Topic: Business
+Anonymous A — 5 months ago #68,018
Why most businesses fail at marketing and how to fix it
When entrepreneurs launch their businesses, they often assume that marketing is as simple as posting on social media, running a few ads, and waiting for the orders to roll in. However, weeks or months later, despite their best efforts, they find that their marketing strategies are not yielding the desired results.
So, what goes wrong? And more importantly, how can businesses fix their marketing strategies to achieve success?
The truth is that many startups fall into the trap of "spray and pray" marketing, where they boost posts randomly, jump on every trend, and hope that one sticks. However, hope is not a strategy. To succeed, businesses need to have a clear plan and understanding of their target audience.
Who exactly is your ideal customer? Where do they spend time online? What problem are you solving? By answering these questions, businesses can create targeted marketing strategies that speak directly to their ideal customers. Another common mistake businesses make is focusing solely on what they sell, rather than why it matters. Consumers connect with brands that feel real, not just transactional. By sharing their story and highlighting the problems they solve, businesses can create an emotional connection with their customers. In addition, many businesses prioritise going viral over building a community. While virality can bring short-term gains, it is unsustainable. By engaging with their audience, responding to comments, and showing the human side of their brand, businesses can build a loyal community that will drive long-term success. Trust is also a critical factor in marketing. People are skeptical, and businesses need to earn their trust. By sharing real customer testimonials, offering refunds or guarantees, and being transparent with pricing and policies, businesses can establish trust with their customers.
Finally, businesses need to be patient and consistent with their marketing strategies. Marketing takes time, and it's essential to track what works, adjust what doesn't and give it time. In conclusion, marketing is not magic, but when done right, it's what makes or breaks a business. By understanding their target audience, sharing their story, building a community, earning trust, and being patient, businesses can create effective marketing strategies that drive success.
When entrepreneurs launch their businesses, they often assume that marketing is as simple as posting on social media, running a few ads, and waiting for the orders to roll in. However, weeks or months later, despite their best efforts, they find that their marketing strategies are not yielding the desired results.
So, what goes wrong? And more importantly, how can businesses fix their marketing strategies to achieve success?
The truth is that many startups fall into the trap of "spray and pray" marketing, where they boost posts randomly, jump on every trend, and hope that one sticks. However, hope is not a strategy. To succeed, businesses need to have a clear plan and understanding of their target audience.
Who exactly is your ideal customer? Where do they spend time online? What problem are you solving? By answering these questions, businesses can create targeted marketing strategies that speak directly to their ideal customers. Another common mistake businesses make is focusing solely on what they sell, rather than why it matters. Consumers connect with brands that feel real, not just transactional. By sharing their story and highlighting the problems they solve, businesses can create an emotional connection with their customers. In addition, many businesses prioritise going viral over building a community. While virality can bring short-term gains, it is unsustainable. By engaging with their audience, responding to comments, and showing the human side of their brand, businesses can build a loyal community that will drive long-term success. Trust is also a critical factor in marketing. People are skeptical, and businesses need to earn their trust. By sharing real customer testimonials, offering refunds or guarantees, and being transparent with pricing and policies, businesses can establish trust with their customers.
Finally, businesses need to be patient and consistent with their marketing strategies. Marketing takes time, and it's essential to track what works, adjust what doesn't and give it time. In conclusion, marketing is not magic, but when done right, it's what makes or breaks a business. By understanding their target audience, sharing their story, building a community, earning trust, and being patient, businesses can create effective marketing strategies that drive success.
+Anonymous B — 5 months ago, 1 day later[T] [B] #673,808
Time for art of war+Anonymous C — 5 months ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #673,829
+Anonymous D — 5 months ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #673,847
+Anonymous E — 5 months ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #673,851
Businesses fail at marketing cos they sell crap. Finding people to buy crap requires giving a crap about both the crap and the potential buyers of said crap. If nobody gives a crap, the crap draws flies. It's just common sense.
+Anonymous F — 4 months ago, 1 week later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #674,163
Why is a lot of retail stores around the world has closing down after being in business for a long time?
+Anonymous G — 4 months ago, 1 week later, 3 weeks after the original post[T] [B] #674,512
Business view
Nils Pratley
Boards of companies thinking of listing in the US should know the grass isn't always greener
Donald Trump is doing an excellent job of demonstrating that US stock markets don't always outperform European ones.
