within geography and demographics that I am going to analyze such as age, income, or concentration of the population within the city.  After, I decide specifically what I want to look at; I need to analyze and profile the area where my company is, looking especially at the area’s age, income, and concentration of the population.  After my analysis I find that most people living in the area where my corporation is lie between the ages of 18-40, are of high income, and mostly live in urban areas.  From this analysis, I then need to choose specifically who my target market is going to be.  I come to the decision that I want to design clothing for women between the ages of 18-30 who are of high income and live “the city life.”  Now that I have picked who I will target my clothing with, I now must devise a strategy to get these targeted women to buy my clothing.  I decide that I want to design unique, fun fashion forward, New York city style clothing, that are upper price, bust still attainable by the middle class.  Finally I am done with the segmentation process and can start designing my clothing line.

            Companies know the importance of segmenting markets, but what bases do organizations use to put consumers into these segment groups and what constitutes as an adequate market segment?  I already discussed two of the bases in my discussion of the segmentation process, geography and demographics, but there are more to choose from.  Traditionally there are five different segmentation bases, or characteristics of individuals, groups, or organizations used to divide a market into segments.  The first widely used segmentation base is geography.  In geographical segmentation corporations separate consumers based on such things as location in a country or world, market size, market density, or climate.  The second segmentation base, which is often seen as most used, is demographics.  In demographic segmentation businesses segment based on things such as age, gender, income, ethnic background, or family background.  The third segmentation base is psychographic segmentation.  This segmentation puts consumers into groups based on factors such as personality, motives, lifestyles, or preferences.  The fourth segmentation base is benefits sought, where corporations segment consumers based on the benefits they seek from a product.  For example, lets look again at my clothing company.  Say I find that some of my customers are looking for more casual clothing, some are looking for business attire, and some are looking for going out clothing.  So I decide to segment my customers into groups based on what they want from my clothing: “casual girls,”  “working girls”, and “girls that just want to have fun.”  The final traditional segmentation base that corporations widely use is usage rate segmentation, which segments on the basis of the amount of product bought by various consumers (Hair, Lamb, & McDaniel, 2006). 

            With these five traditional segmentation bases, organizations can chose to focus on just one base, or combine numerous bases to try to meet a more specific group of consumers.  Once organizations pick their segmentation bases and the market segments they want to target, companies must determine whether their market segment is adequate for profit.  There are four basic criteria that must be established for a market segment to be successful: substantiality, identifiably and measurability, accessibility, and responsiveness.  For a segment to be substantial, the group must be large enough to warrant a special marketing mix, or marketing strategy, and must be able to be profitable.  For a segment to be identifiable and measurable, the group must be identifiable and their size measurable.  For a segment to be accessible, a group must be reachable by the organization.  Finally for a segment to be responsive, the group must respond to some aspect of the marketing mix differently than other groups (Hair, Lamb, & McDaniel, 2006).  However, even if a particular market segment has all of these qualities, it does not necessarily mean that it will work well for a particular organization. 

            Organizations have been told for many years now to use market segmentation and have been told the basic steps of how to do it.  But why should businesses use market segmentation?  This tool is centered on the belief that consumers buy different products and have different preferences of these products.  So in order to deal with the heterogeneity of consumers, marketers focus on specific groups to balance the variability in customer needs with their available resources (Dibb, 1998).  In simple terms, market segmentation helps marketers have better understanding of customer needs and characteristics, it allows companies to better allocate their resources, and helps businesses to gain competitive advantages over their competitors.  When looking at how market segmentation helps corporations to better understand their customer’s wants and characteristics, marketers have shown that using market segmentation gives them a better look at the competitive situation (Dibb & Simkin, 1997).  Using market segmentation, businesses can identify groups to which individual consumers belong, predict how these groups will react to new products, identify which segments best fit an organization, and tailor their products to meet this particular segment.  When looking at how market segmentation allows companies to better allocate their resources, segmentation allows businesses to balance their marketing activities that contribute market share to profitability (Dibb & Simkin, 1997).  This allows companies to look at different consumer groups, see which ones are most applicable, and focus their resources on these groups, which leads to the highest profits and lowest costs. Businesses know that they cannot satisfy the needs of all consumers, so companies instead concentrate their efforts and resources on groups with similar desires.  This aspect also helps out smaller businesses that have limited resources best focus their assets on groups that will give them the most market share or best profits (Dibb & Simkin, 1997).  When looking at how market segmentation helps businesses gain competitive advantages over their competitors, segmentation can help companies differentiate and specialize their products to meet what a particular group wants.  When companies specialize their products, they have a product that is superior to their competition, and this creates a competitive advantage over their competitors. 

            Marketers segment their customers into groups, to help understand their customers better and make products that their consumers want.  However, the problem with market segmentation is that it is a tool where the marketer views the market in they way he or she wants.  As Michael Wedel and Wagner Kamakura (2002), business professors from the University of Michigan and Duke University, say in their editorial entitled “Introduction to special issue on market segmentation,” “segments are not homogenous groupings of customers naturally occurring in the marketplace, but are determined by the market manager’s perspective or strategic view of the market.”  In other words, the first priority of market segmentation is not to please every individual consumers’ wants and needs in a group that fits them perfectly, but is used to first and foremost meet the wants and needs of the corporation.  Even if marketers did put their consumers first and tried to place customers in segments that meet the customer’s needs, there is the problem that everyone is not the same.  Just because a group of people is the same age or lives in the same area, does not mean that each person in one of these segments will respond similarly to a product, or desire the same attributes from a product. For example, look at my clothing company.  I am targeting women between the ages of 18-30 who are of high income and live “the city life.” But not every woman age 18-30 who are of high income and live “the city life” will necessarily like all of my clothing.  One, 25 year old, high income woman, might not like my selection of party dresses, but instead wants running wear for her high recreational lifestyle.  Jock Bickert, author and market analyst, stressed this problem of market segmentation in his article called “Cohorts II: a new approach to market segmentation.”  Bickert (1997) discussed how people often try to generalize and simplify market segments in order to deal with the complexities of human diversity.  Due to the fact that marketers tend to generalize and simplify their segments, as Bickert (1997) points out, they tend to rush their systems of analysis, which ends in a segment that does not explicitly represent each individual their target market.  Or in other words, my line of casual, business, and party wear, might not represent the wants of all 18-30 high income women living “the city life.”  This problem brings up the question of whether or not marketers should actually segment their consumers into groups of similar attributes.  In fact, there is no real substantial evidence that shows one base of segmentation as superior or inclusive of the needs of every person in a specific market (Esslemont, Gendall, & Hoek, 1996). This leads to the conclusion that perhaps marketers should either change or modify their traditional outlooks on segmentation bases, or do away with segmentation as a whole.

