This Week in Hispanic Marketing

Hello readers! Once I again, I plan on mixing things up for today's post. Instead of analysis of a specific topic, I'll include links and summaries of this week's Hispanic marketing news so you can stay up to date on what's happening! 

Attracting the Hispanic Voter (or Consumer)

Glenn Llopis of Forbes discusses Obama's "win" of the Hispanic voter. Llopis argues that it was likely not his success at relating to this group, but Romney's failure, that led to this lead. His recipe for success in reaching the Hispanic voter, or for that matter the Hispanic consumer? Pay attention to their motivations and cultural differences as opposed to their impact on the bottom line-- success will follow.  Companies are making a big mistake by targeting Hispanics separately as an entirely different demographic unconnected from their brand or their standard consumer base. Instead, the growth in the Hispanic population should be reflected in creative strategy and in brands themselves. Instead of jumping through all these hurdles to make an irrelevant brand or message meaningful to Hispanics, why not make brands and messages inherently relevant to this demographic from the get go?

Head & Shoulders to Woo Hispanic Males

The Creative Department writes of Head & Shoulders' attempt to target young, Hipsanic males through use of football player, Lionel Messi, as a spokesperson. The article points to the increased use of Hispanic symbols and icons to target this group.

Rolling Stone Targets Acculturated Hispanics

Perhaps one of the most interesting articles on this subject was written by Andrew Adam Newman of the New York Times. Newman discusses the trend away from outlets using Spanish language in exclusively Hispanic contexts. In particular, this month's issue of Rolling Stone features Hispanic rapper, Pit Bull, on the cover and includes articles written in both Spanish and English. Instead of writing the same article in two separate languages, each segment covers new material. This has the effect of allowing acculturated Hispanics to consume media as they do in their personal lives, often in Spanish and English simultaneously.

This Election Season, Spending on Spanish-Language Ads Increased....a Little

Veronica Zaragovia wrote for Fronteras about a recent report released by the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, detailing ad spending this election season. The report found that spending across the country was extremely disproportionate-- while not a single dollar was spent in Arizona to target Hispanics, "$3,897,404 was spent in Las Vegas alone (Zaragovia, par 2)." Further, while spending on Spanish language ads increased overall, many experts believe it did not increase enough to account for the growing Hispanic electorate. The majority of spending on Spanish-lanugage ads took place in Denver, Las Vegas, Miami, Orlando and Tampa. While I am not surprised that spending would be high in Floridian cities, I would think at least one Texan or Californian city would make the list. This finding is further evidence that both campaigns seemed to concentrate their efforts on swing-state Hispanics, leaving the population as a whole feeling misunderstood and neglected.

Fox Targets the Hispanic Market with New Version of Paranormal Activity Four

This week, I've decided to implement a bit of a shift in the direction of my blog, away from politics, and toward something that ties in closely with what I've been learning in my Hispanic marketing class.

According to a Fox News Latino article, Paramount's Paranormal Activity will be the latest in a string of Hollywood attempts to woo the elusive Latino audience. A Latino version of Paranormal Activity 4 (which opened about a month ago) will be released next year. The reason behind this sudden interest in Hispanic viewers? According to the article, Latinos attend films almost twice as much as any other group, making up 25 percent of moviegoers (at only 16 percent of the population) (Sager, par 5).

It's worth noting that the text we are reading for class, "Hispanic Marketing: Connecting with the New Consumer," provides a slightly altered statistic; "Hispanics account for 21 percent of tickets sold, while they constitute about 17 percent of the population (Korzenny 315)."

Additionally, the article points out that Hispanics are more likely to attend a film's opening weekend when records are made, making them an even more desirable target for savvy marketers.

In light of the information I've gained this semester from my class, I'd like to take a stab at analyzing some of Paramount's marketing efforts outlined in the article.

Subject Matter: "Latino and Catholic Themes Based on Paranormal Mythology"

While it's unclear how this would be carried out, I don't know how effective this strategy would be. While a Latino audience will likely be more familiar with the themes presented in the movie, it is debatable whether they will be more scared of them. What makes a scary movie is often the unknown; while Latino audiences may appreciate the cultural recognition, they may be too familiar with the subject matter to be genuinely scared.

Advertising in Both Spanish and English:

While the movie will be in English, this tactic makes sense based on what I've studied so far. There are many who may watch the movie in English, while they may prefer to consume media in Spanish. Additionally, some messages appealing to the shared culture of the target and those in the film may be lost in an English-language ad.

Analysts also explain the wisdom of marketing to this group to the increased spending power of Hispanics (Sager, par 12). My book would say that these Hispanics, having become acculturated, are more inclined to participate in the American economy.

While Fox appears to be doing everything right as they target this group, based on my studies I recommend that they continue to study the Hispanic market and avoid using generalizations or assumptions to inform their advertising efforts. In addition, because there is such variety within this market, Fox should be flexible when determining what media to use.

Voter ID Laws— Are They Really That Big of a Deal?

Few could deny that voter ID laws have been one of the most controversial topics this election season. Civil rights groups across the country have been adamant about the potential for disenfranchisement and the danger these laws pose to the democratic process. Faced with rhetoric like "voter purge" and "Jim Crow 2.0," I'm left wondering...is it really that bad?

After careful consideration and review of the facts, I'd say the answer is yes.

