Back in 2015, Wall Street Journal columnist, author and arts critic Terry Teachout had a few choice comments to make about Twitter — then as now one of the more controversial of the social media platforms.
With the passage of time — as well as significant elections, referenda and other socio-political developments intervening — it’s interesting to go back and read Mr. Teachout’s comments again.
From his perspective, in 2015 Teachout had postulated that the essence of Twitter could be boiled down to four statements, as follows:
How dare you talk about A, when B is infinitely more important?
If I disagree with you, you’re almost certainly arguing in bad faith — and are probably evil as well.
You are personally responsible, in toto and in perpetuity, for everything that your friends, colleagues, and/or ancestors have ever said, done, or thought.
(Statements #2 and #3 do not apply to me.)
Looking at these statements, it’s pretty remarkable how little has changed.
Or has it? What do you think?
[In an interesting side-development, Terry Teachout’s own Twitter account was hacked in 2018 — several years after he published his statements above. As he recounts here, trying to get all of that sorted out with the social media platform was it’s own special kind of misery, even if ultimately successful.]
This past month, digital marketing research firm eMarketer issued its new forecast on music streaming activities in the United States. What it shows is that Pandora, which has dominated the market ever since the category was created in 2000, will likely fall to the #2 position, overtaken by Spotify.
Based on a calculation of internet users of any age who listen to music streaming on any device at least once per month, Pandora jas occupied a narrow band of between 72 million and 77 million listeners since 2015.
During that same period, Spotify users have increased dramatically, from ~24 million to ~65 million Americans. And eMarketer projects that Spotify will overtake Pandora by 2021. The chart below shows the trajectory:
Actually, the trend had been building since even before 2015. In 2012, Pandora had ~67 million users compared to Spotify’s paltry ~5 million. But Pandora has been shedding users in recent years. As the chart above illustrates, by 2023 Pandora will have lost nearly 10% of its users since 2014.
To be sure, Pandora still holds a robust ~35% of audio listener penetration in the United States as of this year. But Spotify is nipping at its heels with a ~32% share. Amazon Music (~18%) and Apple Music (~16%) are further back, but with still-significant chunks of the marketing. (It should be noted that there is overlap, as some listeners may engage with more than one music streaming service during the month.)
What has caused the change in fortunes? Christ Bendtsen, an eMarketer forecasting analyst, says this:
“Pandora lost users last year because of tough competition from other services attracting people to switch. Apple Music has been successful in converting its iPhone user base. Amazon Music has grown with smart speaker adoption, and Spotify’s partnerships have expanded its presence across all devices.”
Speaking in particular about Spotify’s rapid surge, Bendtsen notes:
“Spotify’s initial growth was driven by its unique combination of music discovery, playlists and on-demand features. But now that all music streaming services [possess] the same features, Spotify’s future success will rely on partnerships with other companies. It has teamed up with Samsung, Amazon, Google and Hulu to be on all devices and provide bundled offerings. We expect more partnerships to come, leveraging multiple brands, devices and services to drive user growth.”
As for Apple Music, there’s a reason it lags behind other music streaming services in the rankings. That service operates on a subscription-only model and doesn’t offer any form of advertiser-supported free usage. Forecasters expect it to remain in the #4 position with its “premium-only” business model.
More information about the eMarketer music streaming forecast is available here.
What are your own music streaming listening habits? Have they changed in recent years, and if so, how and why? Please share your thoughts with other readers.
Soldier, firefighter and police officer positions are obvious, but jobs in media are right up there, too.
It’s human nature to complain about workplace stress. But which jobs are the ones that actually carry the most stress?
If you ask most people, they’d probably cite jobs in the military, police and firefighting as particularly stressful ones because of the inherent dangers of working on the job. Airline pilots would be up there as well.
And yes, those jobs do rank the highest among the many jobs surveyed about by employment portal CareerCast in its newest research on the topic. But of the other jobs that make the “Top 10 most stressful” list, several of them might surprise you:
Most Stressful: CareerCast Stress Scores by Profession (2019)
#1. Enlisted military personnel (E3, 4 years experience): 73
#2. Firefighter: 72
#3. Airline pilot: 61
#4. Police officer: 52
#5. Broadcaster: 51
#6. Event coordinator: 51
#7. News reporter: 50
#8. PR executive: 49
#9. Senior corporate executive: 49
#10. Taxi driver: 48
According to the CareerCast research findings, based on an evaluation of 11 potential stress factors including meeting deadlines, job hazards, physical demands and public interaction requirements, more than three-fourths of respondents in the 2019 survey rated their job stress at 7 or higher on a 10-point scale.
The most common stress contributors cited were “meeting deadlines’ (~38% of respondents) and “interacting with the public” (~14%).
Upon reflection, it’s perhaps understandable why workers in media positions feel like they are under particular stress – what with “fake news” claims and a constant barrage of criticism from both the left and the right which can go beyond being simply irritants into some much more stress-inducing.