            David Weinberger discussed the negatives of market segmentation in his book entitled, Everything is Miscellaneous.  Weinberger went further than just talking about the problems of market segmentation; he tried to suggest a new way to look at the segmentation process.  In the chapter entitled, “Lumps and splits,” Weinberger (2007) discussed how “we’ve divided our world into major categories that contain smaller categories that contain still smaller ones, branching like a tree” (p. 65). For example, look at my clothing company, you can split the clothing I make into casual, business, and more formal attire, then you can split casual wear into basic tees, camis and tanks, and jeans, and then you can even further split the category of jeans into straight leg, flair, high rise, and boot cut.  The concept of “lumping and splitting” has rules though.  One rules says an item can only be placed on one branch in one leave (p. 70).  For example, jeans cannot be placed in the categories of casual, formal, and business attire all at the same time, they can only be put in the casual section, or else there would be confusion. Another rule states a branch or a category also cannot be too big or too small (p.70).  So if I only created one pair of high-rise jeans, they should probably not have a category of their own.  The thing to remember is that “lumping and splitting is not really a tool of knowledge or a way to look up information, but instead helps us to understand the world around us” (p. 711).  In other words, don’t look to the lumps and splits for answers, only look at them to help you understand.

            As you can tell, this concept of “lumping and splitting” also applies to the marketing world and to market segmentation.  Weinberger (2007), like many other analysts, pointed out how marketers often “acted as if their job is to come up with messages that will appeal to markets segmented by demographics…that define a group susceptible to the same message” (p. 118).  Weinberger stated that by splitting people into markets segmented by demographics, marketers fail to see how customers form real social groups, in places such as the digital world, by simply talking to each other (p.118).  If marketers do not pay attention to groups that customers put themselves in, they could potentially miss profits and miss a better understanding of whom they are actually trying to appeal to.  So how can marketers try to better understand their customers?  Weinberger (2007) pointed out the benefits of the digital world in better understanding who we are, “by pulling together implicit data from multiple sources, marketers can avoid being fooled by our lopsided self-presentation on any one site” (p.163).  But Weinberger in his “95 Theses” warns marketers that although consumers are making relationships and sharing themselves online, if marketers don’t continually check up on their consumers, they will loose them to someone else.

            Weinberger was not the only person to look at new ways to segment a market.  There have been numerous new strategies that have appeared to try to change the way marketers view their customers.  Some companies have started using software programs such as Personicx or Claritas to segment their consumers into markets.  Personicx is a computer software program that divides households into one of seventy clusters based on the “life stage” of the household (Personicx, 2008).  These clusters are updated once a month by gathering information about consumers through such tools such as the Internet, credit card information, and shopping behavior (Personicx, 2008).  Personicx believes their segmentation process is accurate because it is current and more specialized to an individual household rather than a region of a state or country (Personicx, 2008).  Another software company, Claritas, segments their markets based on a combination of demographics, lifestyle preferences, and behaviors, and also puts customers in neighborhood or household segments (Claritas, 2008).  The problem with these computer software programs are, even though they attempt to segment customers more accurately, the programs still segment groups according to demographics, geography, behavior, etc, and attempt to put people in groups that may not accurately represent every household with similar specified traits.

            Another new market segmentation method that has become popular recently, especially due to better technology, is one-to-one marketing.  In one-to-one marketing, a business attempts to build long term, personalized and profitable relationships with individual consumers based on customer information (Peppers & Rogers, 2000).  A business will often customize their services or products to meet the needs of this individual customer with the hope of gaining customer loyalty (Peppers & Rogers, 2000).  This type of segmentation is a step up from traditional segmentation methods because it actually tries to understand consumers on a personal level and collaborate with them, instead of targeting and grouping them (Peppers & Rogers, 2000).  However there are problems with this form of segmentation.  Firstly, this type of segmentation is still not a reality for most companies due to its high expense of customization.  But with new technology and databases, one-to-one marketing is becoming more readily available and cheaper to install.  Secondly, is that although one-to-one marketing does strive to meet the needs of their individual customers, the main purpose of this marketing practice is to create profitable relationships with customers, reduce costs, and increase revenue through customer loyalty (Peppers & Rogers, 2000).  So although companies are trying to pay more attention to the individual needs of each customer, their main focus is still on the business itself and what is best for the business. 

            Kevin Kelly in his book entitled, New Rules for the New Economy, had an even different approach to the business world.  In his novel, Kelly (1998) discussed a new economy that has begun to evolve where old ways of looking at the economy and old connections no longer apply to the world of business.  Kelly (1998) suggested in his eleventh rule, “the Law of Churn,” that companies should no longer rely on the old ways of stability and productivity, but should instead try to sustain disequilibrium, which will lead to much larger success.  This argument can be applied to market segmentation.  Perhaps it is better for marketers not to segment at all, according to traditional bases, and instead just let disequilibrium unwind.  This could possibly lead to a new and better form of market segmentation for companies that they never realized before.

            There is no doubt that market segmentation provides numerous benefits for companies trying to gain a profit and understand their customers more accurately.  However one must remember that the main purpose of market segmentation is not to please the customer, but is instead for companies to make more money off their products.  Companies have tried to better their methods for segmentation, and have come a long way, but they still fail to realize that not every person in a group has the same needs or desires or will react in the same way to a particular product.  One-to-one marketing seems to have the potential to better meet an individual person’s needs and wants and to not lump people into a segment based on a geographic location or stage in life.  However with one-to-one marketing comes controversy.  Many companies use the Internet and complicated software programs to learn more about their customer.  A company is now able to view a customer’s address, age, preferences, and tastes, just by having a customer go onto their website and purchase an item.  Many companies also then sell this information to third party corporations so they too can learn more about potential customers.  The problem with this is that companies do all of these things without the explicit permission of the customers themselves.  As Weinberger (2007) pointed out, “marketers can know far more about customers than customers want; customers’ leaves of information have been raked together without their explicit permission.  How much of the implicit digital metadata people inevitably create should an organization track, keep, and use?” (p. 163).  As of now the legal lines of what companies can sell and exploit about their customers are gray, and companies can obtain and sell quite a lot of information about customers if they state that they do it on their websites.  This creates an issue for people who decide to go on companies’ websites: would you rather have a product customized to what you want with your personal information possibly leaking around companies, or would you rather just buy a product that meets some of your desired needs?  There is no correct answer to this question; it is solely based on the preferences of the individual consumer.

The process of companies using market segmentation to appeal to their consumers is something that has not been utilized for a very long time.  However there has been discussion about market segmentations since the early 1900s.  In 1912, A.W. Shaw, one of the first business men to analyze markets, stated that markets should meet human wants more accurately than competition and that businesses need to treat economic and social markets as distinct ( ).  In other words, Shaw emphasized that fact that organizations cannot group different groups of people together in one lump sum, but instead need to more accurately give the consumers what they want.  However  Shaw failed to distinguish product differentiation from market segmentation.  Wendell R. Smith in 1956, professor and once president of the American Marketing Association, did make this distinction between market segmentation and product differentiation and pioneered the discussion of market segmentation.  Smith (1956) defined market segmentation as, “involves viewing a heterogeneous market as a number of smaller homogenous markets, in response to differing preferences, attributable to the desires of customers for more precise satisfactions of their varying wants.”  Smith suggested that bending the demand to the will of the supply and using market segmentation to adjust products and marketing efforts to these differences in demand would create more successful profit ( ).  Smith stressed the importance of finding out what the consumers want first, then differentiating products and marketing efforts to meet these desires.  Another marketing sales executive who discussed the importance of market segmentation was Mark Chamberlin in 1965.  Chamberlin stressed the importance of consumer perceptions and characteristics and recognized that differences in buyer preferences result in different demand curves ( ).  Because of this fact, Chamberlin suggested that organizations should adjust their products to the needs and tastes of different buyers to be more successful ( ).  Vijay Mahajan and Arun Jain, two analysts of marketing, looked at market segmentation in a little different light in 1978.  These two men looked at market segmentation as more than just a way to profit, but as a solid tool for research to identify and allocate resources among market segments ( ).  This suggestion even furthered the use and positives of companies using market segmentation to appeal to consumers.

