Uggs and Self-Concept

Following my teams presentation on Uggs, I got to thinking about why people really do make purchases after all. What really motivates people to buy? I think in a high percentage of fashion purchases, people make them based on a few dimensions of their self-concept. The two dimensions that I'm going to discuss are the Private Self and the Social Self. I will try to discuss this within the framework of Uggs, for simplicities sake.

The Private Self refers to how one sees them self. In terms of the Private Self, the purchase of a pair of Uggs is certainly a big issue. If the purchaser believes that the Uggs are in style, and fashionable, their purchase of Uggs indicates a lot about them. Since Uggs are in style and fashionable, if the purchaser buys them, it means that the purchaser is in style/fashionable. Since the purchaser likely thinks highly of their own sense of style and fashion, the purchase is a reflection of their Private Self.

If this is a widely held view, that Uggs are fashionable and in style, then it will cause others to see the purchaser of Uggs as being in style or fashionable. This is part of the Social Self, another aspect of self-concept.

This is not a process that is limited to the purchase of Uggs. In fact, it's not limited to womens apparel or even to clothing. Many purchases are motivated by this self-concept theory. While people purchase a big-screen TV because it's enjoyable to watch, another main reason for purchase is to show it off to their friends - part of their Social Self. Same goes with cars, or hair-styles, or nearly anything else people purchase. Even people who dress poorly, or wear ratty clothes, or have messy hair, use that as an element of their self concept and how they see themselves. It's easy to fall into the trap of believing that only women and fashion items are purchased for reasons of self-concept and perception, but in the end, it is a motivator for nearly all purchases.

Google

In November, I made a relatively courageous prediction. While Google was seemingly at the top of the world, and everyong was more or less enamored by anything and everything Google, I decided that they couldn't keep it up. They had too much positivity coming their way. Too much goodwill. Too much hype. And all of this without the underlying revenue to keep it up. In talks with a number of my friends who are "finance types," I told them that if I were an investor, I would short-sell Google in anticipation of their stock dropping significantly.

Turns out, I was right. While nobody in the world had anything bad to say about Google, I saw something in their business model that didn't seem to fit. Their business model was based on the idea that online advertising was the key to revenue. Everyone seemed to fall into this trap - Yahoo, Microsoft, and pretty much every other big online service provider decided that their ability to advertise successfully for clients was the key to their success. Keep in mind, this business model is successful...but it is becoming less successful each and every day.

Google's paid click through rates have been getting lower. Fewer people are clicking on their "targeted advertisements," and this could lead to some substantial problems for their business. In reality, though, this is not particularly surprising. Throughout the years, consumers have become less and less likely to be affected by traditional forms of advertisement on television, radio, and print mediums. Because of this, companies will often resort to newer, flashier forms of advertisement such as viral marketing and marketing stunts to get the attention of consumers. I would suspect that over the next few years, the strength of targeted online advertising will erode just as the strength of traditional advertising has eroded, and it will cause companies such as Google to adapt their methods and business models or else face significant problems in the future.

Information Search Process at PrincetonOne

I work at an executive recruiting (headhunting) firm called PrincetonOne. In our industry, the information search process is of the utmost importance, and is one of the greatest determinants of whether or not you will be successful in the industry.

As a sales-based role, the search for information - whether that information be new clients, candidates, or industry trends - is ongoing. Knowing what jobs are out there, what candidates are looking for jobs, and whether the long-term prospects of the industry you focus on are good is crucial to success within the recruiting world. Below, I will describe the information search process when looking for a candidate for a specific position. I will use a position I was trying to fill with Americo Insurance as the backdrop for this.

I was looking for someone to fill an Underwriting Manager position within Americo Insurance Company in Kansas City, MO. In order to fill this position, I started with a number of consideration sets of where I could find people, and they generally fell into two categories: geographic locations and experience level. I wanted people from the midwest territory, so that they wouldn't be opposed to relocating. I searched for people in Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, and Nebraska. I was also mainly looking for people who already had management experience, so I focused my search on people who were currently Underwriting Managers or who had past experience in management. Finally, I was looking for people with a good background in the technical aspects of underwriting.

After making hundreds of calls to candidates that I thought fit the previously described considerations, I stumbled upon a candidate that fit the build perfectly. He had strong experience as an underwriter, had been managing a team for a number of years, and was located in the Kansas City area. What's better, his company was closing down in June, so he was motivated to make a move soon. Currently, he is still in the interview process, but he is an excellent fit that was found as a result of the information search that I used.

