Alabhya Mandloi

I was reading an article in Newsweek by a film critic called Roger  Ebert and why he hates 3D,  and while i don’t necessary find all his points to why 3D movies are terrible i definitely find some of his opinions ringing true with my beliefs with the latest 3D craze thats been taking over cinemas. I’ll talk about one of his main points and my personal view on the matter.

First he mentions that 3D can be a distraction, i couldn’t agree with more. Lately whenever i watch a film in 3D it does steal the limelight from acting, your more caught up in the crazy visuals and whats going to burst into your face next then what the acting or the expression of the actors are like, sometimes when there is too much movement or action going on, the 3D can simply be overwhelming and your not even following the action sequences. While it is cool, 3D can steal the show from sometimes the real reason we go see a film; to enjoy the actual performance of the actors and actresses. Also sometimes i feel that with 3D we lose some of your imagination, with 2D our minds make up the part that is limited by the 2D technology and we get goosebumps thinking about how high that cliff is, or what is must feel like sitting on the dragons back, and this is because of the 2D factor and that third dimension missing is filled up with the wild thoughts of our brian, while 3D is awesome at times it gets rid of that factor, the ones that we make up to make the movie more exciting or dramatic. and finally to be honest, sometimes i just get a plain good old headache from them too.. just non stop things flying into my face, or making me keep shifting my head so that the 3D glasses work properly can be irritating and distracting. Im not a 3D hater, i think its a cool technology that does a lot in terms of visual effects and breathtaking film shots, but sometimes its not about the camera or computer…. but the people in front of it.

I was reading William Dorr’s blog on how some toys that are promoted are not even really made for toys or considered appropriate for children who are still very young, and i completely agree. Will mentions how when we were younger it was about lego, hot wheel cars, remote control cars and maybe once in a while board games. The real issue i believe is not that these toys aren’t made still or available but instead  the problem is that they have been overtaken and made almost invisible by the huge T.V console game market that has evolved rapidly. Now every pre teen to teen to young adults wants to get a ps3 or xbox and almost every game can be played on it. wanna play football? tennis? kill some samurai? chess? every possible form or activity or role play has been made digital and available to young kids. My younger brother is a clear example of someone that would most the times rather play modern warfare with his buddies who are in the apartment few blocks away then meet downstairs for a game of football or any sport. Its a pretty bad situation and even though i myself love playing on these cool machines i feel that we were brought up to enjoy the outdoors and physically participate in whatever form of activity we wanted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBncMqjZgsg

How many of us have a awesome iphone or blackberry but we are constantly worried about it when we go out? The rain, drinks, dance floor and wherever else you may end up by the night always seem to be eventual successful predators that wear and tear down our phone in less then a year. And if you’re lucky your phone is still under warranty and its a 1 hour long conversation with the customer representative about how did the damage occur, and the answer is always the same- “i swear i just woke up and their was that crack on the screen”. And if your not, your bank account just got lighter by $300. So that is the dilemma that a lot of us face, get a fancy phone that can do a lot of cool things but always be worried about when you go out to social events or get something prehistoric looking and functioning but that you could throw of your 13th floor apartment and would still work. This is where Motorola has come into to fill this demand. They seem to be the first company to identify this consumer trend and need and have come out with the new MOTOROLA DEFY with a specific tagline: ITS LIFE PROOF. This new smart phone is water resistant, scratch resistant and dust proof. The commercial is obviously targeting to teenagers and young adults who are socially outgoing and tend to go all out in the night, the commercial has a “The Hangover” kinda feel and shows the phone being dropped on the dance floor, in the poolside and being lost somewhere on the beach. All of this hits home with the target audience of high school and college kids who need something cool and fun but also durable. Motorola thus is further differentiating their product of a smartphone which now has become a pretty standard product, they are using this durable aspect to portray itself as a more relevant and compatible phone with the lifestyle that a lot of young adults have. I think its a pretty smart idea and definitely made me think twice about whether the blackberry i have now is really the right phone for me! have a look at the commercial below!:

Verizon commercials have an iconic figure the ” can you hear me now guy”. He is in most commercial at one point as the guy who kept talking on the phone, what was cool was that he was in every commercial so that every time you would instantly realize that its a Verizon commercial. It kinda became their mascot and it allowed them to quickly let viewers identify the brand name in the commercial. However after a certain point i’m not sure how effective it was? i mean it gets a bit boring and monotonous and you kinda just feel that they are not trying to be any more creative but just leveraging on a one hit and pulling it out as far as they can. So on one hand i feel that its a good marketing tool cause it helps you create a identifiable mascot or celebrity but on the other hand you shouldn’t use it after its expire life.

Graffiti is the use of spray paint to illustrate and decorate an object. Traditionally its been perceived in a negative light as it was seen as vandalism and destruction of property. However more and more now people are viewing it as an art form and actually something that can be very creative and attention catching. For example looking below are some interesting works that have received some worldwide acclaim :

As we can see these are not just hooligans or punks trying to cause damage or insult people, but instead it is street art, a form of urban expression and most importantly a very raw and natural form of marketing someone’s talent and opinion in an orthodox and unconventional way. It appeals due to its unique form and because it is at a public place it is seen by a wide audience. There are no restrictions- money, time, and materials are irrelevant. It is pure creativity without being bounded and being marketed to everyone.