            Since the 1900s, market specialists have formulated a more general and specific meaning of market segmentation.  Market segmentation can be broken down  as a subgroup of people or organizations sharing one or more characteristics that causes them to have relatively similar product needs ( ).   Or in other words, market segmentation groups customers with homogenous buying requirements into segments.  When businesses segment the market they are aiming to find a target market, or a group of people or organizations for which an organization designs, implements and maintains a marketing mix intended to meet the needs of that group, resulting in mutually satisfying exchanges ( ).  Traditionally there have been established six basic steps in segmenting; 1. select a market or product category, 2. select segmentation basis, 3. select segmentation descriptors, 4. profile and analyze segments, 5. Select target market, 6. Design implement and maintain appropriate marketing mixes. 

            Companies know the importance of segmenting markets, but what bases do organizations use to put consumers into these segment groups and what constitutes as an adequate market segment?  Traditionally there are five different segmentation bases, or characteristics of individuals, groups, or organizations used to divide a market into segments.  The first widely used segmentation base is geography.  In geographical segmentation corporations separate consumers based on such things as location in a country or world, market size, market density, or climate.  The second segmentation base, which is often seen as most used, is demographics.  In demographic segmentation businesses segment based on things such as age, gender, income, ethnic background, or family background.  The third segmentation base is psychographic segmentation.  This segmentation puts consumers into groups based on factors such as personality, motives, lifestyles, or preferences.  The fourth segmentation base is benefits sought, where corporations segment consumers based on the benefits they seek from a product.  The final traditional segmentation base that corporations widely use is usage rate segmentation, which segments on the basis of the amount of product bought by various consumers.  With these five traditional segmentation bases, organizations can chose to focus on just one base, or combine numerous bases to try to meet a more specific group of consumers.  Once organizations pick their segmentation bases and their market segments they want to target, companies must determine whether their market segment is adequate for profit.  There are four basic criteria that must be established for a market segment to be successful: substantiality, identifiably and measurability, accessibility, and responsiveness.  For a segment to be substantial, the group must be large enough to warrant a special marketing mix and must be able to be profitable.  For a segment to be identifiable and measurable, the group must be identifiable and their size measurable.  For a segment to be accessible, a group must be reachable to the organization.  Finally for a segment to be responsive, the group must respond to some aspect of the marketing mix differently than other groups.  However, even if a particular market segment has all of these qualities, it does not necessarily mean that it will work well for a particular organization. 

            Organizations have been told for many years now to use market segmentation and have been told the basic steps of how to do it.  But why should businesses use market segmentation?  This tool is centered around the belief that consumers buy different products and have different preferences of these products.  So in order to deal with the heterogeneity of consumers, marketers focus on specific groups to balance the variability in customer needs with their available resources ( ).  In simple terms market segmentation helps marketers have better understanding of customer needs and characteristics, it allows companies to better allocate their resources, and helps businesses to gain competitive advantages over their customers.  When looking at how market segmentation helps corporations to better understand their customer’s wants and characteristics, marketers have shown that using market segmentation gives them a better look at the competitive situation ( ).  Using market segmentation businesses can identify groups to which individual consumers belong, predict how they will react to new products, identify which segments best fit an organization, and tailor their products to meet this particular segment.  When looking at how market segmentation  allows companies to better allocate their resources, segmentation allows businesses to balance their marketing activities that contribute to market share to profitability ( ).  This allows companies to look at different consumer groups, see which ones are most applicable, and focus their resources on these groups, which leads to the highest profits and lowest costs. Businesses know that they cannot satisfy the needs of all consumers, so companies instead concentrate their efforts and resources on groups with similar desires.  This aspect also helps out smaller businesses that have limited resources, best focus their assets on groups that will give them the most market share or best profits ( ).  When looking at how market segmentation helps businesses gain competitive advantages over their competitors, segmentation can help companies differentiate and specialize their products to meet what a particular group wants.  When they do this, companies have a product that is superior to their competition, and this creates a competitive advantage over their competitors. 

            Marketers segment their customers into groups, partly to help understand their customers better and make products that the consumers want.  However the problem with market segmentation is that it is a tool where the marketer views the market in they way they want.  As Michael Wedel and Wagner Kamakura (2002), business professors from the University of Michigan and Duke University, put it in their editorial entitiled “Introduction to special issue on market segmentation,” “segments are not homogenous groupings of customers naturally occurring in the marketplace, but are determined by the market manager’s perspective or strategic view of the market.”  In other words, the first priority of market segmentation is not to please every indivdual consumers wants and needs and to find the perfect groups to put consumers in, but is however used to first and foremost meet the wants and needs of the organization.  However even if marketers did put their consumers first and really tried to put customers in segments that met their needs, there is the underlying notion that not everyone is the same.  Just because a group of people are the same age or live in the same area, it does not mean that each person in one of these segments will respond the same to a product or want and desire the same attributes from a product.  Jock Bickert, author and market analyst, stressed this problem of market segmentation in his article called “Cohorts II: a new approach to market segmentation.”  Bickert (1997) discussed how people often try to generalize market segments and simplify them  in order to deal with the complexities of human diversity.  However because marketers tend to generalize and simplify their segments, as Bickert (1997) points out, they tend to rush their systems of analysis, which ends in a segment that does not explicitly represent every single person in their target market.  This problem brings up the question of whether or not marketers should actually segment their consumers into groups of similar attributes.  In fact, there is no real substantial evidence that shows one base of segmentation as superior or inclusive of the needs of every person in a specific market ( ).  This leads to the conclusion that perhaps marketers should either change their traditional outlooks on segmentation basses, or do away with segmentation as a whole.

            For the unit three extended research project I want to choose option one, order/system analysis. For this I am looking at marketing segmentation.  More specifically, what a marketer is, what a market segment is, why marketers segment and how they segment, the different types of market segments marketers use and why, and how marketing segmentation has changed. 

            For basic information for this topic I will be looking at my marketing textbook, for good background and the basics of marketing segmentation.  But when I look into why marketers segment the way they do and how it has changed over the years, I will look at online databases such as RDS Business and Management Practices, Business Insights, and many others that the library provides.  I also will look at business news sites such as Bloomberg.  Another area where I could look for information is on websites of business that specialize in marketing research and segmentation to look how they segment and why they do it the way they do.

            Weinberger’s claims come into this paper in different ways.  First of all Weinberger touches on the topic of market segmentation in chapter 6, but does not go into depth.  He talks about how marketers “act like it’s their job to come up with messages that will appeal to markets segmented by demographics”, which isn’t really the case anymore and I will try to show.  He also talks about how the digital world allows customers to organize themselves in new segments, which could hold potential value to marketers.  In chapter 8, Weinberger also talks about segmentation and how marketers need to be aware of implicit digital data and how far marketers can go without going “to far.”  I think I might use this last topic in my conclusion and discuss if how marketers are now utilizing the internet to learn more and more about their customers and whether or not this invades a person’s privacy.

