Under Armour isn't Anyone's Analytics Underdog

Under Armour:

Being from Baltimore, Under Armour is one of the success stories that everyone loves to tout. The sports apparel company is the definition of superior with high-quality products and a stellar marketing team. Pinned up against sporting good giants Nike and Adidas, Under Armour aims to drive online traffic to their websites that are aimed at a variety of audiences - both niche and mass pleasing. Despite the harsh competition, Under Armour has continued to grow, with last quarter marking the fourth consecutive quarter of over 30% growth (Symington, 2014).

Website Success:

To achieve such great e-commerce success, Under Armour uses Adobe’s Online Marketing Suite (Adobe, 2014). This system, as detailed in my blog post two weeks ago, is a very high-powered system that “helps you to uncover business opportunities and successes by turning customer interaction into actionable insights. With the market-leading solution, you can better understand the entire journey (Adobe, 2013).”

Under Armour’s Manager of Web Analytics & Optimization, Beau Kemeys cited the ability to look beyond page visits, orders, and revenues per product and evaluate how to leverage web analytics and optimization solutions to modify e-mail marketing, web content, and purchase suggestions (Adobe, 2014).

Under Armour has completely optimized the website based on data provided by Adobe’s Marketing Suite.  Items are categorized well, which helps visitors to easily navigate to the pages and products they’re interested in viewing. In addition to easy navigation, visitors are shown products that other people have viewed with similar browsing habits, or products with similar features. The thinking behind this is that if a visitor is potentially interested in one product, they may also be interested in something similar, or something that another user with similar tastes found worthy of purchase.

One of the benefits of the Adobe Marketing Suite is that it allows the webmaster to see and analyze how customers arrived to the site, their online interactions, product searches, content viewed, and the steps leading up to purchase. With this information e-commerce retailers can better anticipate the habits of visitors, their interests, and where in the process they lose (or gain) a sale.

Under Armour’s Kemey said that by using this tool, his team was able to see that despite certain products seeing lower-traffic on their standalone pages, they saw a large spike in purchased when listed on a higher-profile area of the site (Adobe, 2014). Unexpected victories can become apparent when viewing website data with such precision.

Another tool that Under Armour uses in addition to the Adobe Marketing Suite to monitor engagemtn, called Needle, is a social selling platform that allows existing fans to answer customer questions directly on the company’s website (Needle, n.d.). Other brands that use Needle include Coach, Nikon, Dick’s Sporting Goods, and Ocerstock.com. According to Needle’s website, the platform can deliver real-time results with conversion increases of 10% (Needle, n.d.).

In a presentation that Under Armour’s Manager of Web Analytics & Optimization gave at Adobe Summit in 2012, he said that Under Armour sees a 27% conversion rate from customers who talked one-on-one with a Needle user, compared to typical single digit conversions (Bell, 2012). 

Social Integration and Growth:

Last year, Under Armour launched an 18-day holiday promotion that included a web overhaul, Google AdWord campaign, and social media (Blau, 2013).

Under Armour used GoogleAds, targeting interests, category and keyword targeting of potential online customers, leading them to the website according to Jason LaRose, Under Armour’s Senior Vice President of e-commerce. All social media ads were tailored based on the traffic to the e-commerce site for Black Friday and Cyber Monday (Blau, 2013). Since operating this way, LaRose acknowledged that social engagement with ads has doubled.

App Integration:

When Under Armour launched the “I WILL WHAT I WANT” campaign, the company saw a huge spike in traffic to the e-commerce site. Most of these visitors were women and 70% of them were new to the Under Armour brand (Symington, 2014). Under Armour saw engagement skyrocket, which was evident through over 350,000 downloads of the “I WILL WHAT I WANT” app (Symington, 2014). The fact that Under Armour was able to get 350,000 individuals to download an app based on a single commercial is astounding. As long as these users continue to have the app, Under Armour has access to them through email, push reminders, and more.

While the 350,000 downloads was impressive, that number almost pales to the 30 million registered users of the app (Barker, 2014). Under Armour collects data through their app, such as how users work out, where they do it, and for how long (Cornstock, 2014). The app collects data profiles so the company can differentiate between exercise enthusiasts by looking at the data sent back from users. Under Armour can analyze the time of day, frequency and distance, they can distinguish between groups of people, and gain more insight into their users’ habits.

