This past summer I was fortunate to visit New York with my family. While I was there I was  thrilled to see Canada’s Aritzia, opening on the most upscale street in the world in Midtown Manhattan, on the corner of 49th and 5th Avenue.  Aritzia’s largest flagship store, will be comprised of 2 floors in 13, 000 square feet.  Evidently, this highly sought after piece of property came with a costly price tag.  Briana Mussatto recently attended an event which was hosted by the founder and CEO of Aritzia, Brian Hill.  In her blog post “Artizia Spends 10 Million in Rent for New 5th Avenue Store” I learned that Aritzia will pay $10 Million in rent per year, which calculates to just under a million per month.  Briana raised a question about their forecasts for revenue.  She was unsure how Aritzia would be certain that their revenue would cover their large costs for the expensive piece of property.

Aritzia is aware that their store on 5th will bring in plenty of revenue, however I do not believe that was their sole reason for opening in the luxurious location.  I believe that their true motive for moving to 5th Avenue is for marketing purposes, such as positioning.  Aritzia is positioning their store in a location that is high in traffic.  Not only does it attract locals, but it attracts global consumers who are tourists or visitors to the city.

This is a clever tactic of promotion, because consumers from around the world visit 5th Avenue for fashion.  Furthermore, I believe the opening of the store on 5th will be beneficial to the company in regards to future expansion, as the world will become better aware of their products.

Aritzia already has a store in Soho New York, however the publicity they will recieve on 5th will be incomparable to any other location in North America.  In conclusion, I am very proud that a Canadian retailer has taken on the risk of opening on 5th Avenue as a marketing strategy.

Below is a link to Aritzia’s website, which includes details on their grand opening:

http://aritzia.com/hello-5th-avenue

The Samsung Galaxy Tab, Google’s Nexus 7, and the new iPad mini, are contributing towards the extinction of laptops in the classroom.  In the blog, “Tablets in the classroom will soon be the norm,” by Peter Nowak, there was emphasis that there is a greater number of students using tablet’s in classes, instead of laptops.  In his blog he mentioned that the Information Technology Department at  UBC conducted a survey recently which found that 13% to 15% of students are now using tablets.  Furthermore, 60% of students said that they will be purchasing tablets within the next year due to low prices.  Personally I find a laptop easier to use in classes because it enables me to use a keyboard, rather than a touch screen.   I own a MacBook Air, and I have no troubles with bringing it to various classes.  Nowak stated that more students are inclined to use tablets because of their size, and weight.  Marketers are working hard to differentiate tablets from laptops as it is a new product for the same target audience.  They are currently stressing the fact that e-books can be purchased and read on tablets.  This is seen as a great positive for students because e-books are affordable, and they add no weight to heavy backpacks.  This point does seem like a positive however it does not encourage me, a laptop owner, to buy a tablet.  I do not believe that this is a strong enough point of difference to capture the attention of students because, books can also be purchased online.  Apart from minor size, and weight difference I do not see any strong points of difference that tablets have.  However, I still believe that laptops are superior because they allow students to create word, powerpoint, and excel documents on them.  In conclusion, I do not believe that laptops will soon be extinct because they provide more services for a greater range of consumers.  Not all consumers are looking for small computers.  Moreover, most students need to have the ability to create various documents throughout the day, and this is most convenient on laptops.

This blog post is in response to an external blog by Peter Nowak

In early September, Facebook launched the idea of sending real gifts to other Facebook users.  This idea came from the former service on Facebook which allowed friends to send virtual gifts such as bears, cakes, and cards for birthdays, and other special events.  Facebook has partnered with Starbucks, and other retailers to sell gifts online.  This strategy is very clever however, Facebook face a large competitor, Amazon.  Amazon is an established electronic commerce website.  Facebook will certainly struggle with their largest competitor because they are used to selling virtual goods, not real goods which can be shipped to ones address.  This leads to another struggle which Facebook has to deal with, addresses.  Facebook does not have its users addresses therefore, every time a Facebook user purchases a gift for their friend online a notification will be sent to the receiver to type in their address in order for the good to be sent.  I believe that this will be a huge inconvenience for many consumers.  Furthermore, this shortcoming may turn off many customers.  This shortcoming is so significant because consumers will view this new service as less efficient compared to other online-retailers such as Amazon.  In conclusion, this idea was clever however I believe Facebook should return to the drawing board to determine a better way to sell goods online.  Overall this service is lacking in efficiency, and strong points of difference.   Their current current service takes  away from the surprise  gifts, so why would people be inclined to use the service?

Read Globe and Mail’s Article on Facebook’s gift service by following the link below:

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/technology/facebook-launches-gift-service-ventures-into-amazons-territory/article4573963/?service=mobile

Many fast food chains have recently been improving the quality of food that they produce and sell.  Sbarro, a fast food pizza chain in the US, is one of the many fast food chains that is taking part in this change.  Sbarro and many of it’s competitors want to improve the way they are perceived

by consumers.  This is better known as, “moving upmarket.”  Sbarro plans on changing the way they are perceived by making tomato sauce, and grating

cheese in house.  They  believe this adjustment will move them into the casual dining market, as they will produce higher quality goods, but they will not offer table service.  Fast food chains believe that they will thrive in this market because they are forecasting that consumer tastes are changing, and that more consumers want high quality goods rather than low quality cheap meals.  Companies such as McDonalds, are doing more than just changing what is available on their menu.  In order to appeal to this new audience they are renovating their restaurants to create a higher class atmosphere.  This change leads to the question, how will consumers react?  As with many other industries restaurants have to determine consumers wants in advance.  At the moment many companies are making the assumption that healthier food will continue to be a trend because, companies like McDonalds have been thriving with their implementation of grilled chicken wraps, and poppyseed muffins.  This strategy will not only effect consumers though.  Fast food chains will most likely selling fewer goods at a higher price until consumers are convinced by these companies that they should spend more on fewer, but higher quality goods.  This plan could either be a success, or a failure.  It primarily depends on consumer wants in the future.   As per usual, this forecasting risk will lay on the shoulders of the fast food chains.