Jennifer Kohn

            One connection that I found between Weinberger’s book, Everything is miscellaneous and my unit two content analysis paper is a quote on page 32, “Beyond alphabetical order is the purely miscellaneous:  Every idea is browsable and ideas are instantly assembled into Propaedias and Syntopicons relevant to each person’s particular needs and way of thinking.  This is the world the digital order is creating.”  This quote basically discusses how the third order allows an individual to organize and browse ideas in a way that is meaningful and customized to them.  In the third order there is not strict constraints of organizations; it is more tailored to the individual and how they want to view information.  In my paper I found that a lot of authors discussed how Generation Y loves to be individualistic and have items tailored to them.  I also found that many authors discussed how they do not think in the same way that previous generations do.  With this new digitalized third order and its sort of individualism and lack of restraints, Generation Y can really take advantage of the third order concept and use it to their advantage.  It is almost like in a way, the third order is appearing in order to tailor to Generation Y and their new way of organizing and thinking.

Generation Y is what?

            Twenty some odd years ago, when kids came home from school, what did they do?  Some might turn on their old-school television and watch a few cartoons, or maybe some actually went outside and played.  Now flash forward thirty years.  What do kids do now when they come home?  Many still turn on the TV, a few might play outside, but a lot of kids now a days will turn on their computer and go on the Internet.  Over 65 percent of Americans have Internet access either at their home or their workplace and nearly 50 percent of children live at a home where the Internet is available to them (Lamb, Hair, & McDaniel, 2006).  One aspect of the online experience that felt a recent growth is e-tailing or online shopping; a place on the Internet where retailers offer customers products and services for sale (Lamb, Hair, & McDaniel, 2006).  It is estimated that about 5% of all retail sales is purchased through the Internet (Lamb, Hair, & McDaniel, 2006).  So who does all of this Internet shopping?  Adult consumers do the majority of online shopping, however recently a new generation is taking over the domain of online-shopping, the generation who comes home from school and goes online, Generation Y.  Generation Y is somewhere around 60 million strong, born between 1979-1994, constitutes as the biggest baby boom since the 1940’s, and continues to grow at around 1.6 times over the U.S. population (Bannon, 2001).  The interesting aspect of this generation is that unlike previous generations, they grew up with technology, especially computers and the Internet.  About 50 percent of this generation has Internet access and is putting it to use and almost 17 million Generation Y young adults are shopping online and spending an estimated 1.5 billion dollars online each year (Grasse, 2000).  However with all of this spending, marketers are still wondering if Generation Y has good marketing potential for e-tailing.  Part of this concern stems from the relatively small percentage of this generation that owns a credit card; the other, larger, concern arises from the peculiarity of this generation.  They grew up differently, live differently, and have different values and attitudes, which makes marketing to this Generation Y crowd sometimes difficult.  How is Generation Y portrayed according to adults?  When we consider different discussions about Generation Y and their e-retailing potential using content analysis, analysts view this generation as being technologically savvy, living very busy and social lives, being suspicious, skeptical, and smart, and focusing more on trends and quality, not price and specific brands.

            One pattern that pops out immediately about Generation Y is that they are very technologically savvy.  In Internet Retailer in an article entitled, “For teens dubbed Generation Y, online shopping is as common as a can of Coke,” Nicole Grasse (2000) points out how Generation Y is the leeway for “computer literate Americans.”  Grasse does not just say that this generation is tech-savvy, but she goes further and states that they are leaders in the computer and technology world.  It is like she is almost stating that they are the first generation to include computers in their language and everyday lives and have surpassed other generations in their knowledge of computers.  Business Week also discusses the implications of Generation Y in an article called, “Generation Y.”  Ellen Neuborne (1999), a writer from Business Week, comments that this generation is “tapping away at computers in nursery school.”  This comment seems sarcastic when first read, however it really does show how young this generation is getting into technology and how simple it seems to them. Part of the reason that technology seems so simple might be due to the fact that this generation has grown up with it around.  As Robert Brown and Ruth Washton (2000), writers for Packaged Facts, put it in a study entitled, “Marketing to the Internet generation,” “They have always seen things like VCR, TV’s, internet, computers, cell phones, and video games.”  Technology is not a new thing to this generation as previous generations in the past, and as Brown and Washton point out, it is something they are use to always being around. 

            As many sources point out however, it is more than just being tech savvy and growing up with the technology.  Some people argue that due to the constant appearance of technology in this generation’s lives; they are actually taking its use for granted and thinking its use as nothing special. Charles Lamb, Joseph Hair, and Cark McDaniel (2006), authors of Essentials of marketing, argue that Generation Y is “attached to technology,” its “ubiquitous in their lives, “ and they “balance seamlessly from one to the other.”  It is almost as if they are saying that this generation could not live with out technology and yet they think of it as something that they can just go to without really thinking of what they are actually using and how it impacts their lives.  Grasse (2000) also points out this aspect of tech savvy Generation Y people by saying that because they grew up with computers, they take them for granted.  This implies that Grasse is arguing this generation is spoiled by computers and technology and they don’t even understand how much harder their lives would be with out it.

            Another piece of Generation Y that goes hand-in hand with them being tech-savvy is how they are using their knowledge and comfort of technology to accomplish or do several things at a time, aka multi-tasking.  As Kipp Cheng (1999) from Media Week puts it in an article called, “Setting their sites on Generation Y,” “Teens are typically on the phone, with the computer on, surfing the web, IMing or chatting and either listening to music or watching TV all at the same time.  That’s just standard operating procedure for them.”  This comment is showing how Generation Y is so use to technology, they can utilize various forms of it all at the same time and feel comfortable with it.  Brown and Washton (2000) also pick up on this comfortable feeling that this generation has with technology and how they are utilizing the comfort to accomplish more than one thing at a time.  Brown and Washton (2000) state, “They are hard wired to use multiple media and engage in multiple tasks at the same time.  It is common for them to watch TV while surfing on the web, talking to friends on the phone, IMing and doing homework at the same time.”  This shows how this generation can use more than one form of technology at a time and does it almost on a daily basis. 

            However, this generation does not just multi-task because they are comfortable with technology.  As many writers point out, Generation Y often multi-tasks because they live such busy lives. Cheng (1999) points out how this generation is rarely in a dormant situation and can often be seen running around doing many things at once.  Grasse (2000) also points out how Generation Y lives busy lives, and Brown and Washton (2000) discuss how this generation always seems to have busy schedules and activities, which limit their ability to sit around all day.  These sources are stating that Generation Y is not apt to sit around and be lazy, as some adults may think, but is however always on the go with different activities, which makes them utilize technology to their advantage.

              A third trait of Generation Y that many writers discuss in their articles, is how skeptical and smart this generation actually is when it come to marketing and selling products.  Cheng (1999) argues that Generation Y is, “more jaded and a bit more skeptical.  Teens readily reject false images.  If a marketer is being dishonest, it will ring false to them.  They have highly sensitive B.S. detectors that just go off the charts if they’re lied to.”  Cheng says more than just the fact that they are skeptical; he actually says that they are smart and can tell if they are being lied to or cheated.  Brown and Washton also pick up on this generation’s skepticism and argue,  

          They are more capable of discriminating between hype and truth.  They are highly        

          savvy about marketing and resent any attempt to manipulate their behavior.  

