Alexandra Marynczak's Blog

In her blog “Mr. Beckham, you have my attention!” Nadia acknowledges how often celebrities are featured in marketing campaigns. Nadia makes a valid point when stating “celebrity endorsement alone cannot compensate for a weak brand,” and that celebrities chosen for endorsement must possess a relevant link to the product they are promoting.

However, I can’t help but notice that certain celebrity endorsed campaigns lack this sort of “relevance.”

For instance, I say “teriyaki burger,” you think….Audrina Patridge’s bikini body? No? Well Carl’s Jr. would be disappointed. The company attempts to create this link through featuring the reality TV star Audrina Patridge, in their burger campaign.

( Watch the commercial here!)

First and foremost, lets take a moment to thank Carl’s Jr. for the good chuckle. 

I know that when I pig out, and eat a juicy burger, I’m typically hunched over a plastic table, with sauce smeared apologetically on my face; during such deliciously indulgent moments, I generally don’t consider myself in prep mode for bikini season.

Nevertheless, I understand Carl’s Jr. is using Audrina, because they deem her to be an associative reference figure for their target consumers. Carl’s Jr. wants its burger to appeal to the self-concept of young adults, to whom sustaining a fit and attractive image is important to. Additionally, I believe, Carl’s Jr. hoped Audrina’s percieved attractiveness would positively influence customers to purchase the burger.

However, I believe that the commercial takes the focus off their burger, and  showcases the ridiculousness of  using a celebrity to promote a product, solely on the basis of their celebrity status. Even though the commercial is highly amusing, I think that the celebrity endorsement lacks relevance, and reflects a cheap marketing ploy to increase sales and boost media attention.

My feelings toward this ad demonstrate the issue of marketing messages being incredibly subjective. How consumers perceive marketing messages will vary, and depend heavily upon their individual perceptions and attitudes. Who knows, another viewer many have raced straight to Carl’s Jr., to either resemble, or pick up an “Audrina.”

In his blog “Is a famous thinker better than a great one?” Seth Godin brings an interesting point to mind: is fame an indicator of higher quality? Or do we subject ourselves to the more popular and deceptively “better” brands, while the great ones linger on ignored and unknown?

I agree with Seth’s view that “for physical goods, a trusted brand name increases the likelihood of purchase.” There is a lower risk involved with purchasing familiar brands. When we bought that Mac computer we associated it with a low performance risk, due to our trust in Apple’s electronics to work properly, and when we popped that last Advil pill to cure our headache, we felt safe that the pain-killer would help, not harm us. As consumers, purchasing reputable brands makes us feel comfortable, and is one of the decision heuristics we make to help narrow down our choices.

However are our mental shortcuts putting us at a disadvantage? Seth indicates they are, claiming that we are particularly “hesitant to hear ideas from lesser known sources,” due to their higher associated social risk. Consumers fear of being rejected by both their direct and indirect reference groups, discourages them from supporting notions that are uncommon or unpopular.

Seth encourages us to be cautious, and question the quality of an idea coming from a famous source, while evaluating and giving new ones a chance. So next time you hear that famous politician or celebrity psychologist giving you words of wisdom, ask yourself: is this a good idea, or is it just famous?

“Last September, in the dead of night, the world’s most iconic brand did the unthinkable…”

In September 2012, Coke issued a new, Australian “Share A Coke” campaign in response to the fact that “50% of young adults hadn’t even tasted a coke” in August 2012.

Tragedy? Well, for the health of young adults this absence of sugar and empty calories was probably beneficial, however for Coca-Cola, this drop in product consumption was definitely bad news.

So what did Coke do in response to its lack of popularity in Australia? Click here to see!

 Coke re-evaluated its consumers in the Australian market, and recognized that interest in its product was burning out. Coke needed to get consumers excited about Coke again! And the company did just that, with the initiation of this fun and interactive marketing campaign. Coke began displaying customer names on bottle labels and massive advertising screens, taking the marketing principle of  “the consumer being the centerpiece” to a whole new level.

Coke attempted to fulfill much more than solely the functional need of quenching thirst; Coke pertained to the psychological needs of consumers, in particular to the esteem needs of many modern young adults. Today, with such constant exposure to media and celebrity gossip, many young adults crave fame and attention. Coke no doubt capitalized on this need, and gave consumers the chance to get noticed and have their “name in lights.” Not only that, but Coke hit another level on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: the “Love” need. Coke changed the way consumers interact with one another, and encouraged them to use a can of Coke to connect, and nurture relationships. Coke got personal.

It is essential for companies to identify who their target market is, and to not only correspond their products or services to targeted consumer wants and needs, but also to their established ethics. However, the term “ethics” is difficult to define universally, and consumers in different parts of the world can hold varied judgments on what constitutes as “ethical.”

For example whether a society places greater emphasis on individualistic importance, or cooperation and collectivism is a crucial factor that businesses need to acknowledge and understand before implementing or even developing a promotional campaign. An add like this, would pertain more to countries like Canada and the U.S where individuals are encouraged to look after themselves, as opposed to a country like India where collective culture is a major part of tradition, and the interests of the group often triumphs over the interests of the individual. Such an ethical factor can shape and determine how a company plans to position its product in a particular geographical segment.

Another important ethical consideration is gender roles and societal placement. In places like Japan, Palestine and Iraq, males are generally viewed as the dominant authority, in comparison to places such as Sweden, Canada and the U.S. Consequently an advertisement such as this, would commonly be considered more acceptable, correspond better to societal humor, and strike less controversy in the latter stated countries.

Evidently, in order to successfully globalize the market and appeal to a wide geographical range of consumers, companies need to carefully evaluate and develop an understanding on how consumer ethics differ across the globe; failure to do so can result in rejection of product promotions, not to mention offending consumers through cultural insensitivity, and violation of their ethical code.