Recommended Tools and Tactics:

It’s clear that Under Armour knows what they’re doing with their e-commerce team. Sales are up, conversions are great, and website and app traffic continues to grow exponentially. Looking at their website, it’s difficult to imagine it any other way. Below are hypothetical goals that Under Armour should focus on next year.

Goal: Track abandoned shopping cart rate from new site visitors new to the Under Armour brand.

With the I WILL WHAT I WANT app, Under Armour has the opportunity to continue a meaningful relationship with an entirely new market. The tracking can be done using Adobe’s Marketing Suite to automatically generate marketing emails to customers who are logged in to the site. If Under Armour were to tie the app to their website, they would have the personal exercising habits of users in addition to their potential shopping habits.

References:

Adobe. (2013, October). Adobe.com. “Adobe Analytics Premium.” Retrieved from, http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/solutions/digital-marketing/digital-analytics/pdfs/solution-overview-analytics-premium-ue.pdf.

Adobe. (2014). Adobe Online Marketing Suite Success Stories. “Under Armour.” Retrieved from, http://sjstransky.writerfolio.com/attachments/26691.pdf.

Barker, J. (2014, October 24). Baltimore Sun. “Fitness Technology is personal to Under Armour’s Plank.” Retrieved from, http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/under-armour-blog/bs-bz-plank-health-technology-20141024-story.html#page=1.

Bell, B. (2012, March 30). Brooksbell.com. “How to Life Conversion Rates with Social Proof.” Retrieved from, http://www.brooksbell.com/blog/how-to-lift-conversion-rates-with-social-proof/.

Blau, M. (2013, December 14). Mashable.com. “Under Armour Used Real-Time Data, Display Ads to Drive Holiday Sales.” Retrieved from, http://mashable.com/2013/12/14/under-armour-black-friday-metrics/.

Cornstock, J. (2014, May 15). Mobihealthnews.com. “How Under ARmour will use MapMyFitness data to sell apparel.” Retrieved from, http://mobihealthnews.com/33158/how-under-armour-will-use-mapmyfitness-data-to-sell-apparel/.

Needle. (n.d.). Needle.com. “Needle.” Retrieved from, https://www.needle.com.

Symington, S. (2014, October 29). Fool.com. “5 Things Under Armour’s Management Wants You to Know.” Retrieved from, http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/10/29/5-things-under-armour-incs-management-wants-you-to.aspx.

Googly-eyed for Google

Googly-eyed for Google

Are we all so Googly-eyed for Google and all of their free products that we as consumers are willing to overlook our own privacy? We’ve seen Google go from top search engine to tech powerhouse lead online advertiser, top Internet browser, owner of YouTube, the largest mobile operating system, top email storage service, and obviously the best search engine (Smith, 2012). One could argue that Google has an online monopoly. This one company has the talent, the resources, and the ability to be the premier online service. Google is known for their corporate culture, which bleeds over to consumers (Goo, 2006). Google has such a wide variety of products because of the environment in which they are incubated. The company also benefits from the goodwill of most consumers since they pit themselves against hated companies like AT&T and Comcast, stimulating competition in once stale markets (Moritz, 2014).

But as technology advances, what point becomes too much for data collection? Yes, the data collected is helping to further more products, but at what cost? In 2013 Google spent $400 million to purchase DeepMind, an artificial intelligence firm. Google buys companies every day, so what makes this different? The company was concerned enough to form an AI ethics board to consider the moral implications of the projects (Bosker, 2014). This is the kind of company that we’re trusting with our information?

Too Much Power in One Place?

As with most conglomerates, Google uses lobbyists to push their opinions. In 2010, Google spent $5.16 million lobbying issues like net neutrality, online privacy, and online tracking (Kessler, 2011). Politics aside, it’s valuable to watch and see how such a large and successful corporation can influence policy in their favor.

Google tentatively first started lobbying Washington politicians in 2006 and has grown to be one of the top Washington lobbying companies (Hamburger & Gold, 2014). The company is effectively turning consumers away from privacy concerns and on to their products with the help of their lobbying powerhouse team. Take a look at how much Google’s spending on lobbying has increased since 2006.

Google is actively working to protect their right to collect consumer data and shield it from government bodies (Hamburger & Gold, 2014). Google’s Eric Schmidt said in a 2010 The Atlantic’s Washington Idea’s Forum that he realized that must policy was written by lobbyists, which has lead to the hiring of their own internal team (Greenfield, 2013). Was this a natural progression that should be expected of companies this large or was it more of an aggressive way to posh their policy through the ranks? No matter how you look at it, there should be some cause for concern. Google has a lot of money, power, and influence that can be used to make decisions that last for generations to come.