          Authenticity is a key aspect of teen communication, you don’t need to fool kids

          into buying.  It’s okay just to sell to them.  It’s more important to project a clear

          and authentic attitude.  They have been empowered to question, challenge and

          disagree. (Brown and Washton, 2000) 

 

Brown and Washton go further than Cheng did with his analysis of the skepticism of Generation Y.  They point out how they are more than just skeptical of false advertisements; they really don’t like to be lied to or manipulated into buying a cheap product. They would rather just have the facts plain and simple in a way that is true to them.  Ellen Neuborne (1999) from Business Week also picks up on this skepticism and tries to understand where it came from.  She discusses how, “Marketers perceive them as kids, and when they do that, they fail to take in what they are telling them about the consumers they are becoming.  They have distrust” (Neuborne, 1999).  However Neuborne feels that part of this skepticism stemmed from marketers not treating Generation Y as adults, which led to a distrust of marketers and companies.  Lamb, Hair, and McDaniel (2006) also try to rationalize why this generation is so skeptical.  They point out that a good possibility for their skepticism is because they have been exposed to marketing more than any other generation, which has led them to believe less and doubt more. (Lamb, Hair, & McDaniel, 2006)

            As many writers point out, Generation Y is not like previous generations.  A fourth difference about this generation, which many of these authors hint at, is how Generation Y focuses more on trends and quality, not price and specific brands.  “This is not a generation that’s shopping on price.  It’s completely the opposite.  They want what they think is quality” (Cheng, 1999).  Cheng (1999) picks right up on this difference from previous generations.  He recognizes that Generation Y does not focus on prices like their parents, but instead want products that have a high quality of performance.  Nicole Grasse (2000) also picks up on this generation’s habit of buying quality goods.  She points out how they get very excited about goods that provide good quality and speedy service.  Grasse (2000) also briefly discusses how because of this high quality demand, Generation Y focuses much more on trends instead of specific brands.  Many other writers also pick up on the lack of brand loyalty that Generation Y has.  Ellen Neuborne (1999) argues that this generation is notorious for switching brand loyalty to any company that comes out with the latest styles and trends.  She is careful to point this argument out and seems to almost say that they are very fickle with their purchases.  Brown and Washton (2000) also discuss the lack of brand loyalty that Generation Y seems to have.  They comment,

          Retailers find it difficult to anticipate and react to the fickle tastes of their  

          consumers.  They are very affected by the must have items.  They won’t be cool

          because they are wearing a mass-market brand of jeans, they’ll be cool if they wear

          a pair of jeans nobody ever heard of.  Tests showed they pay little attention to

          leading brands and are likely to prefer little known, sub-niche brands. (Brown and   

          Washton, 2000)

 

 Brown and Washton go further than just saying that this generation is not brand loyal.  They argue that this generation, like Ellen Neuborne hints at, is fickle and likes to have things that nobody else owns.  Generation Y feels “cool” having something that is not popular, which makes it hard for retailers to sell to this generation. Lamb, Hair, and McDaniel (2006) also pick up on the lack of brand loyalty of Generation Y.  They state, “They appear to be a notoriously fickle consumer group.  They demand the latest trends in record time.  They are very trend and fashion conscious and are much less brand loyal but are instead spontaneous to what they feel like” (Lamb, Hair, & McDaniel, 2006).   Lamb, Hair, and McDaniel also discuss this generation as a fickle group of consumers who focus more on the latest trends and fashions.  But they go further and say that on top of focusing on quality and trends and being less brand loyal, Generation Y has a reputation of being spontaneous in their purchases.  This spontaneity, they feel is part of the reason why they are so much less brand loyal than other generations.

            Generation Y is often described by writers as being technologically savvy, living very busy and social lives, being suspicious, skeptical, and smart, and focusing more on trends and quality, not price and specific brands.  But what do all of these descriptions and values mean within the context of e-retailing and marketing? These traits may lead to two conclusions.  First, due to all of these differences, one may conclude that Generation Y is in fact a very hard generation to market to.  Writers often point out how this generation is always on the go and never dormant.  If they are always on the go, how can a marketer best reach this group of young people in a way that sticks?  People say that Generation Y is notoriously skeptical to marketing.  Because they are skeptical to marketing, this generation obviously does not respond to traditional styles and formats of marketing and advertising.  So if a marketer wants to reach them, they must change their practices and advertisements in a way that Generation Y will not find as false or unreliable.  Writers also state that this generation is not brand loyal and focuses more on trends and quality.  As a result, it is harder for a marketer to get this generation to like their brand and stick with it.  This means that companies must always be on top of trends and styles if they want to keep this generation’s interest and loyalty.  Over all marketers have their work cut out for them to actually get through to Generation Y.  The second possible conclusion about Generation Y, from the descriptions that writers talk about when discussing this generation, is due to their knowledge of technology, Generation Y has the potential to be a great market for e-retailing.  Yes this generation is highly skeptical and very busy, but they do seem to spend a great amount of time online. But its more than just being online, Generation Y actually understands the concept of the Internet and uses it with ease.  This grasp of Internet knowledge has huge potential for companies who want to sell their products online.  Cleverly designed websites with social networks and trendy products could potentially pull in this generation and cause good profits for companies.  Generation Y is already on the Internet all the time, why not utilize this?  This generation has proven to be quite difficult to get through to, though seem easily describable.  But exactly how difficult they are to target in marketing and how much potential they hold for e-retailers is relatively unknown.  Like the unpredictable nature of Generation Y, maybe only they themselves know the answers.

Generation Y is what?

            Twenty some odd years ago, when a kid came home from school, what did they do?  Some might turn on their old-school television and watch a few cartoons, or maybe some actually went outside and played.  Now flash forward thirty years.  What do kids do when they come home?  Many still turn on the TV, a few might play outside, but a lot of kids now a days will turn on their computer and go on the internet.  Over 65 percent of Americans have Internet access either at their home or their workplace and nearly 50 percent of children live at a home where the Internet is available to them (Lamb, Hair, & McDaniel, 2006).  One aspect of the online experience that felt a recent growth is e-tailing or online shopping; a place on the Internet where retailers offer customers products and services for sale (Lamb, Hair, & McDaniel, 2006).  It is estimated that about 5% of all retail sales is purchased through the Internet (Lamb, Hair, & McDaniel, 2006).  So who does all of this Internet shopping?  Adult consumers do the majority of online shopping, however recently a new generation is taking over the domain of online-shopping, the generation who comes home from school and goes online, Generation Y.  Generation Y is somewhere around 60 million strong, born between 1979-1994, constitutes as the biggest baby boom since the 1940’s, and continues to grow at around 1.6 times the over U.S. population (Bannon, 2001).  The interesting aspect of Generation Y is that unlike previous generations, they grew up with technology, especially computers and the Internet.  About 50 percent of Generation Y has Internet access and is putting it to use; almost 17 million Generation Y young adults are shopping online and spending an estimated 1.5 billion dollars online each year (Grasse, 2000).  However with all of this spending, marketers are still wondering if Generation Y has good marketing potential for e-tailing.  Part of this concern stems from the relatively small percentage of Generation Y that owns a credit card; the other, larger, concern arises from the peculiarity of this generation.  They grew up differently, live differently, and have different values and attitudes, which makes marketing to this Generation Y crowd sometimes difficult.  How is Generation Y portrayed according to adults?  When we consider different discussions about Generation Y and their e-retailing potential using content analysis, analysts view Generation Y as technologically savvy, live very busy and social lives, are suspicious, skeptical, and smart, and focus more on trends and quality, not price and specific brands.