On-off tariff wars, threats to fire the head of the Federal Reserve and general unpredictability have prompted a reappraisal of boring old Europe. The S&P 500 is down 6% this year, versus a gain of 2.5% for the FTSE 100 index and a 3% improvement in the pan-European Stoxx Europe 600. The differences aren't enormous, but they mark a reversal from recent years.
Will that be enough to stop the "exodus" of UK and other European companies to the supposedly higher-valued and more liquid US markets? The thesis-plodding European versus dynamic US - has been the popular narrative for years as the likes of the plant hire group Ashtead, the plumbing group Ferguson and the Paddy Power-owning Flutter have moved their primary listings to the US. It has become obligatory to describe every departure as "another blow" to London.
Well, here's a "reality check" report from the New Financial thinktank that ought to be digested by any footloose board of a UK-quoted company that imagines its share price would be higher if only the listing was in the US. It ain't necessarily so.
The report identifies 130 European companies, including 51 UK ones, that have moved to the US over the past decade, whether by switching their listing, listing for the first time or by merging into a US shell entity. The collection is large, no question - worth $676bn at the time of the move in today's money. On the other hand, it's also just 2% of the number of European companies.
But the startling finding is the post-switch performance. The analysis shows that 70% of European companies that have moved to the US are trading below their listing price; less than a fifth have beaten the S&P 500; and three-quarters have not beaten the European market after their move.
The numbers, it should be said, are skewed by the appalling performance of European companies that joined the brief US fad for SPACS, or "blank cheque" special purpose acquisition companies. Of the 42 firms that took that route, nine went to zero (think Cazoo and the electric van firm Arrival). But even among the mature companies that switched their listings, the share price performance amounts to roughly a par score: 44% have performed better than the European market since they moved. Why might that be? Simply because the valuation premium on US markets (about 30% at the last count) doesn't translate at the level of individual companies or sectors. A large chunk of the go-go US rating is accounted for by the massively greater weighting of highly valued and large technology firms. As New Financial puts it: "US stocks have a higher valuation because they have higher growth and higher return on equity, not because they happen to be listed in the US."
None of which is to say that European firms should never move. For some, it will make sense. Revenue-wise, Ashtead and Ferguson had morphed into US entities. Sweden's Spotify had probably outgrown its home market. Sadly, it was probably commercially reasonable for SoftBank to relist Arm Holdings, the UK's most celebrated tech firm, in the US where it could rub shoulders with other tech giants. And the US undoubtedly has advantages in biotech.
The point, though, is the grass is not always greener, except (from the point of view of executives) when it comes to boardroom pay, which one suspects is a swing factor. There have been successes - Arm is definitely in that camp but the overall performance of departees "suggests that moving is not a panacea," says the report.
It is not prescribing complacency and is full of ideas to improve European stock markets by making them less fragmented. But, in the hierarchy of market-related things to worry about, US drift is probably not top of the pile, especially if Trumpian chaos is now deterring corporate tourists.
Instead, here is the report's genuinely alarming statistic: 1,000 listed companies in Europe, with a combined value of over $1tn, have been acquired by private equity and privately held companies in the past decade. The march of private equity still feels like the bigger threat to stock markets.
Nils Pratley
Boards of companies thinking of listing in the US should know the grass isn't always greener
Donald Trump is doing an excellent job of demonstrating that US stock markets don't always outperform European ones.
On-off tariff wars, threats to fire the head of the Federal Reserve and general unpredictability have prompted a reappraisal of boring old Europe. The S&P 500 is down 6% this year, versus a gain of 2.5% for the FTSE 100 index and a 3% improvement in the pan-European Stoxx Europe 600. The differences aren't enormous, but they mark a reversal from recent years.
Will that be enough to stop the "exodus" of UK and other European companies to the supposedly higher-valued and more liquid US markets? The thesis-plodding European versus dynamic US - has been the popular narrative for years as the likes of the plant hire group Ashtead, the plumbing group Ferguson and the Paddy Power-owning Flutter have moved their primary listings to the US. It has become obligatory to describe every departure as "another blow" to London.
Well, here's a "reality check" report from the New Financial thinktank that ought to be digested by any footloose board of a UK-quoted company that imagines its share price would be higher if only the listing was in the US. It ain't necessarily so.
The report identifies 130 European companies, including 51 UK ones, that have moved to the US over the past decade, whether by switching their listing, listing for the first time or by merging into a US shell entity. The collection is large, no question - worth $676bn at the time of the move in today's money. On the other hand, it's also just 2% of the number of European companies.
