A new report by SheSpeaks online community shows that single women and married women behave markedly differently when acting as consumers.

Since many studies categorize women by age rather than marital status, this finding may have a significant impact on how marketers choose to target their consumers. Instead of one campaign for the under-25 set and another for the 25-35 group, marketers might lean toward creating campaigns based on singles vs. marrieds.

>    Married women are more likely to shop for deals and to compare brands to make sure they’re getting a superior product.

>    Single women, by contrast, are much more likely to make statements like, “I love to spend” and to follow through with those promises, as shown by the marked difference in clothes spending. 43% of singles spent over $1,000 a year on their clothes; 40% of married women spent less than $500 annually on theirs.

>    Married women are also more likely to use coupons and abstain from budget threats like vacation travel. Sixty-three percent of married women always use paper coupons while shopping, and a fair portion of these – 39% – say they always use printable online coupons as well.

>    The one similarity was that both groups claimed price as the “top driver” when they choose what to spend money on. However, the study didn’t ask whether the decisions were based on whether a product was highest-priced or lowest, which may show some problem with the data. For example, a single woman who spends more on clothes might see a high price tag as a sign of status, while a married woman would prefer a lower priced item. Both see price as a “top driver.”

Marketing budgets are being slashed across the board, and it’s no secret that some exciting new innovations are going to have to wait until companies are doing a little better financially.

A recent study looked into the spending plans of direct and database marketers to figure out how the economy is going to affect their spending – and how it shouldn’t.

The biggest shift is that marketers are looking toward more direct targeting in marketing as opposed to mass routes. The Internet plays a huge role as marketers strive to make deeper and more lasting connections with their consumers, and they’ll also be working hard on analytics for their consumers, trying to figure out how they tick.

It’s working…
All in all, the personal approach may be a very good move for marketing in general, from both a financial and an effectiveness perspective.

Many social media strategies are getting a far better return on investment than more conventional approaches, which means that not only do marketers have the opportunity to work on a smaller budget – they actually might accomplish more by doing so.

Ultimately, marketers are looking for ways to improve the value and effectiveness of their products and services as well as ways to communicate those improvements to customers. That shift is good for the marketing budget, good for sales, and finally, good for the consumer. Strange how a down economy can bring out the win-win solutions.

Broadcast networks are likely to see a serious decline in their upfronts market, with spending only expected to hit somewhere between $7.4 and $8.2 billion. That doesn’t sound too bad until you consider that last year’s upfronts brought in $9.23 billion last year, which makes those new estimates anywhere from a 10 to 20% decrease.

These estimates are working off commitment numbers, not actual bought upfronts as such, and there’s always a chance that marketers will invest more, but it’s not looking good. The commitment numbers are usually a pretty good indicator of the health of broadcasting, and with this being the first large decrease since 2001, it isn’t looking like good news for the upfronts.

The last small dip was due to concerns from marketers that TV was no longer effective marketing strategy, and that may be an additional factor here as well. Obviously the economy has the biggest impact, but drtv marketers are looking for the biggest return on their investment, and they’re starting to wonder if broadcast television is a smart place to spend an ever-tightening marketing budget.

The other problem is that no one wants to rush. “Wait and see” is the watch-phrase of the day, and neither marketers nor networks are pushing to get these numbers higher.

Teenage spending is down by 14% this year. It’s a demographic not many pay attention to, especially since teens don’t often hold jobs or have a lot of disposable income. Much of their spending money comes from their parents – but when the parents are tightening their budgets, teens price-shop too.

At malls across America, teenagers are spending less and frequenting stores that have lower price tags. A demographic that used to be largely concerned with whether something was cool or trendy – which is to say, it had the right label and came from the right store – is now more concerned about making smaller budgets stretch farther.

Abercrombie and Fitch’s several stores in slightly different price brackets are a good demonstration of the shift in teen priorities. An Abercrombie shirt used to be a status symbol, but now teens are shopping at the less-expensive Hollister, which is Abercrombie wear at lower prices, just as Ruehl is their more-expensive storefront.

Abercrombie isn’t alone in their dependence on status symbols. Many other companies have created several degrees of price brackets for essentially the same clothing styles, and teens are drifting ever closer to the lower end of the scale. Spending for status may be a thing of the past, and stores will have to learn to adjust.