The reason that this idea came to me was because i had seen some of the HRMC (human resource management club) had done some promotions for an even that they were throwing and they had graffitied their event on numerous building walls and pavements outside around UBC campus, even though at first i thought it was just vandalism, natural curiosity made me read what was written and lo and behold it was a Sauder event! I do believe it was effective and because it was done in a way that made people curios naturally it seemed cool and interesting. However an ethical dilemma that rises from the point is where does the boundary start between creative marketing with graffiti and vandalism? If every club started graffitiing their slogans and promotion across UBC campus then it would look rowdy and ugly and the charm would be lost. Therefore there has to be a restriction on any form of marketing, cause too much of one thing even if its good maybe not always be the best.

Monopolies are king of their market, they provide the only service or good and are the only choice for a consumer when looking for that product. So i was wondering why and for how long would it be necessary for a monopoly to to market the sole good or service they provide? Initially it would make sense since promotion would be needed to make consumers aware that the product exists and provide information about it so that they can create a value for it in the consumers mind. But once the product has been established and no competitors exist their would be no reason for the firm to waste resources on promotion since consumers have no other choice but purchase from it. They would only need to periodically advertise maybe to reaffirm and convey the value of their products to maybe remove post purchase dissonance in their consumers mind. Another reason they could advertise more would be if they launched a new product line or extended their existing ones and needed to introduce it into the market. Im not sure how realistic this is considering there are very few absolute monopolies that still exist but i though it would be interesting to think that if you did rule the land you really wouldn’t need to keep telling everyone that!

I was reading Erin Kirleys’ blog about sampling and wanted to share a similar story on a perfume sample that changed my loyalty from one brand to another. For ages i was using HUGO BOSS man as my cologne of choice and would swear to it over any other brand. I wouldnt even look into other brands at the stores or even try to pick up free samples of other perfumes. For me it was the perfect match between the smell and my style and attitude. I believe i was a loyal customer who also advocated to everyone i knew to try it out. Then once while i was in the mall with my mom, a promoter for ISSEY MIYAKE came and offered a sample to my mom, even though i wasn’t interested i couldn’t refuse when my mom suggested me to take a wiff. It was awesome! it was something completely different with a refreshing yet bold smell and a complete awakening for someone who has been used to the same essence for more then a year. I immediately  bought a bottle and now am sure to have one of each at most times in my room. The example shows that sampling truly does work, and as erin writes about, the cost of producing numerous small samples are negligible but it that allows you give away and therefore expose yourself to a large target market of people that could be potential long term consumers of your product. The long term loyal customers that can be attracted are far more profitable then the initial cost of giving away free samples. However another point to note is that it may not be always easy to even give samples especially to the loyal customer of another brand who refuses to give  chance, companies have to find different methods of promoting the free samples and somehow convince customers that their product has a better value then their competitors.

I was thinking lately of maybe getting a tattoo and was wondering what would be something that i would want, something that would be important to me  and something that i would want to be able to see whenever i wanted and to show others if needed. I was thinking of all the different types of tattoos there are, from the japanese art which represented their spiritual and cultural background to the hells angel, bloodz and crips and other criminal organizations which use them as a form of identification and to symbolize they allegiance and loyalty to a an idea or organization. And then it dawned on me, tattoos are a form of marketing, they are a personal marketing that people use to portray and show their image of their dislikes, likes, personality, character, habits and secrets that they market to people for them to make an opinion upon them. each type of tattoo is different in shape, size and color and thus it represents an individual piece of work that describes some value or trait that the person has or believes represents themselves accurately. Tattoos are a way of branding yourself individually in usually a beautiful piece of art work

I saw this commercial from audi recently and thought that it was a really smart and clever piece of marketing. They do a very good job making the viewer initially confused and slightly disorientated at what is going only to show right at the end that the Audi R8 has driven through the home town of ferrari called Maranello. I think you using a red Audi was also a very good play, since that is considered Ferrari’s trademark color and furthermore it was even more obvious against the slightly dark and pastel colors of the entire town and people. I think this commercial sends a bold message from Audi, they are trying to market themselves in the same category as the ferrari in the super cars range and are trying to compare themselves directly to them. They are trying to show themselves as a substitute and an alternative to all the Ferrari buyers and buyers in that market segment of luxury cars and basically the advert is a metaphor that Audi has the reached Ferrari’s turf!

HI everybody, so I was in India for a month this summer and during the couple of hours of T.V that I watched there I realized how many whitening cream advertisements would play every hour. However what shocked me and actually made me almost frustrated to the point that I would rant to the unfortunate cousin who would be sitting next to me was the unethical and wrongful portrayal of skin whitening cream and the illusion they showed of it being linked to wealth, success, popularity and a more fulfilling and happier life. In the link that I have added above it basically shows a women being mocked at a “modern” beauty parlor and by the receptionist due to her traditional dress and minimal make up. The lady gets upset and once she gets home her father unlocks an ancient closet, which has the brands fair & lovely whitening cream. She uses it and once she has lightened her skin and wears a dress and catwalks back into the store suddenly everyone is stunned and a Caucasian man is ALSO impressed and compliments her. The commercial continues to show her getting photographed on a plane and almost treated like a celebrity. I personally felt that this was such a misleading and terrible commercial and the government should actually make some legal rules from banning these disilluninal advertisements which sets the wrong impression in hundreds of thousands of young impressionable women who then start to doubt their self image and confidence and may even develop an inferiority complex by comparing themselves to the perfect “lighter” version of other girls in their society. Overall I completely felt that this industry wide style of marketing this product is not correct and will lead to wrong perceptions in society.