What if someone wanted to make a career change and switch to a job that’s at the opposite end of the stress scale? CareerCast has identified those positions, too. Here are the “least stressful” jobs as found in its 2019 research results:
Least Stressful: CareerCast 2019 Stress Score by Profession
#1. Diagnostic medical sonographer: 5
#2. Compliance officer: 6
#3: Hair stylist: 7
#4. Audiologist: 7
#5. University professor: 8
#6. Medical records technician: 9
#7. Jeweler: 9
#8: Operations research analyst: 9
#9. Pharmacy technician: 9
#10. Massage therapist: 10
Interestingly, one might assume that the most stressful jobs in America would carry a commensurate salary premium, but that doesn’t turn out to be the case. The average median salary for the Top 10 “most stressful” jobs in America is hardly distinguishable from those of the Top 10 “least stressful” jobs – differing by only around 4%. It seems like those latter workers are onto something!
More information about the CareerCast findings can be viewed here.
During the Great Recession of 2008-10, it was no surprise to see an increase in private label product sales – not just in food products but also in apparel, cosmetics and other consumer categories.
It was much like a similar recessionary time in the United States history — back in the 1970s — when some supermarkets began selling “generic” packaged and canned goods. Those offerings celebrated their generic status by emphasizing their lack of branding – ostensibly to demonstrate that by cutting back on marketing and advertising costs, product pricing to the consumer could be kept lower.
The generic movement didn’t last. When the economic go-go times returned in the mid-1980s, consumers were more than happy to forego the cheaper offerings and go back to their favorite brands.
But the situation is different today. The Great Recession may now be a decade in the rearview mirror, but the private label brands they spawned are going strong. In fact, they’re thriving as never before – and in some ways are eating the legacy brands’ lunch.
Several factors are fundamentally different from before. For one, products that compete on price are no longer being marketed as “generics” but rather as brands in their own right. Brand names like Kirkland, Archer Farms and Essential Everyday look and feel like Kraft, Kellogg’s and other longstanding brands – and for the most part their quality is indistinguishable as well.
Equally important is that fact that there’s no longer any particular stigma associated with shopping “cheap” private label brands. It turns out that consumers in every income category appreciate a bargain; no one wants to feel like they’re being ripped off when there are good quality “best-value” alternatives available.
Consider these eyebrow-raising statistics: Costco’s Kirkland house brand notched sales of $39 billion in 2018, which is substantially higher than Kraft-Heinz’s total brand sales of $26 billion.
Indeed, the consumer foods industry is witnessing this happening all over the place. Amazon may not be developing its own private brands like Costco or Target have done, but it is working diligently with food and beverage manufacturers to develop private label offerings to sell exclusively on Amazon’s own website.
Looking at the macro environment, the United States is running at historically low unemployment rates today, but that hasn’t stunted the phenomenal growth of discount grocery chains like Aldi and Lidl. Aldi has come from practically nowhere several years ago to threaten becoming America’s 3rd place grocery retailer, behind only Walmart and Kroger. Aldi has done so by pursuing an über-aggressive private label strategy that’s targeting younger, middle-income shoppers in particular.
Note that Aldi is training their sights on more than just budget-conscious consumers, which have traditionally been the narrower audience for private label brands. It turns out that the “stigma” some might have attributed to the “cheap” image of private label foods isn’t there any longer.
For younger consumers especially, such “status” concerns are of no pertinence at all. Whereas the typical grocery cart today contains ~25% private label products, among millennials the proportion is more like one-third.
And while the growth of private label products is most pronounced in the food, paper goods and household supplies sectors — and has had the most disruptive consequences there — other sectors like apparel and cosmetics are seeing similar developments.
[Let’s not forget private label pharmaceuticals, too, where price differences are often dramatically lower than just the 15-20% differential we see in the food sector.]
The bottom line is this: Recession or no, cheap has become chic. It’s a trend that’s here to stay. The legacy brands won’t be able to wait this one out and expect better days to come along again.
There’s no question that the U.S. economy has been on a roll the past two years. And yet, we’re not seeing similar momentum in the restaurant industry.
As it turns out, the challenges that restaurants face are due to forces and factors that are a lot more fundamental than the shape of the economy.
It’s about demographics. More specifically, two things are happening: Baby boomers are hitting retirement age … and millennials are having children. Both of these developments impact restaurants in consequential ways.
Baby boomers – the generation born between 1946 and 1964 – total nearly 75 million people. They’ve been the engine driving the consumer economy in this country for decades. But this big group is eating out less as they age.
The difference in behavior is significant. Broadly speaking, Americans spend ~44% of their food dollar away from home. But for people under the age of 25 the percentage is ~50% spent away from home, whereas for older Americans it’s just 38%.
Moreover, seniors spend less money on food than younger people. According to 2017 data compiled by the federal government, people between the age of 35 and 44 spend more than $4,200 each year in restaurants, on average. For people age 65 and older, the average is just $2,500 (~40% less).
Why the difference? The generally smaller appetites of people who are older may explain some of it, but I suspect it’s also due to lower disposable income.
For a myriad of reasons, significant numbers of seniors haven’t planned well financially for their retirement. Far too many have saved exactly $0, and another ~25% enter retirement with less than $50,000 in personal savings. Social security payments alone were never going to support a robust regime of eating out, and for these people in particular, what dollars they have in reserve amount to precious little.