            One pattern that pops out immediately about Generation Y is that they are very technologically savvy.  In Internet Retailer, Grasse points out how Generation Y is the leeway for “computer literate Americans (Grasse, 2000).”  Grasse does not just say that Gen Y is tech-savvy, but she goes further and states that they are leaders in the computer and technology world.  It is like she is almost stating that they are the first generation to include computers in their language and everyday lives and have surpassed other generations in their knowledge of computers.  Business Week also discusses the implications of Generation Y.  Ellen Neuborne comments that this generation is “tapping away at computers in nursery school (Neuborne 1999).”  This comment seems sarcastic when first read, however it really does show how young this generation is getting into technology and how simple it seems to them.  Part of the reason that technology seems so simple might be due to the fact that this generation has grown up with it being around.  As Packaged Facts puts it, “They have always seen things like VCR, TV’s, internet, computers, cell phones, and video games (Brown and Washton, 2000).”  Technology is not a new thing to this generation as previous generations in the past, and as Pack Facts points out, it is something they are use to always being around.  As many sources point out however, it is more than just being tech savvy and growing up with the technology.  Some people argue that due to the constant appearance of technology in this generation’s lives; they are actually taking its use for granted and thinking its use as nothing special.  Essentials of marketing argues that Generation Y is “attached to technology,” its is “ubiquitous in their lives, “ and that they “balance seamlessly from one to the other (Lamb, Hair, & McDaniel, 2006).”  It is almost as if they are saying that this generation could not live with out technology and yet they think of it as something that they can just go to without really thinking of what they are actually using and how it impacts their lives.  Nicole Grasse from Internet Retailer also points out this aspect of tech savvy Generation Y people by saying that because Generation Y grew up with computers, they take them for granted (Grasse, 2000).  This implies that Grasse is arguing this generation is spoiled by computers and technology and they don’t even understand how much harder their lives would be with out it.

            Another piece of Generation Y that goes hand-in hand with them being tech-savvy is how they are using their knowledge and comfort of technology to accomplish or do several things at a time, aka multi-tasking.  As Kipp Cheng from Media Week put it, “Teens are typically on the phone, with the computer on, surfing the web, IMing or chatting and either listening to music or watching TV all at the same time.  That’s just standard operating procedure for them (Cheng, 1999).”  This comment is showing how Generation Y is so use to technology, they can utilize various forms of it all at the same time and feel comfortable with it.  Packaged facts also picked up on this comfortable feeling that Generation Y has with technology and how they are utilizing the comfort to accomplish more than one thing at a time.  Packaged Facts stated, “They are hard wired to use multiple media and engage in multiple tasks at the same time.  It is common for them to watch TV while surfing on the web, talking to friends on the phone, IMing and doing homework at the same time (Brown and Washton, 2000).”  This shows how Generation Y can use more than one form of technology at a time and does do it almost on a daily basis.  It is more though than just multi-tasking because they are comfortable with technology.  As many writers point out, Generation Y often multi-tasks because they live such busy lives. Media Week points out how this generation is rarely in a dormant situation and can often be seen running around doing many things at once (Cheng, 1999).  Internet Retailer also points out how Generation Y lives busy lives, and Packaged Facts discusses how Generation Y always seems to have busy schedules and activities that limits their ability to sit around all day (Brown and Washton, 2000).  These sources are stating that Generation Y is not apt to sit around all day and be lazy, as some adults may think, but are however always on the go with different activities, which makes them utilize technology to their advantage.

            So Generation Y is technologically savvy and lead very busy lives, which causes them to multi-task at a frequent level.  Another trait of Generation Y that many writers discussed in their articles is how skeptical and smart they actually are when it comes to marketing and selling products.  Media Week writer Kipp Cheng argued that Generation Y is, “More jaded and a bit more skeptical.  Teens readily reject false images.  If a marketer is being dishonest, it will ring false to them.  They have highly sensitive B.S. detectors that just go off the charts if they’re lied to (Cheng, 1999).”  Cheng says more than just the fact that they are skeptical, he actual says that they are smart and can tell if they are being lied to or cheated.  Packaged Facts also picks up on this generation’s skepticism and argues, “They are more capable of discriminating between hype and truth.  They are highly savvy about marketing and resent any attempt to manipulate their behavior.  Authenticity is a key aspect of teen communication, you don’t need to fool kids into buying.  It’s okay just to sell to them.  It’s more important to project a clear and authentic attitude.  They have been empowered to question, challenge and disagree (Brown and Washton, 2000).”  Packaged Facts went further than Cheng did with his analysis of the skepticism of Generation Y.  He pointed out how they are more than just skeptical of false advertisements; they really don’t like to be lied to or manipulated into buying a cheap product. They would rather just have the facts plain and simple in a way that is true to them.  Ellen Neuborne from Business Week also picked up on this skepticism and tried to understand where it came from .  She discussed how, “Marketers perceive them as kids, when you do that, you fail to take in what they are telling you about the consumers they are becoming.  They have name distrust (Neuborne, 1999).”  However Neuborne felt that part of this skepticism stemmed from Marketers not treating Generation Y as adults, which led to a distrust of marketers and companies.  Essentials of Marketing also tried to rationalize why Generation Y is so skeptical.  They pointed out that a good possibility for their skepticism is due to the fact that they have been exposed to marketing more than any other generation, which has led them to believe less and doubt more (Lamb, Hair, & McDaniel, 2006).

            As many writers have pointed out, Generation Y is not like previous generations.  One difference about Generation Y, which many of these authors hinted at, is how Generation Y focuses more on trends and quality, not price and specific brands.  “This is not a generation that’s shopping on price.  It’s completely the opposite.  They want what they think is quality (Cheng, 1999).”  Cheng from Media Week picked right up on this difference from previous generations.  He recognized that Generation Y does not focus on prices like their parents, but instead want products that have a high quality of performance.  Nicole Grasse from Internet Retailer also picked up on Generation Y’s habit of buying quality goods.  She pointed out how they get very excited about good that’s provide good quality and speedy service (Grasse, 2000).  Grasse also briefly discussed how because of this high quality demand; Generation Y focuses much more on trends instead of specific brands (Grasse, 2000).  Many other writers also picked up on the lack of brand loyalty that Generation Y has.  Business Week writer, Ellen Neuborne argued that Generation Y is notorious for switching brand loyalty to any company that comes out with the latest styles and trends (Neuborne, 1999).  She is careful to point this argument out and seems to almost say that they are very fickle with their purchases.  Packaged Facts also discussed the lack of brand loyalty that Generation Y seems to have.  They commented, “Retailers find it difficult to anticipate and react to the fickle tastes of their consumers.  They are very affected by the must have items.  They won’t be cool because they are wearing a mass-market brand of jeans, they’ll be cool if they wear a pair of jeans nobody ever heard of.  Tests showed they pay little attention to leading brands and are likely to prefer little known, sub-niche brands (Brown and Washton, 2000).”  Packaged Facts went further than just saying that Generation Y is not brand loyal.  They argued that Generation Y, like Ellen Neuborne, is fickle and likes to have things that nobody else owns.  Generation Y feels “cool” having something that is not popular, which makes it hard for retailers to sell to this generation.  Another source that picked up on the lack of brand loyalty of Generation Y is Essentials of Marketing.  They stated, “They appear to be a notoriously fickle consumer group.  They demand the latest trends in record time.  They are very trend and fashion conscious and are much less brand loyal but are instead spontaneous to what they feel like (Lamb, Hair, & McDaniel, 2006).”   Essentials of Marketing also discussed Generation Y as a fickle group of consumers who focus more on the latest trends and fashions.  But they went further and said that on top of being focuses on quality and trends and being less brand loyal, Generation Y has a reputation of being spontaneous in their purchases.  This spontaneity, they feel is part of the reason why they are so much less brand loyal than other generations.