The primary reason for this is just what these civil rights groups have been arguing all along— voter ID laws systematically disenfranchise minorities, young adults and the poor. Furthermore, such laws are a transparent attempt by the Republican Party to reduce voter turnout among groups likely to vote for Obama. My favorite (and in my opinion, under-circulated) evidence of this agenda is Mike Turzai, Pennsylvania GOP House majority leader's comment on the issue— "Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation -- abortion facility regulations -- in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

Of course, it's hard to argue that disenfranchising minorities and young voters is right in any sense of the word, but how exactly do the laws do it?

The Brennan Center for Justice reports, "11 percent of Americans lack a government-issued photo ID such as a passport, driver's license, state ID card or military ID. Nine percent of whites don't have such ID, compared with 25 percent of blacks and 16 percent of Hispanics."

So why can't they just get IDs?

According to an Associate Press article referencing a study by The University of Chicago and Washington University in St. Louis, "young minority voters...tend to be poorer and more transient, which means they are less likely to have a current address on their driver's licenses or other ID." Also mentioned is the potential for extra hurdles in the voting process to discourage members of these traditionally low-turnout groups from voting.

While some district courts have recognized this potential for minority discrimination and have blocked the laws' implementation this election, many other state courts have upheld them. In fact, 17 states have passed some form of Voter ID law, including several swing states where minorities otherwise would have had considerable power.

As scary as all of that sounds, the numbers themselves are even scarier. The same University of Chicago and Washington University study estimates, "as many as 700,000 minority voters under age 30 may be unable to cast a ballot in November because of photo ID laws."

Other groups say the figure is closer to 10 million, although it's worth mentioning that many see this as a bit exaggerated—as a recent Huffington Post article points out, this figure includes some states where Voter ID laws are still pending.

Personally, it matters little to me whether the number is 700,000 or 10 million. In an age where political apathy is rampant, I feel we should be doing our best to encourage people to exercise their right to vote...not taking that right away from them.

The Latino Vote; "No Longer at Play?"

This week Jorge Ramos, anchor of Noticiero Univision, was a guest on Comedy Central's hit show, "The Colbert Report." While the show is intended to be satirical and of course, amusing, some serious issues about both candidates' attitudes toward immigration were brought to light.

Referred to by Colbert as the "Latino Walter Cronkite," Ramos made the observation that the Latino vote is "no longer at play" this election season. According to Ramos, Latinos have decided to follow the historical precedent of voting along Democratic lines. Citing a recent poll, Ramos revealed that a mere 21 percent would be voting for Romney in November.

It appears to many, that the candidates may have caught on to this trend. The Denver Post observes, "neither candidate reached out to Latino voters" in last night's debate. This could either be a timing issue (as Ramos said, the Latino vote is already decided) or an issue of setting. It seems to me that both candidates are very concerned with issues affecting Latinos only when they are speaking to populations in which this demographic is heavily represented (e.g. Miami). According to this year's census, Hispanics make up 16.7 percent of the U.S. population. A sizable percentage, no doubt, but how many were watching the debates (especially if Ramos' theory is correct, and they have already checked out of the election)? I'm not surprised that Latino issues weren't discussed, because I agree with Ramos; Latinos are no longer a part of the audience.

While the Latino vote may be decided, it doesn't appear that either the group's Democrats or Republicans are really jazzed about their choices. Romney's policy of "self-deportation," in which actions are taken to motivate illegal immigrants to leave voluntarily, was discussed at length in the interview. Colbert even took a dig at Romney's infamous 47 percent gaffe (discussed in my last post), joking that Hispanics represented this 47 percent by expecting the government to give them a "free ride to the border."

While as expected, Romney may have received the majority of the digs, Obama's reputation was not left unscathed. According to Ramos, the president has deported more Latinos than any president in our nation's history. While he mentioned that the President had blamed this campaign promise short-fall on the uncooperation of Republicans, "a promise is a promise," Ramos insisted.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Would Hispanics Vote for a Mexican Romney?

In a controversial video that swept the nation this week, republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney can be overheard making a variety of contentious statements. Most opponents see his opinion that the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay income tax believe they are "victims," as proof that if elected, he would be a divisive president. Surprisingly, there hasn't been as much discussion around his other comment, "had [my father] been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this," in mainstream media.

The idea that Americans would vote along racial lines in a presidential election is a fairly new concept. Primarily because before 2008's race, they did not have the opportunity (unless they opted out of voting at all for this reason, which is an entirely different discussion). Many black democrats are familiar with the accusation that they voted for Obama because of his race; while this may have been true of some people (including whites who were anxious for change), I must ask myself how accurate is Romney's statement and should I be as offended by it as I am?

According to a Fox News Latino Poll, 34 percent of Latino voters would vote Republican if there was a Latino vice president. Would this figure (if accurate) be any higher for a Latino president? Probably. However, the assumption that one race by another race will act a certain way, particularly when it comes to voting, and without any analysis or evidence for the statement, is dangerous ground to walk on. 

My primary problem with the statement is that it suggests that Latinos, especially Mexicans, would be more likely to vote for a candidate because he or she was Mexican than because he or she had their best interests at heart. If Romney wants the Latino vote, he need not change his heritage, but make a convincing argument that he cares more about this minority group than Obama and will take actions that empower it and improve its place in society. What won't help is blanket and baseless statements about Latino voting patterns in rooms where the group isn't meaningfully (or at all) represented.

While we can never know people's motives with certainty when election time comes, we can assume that Americans (black, white, brown, purple) will cast votes that reflect their self-interest. Hopefully when they do, there will be more in it for them than a president who is their same race. However, if there's not, it says more about society than the electorate anyway.