Who is Looking Out for ME?

For argument’s sake, if consumers decided to look elsewhere for their online services, where would they go? Bing? A 2013 study by AV Test showed that Bing is five times more likely to show malware in their search results (Knibbs, 2013).

Search engine Duck Duck Go has gained popularity in the past year for being able to protect users’ identity but it also lacks in offering personalized results that save time and effort (Price, 2014). Something interesting to know about Duck Duck Go is that they are currently in the running to replace Google on Apple devices next year when their contract comes up as the default search engine.

But Mom, Everyone is Doing it!

At the end of the day it all really boils down to which service consumers and marketers feel most comfortable with using. If you want to use superior products for free, then there isn’t really another option (Walter, 2014). You’re going to sacrifice privacy. You also know what you’re getting with Google. A quick search will set you straight. Even Google has admitted that people can’t honestly expect their emails to stay private, according to a brief filed in federal court (Goyette, 2013). Google has made their products so valuable that it’s difficult to find acceptable alternatives.

Would you rather supply data to a global corporation that is constantly under watch for changes in Terms of Services or would you rather take your chances with many subpar services that will also sell your data but not be as forthcoming?

Personally, I choose the superior, free services to the company that charges me for a non-mainstream product. I know that the Federal Trade Commission is concerned with Google’s practices and is ready to keep them in check as much as possible. I choose to put my trust in the media, regulatory agencies, and Google themselves. Just this year The FTC made Google pay $19 million in damages to consumers whose children were confused about the Google Play store (Kang, 2014). It took the FTC a while, but they know the threats with Google already. I picked my poison and I’m completely happy with it.

References:

Bosker, B. (2014, January 29). Huffington Post. “Google’s New A.I. Ethics Board Might Save Humanity From Extinction.” Retrieved from, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/google-ai_n_4683343.html.

Greenfield, R. (2013, June 3). The Wire. “Google Now Spends More on Lobbying Thank Lockheed Martin.” Retrieved from, http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/06/google-lobbying-lockheed-martin/65813/.

Goo, S. (2006, October 21). The Washington Post. “Building a ‘Googley’ Workforce.” Retrieved from, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001461.html.

Goyette, B. (2013, August 13). Huffington Post. “Google: Email Users Can’t Legitimately Expect Privacy When Emailing Someone On Gmail.” Retrieved from, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/gmail-privacy_n_3751971.html.

Hamburger, T. and Gold, M. (2014, April 12). The Washington Post. “Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence.” Retrieved from, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transforming-power-and-politicsgoogle-once-disdainful-of-lobbying-now-a-master-of-washington-influence/2014/04/12/51648b92-b4d3-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html.

Kang, C. (2014, September 4). The Washington Post. “Google agrees to pay $19 million in FTC in-app kids lawsuit.” Retrieved from, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/04/google-agrees-to-pay-19-million-in-ftc-in-app-kids-lawsuit/.

Kessler, S. (2011, January 31). Mashable. “Google Spent More on Lobbyists in 2010 Than Yahoo, Facebook & Apple Combined.” Retrieved from, http://mashable.com/2011/01/31/google-lobbyists-2010/.

Knibbs, K. (2013, April 12). Digital Trends. “Study Says Bing Returns Five Times More Malware Laden Links Than Google [Updated].” Retrieved from, http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/bing-vs-google-when-it-comes-to-malware-beware-of-bing/.

Moritz, S. (2014, April 21). Bloomberg. “AT&T to Expand Fast Web Service Race Against Google.” Retrieved from, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-21/at-t-plans-to-expand-fast-web-service-ramping-up-google-rivalry.html.

Price, C. (2014, May 5). Search Engine Watch. “Escape Google With These 12 Search Engine Alternatives.” Retrieved from, http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/how-to/2343048/escape-google-with-these-12-search-engine-alternatives#.

Smith, K. (2012, June 27). Business Insider. “PRESENTING: The 10 Best Google Products Ever.” Retrieved from, http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-best-google-products-2012-6?op=1.

Walter, D. (2014, September 9). PCWorld.com. “How to Ditch Google for more privacy and fewer ads.” Retrieved from, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2601364/how-to-ditch-google-for-more-privacy-and-fewer-ads.html.