Read Sbarro’s article by following the link below:

http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2012/10/09/sbarro-goes-upmarket-as-junk-food-loses-old-friends/

A few weeks ago in class I was thrilled that we were given readings on Zara, a Spanish retail company, due to my love for fashion.  When I was reading “Retail: At the speed of Fashion“, an article that we were assigned to read prior to class I was very impressed by some of their Strategies.  Firstly, Zara has a very short response time to trends.  Zara identifies consumer trends and brings that trend to the market within 30 days.  These trends are identified by daily feedback and sales reports.  This is a clever tactic because, it enables them to constantly bring new designs to their consumers.  This is a form of mass-customization.  This tactic allows Zara to keep variety high, inventory low, and it keeps customers satisfied.  The low supply of goods encourages consumers to immediately purchase the items they like because most of their products do not last long.   Furthermore, their strategy involves little risk because they produce a small supply, and they do not rely on this one design to bring in huge profits.  Therefore, if the design is not liked by consumers Zara does not feel a significant loss.  Moreover, this strategy allows designers at Zara to create clothes that they know their consumers will buy.  Their response to trends can be as little as 2 weeks and, trends normally last longer than that short amount of time.  This approach to supply makes Zara superior to it’s competitors, because other brands create lines for various seasons from 4 months to a  year in advance.  This forces competitors to take part in the difficult task of predicting future trends, and consumer wants.  Zara is able to bring designs to the market quickly because of 80% of their production is done in Europe.  The final question would be, why aren’t all retail brands implementing this strategy.  The answer, is because it is expensive to implement such a strategy.

I  agree  with  Ben Lawson’s blog post titled, “Samsung’s Galaxy S3 vs. Apple’s iPhone 5.”  In his post he mentioned that he was “won over” by Samsung.  The article was based on a youtube video which shows the long lines in the US that were created in order to get an iPhone 5.  Throughout the video various consumers are having a discussion about the Samsung Galaxy S3 and all of it’s features.  The video is very engaging and it makes the phone very attractive.  I also have an iPhone 4 and the video has almost persuaded me into purchasing the Samsung.  Once again, this video directly attacks it’s greatest competitor, Apple.  Therefore, I do not believe that it was an ethical video however, it does sell the product.  The video positions Samsung as more technologically advanced than any other brands that are available on the current market.  This advertisement was a wise creation by Samsung because they were not launching a new product however, they wanted to make consumers more aware of the highlighted features of the Samsung 3s during a competitive time, the launch of the new iPhone.  Personally, I view this advertisement to be more ethical than the Coca-Cola ad because it does not degrade it’s opponent, rather it shows its opponent, but speaks of it’s own brands strengths.  In conclusion, this video is unethical but a smart branding tactic.  

Attached is the advertisement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf5-Prx19ZM

Points of parity and points of difference are essential for products to prosper. Upon the conclusion of my SWOT analysis I was able to gain further knowledge on how Lululemon differentiates themselves from various competitors. Lululemon was the first brand to position themselves in the “active yoga wear category.”  Their active wear was not the only factor that made lululemon popular in their base city, Vancouver. Lululemon had and still has superior customer service, yoga classes, and a store environment that makes everyone feel welcome. Due to the increase in competitors, Lululemon continually strives to increase their points of difference. They have done so by creating merchandise such as hair bands, water bottles, and bags. In addition, they have created a men’s line and clothing store for teenage girls, known as Ivivva Athletica. Lululemon also has plans for the future to create various environmentally friendly fabrics, as well as reflective and UV protected clothing. In conclusion, Lululemon is determined to hold onto their status in the athletic wear market by continually making themselves more attractive to customers. Lululemon has been successful and will be able to prosper because of their strong branding techniques and unique points of difference.

My class  was exposed to a comparative ad, in which we were to analyze from a marketing point of view.

 Pepsi made a commercial of a young boy who purchased two Coca Cola’s from a vending machine which he placed on the ground in order to reach the Pepsi button. He collected his Pepsi and walked away without the Coca Cola’s. After watching the commercial my class, began to laugh and applaud for the commercial. There is no doubt in my mind that this commercial has received various reactions from its 2 million viewers.  Although it does grab viewers attention, is it ethical?  I  believe that the video unethically attacks it’s greatest competitor.  In addition to being unethical, I believe that it has created a negative image within Pepsi consumer’s minds.   This commercial did not re position Coca-Cola in viewers minds rather, it boasted that Pepsi was the better brand.  Consumers are often not receptive to this type of ad as it does not include any point of differences which would make them superior to Coca-Cola.  Although this ad is entertaining I believe that it is unethical in nature.

Attached is a link to the short comparative ad: Pepsi vs. Cola Ad