Bottom line, restaurateurs who think they can rely on seniors to generate sufficient revenues and profits for their operations are kidding themselves.
As for the millennial generation – the 75 million+ people born between 1981 and 1996 – this group just barely outpaces Boomers as the biggest one of all. But having come of age during the Great Recession, it’s also a relatively poorer group.
In fact, the poverty rate among millennials is higher than for any other generation. They’re majorly in debt — to the tune of ~$42,000 per person on average (mostly not from student loans, either). In many places they’ve had to face crushingly high real estate prices – whether buying or renting their residence.
Millennials are now at the prime age to have children, too, which means that more of their disposable income is being spent on things other than going out to eat.
If there is a silver lining, it’s that the oldest members of the millennial generation are now in their upper 30s – approaching the age when they’ll again start spending more on dining out. But for most restaurants, that won’t supplant the lost revenues resulting from the baby boom population hitting retirement age.
It seems as though privacy issues in social media have been in the news nearly steadily over the past several years. Considering that, it might come as a surprise that social media adoption remains as high as it’s ever been.
Today, nearly 9 in 10 Americans age 18 or older are regular users of one or more social media sites (interacting at least one or two times per week).
If anything, that’s a higher percentage than before. So what gives?
Here’s the answer: According to data from a recent survey of nearly 2,200 Americans age 18 or older conducted by Regina Corso Consulting, two-thirds of respondents believe that people on social media should not have any expectations of privacy. None.
Thus, it seems pretty clear that social media users have factored in privacy concerns and decided that, on balance, the “price of admission” when using social media sites is to leave their privacy at the door. It’s a tradeoff most users recognize, understand and accept.
This isn’t to contend that all users are deliriously happy with their current social media practices. In fact, nearly 40% of the respondents in the Regina Corso survey would like to reduce or stop their usage — but are afraid of what they might miss in the way of news and updates. The “FOMO factor” is real.
In the end, that’s what Facebook and several other social media giants have long understood: Once a certain critical mass is achieved, any concerns about social platforms are negated by the sheet universal nature of them.
Just as millions of American choose to reside in places prone to hurricane storm and flooding damage while fully recognizing the potential danger, millions more choose to be on social media despite the privacy risks that everyone has heard about them.
What about you — have you changed your social media behaviors in the wake of news developments over the past several years?
To those of us who work in the MarComm field – or in business generally – it may seem odd how so many people can get suckered into opening e-mails that contain malware or otherwise wreak havoc with their devices.
But as it turns out, the phishing masters have become quite adept at crafting e-mail subject lines and content that successfully ensnare even the most alert recipients.
In fact, the phishers actually exploit our concerns about security by sending e-communications that play off of those very fears.
To study this effect, cybersecurity firm KnowBe4 conducted an analysis of the most clicked-on phishing subject lines of 2018. Its evaluation was two-pronged – charting actual phishing e-mails received by KnowBe4 clients and reported by their IT departments as suspicious, as well as conducting simulated phishing tests to monitor recipient behavior.
What KnowBe4 found was that the most effective phishing e-mail subject lines generally fall into five topic categories:
More specifically, the ten most clicked-on subject lines during 2018, in order of rank, were these:
#2. Your Order with Amazon.com / Your Amazon Order Receipt
#3. Announcement: Change in Holiday Schedule
#4. Happy Holidays! Have a drink on us
#5. Problem with Bank Account
#6. De-activation of [recipient’s e-mail address] in Process
#7. Wire Department
#8. Revised Vacation & Sick Time Policy
#9. Last reminder: please respond immediately
#10. UPS Label Delivery 1ZBE312TNY00015011
Notice that nearly all of them pertain to topics that seem important, timely and needing the attention of the recipient.
Another way that KnowBe4 analyzed the situation was by pinpointing the e-mail subject lines that were deployed most often in phishing e-mails during 2018.
Here are the Top Ten, ranked in order of their usage:
#1. Apple: You recently requested a password reset for your Apple ID
#2. Employee Satisfaction Survey
#3. Sharepoint: You Have Received 2 New Fax Messages
#4. Your Support Ticket is Closing
#5. Docusign: You’ve received a Document for Signature
#6. ZipRecruiter: ZipRecruiter Account Suspended
#7. IT System Support
#8. Amazon: Your Order Summary
#9. Office 365: Suspicious Activity Report
#10. Squarespace: Account billing failure
Commenting on the results that were uncovered by the evaluation, Perry Carpenter, a strategy officer at KnowBe4 had this to say:
“Clicking [on] an e-mail is as much about human psychology as it is about accomplishing a task. The fact that we saw ‘password’ subject lines clicked … shows us that users are concerned about security. Likewise, users clicked on messages about company policies and deliveries … showing a general curiosity about issues that matter to them.”
Carpenter went on to note that KnowBe4’s findings should help corporate IT departments understand “how recipients think” before they click on phishing e-mails and the links within them.
How about you? Are there other e-mail subject lines beyond the ones listed above that you’ve encountered in your daily activities and that raise your suspicions? Please share your examples in the comment section below.