Category Archives: COMM 296

Posts originally created for COMM 296 at UBC.

A Reflection

As a member of Team 10 (whaddup!), we decided to focus our marketing attention and energy onto global retail brand Zara, a member of the Inditex Group and famous for its “fast-fashion model.”

The company has already been thoroughly analyzed numerous times, as evidenced by reports on the internet. Through our own personal experience and research, we were able to quickly decipher who Zara’s typical consumer segments are and the image they are attempting to achieve in their Promotion (albeit, little promotion) and Place.

What I was surprised to find out during research for Part A, however, is that Zara’s main direct competitor is considered to be The Gap. It’s no wonder that The Gap is a major force to be reckoned with in the retail world, but their image is completely different. The Gap screams traditional America (slightly more East Coast after Mickey Drexler stepped in and saved them, sort of like the revolutions to J. Crew) with “khakis, khakis, khakis.” Zara, on the other hand, is much more fashion-forward and cutting edge. While they do have some relatively staple items, their stock changes as often as bi-weekly and they model some of their pieces off of global runways, not a New England soccer mom.

Picking a target segment was not difficult. We feel that Zara could do a lot more for men, ages 18-24 who are low income, in school, and hope to remain in fashion. Zara is already cost effective with its low pricing, but it could offer more in its product line for men and we made the bold suggestion of adding an in-store tailor or at least training sales staff how to measure. Their suiting is affordable, but is not generally the best fit off the rack. Having this added convenience could go a long way in building loyalty to a brand, for a big item such as suiting.

The video was an interesting venture. Luckily, we had someone on our team with a little bit of experience in production. I can’t imagine how many extra hours some teams probably put in to get it complete for only 10%. In the end, we were happy with our product and our recommendations and I am happy to never say “fast-fashion model” again.

Utilizing Social Media

Having had a small amount of experience utilizing social media in a business setting, I am always curious to see how various companies manipulate social media networks to their advantage. Be it Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, Google+, etc. etc., companies have a huge opportunity to reach vast amounts of people at the click of a button.

Social media marketing blog Convince and Convert recently posted about JetBlue and how they utilized Facebook on April Fool’s Day. The idea was highly unique:

Proclaiming that, “April’s No Fool,” JetBlue gave back to those most impacted by the day – people named April. JetBlue offered people with the first name April who were flying the airline on April 1 a JetBlue credit equal to the value of their flight.

An interesting promotional move — a very directed sales promotion, and a funny public relations stunt. And it seems to have paid off: close to 500 people interacted with the post, it was shared over 3,600 times, and moderately made its way around the internet as the antithesis to most online April Fool’s pranks (see: G-Mail Blue).

Fellow COMM 296er Cody Malloy also discussed social media marketing in a recent post on his own blog:

Convince & Convert reports that posts to users’ “fan pages” can reach anywhere between 2% and 47% of the fans subscribed to the page. That is quite the difference. It really just goes to show you that you really don’t know how effective or worthwhile a fan page Facebook post will be.

Cody then goes on to state:

Social media posting are all about posting at the right time, so you have to take into account various factors (age, geographic location) of your fans/followers.

I couldn’t agree more. Social media can also be a huge burden for companies: a free forum for consumers to post their thoughts both negative and positive (as Nestle once found out). Additionally, some companies make the mistake of neglecting their social media, using them as avenues for automated updates rather than communication, or for constant spam. However, sometimes companies come along like JetBlue and use it in an innovative way — and it works.

To explain one model, God made a farmer.

In our fast-paced age it takes a lot to gain the attention of consumers, especially on one of the most cluttered mediums: television.

Loud, flashy, obnoxious are all terms that could be used to describe a large majority of the advertisements that hit television nowadays. True, that may be of my own opinion but I’d love to hear the arguments of someone who disagrees.

For me, Dodge truly gained my attention with their 2013 Superbowl Ad simply titled, “Farmer.” The commercial itself was fairly quiet. The images moved slowly, there was a relative lack of colour in comparison to most advertisements that aired that day. Over the moving images, a piece of poetry was read. It was simple, and it has gone viral: close to fifteen million views on YouTube in less than two months.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMpZ0TGjbWE

Why then, can an ad such as “Farmer” attract so much attention during an ad such as the Superbowl? Simply put, it directly follows the AIDA promotion model, which can further be reduced to three steps (CAB)

Cognition (Awareness or learning) – within the mix of all the loud, flashy, raunchy commercials, the quiet calm of “Farmer” was sure to catch the attention of many. Additionally, for a select crowd, the explicit farming images would have likely heightened an awareness within them, if they are connected to agriculture.
Affect (Feeling, interest or desire) – the poetry laid over the images has the direct intent of stirring up a feeling of warmth and respect towards a traditional American occupation, an embrace of religion/faith and, for any farmers watching, a sense of pride and connection.
Behavior (Action) – although an ad such as this may not immediately compel a consumer to purchase a truck, if it was successful in winning over a consumer on the cognition and affect factors, they could link the Dodge brand to the feelings they had: warmth, respect, pride, patriotism, faith. If a consumer is in need of a truck, they may view Dodge more positively.

What are some of your favorite commercials?

Accelerating the Rate of Adoption: J. Crew

Esquire recently featured an interesting piece on the re-development of the men’s section of famous East Coast America prep icon J. Crew, and how this re-development helped shape the way men look at fashion.

Jenna Lyons glides into Drexler’s office after her summons on the intercom. He asks her: “When did the light go off that we were gonna go after men’s in a different way? I remember saying, ‘Clothes suck out there. Where do guys shop?’ I remember saying, ‘No one’s doing something right.’ I vaguely remember saying that.”

