latino lingo

All things related to effective Hispanic marketing, Hispanic advertising and Hispanic public relations.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Hispanics Will Spend $17.6B on Mobile Devices in 2012

U.S. Hispanic consumers will spend more than $17.6 billion on mobile devices and over $500 million on mobile apps in 2012, according to a new Zpryme INFOgraphic, 2012 Hispanic Mobile Consumer Trends
Download the Zpryme INFOgraphic, 2012 Hispanic Mobile Consumer Trends here: link

Other findings include:

  1. Over the next six months Hispanics are likely to purchase: smartphone (24%), laptop (21%), and tablet (18%)
  2. Top three smartphone OS used by Hispanics: Android (27%), Apple (21%), and Blackberry (7%)
  3. Top three mobile devices owned by Hispanics: laptop (70%), smartphone (52%), and mp3 player (42%)
  4. Top three daily deal sites visited by Hispanics are: Groupon (40%), LivingSocial (26%), and Eversave (10.2%)
  5. Top four mobile app types purchased by Hispanics are: games (48%), songs (41%), navigation (24%), and books (23%)
  6. Of Hispanics that own apps: (84%) of apps are primarily in English, 13% about half in English and Spanish, and 3% primarily in Spanish
  7. Of Hispanics that own apps: (19%) have 1 - 5 apps, (18%) have 11 - 20 apps, and (17%) have 6 - 10 apps
  8. Top three activities online by Hispanics are: (84%) email, (67%) social networking and (54%) video/music

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Hispanics use multiple devices to go online and more likely to own high-tech gadgets

Technology is among the main factors advertisers need to keep in mind when marketing to Hispanics, as they are early adopters of the latest devices, including Internet-enabled TVs, e-readers and iPads.

According to an article in AdWeek -- which contains some neat info graphics like this one -- they're also slightly more likely than the overall population to own a mobile phone.

The Internet is a prime source of entertainment, and social media are a big part of that, with Hispanics spending more hours a day on social networks than other ethnic groups or races.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, March 05, 2012

New definition of public relations a missed opportunity

Last week, the Public Relations Society of America revealed its official, new definition of public relations after initiating a public input and public voting process.  The end result (receiving 46% of the vote) was the following definition:

“Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.”

While I’m not writing to expressly criticize PRSA as an organization or the definition process, I do think the industry organization missed a huge opportunity.   
First, while certainly a marked improvement over its 1982 definition, “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other,” the new definition is not much different than the one in the book Cutlip and Center's Effective Public Relations (which is used as a study guide for attaining APR) that I’ve seen since becoming a member 12 years ago.  That definition is that public relations is, “the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success and failure depends.”
I had concerns with that definition, which brings me to my second point: the new definition is still not in layman’s terms and full of jargon, which is something we as an industry advise our clients to avoid in their communication.  Not that we define an industry just by what others outside the industry think, but it sure would be nice to finally and clearly explain to my family what I do.
Third, we often complain that senior management doesn’t take us seriously enough or doesn’t give us a seat at the decision-making table.  The Society, to its credit, has responded though the inclusion of public relations courses with some MBA programs.  But, it’s curious to me that the words, “management function” from Cutlip’s definition (or anything remotely close to that) are missing.  Just saying “strategic communication” doesn’t cut it in my estimation or help the profession get a seat at the decision-making table.
Fourth, what I believe is still difficult about public relations (and thus a reason it’s difficult often to justify or have C-level people understands its true value) is measuring it.  Yes, there are some tactical ways to do this for sure.  But, I do feel that this opportunity we had define the profession would have been more fruitful has we put forth something that is more tangible and thus more measurable.
Instead, we are left with a definition that seems to be little more than a copy edited version of the Cutlip definition.  I think that’s part of the reason the definition and the Society have been criticized.  Like me, many of us were encouraged and excited at the fact our industry was finally going to be properly and modernly defined.  That excitement has waned with the release of something we’ve pretty much already seen and still doesn’t say much. 
Surely, whatever the Society came up with was going to receive some level of criticism but I would have rather it been on the fact that we were being to bold or too revolutionary.

Labels: ,