But the startling finding is the post-switch performance. The analysis shows that 70% of European companies that have moved to the US are trading below their listing price; less than a fifth have beaten the S&P 500; and three-quarters have not beaten the European market after their move.
The numbers, it should be said, are skewed by the appalling performance of European companies that joined the brief US fad for SPACS, or "blank cheque" special purpose acquisition companies. Of the 42 firms that took that route, nine went to zero (think Cazoo and the electric van firm Arrival). But even among the mature companies that switched their listings, the share price performance amounts to roughly a par score: 44% have performed better than the European market since they moved. Why might that be? Simply because the valuation premium on US markets (about 30% at the last count) doesn't translate at the level of individual companies or sectors. A large chunk of the go-go US rating is accounted for by the massively greater weighting of highly valued and large technology firms. As New Financial puts it: "US stocks have a higher valuation because they have higher growth and higher return on equity, not because they happen to be listed in the US."
None of which is to say that European firms should never move. For some, it will make sense. Revenue-wise, Ashtead and Ferguson had morphed into US entities. Sweden's Spotify had probably outgrown its home market. Sadly, it was probably commercially reasonable for SoftBank to relist Arm Holdings, the UK's most celebrated tech firm, in the US where it could rub shoulders with other tech giants. And the US undoubtedly has advantages in biotech.
The point, though, is the grass is not always greener, except (from the point of view of executives) when it comes to boardroom pay, which one suspects is a swing factor. There have been successes - Arm is definitely in that camp but the overall performance of departees "suggests that moving is not a panacea," says the report.
It is not prescribing complacency and is full of ideas to improve European stock markets by making them less fragmented. But, in the hierarchy of market-related things to worry about, US drift is probably not top of the pile, especially if Trumpian chaos is now deterring corporate tourists.
Instead, here is the report's genuinely alarming statistic: 1,000 listed companies in Europe, with a combined value of over $1tn, have been acquired by private equity and privately held companies in the past decade. The march of private equity still feels like the bigger threat to stock markets.
+Anonymous H — 5 days ago, 4 months later, 4 months after the original post[T] [B] #676,348
Cracker Barrel's stock takes a dive as critics deride 'soulless' new logo
BY JULIAN MARK
Cracker Barrel's stock tumbled Thursday as the restaurant chain faced backlash over a new logo that critics derided as "woke".
"WTF is wrong with @CrackerBarrel??!" Donald Trump Jr wrote on the social media site X on Wednesday evening, quoting another account that accused the company of scrapping a "beloved American aesthetic and replaced it with sterile, soulless branding."
When the national restaurant chain unveiled the streamlined on Tuesday, it said the new look was "rooted even more closely to the iconic barrel shape and word mark that started it."
Notably missing was the image of a man in overalls leaning against a wooden barrel that had been its been part of the company' motif since 1977.
But within 48 hours, the re-design backlash was raging online, with commenters on both sides using it as a cudgel.
"WHAT IS WRONG WITH CRACKER BARREL?? KEEP YOUR BEAUTIFUL LOGO !!! THE NEW ONE LOOKS LIKE CHEAP VELVEETA 'CHEESE' FROM WALMART, THE PLACE FOR GROCERIES (AN OLD FASHIONED TERM)!!! 'FIX IT' ASAP! WOKE IS DEAD!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER," California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) press office posted on X on Thursday, apparently mimicking President Donald Trump's social media style.
Cracker Barrel shares fell sharply Thursday before recovering somewhat ending the day at $54.80, down nearly 7.2 percent.
Company CEO Julie Felass Masino told ABC's "Good Morning America" that the "feedback has been overwhelmingly positive." She added that "Cracker Barrel need to feel like the Cracker Barrel for today and for tomorrow."
In a statement, the company emphasized that its "value haven't changed, and the heart and soul of Cracker Barrel haven't changed." It noted that the new logo is the fifth iteration since 1969.
According to the company's blog, the logo featuring the "old-timer wearing overalls" was first drafted on the back of a napkin nearly five decades ago by a Nashville-based designer. It was meant to create a "feeling of nostalgia," according to the post.
The restaurants themselves are also being revamped. The dining rooms are being outfitted with more modern furnishing and decor, as opposed to the "old country store" design it had in place for decades.
Americas Reed, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School said the negative attention means Cracker Barrel's effort has largely failed. Companies walk a fine line when they redesign logos, he said. The goal is just noticeable difference" and to not change too much as to create disruption.