Personal Information Search

Monday:
Location - Strip District
11:30am - sitting at work, starting to think about where I will go to lunch. I have four potential places in mind: Penn Ave Fish Company, Big Mama's House of Soul, Chicken Latino, and Prestogeorge
11:50am - I decide that I'm going to go to Big Mama's House of Soul
11:58am - Right before leaving, I look outside and notice that it's raining, so I audible and decide to go to Penn Ave Fish Company, the closest restaurant to my office
12:02pm - I walk outside, and begin going to the Penn Ave Fish Company. As I'm walking, I notice the rain stopping, and change my choice again, deciding that I will go to Big Mama's
12:10pm - Arrive at Big Mama's. Restaurant is packed, and I won't be able to get my food quickly. I leave and go to Prestogeorge, which is close to Big Mama's
12:15pm - Arrive at Prestogeorge, and walk up the counter. I have two usual orders: Braunschweiger Club and Pastrami and Egg Club. It feels like a Braunschweiger day, so I put in my order
12:30pm - Arrive back at the office, and eat my sandwich. I feel a bit sad that I didn't get Big Mama's, but I'm happy with my choice overall.
Location - Oakland
6:34pm - Finish up a take-home test that's due today, and start thinking about dinner. I have two options in my head: Sushi or Hot Wings
6:38pm - Arrive home from the computer lab, and make my decision to go to Quaker Steak and Lube and grab an order of wings

Tuesday:
Location - Oakland
10:50am - Before class, start thinking about whether I want to grab something to drink before entering. I decide against it, and enter my 11:00am class.
12:15pm - Go to my usual Tuesday/Thursday lunch at Market Central with a number of friends. Although it's probably not worth the money spent on it, the company makes it worth it.
3:15pm - Purchase two lemon-lime Gatorades for practice, which begins at 3:30. I make the purchase from the Sutherland coffee cart at Sutherland Hall, which is nearby to our practice facility
5:45pm - Go to Sutherland's dining hall for dinner before my night class.
11:03pm - Entered Fuel&Fuddle for halfprice

Nearly all of these decisions are either Nominal or Limited decision processes. In the case of deciding where I was going to go for lunch on Monday, it was a Limited decision process, where I evaluated a number of different alternatives and made a decision between them. Despite being upset that I didn't get Big Mama's for lunch that day, I was still quite happy with my Braunschweiger Club, and there was little to no post-purchase dissonance.

Other decisions, such as where to eat lunch or dinner on Tuesday and where to purchase my Gatorade from, where both nominal decisions. I evaluated no alternatives in any of those purchases. I always eat lunch at Market Central on Tuesdays, no matter what. There are no alternatives. I always purchase two yellow gatorades before practice, and do not consider anything to be an alternative. For 11:00 halfprice, the only place I ever go is Fuel&Fuddle, so there was no alternative evaluation there either, making it a nominal decision also.

Politics

I would be remiss to create this journal with no mention of the current political primary that's being so valiantly fought out between the two remaining Democratic challengers, Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. Politics, though usually seen as something in the public realm, is truly the purest marketing business available, where "spin" is the name of the game, and understanding how your customers (voters) will perceive any action or word from the candidate. Thinking about this, I'm reminded of a wonderful (and hilarious) video where Jon Stewart talks about how this situation with politics - the spin, and the pundits, and the arguing - is hurting America. It was on the CNN show Crossfire during the 2004 Presidential campaign, and I will warn, it is quite long:



I've been watching very intently as the campaign has been progressing, because it has been very interesting to see the way perceptions shift after every primary. Indeed, in the beginning of the primary season, it was assumed that the Democratic primary would be more of a coronation for Hilary, rather than a voting process. As the clear front-runner from the beginning, it was assumed that everyone else was really just playing for second place. That all changed, however, with the Iowa Caucus, the first event of the primary season. Barack Obama pulled off the unlikely upset, with John Edwards in second and Hilary a distant third. All of a sudden, people began believing that maybe Hilary's win wasn't such a given, and a young senator from Illinois may have a fighting chance. Throughout the month of January and through Super Tuesday, perceptions kept shifting, all to now, when Obama has strung together a number of wins in a row. At this point, it now seems like Obama can't lose and Clinton can't win. I've noticed that, in debates, Obama seems to have claimed an impressive moral high ground over Clinton whenever she tries to play "political tricks" on him. This was particularly evident when Clinton attempted to accuse Obama of plagarism for using the words of a political friend. People saw right through this attempt by Clinton, and went so far as to boo her during a debate when she decided to bring this up. Never before have I seen a situation where one candidate truly holds such a strong high ground over another candidate, and this is truly something that is 100% related to how the candidates are perceived. This can also be seen in a debate before the Ohio/Texas primaries, when the audience boos Clinton after making mention of a supposed conspiracy against her:



At the current time, Obama is perceived as the candidate who is above the influence of politics. People see him as someone who yearns for change, and has the intelligence and skills to pull if off.
People see Clinton as part of the political machine, someone who uses buzzwords and political tricks to attempt to shift support from her enemies.

In order to win the campaign, Clinton will clearly have to begin to shift this perception and change the way that people view her.