            Generation Y is often described by writers as technologically savvy, live very busy and social lives, are suspicious, skeptical, and smart, and focus more on trends and quality, not price and specific brands.  But what do all of these descriptions and values mean within the context of e-retailing and marketing? These traits may lead to two conclusions.  First, due to all of these differences one may conclude that Generation Y is in-fact a very hard generation to market to.  Writers often point out how this generation is always on the go and never dormant.  If they are always on the go, how can a marketer best reach this group of young people in a way that sticks?  People say that Generation Y is notoriously skeptical to marketing.  Because they are skeptical to marketing, this generation obviously does not respond to traditional styles and formats of marketing and advertising.  So if a marketer wants to reach them, they must change their practices and advertisements in a way that Generation Y will not find as false or unreliable.  Writers also state that Generation Y is not brand loyal and focuses more on trends and quality.  Due to this fact, it is harder for a marketer to get this generation to like their brand and stick with it.  This means that companies must always be on top of trends and styles if they want to keep this generation’s interest and loyalty.  Over all marketers have their work cut out for them to actually get through to Generation Y.  The second conclusion that one may conclude about Generation Y from the descriptions that writers talk about when discussing this generation is due to their knowledge of technology, Generation Y has the potential to be a great market for e-retailing.  Yes this generation is highly skeptical and very busy, but they do seem to spend a great amount of time online. But its more than just being online, Generation Y actually understands the concept of the Internet and uses it with ease.  This grasp of Internet knowledge has huge potential for companies who want to sell their products online.  Cleverly designed websites with social networks and trendy products could potentially pull in Generation Y and cause good profits for companies.  Generation Y is already on the Internet all the time, why not utilize this?  This generation has proven to be quite difficult to get through to, though seem easily describable.  But exactly how difficult they are to target in marketing and how much potential they hold for e-retailers is relatively unknown.  Like the unpredictable nature of Generation Y, maybe only they themselves know the answers.

Haberkorn, Jen.  (2007, August). Shoe shopping online becomes more fashionable.  Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News.  Retrieved January 28, 2008, from RDS Business and Management Practices database.

 

Haberkorn discusses the increase in the number of people who are taking advantage and buying shoes online.  There once was a worry that this business would not work online, because customers cannot try on the shoes.  However, with free shipping, free returning, good descriptions, and numerous pictures, online shoe sales are now expected to double over the next few years.

 

 

Murphy, Samantha.  (2007, December).  Clearer vision: Target lawsuit may force retailers to rethink web site.  Chain Store Age, 83 (12), 93.  Retrieved January 28, 2008, from RDS Business and Management Practices database.

 

This article discusses a recent lawsuit against Target. The store has allegedly violated federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination again blind people.  More specifically, Target stores do not use a screen reading software that allows visually impaired shoppers to gain access to information through audio descriptions.  This case, which will go to court in 2008, brings up the issue of how accessible should companies’ websites be to the visually impaired and whether or not retailers need to update their websites to provide equal opportunities for all consumers to shop.

 

 

Online retailing builds, creates new opportunities. (2007, September).  Drug Store News, 29 (12), 6.   Retrieved January 28, 2008, from RDS Business and Management Practices database.

 

This article discusses how online shopping has created new benefits for consumers, especially in the pharmaceutical industry.  Researchers found that online shopping is not limited demographically and this is partly due to an increase in the broadband capabilities in homes.  This article focuses on how many pharmacies are now offering e-commerce capabilities that are proving to be very lucrative, cost saving, and informational to the customers, corporations, and suppliers.  A new focus for many of these corporations is to figure out how to make their web sites better than their competitions’ web sites.

 

Retailers want mail-order rules to apply to the web; The National Retail Federation wants Internet sellers to follow rules that require retailers to provide accurate product descriptions, prompt shipping, notification of delays, and refunds.  (2007, November).  Information Week, NA.  Retrieved January 28, 2008, from RDS Business and Management Practices database.

 

This article focuses on a push from the National Retail Federation on the Federal Trade Commission to update rules governing mail order and telephone sales to cover Internet sales.  The National Retail Federation feels that the regulations should focus on customer service instead of technicality in a way that requires retailers to provide accurate product descriptions, prompt shipping, notification of delays, and refunds.

 

 

Wow! Material handling gives retailer the edge: high-speed material handling system helps Internet shoe and apparel retailer offer customers fast             shipping and a superior online shopping experience.  (2007, December).  Material Handling Management, 62 (12), 38.  Retrieved January 21, 2008, from RDS Business and Management Practices database.

 

This article talks about Zappos, an online company, who focuses on a great online shopping experience through the ability of viewing options, returns, customer service, and free overnight shipping.  The company has been so successful that it is now planning to move their facilities to a new, larger, warehouse that uses an optimized order fulfillment system, which will make this online company even more successful and efficient than it already is.

Twenty some odd years ago, when a kid came home from school, what did they do?  Some might turn on their old-school television and watch a few cartoons, or maybe some actually went outside and played.  Now flash forward thirty years.  What do kids do when they come home?  Many still turn on the tv, a few might play outside,  but a lot of kids now a days will turn on their computer and go on the internet.  Over 65 percent of Americans have Internet access either at their home or their workplace and nearly 50 percent of children live at a home where the Internet is available to them (Marketing Text).  One aspect of the online experience that felt a recent growth is e-tailing or online shopping; a place on the Internet where retailers offer customers products and services for sale (Marketing Text).  It is estimated that about 5% of all retail sales is purchased through the Internet (Marketing Text).  So who does all of this Internet shopping?  Adult consumers do the majority of online shopping, however recently a new generation is taking over the domain of online-shopping, the generation who comes home from school and goes online, Generation Y.  Generation Y is somewhere around 60 million strong, born between 1979-1994, constitutes as the biggest baby boom since the 1940’s, and continues to grow at around 1.6 times the over U.S. population (E-commerce).  The interesting aspect of Generation Y is that unlike previous generations, they grew up with technology, especially computers and the Internet.  About 50 percent of Generation Y has Internet access and is putting it to use; almost 17 million Generation Y young adults are shopping online and spending an estimated 1.5 billion dollars online each year (For Teens).  However with all of this spending, marketers are still wondering if Generation Y has good marketing potential for e-tailing.  Part of this concern stems from the relatively small percentage of Generation Y that owns a credit card; the other, larger, concern arises from the peculiarity of this generation.  They grew up differently, live differently, and have different values and attitudes, which makes marketing to this Generation Y crowd sometimes difficult.  How is Generation Y portrayed according to adults?  When we consider different discussions about Generation Y and their e-retailing potential using content analysis, analysts view Generation Y as technologically savvy, live very busy and social lives, are suspicious, skeptical, and smart, and focus more on trends and quality, not price and specific brands.