So launched the hard task of completely re-vamping the way men’s fashion looks but, more importantly, the way men think about fashion. The article comically reminds the reader of Seinfeld. Just think Seinfeld, and you can recall the state of men’s fashion in the 1990s. But how can a company completely overhaul a market so large? How can they make men more comfortable and willing to purchase fitting jeans? Tailored suit jackets? Narrower lapels? More minimalist collars, with a better spread?

J. Crew has used three main factors to see an accelerated rate of adoption of its clothing and, subsequently, a large increase in market share.

Three main factors of accelerating the rate of adoption were applied throughout the course of a decade: joint ventures, media/product placement, and celebrity endorsement.

One thing that J. Crew is now notorious for is its joint ventures. Through the mantra of “In Good Company,” J. Crew has partnered with companies like Timex, DODOcase, Corgi, Sperry Top Sider, Barbour, Mougin & Piquard, and The Laundress to produce exclusive items.

The company has reached out to form partnerships with celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow. That single partnership led them to an 8% traffic increase for their online store. Other prominent individuals like First Lady Michelle Obama frequently wears J. Crew dresses to events that have high media exposure. Further, it is not uncommon to see J. Crew pieces appear on various talk shows, television episodes (including shows such as 30 Rock) or, allegedly, the entire wardrobe for films such as The Romantics. This included such young male stars as Josh Duhamel and Adam Brody suited in the company’s Ludlow suiting line — a suit fitted right off the rack.

The revamp and the accelerating factors seem to be working: J. Crew is now seen as a leader in men’s fashion, has seen incredible success in the retail industry for both men’s and women’s clothing, has experienced a successful expansion into Canada and is planning its launch in the UK.

Herbert Marcuse and the Mayfly

Herbert Marcuse, http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/images/
herbohlbfinger250pxw.jpg

Step into a political philosophy class and there is a good chance you may learn of Herbert Marcuse and his writings in One Dimensional Man where he comments that “people recognize themselves in their commodities; they find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment” (Marcuse, 9). Our purchases are no longer just items, they define us and our lives. At times, this may seem to be a bit of a stretch but I challenge you to reflect: how many commodities in your life do you consider a necessity? How many do you feel aid you in defining your life? Chances are, you can name quite a few.

One of my favorite examples of a company exploiting the connection or need for a product is an advertisement from Vodafone, released in 2006. The advertisement seeks, and possibly succeeds, to manipulate viewers into believing that the product, or the brand, is necessary in our lives in order to achieve the happiness that we seek.

The life of the mayfly in the Vodafone commercial is one of absolute bliss while “soaring,” “swooping,” and “savoring every moment.” While the commercial may not actually be suggesting that we too need to soar and swoop in order to have fun and achieve a better life, by superimposing the company name at the end of the commercial, it does suggest that we can mirror the bliss of the mayfly by purchasing one of their products.

When explicitly laid out, it seems absurd to believe that a commercial such as this would be effective.

Yet, it must work. Vodafone’s annual sales saw an increase of two billion pounds following the ad campaign that included the mayfly commercial and we continually find inspirational advertisements that suggest a better, more spiritual life is linked to consumer products. I tried to reflect back on my own spending habits and recall any advertisements that may have been linked to them. Personally, I have already cycled through three different iPods (constantly ‘upgrading’ in models and model generations) and am now on my fourth cell phone. When my second iPod broke months ago, I noticed and commented to my peers about an instant change of mood. I constantly use my iPod while walking, riding the bus, exercising, and studying, among other activities. To not be able to do this for a short period of time caused a dramatic change in my daily habits. I had linked a sense of my very being to a $300 product that comes in a sleek plastic box from a high-tech corporation. Marcuse has me pegged.

Do you have a similar product in your life?

Lady Gaga vs. Target

I never planned for my first blog post to reference Lady Gaga. However, with the recent focus on Target’s various ad campaigns in lecture, I recalled the tension between the large retailer and the ultra-famous pop star. A deal had been inked between Lady Gaga and Target to release an “exclusive to Target” deluxe edition of her Born This Way album. However, Lady Gaga and her representatives moved quickly to dissolve the deal when it was discovered that the company’s political action committee (PAC) had made donations to Minnesota State Representative Tom Emmer’s campaign for governor, who is a staunch anti-LGBT activist and, according to some sources, has been associated with a ministry that advocates the killing of gay people.

Even further, Target’s PAC has reportedly donated over $30,000 to politicians who are openly and vehemently anti-gay rights activists — a message that runs directly against Lady Gaga’s overarching philosophies and even the direct motto in the title track “Born This Way.”

Besides simply a bout of bad press, it is important to question how this failed exclusivity deal between the retailer and the pop star links to marketing. I don’t think it is much of a stretch to say that much of the internal workings of a corporation as large as Target goes unnoticed, except to highly attentive shareholders. But the micro (internal) environment of a corporation can have a large effect on its marketing abilities in an instance such as this — although there may be a significant portion of Target’s clientele that agrees with their political donations, there is also a significant portion that doesn’t. This internal action by Target’s PAC lost them an exclusivity deal with one of the biggest pop star’s in the world (an individual who boasts an alarmingly loyal fanbase of “Little Monsters” and has over 33 million followers on Twitter). Arguably, these political donations created an external threat to its marketing: an extremely influential pop star has publicly denounced their brand name and refused to sell her products in their store, directly affecting which consumers can buy certain products.

This brings about a few questions: is it worth it for large corporations to run political PAC’s if they have the potential to be controversial? Is it acceptable for a company like Target to openly support political candidates who openly oppose the equality of individuals?