Survey Finds Brands Struggle to Connect With Gen Z Consumers

images-1

It’s becoming increasingly harder to keep up with Generation Z consumers as they move from store to web to mobile to social and back again with unprecedented agility.

A recent IBM study of 15,000 Gen Z shoppers, titled “Disruptive and Distinctive, Gen Z Shoppers Are Growing Up” found the following:

  • Despite living largely digital lives, 67 percent of Gen Z prefer to shop in a brick-and-mortar store all the time, with another 31 percent preferring to shop in-store sometimes.
  • 66 percent frequently use more than one device and 60 percent will not use an app or website if it is too slow to load.
  • Gen Zers demand highly personalized interactions, value quality over price and want to be engaged with the brand across all channels.

The study found that the cohort represents $44 billion in estimated buying power.

“Despite their young ages, members of Generation Z already hold unprecedented influence over family purchasing decisions and wield enormous economic power, ” reported IBM. “Retail and consumer products brands must engage the upcoming Gen Zers now to prosper tomorrow.”

ibm-gen-z-spending-600

In a separate customer experience study of more than 500 brands in 24 countries, IBM found that businesses are struggling to deliver on the expectations of consumers:

  • Only 19 percent of retailers can provide a highly personalized digital shopping experience
  • Only 17 percent can provide more than in stock/out of stock information.
  • 84 percent did not offer any in-store mobile services.

“In this new era of customer engagement, what will separate the winners from everyone else is a differentiated brand experience that delivers high impact engagements with compelling personalization regardless of where the customer is,” said Harriet Green, GM IBM Watson Customer Engagement, in a press release. “With Watson Cognitive Engagement solutions, IBM is working with retailers across globe to make these experiences a reality for millions of consumers.”

IBM Watson Customer Engagement is helping leading retailers such as HSN, 1-800-FLOWERS.com and Ermes drive enduring brand loyalty with all generations of customers.

A growing force, Gen Z consumers number about 2 billion globally today, according to a new study from Kantar Millward Brown. “AdReaction: Engaging Gen X, Y and Z,” the first comprehensive global study of Gen Z, found that “36% of Gen Z globally access Instagram several times a day and 24% access Snapchat at the same frequency, compared to 21% and 10% respectively for Gen Y (those aged 20-34) and 9% and 4% for Gen X (those aged 35-49).”

“Gen Z have grown up in an on-demand world of infinite choice, and this flavours their expectations of advertising,” said Duncan Southgate, global brand director at Kantar Millward Brown. “They are much more attracted to ads that allow them to co-create or shape what happens, compared to Gens Y and X, who have a higher preference to link to more information about the brand.”

We are sure the Teen B.E.A.T. Summit will become the bridge from brand to Gen Z consumer….Spring Break 2017, Atlanta GA.

Advertisements

The 2017 Teen B.E.A.T. Summit Is On The Way…April 3-9, 2017 Atlanta GA

final-logo-teen-beat-summit

The B.E.A.T. Summit will bring together the most creative young songwriters, performing artists, visual artists,future executives, djs, and music producers…for seven (7) days of captivating workshops, engaging experiences, provocative panel discussions, artist showcases, hands-on-training, daily business luncheons, celebrity appearances, new product demonstrations – a full range of exciting events!

Visit www.TeenBEATSummit.com and sign up for updates, early registration announcements, special give-a-ways, and passes for exclusive pre-B.E.A.T. Summit events.

Email us at TheTeenBEATSummit@gmail.com for sponsorship opportunities, group registrations, volunteer sign up, and media requests.

Why Is It So Hard To Get Paid In the Music Industry?

Guest Post: Why Getting Paid In The Music Industry Is So Complicated, And How It Can Be Better

Guest Post: Why Getting Paid In The Music Industry Is So Complicated, And How It Can Be Better

 

David Balto is a lawyer and consumer advocate based in Washington, D.C., who previously served as the policy director of the Federal Trade Commission.

In Recording Academy CEO Neil Portnow’s recent op-ed called The Penny Paradox, he asked, “Isn’t a song worth more than a penny?” The problem, as outlined by Portnow, is that artists aren’t being paid enough for their work. However, this is a gross oversimplification of a more complicated issue of payment in the music industry. An issue that, unfortunately, consumers (and artists) are caught in the middle of as powerful and less powerful interests fight over how to divide payments amongst themselves.

When Portnow is talking about a song being worth a penny he is, of course, not talking about someone being able to own a song for an actual penny. He is talking about the cost per listen of a single license. An interactive music streamer like Spotify needs two licenses to serve a single song to a customer, and three licenses under certain circumstances. When a consumer buys a song, they make one payment and own it forever. Streaming a song is not ownership, and royalties must be paid for each listen.

This leads to a complex picture of how artists earn money. They can get one payment from a fan that buys their album or a recurring payment as a fan continues to play their songs on a streaming service. Artists can also get paid both ways from a single fan — a correlation between internet radio “spins” and sales were found in 2014.

It gets even more complicated. Artists own different copyrights and get paid differently based on whether they wrote the song and/or recorded the song. They deal with different middlemen and the licensing is handled through different organizations: SoundExchange for sound recording rights, a publishing rights organization like ASCAP or BMI for the performance right and individual publishers for each song’s mechanical rights.

ASCAP and BMI are currently regulated through agreements made with the Department of Justice that are regulated by federal courts which stress fairness and transparency. These agreements were necessary because collective bargaining — like that done through ASCAP and BMI — is illegal under antitrust laws, but all parties considered it necessary to have a collective bargaining system to cut down contracting costs in a complex industry. In other words, it’s a narrow exception to the general rules of a competitive market.

And now it’s getting even more complicated. Publishers, some of which have market power, are lobbying the DOJ to make changes in the consent decrees to allow them to withhold music from radio, venues and streaming services. These changes would let publishers jump out of ASCAP and BMI when it suits them. So much for fairness and non-discrimination. And so much for fair prices for consumers.

Publishers will also be able to agree amongst themselves not to license a performance right unless all owners of a copyright assent. This will give even small owners of a copyright complete control, not just over performance rights but over the sound recording as well. If a five percent owner of the performance rights to Justin Bieber’s “Love Yourself” refuses to license, for instance, that not only affects other owners of the performance rights, but also Justin Bieber’s royalty payments for the sound recording. A music user has to license all rights to play a song, and if any fractional owner had veto rights they would be able to control the destiny of the entire song and every sound recording, not just what they own.

This didn’t matter when radio and venues could contract with ASCAP and BMI, each of which has to license to all comers at a fair rate. But in a world where publishers can be in and out of ASCAP and BMI, it suddenly matters a great deal. This has the potential to not only hurt consumers, but also artists who can’t get their song played because an owner of a small piece of it refuses to license. Ultimately, both consumers and artists will lose.

I do not agree with Portnow on the simple solution that payments for songs need to increase. This is the solution before the DOJ right now, and it will likely lead to tremendous harm to consumers and potentially artists (we don’t know how much of that increase, if any, will filter through to them and how much will be pocketed by the powerful publishers). However, I do agree that we can do better and that solutions must come from Congress.

Congress, for example, could set up a one-stop shop for the complete bundle of rights needed to play a song, and all the rights owners could divide those payments among themselves. This would make it easy to agree on a payment that is good for artists while still allowing streaming services to be profitable (important after the Copyright Royalty Board’s rate increase led to the closure of many smaller independent and local services). Congress also has many more options to make sure the most vulnerable parties, consumers, and artists, are protected.

Article Via Billboard.Biz