            One pattern that pops out immediately about Generation Y is that they are very technologically savvy.  In Internet Retailer, Grasse points out how Generation Y is the lee-way for “computer literate Americans ( ).”  Grasse does not just say that Gen Y is tech-savvy, but she goes further and states that they are leaders in the computer and technology world.  It is like she is almost stating that they are the first generation to include computers in their language and everyday lives and have surpassed other generations in their knowledge of computers.  Business Week also discusses the implications of Generation Y.  Ellen Neuborne comments that this  generation is “tapping away at computers in nursery school ( ).”  This comment seems sarcastic when first read, however it really does show how young this generation is getting into technology and how simple it seems to them.  Part of the reason that technology seems so simple might be due to the fact that this generation has grown up with it being around.  As Packaged Facts puts it, “They have always seen things like VCR, TV’s, internet, computers, cell phones, and video games ( ).”  Technology is not a new thing to this generation as previous generations in the past, and as Pack Facts points out, it is something they are use to always being around.  As many sources point out however, it is more than just being tech savvy and growing up with the technology.  Some people argue that due to the constant appearance of technology in this generation’s lives; they are actually taking its use for granted and thinking its use as nothing special.  Essentials of marketing argues that Generation Y is “attached to technology,” its is “ubiquitous in their lives, “ and that they “balance seamlessly from one to the other ( ).”  It is almost as if they are saying that this generation could not live with out technology and yet they think of it as something that they can just go to without really thinking of what they are actually using and how it impacts their lives.  Nicole Grasse from Internet Retailer also points out this aspect of tech savvy Generation Y people by saying that because Generation Y grew up with computers, they take them for granted ( ).  This implies that Grasse is arguing this generation is spoiled by computers and technology and they don’t even understand how much harder their lives would be with out it.

For this exercise I chose an article, “GM’s Wagoner says industry is already in a recession with auto sales down,” about the auto industry and the impact the economy has on it.  This article is obviously a non-narrative news article, however there are figuration constructions included in the news piece.

            One of the figurative constructions in the article is mini-narrative like stories about how different companies have been impacted by the unstable economy.  For example, the article includes a story about how due to high gas prices, customers are tending away from SUV’s and trucks, which hurts GM’s sales.  There is also the story of Chrysler who had to cut jobs due to the shrinking market.

            Another figurative construction that is apparent in this article is the numerous metaphors found in the piece.  One occurring metaphor throughout the article is the comparison of the economy to the weather and climate.  In the first paragraph, the article states, “the automotive industry is in a recession, but should weather the storm as long as the economic climate doesn’t worsen.”  The article later states, “The toughest issue we are dealing with right now is the negative climate around the U.S. economy.” When we think about weather, we tend to think of its unpredictability, destructiveness to many people over many areas, and the lack of control we have on the weather.  With this image about the weather inside our head and its comparison to economy, we do not have a pleasant image about the economy.  By comparing the weather to the economy, it makes the economy also feel unpredictable, destructive, and something that cannot be controlled.  It lends us to think that the economy can be good and lucrative one day, such as a sunny beautiful day, and then the stock market crashes the next day and we are in recession, such as a sunny day turning into a hurricane.  It lends us to think that the economy can have huge destructive consequences on people that can leave them without anything left, such as a tornado coming into and town and destroying the town completely.  It lends us to think how we cannot control the economy; we can try to stimulate the economy with a cut in the fed rate, but the stock market continues to drop, such as trying to change our environmental habits to control the weather, but still failing.  After looking at how the weather is and then comparing it to the economy, we realize how harsh the economy can be on us and how much it can affect our lives.

            One more aspect of the article that was interesting were various phrases or words that appeared in the article that one might not expect to see in a news article about business.  At one point in the article, the author expressed he hoped the economy wouldn’t turn into a basket case.  The phrase “basket case” is interesting.  It is used all the time, however where it came from is harder to grasp.  Lots of times basket case is used to describe when a situation is hopeless or has no solution, or when a person is going mentally insane.  By the author expressing that he hopes the economy does not because a basket case, it is like he is saying that he hopes that the economy does not become a hopeless situation, or something that becomes too out of control to handle.  Another phrase in the article was, “the crystal ball isn’t clear on that.”  That is not a phrase that one would really expect to see in an article about the economy, however it is helps us to understand what the author feels about the state of the economy.  A person uses a crystal ball when they want to know about the future.  By saying that the crystal ball isn’t clear on that is saying that the future is foggy, or uncertain, or unpredictable.  By saying that the crystal ball isn’t clear on the state of the economy or whether it is going into a recession, is like saying that experts don’t know what is going to happen to the economy and can’t really predict the outcome because it is an uncertain future.  Another interesting point in the article was when the CEO of a company said that his business is not “cumbaya.”  When one thinks of cumbaya, one thinks of people sitting around in a circle with guitars singing the song with a peaceful atmosphere around them.  By the CEO saying that his business is not cumbaya, he is giving the image that his business is not a peaceful atmosphere, maybe that not everyone is getting along well and that things are not going really smoothly.

            These different elements are not hugely important or prevalent aspects of this text, nor do they really pertain to the overall logic of the text.  Instead these elements are subtler and may be an attempt to make the article more interesting and appealing to the readers.

For this exercise I chose an article about the auto industry and the impact the economy has on it.  This article is obviously a non-narrative news article, however there are figuration constructions included in the news piece.

            One of the figurative constructions in the article is mini-narrative like stories about how different companies have been impacted by the unstable economy.  For example, the article includes a story about how due to high gas prices, customers are tending away from SUV’s and trucks, which hurts GM’s sales.  There is also the story of Chrysler who had to cut jobs due to the shrinking market.

            Another figurative construction that is apparent in this article is the numerous metaphors found in the piece.  One occurring metaphor throughout the article is the comparison of the economy to the weather and climate.  In the first paragraph, the article states, “the automotive industry is in a recession, but should weather the storm as long as the economic climate doesn’t worsen.”  The article later states, “The toughest issue we are dealing with right now is the negative climate around the U.S. economy.”  The author and many economists might compare the economy to the weather due to the unpredictability of the two concepts.  Another possibility for the metaphor is that both weather and the economy highly impact people in many areas and levels.

            One more aspect of the article that was interesting were various phrases or words that appeared in the article that one might not expect to see in a news article about business.  At one point in the article, there was a quote saying that they hoped the economy wouldn’t turn into a basket case.  The phrase “basket case” is interesting.  It is used all the time, however where it came from is harder to grasp.  It was also interesting to see the connection between the economy and the phrase.  Another phrase in the article was, “the crystal ball isn’t clear on that.”  That is not a phrase that one would really expect to see in an article about the economy, however it is there maybe to include a more creative way of saying that the state of the economy is unclear.  Another interesting point in the article was when the CEO of a company said that his business is not “cumbaya.”  He didn’t say his company was peaceful, but instead chose to use the word cumbaya.

            These different elements are not hugely important or prevalent aspects of this text, nor do they really pertain to the overall logic of the text.  Instead these elements are subtler and may be an attempt to make the article more interesting and appealing to the readers.