Using Content Marketing to Reduce Churn for SaaS Companies

 The pattern of expenditures of many important consumer items was found to vary among the four cultural groups. The differences and similarities are quite detailed. The observed trends justify the conclusion that marketing to specific cultural groups needs to be more targeted and many times more effective than an overall bland approach. Still, one must keep in mind that there is virtue to the notion of thinking globally and acting locally. Marketers can create a 

matrix of the different topics explored here by cultural groups and think about how each of the cells in the matrix can be filled similarly or differently according to their tactics and approaches. The overall strategy should be well informed by recognizing where cultural differences do make a difference. The Multicultural Equation The multicultural equation, the 

balance of targeting by commonalities and/or targeting by specific cultures, has varied across the segments of this study. In some segments the commonalities appeared to give a strong message, which was then illuminated by cultural differences. In other segments, although there were some similarities across groups, they were by far outweighed by cultural 

Differences In summary

the response to the main question for this research is–cultural differences by far are the strongest elements in the multicultural equation. Even if commonalities in some segments are strong, the cultural differences found in the attitudes and values segments suggest that there is no easy one-dimensional path across cultures.  Is the US now a “multicultural market” 

which shares a common consumer perspective, or is it an aggregation of cultural consumer segments that behave and feel differently? This is the question with which a graduate seminar in multicultural marketing communication started the spring of 2006. The topic lead to a debate and a research project that ultimately generated data to answer the general question 

we started with and many others. This paper summarizes the majority of the data generated by the Florida State University AOL/DMS study. This report is mostly descriptive. More theoretical and conceptually oriented papers will appear in the academic and trade press in the near future. This project aimed to provide a comparative view of the largest relatively homogeneous segments of modern US Society: Hispanics, Asians, African Americans, and 

Hispanic Whites The following 

were the areas investigated The most obvious limitations of this study are that the data was collected exclusively online and in English. It clearly excluded many consumers that do not yet participate in the digital economy who do not feel comfortable in English. Further, the respondents were all AOL subscribers. While the base of AOL subscribers is huge, almost 20 million, it precludes from participation those who do not use AOL. While this data is likely to 

representative of the larger online English speaking population, we do not have any certainty about it because the sample was not probabilistic. Still, the sample is robust and likely to provide directional insights regarding the behavior of members of the major culturally homogeneous groups in the United States.and H are less cynical and more interested in 

commercial messages. For marketers this indicates that communicating with these AA and H consumers via commercial messages is more likely to be well received. However, this is a pattern of thinking that advertising and marketing professionals should not take for granted. In-culture networking and word-of-mouth about products and commercial messages is much higher for AA than for anyone else. Hispanics are lowest in this attitude scale. What this 

Means is that  are more likely

to spread influence in homogenous AA networks, while H are more likely to get their influence from others outside their network. This is a finding that has important implications for grass roots campaigns and the stimulation of word-of-mouth. AA are more interested than anyone else in having marketers do good for their communities and they are willing to pay more for that. Hispanics share in this preference for brand orientation to their community as well. 

Marketers who get involved in helping AA and H communities are likely to gain their favor. In contrast to their community orientation, AA are also higher than any of the other groups on their preference for individually setting up their paths. AA also hold a stronger belief than the other groups that discrimination is still a problem in our society. A and H are more positive towards sports than AA or NHW. Marketers can capitalize on this tendency by giving their 

brands better visibility in the context of sports. A are more interested by far in online shopping and in attributing importance to brands in their lives than any othercultural group. This attests to the salience that brands have among A. It is the image and reputation of brands that appear to have a high allure among these consumers. The tendencies uncovered in this section cast an important doubt on the potential that the multicultural marketplace can be 

Conclusion

reached by speaking to commonalities. These attitudinal differences point to idiosyncrasies difficult to reconcile in a multicultural campaign. Brand identification differs across cultural groups. A and AA identify with large technology companies like IBM and MSN. A, H, and NHW identify with large established brands like Walmart, Coca-Cola, and McDonalds. A are more likely to identify with “cool” brands such as Nike, Gap, and Sony than anyone else, followed 

and Hispanics are more likely to identify with portal brands including Google, Yahoo!, and  Again, one can see a tendency for emerging minorities to identify with a variety of brands. It seems that these cultural groups are likely to be the ones fueling the life of brands, both established and new, in the United States. This is a wakeup message for those brands which have not taken the potential of the AA, Hispanic, and Asian emerging markets seriously. 

and AA are most likely to have homogeneous friendship networks than anyone else. The most homogeneous networks are those of NHW, and the most heterogeneous networks are those of A. H also have highly heterogeneous networks but less so than Asians. The implication of this pattern is that NHW and AA are more likely to be influenced by people like themselves, while A and H are more likely to be influenced by others. These tendencies should be taken 

into consideration for the planning of grassroots and other approaches that capitalize on interpersonal diffusion of information. AA and H were more likely to highly endorse most of the values presented to them than NHW or A with some exceptions. This is likely to be the case because individuals who see themselves as climbing the social ladder need strong anchors for  and reassurance. Also, the cultures these individuals come from heavily emphasize the