"If you're doing this right, you've tweaked a little bit on the edges and you've tested it." Reed said. adding that logo rebrands can cost "hundreds of thousands of dollars" so the stakes are high.
The redesign "flopped by definition of the negative pushback." he said.
Cracker Barrel faced similar pushback in 2022 when it started offering meat alternatives on its menu, similarly riling up its conservative customer base, which also cast the move as a liberal ploy. But numerous brands have been pulled into politics over marketing decisions in recent years.
Bud Light was America's top selling beer when it partnered with transgender actress Dylan Mulvaney in a 2003 campaign, sparking an outcry and conservative boycott.
Angry customers filmed themselves destroying cans of Bud Light with firearms and construction equipment.
Meanwhile, some liberal customers took issue with the brewer for failing to stick up for Mulvaney in the face of criticism. Sales took a major hit.
Reed said lessons can be learned from the episode, in which Bud Light and parent company AB InBev alienated both sides. If a company changes its marketing, Reed said, it must go "all in."
"Once you're in, you live er die by it," he added. "You can't backtrack."
BY JULIAN MARK
Cracker Barrel's stock tumbled Thursday as the restaurant chain faced backlash over a new logo that critics derided as "woke".
"WTF is wrong with @CrackerBarrel??!" Donald Trump Jr wrote on the social media site X on Wednesday evening, quoting another account that accused the company of scrapping a "beloved American aesthetic and replaced it with sterile, soulless branding."
When the national restaurant chain unveiled the streamlined on Tuesday, it said the new look was "rooted even more closely to the iconic barrel shape and word mark that started it."
Notably missing was the image of a man in overalls leaning against a wooden barrel that had been its been part of the company' motif since 1977.
But within 48 hours, the re-design backlash was raging online, with commenters on both sides using it as a cudgel.
"WHAT IS WRONG WITH CRACKER BARREL?? KEEP YOUR BEAUTIFUL LOGO !!! THE NEW ONE LOOKS LIKE CHEAP VELVEETA 'CHEESE' FROM WALMART, THE PLACE FOR GROCERIES (AN OLD FASHIONED TERM)!!! 'FIX IT' ASAP! WOKE IS DEAD!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER," California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) press office posted on X on Thursday, apparently mimicking President Donald Trump's social media style.
Cracker Barrel shares fell sharply Thursday before recovering somewhat ending the day at $54.80, down nearly 7.2 percent.
Company CEO Julie Felass Masino told ABC's "Good Morning America" that the "feedback has been overwhelmingly positive." She added that "Cracker Barrel need to feel like the Cracker Barrel for today and for tomorrow."
In a statement, the company emphasized that its "value haven't changed, and the heart and soul of Cracker Barrel haven't changed." It noted that the new logo is the fifth iteration since 1969.
According to the company's blog, the logo featuring the "old-timer wearing overalls" was first drafted on the back of a napkin nearly five decades ago by a Nashville-based designer. It was meant to create a "feeling of nostalgia," according to the post.
The restaurants themselves are also being revamped. The dining rooms are being outfitted with more modern furnishing and decor, as opposed to the "old country store" design it had in place for decades.
Americas Reed, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School said the negative attention means Cracker Barrel's effort has largely failed. Companies walk a fine line when they redesign logos, he said. The goal is just noticeable difference" and to not change too much as to create disruption.
"If you're doing this right, you've tweaked a little bit on the edges and you've tested it." Reed said. adding that logo rebrands can cost "hundreds of thousands of dollars" so the stakes are high.
The redesign "flopped by definition of the negative pushback." he said.
Cracker Barrel faced similar pushback in 2022 when it started offering meat alternatives on its menu, similarly riling up its conservative customer base, which also cast the move as a liberal ploy. But numerous brands have been pulled into politics over marketing decisions in recent years.
Bud Light was America's top selling beer when it partnered with transgender actress Dylan Mulvaney in a 2003 campaign, sparking an outcry and conservative boycott.
Angry customers filmed themselves destroying cans of Bud Light with firearms and construction equipment.
Meanwhile, some liberal customers took issue with the brewer for failing to stick up for Mulvaney in the face of criticism. Sales took a major hit.
Reed said lessons can be learned from the episode, in which Bud Light and parent company AB InBev alienated both sides. If a company changes its marketing, Reed said, it must go "all in."
"Once you're in, you live er die by it," he added. "You can't backtrack."