Burger King to get into the bar business

Burger King will open a new extension to their fast-food empire in February 2010. The Whopper Bar in Miami will be a new type of restaurant where customers can get beer and burgers with a familiar logo backing up the new concept. Burger King will sell Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors beers along with a special menu of burgers and toppings.

While the obvious challenges will be how to handle the new concept with a new labor structure, considering most fast food restaurants are staffed by employees under 21, and this will require an older workforce, what do you think of the brand implications and their choice to partner with the domestic mass-market brewers?

The big-three brewers (which recently became the big-2 with the acquisition of Coors by Miller Brewing) have been facing a loss of growth recently and have all been financially challenged. Each of these companies has been part of industry-wide consolidations to secure their financial position, while microbrews and imported beers have been increasingly greater in demand. Should BK have tried to ride the wave of the up-market beers rather than partnering with the mass-market drinks? It would seem that bargain-hunters may be the target market for Bud, Miller, and Coors, yet will that crowd be enough to make this new concept successful?

Another interesting challenge is that the name "Whopper Bar" was introduced in Universal Studios theme park, as an upscale location that focuses on Whopper customization. This location will not change to serve beer, which would lead to a fragmentation of the Whopper Bar brand.

What do you think? Is BK making the right alliances, and are they sending mixed messages by having multiple formats under the same name?

Are consumers gaining power?

A report from the Chief Marketing Officer Council states that out of the 91% of consumers who opt-out or unsubscribe from email marketing, 46% are driven to brand defection because the messages simply are not relevant. Don't worry about those who unsubscribe? Perhaps you should be a bit concerned about those people who hit the unsubscribe button. They may be opting-in to your competition permanently.

A blog post from Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, provides additional interesting insight into the future if you read between the lines. Facebook originally created networks by region and school. While the community was small, this worked to achieve what people wanted. It connected those students who wanted a way to connect and communicate to others around them. Now that seemingly everyone is on Facebook, people do not necessarily want to share their information with their bosses, family, and advertisers. The connection of living in the same region is not necessarily relevant to all consumers.

What do these things have in common? Consumers exercising their voice to make real changes in new media. This is not a new concept, it is likely that consumers have been defecting due to irrelevant messages since the first time a cobbler hammered an advertisement on a lamp post. This puts some information in our hands that we need to use in communicating.

Traditional wisdom was to create a message and broadcast it to the largest number of people possible. It was known that not every person would react positively (make a purchase) to the communication, and only in the event of accidentally insulting people would that communication result in negative reactions. What this information shows is that a very large number of consumers may actually gain a preference for the competing brand if they feel your communications are irrelevant.

Putting it all together now. Facebook is an example that shows people want to communicate and belong to a community. They are willing to become "fans" of their favorite brands, join in discussion groups about products and services, but that does not mean they want to connect to everything. Consumers who actually opt-in to communications from a brand they use, then defect to a competitor because of irrelevant communications shows that what we say and do can have positive and negative effects. Even if the communication was simply an offer that was not relevant to that consumer.

What you say matters. A lot. It is not safe to assume that you can bombard people's inboxes, television sets, Facebook pages, Twitter streams, etc. with any message, as often as you want. People watching may not just unsubscribe or change the channel. You may be sending them right into the arms of your competition.

Every time you communicate with your customers, think carefully about what you want to say. Make an offer that people will appreciate. Be relevant.

Demographics, useless to marketers?

As we gain more insight into consumers we find that many of the age-related assumptions we made in the past are incorrect. Apparently there are people in their 60s who love candy, just like those who are only 6 years old. Just as there are bloggers and Facebook users who are in their teens, as well as those who are grandparents to teens.

There is value to knowing who your consumers are, but the typical "demographics" research typically falls short of drawing important correlation to who consumers are, and what motivates them to buy. Does being 32 lead someone to purchase Crest toothpaste versus Colgate? Moreover, some demographic categorizations do not even make sense. 18-49 is often used to describe a consumer group. Aside from "people who most likely have jobs" this age range has very little in common simply because they are within an age group. Of course you will find 18 year olds who buy the same products at the same store of 49 year olds. How does that help you better position your product?

There are times when an age group is an important factor to consider. The important thing to remember is to question those demographics rather than jumping to a conclusion and alienating your customers because someone showed you a statistic.