Angelica Cabrera

Ever heard a customer demand something ridiculous at a store? That’s exactly what YouTuber Jia Jiang has been doing, but on purpose. Jiang has started a hidden-camera video series he calls “Rejection Therapy”, where he visits various stores and asks them for unusual requests, usually receiving no’s, to the amusement of his viewers.

In a recent video in the series (shown below), Jiang visited a Krispy Kreme in Austin, Texas, and asked to buy 5 donuts linked together to create the Olympic symbol. The recipient of his strange order? A woman named Jackie, who did not reject him and was instead patient, understanding, and creatively figured out a way to fulfill his request. The cherry on top? At the end of the video, she doesn’t even charge him for it, shocking Jiang.

The video has garnered 2.5 million views and counting in less than 2 weeks. The comments on the video on Youtube, Reddit, and other sites have been overwhelmingly positive, with many YouTubers saying she should get a raise or promotion. Twitter is abuzz as well, with the hashtag #heartjackie being spread by the online community.The Twitter account of Krispy Kreme Texas (@krispykremetx) tweeted “Krispy Kreme TX loves Jackie! Checkout her mad customer service skills!” Clearly, these 5 donuts that probably cost less than $10 have generated Krispy Kreme a thousand times more, at the very least, in PR and advertising online.

Comments on the video from Twitter (top) and YouTube (below)

I think the large part of the appeal is the genuine nature of the video. Jackie did not know she was being recorded, so her actions were authentic. PR is so often done in an intentional way by companies, by manipulating media and carefully issuing press releases, that videos like these are refreshing and are more meaningful to the public. Many of the posts on the Internet have also touched upon the fact that this type of behaviour is a “rarity” in the food industry – this type of behaviour does not seem to be experienced by customers in this sector (especially when dealing with large multinational chains), and clearly, they value it greatly.

Perhaps what Krispy Kreme can learn from this interesting experience is that customer service can be a primary differentiator in their ever-competitive market (in addition to those perfectly glazed donuts!). Becoming more relationally oriented and investing in training your employees to be like Jackie will benefit your company in the long-run, both in terms of product quality and marketing purposes.

Crystal blogged about the possibilities of virtual shopping, which was actually a response to another classmate’s blog about the same topic. So I’m writing a response to a response.. blogception? Okay, serious time.

The type of virtual stores she talked about where lighted wall displays by retailer Tesco, used in places like Korean subways. The walls displaying the assortment of items offered would be examined by customers, and customers would scan the desired product’s QR code to add it to your online cart. The purchase will then be delivered to the customer’s door at the end of the day.

Crystal said that this brings convenience to customers, and I agree with this, given that there is a trend in society of being time-poor as well as owning smartphones, a necessity to interact with the wall. As well, even if viewers do not use the wall to buy anything, it still serves a great advertising for the retailer (if the retailer makes their brand name obvious, which doesn’t seem to be the case above).

However, I feel like there are significant limitations to this technology. Brick-and-mortar stores are not threatened by this because customers like many aspects of a physical shopping experience for many of the goods they buy. It’s likely this would only work for convenience and commodity products, which customers buy the same of on a regular basis (like laundry detergent). I feel brand equity also plays a big part in this, as brands that are familiar to customers are more likely to succeed on this type of distribution platform, which heavily relies on visual cues of the packaging and not much else.  To be successful, I also think that these would have to be placed in unusual locations. In this example, locating in subways as they can take advantage of an individual’s train wait times to entice them to use the service  impulsively. Furthermore, people using the subway probably lead busy lives and are more likely to use it for the convenience.

Source –

Crystal Li’s Blog

This past week, PETA released the following ad coinciding with the approach of Thanksgiving. Targeted towards children, it will be placed in billboards near schools in the United States:

PETA has a history of controversial ads that push boundaries. I have always seen PETA’s ads to be somewhat ridiculous, but not necessarily unethical. Most of their campaigns are over-the-top that rational adults, after being shocked by the risque nature, would disregard their messages.

However, I believe this particular is unethical because of who the target market for this campaign is. Marketing to children is controversial in general, as children are very impressionable and do not have the same judgement adults do, and thus are more vulnerable to advertising. If this ad was not specifically meant for children, I feel like it would be harmless because it would not have the same effect on older individuals who can see past PETA’s argument of likening eating turkey to murdering household pets. As well, PETA could say the same thing about any animal consumed for food, showing this argument is not distinct. However, the affective component of this ad brought about by the analogous language and the image of a dog’s head photoshopped on a turkey, manipulates children into feeling shock and guilt. This will especially affect children who are close with their pets and posses limited rationality. PETA spokesperson Alicia Woempner says “children have a natural compassion for animals”, so PETA is aware of this. I am not arguing that a turkey’s life is worth less than a dog’s, but preying on children’s emotions in a negative and unfair manner by capitalizing on their naivete, in order to further one’s self-interests is exploitative and unethical.

Furthermore, I don’t even think this campaign will be effective in accomplishing what PETA seems to want to do. The ad says “Go Vegan” at the bottom. Choosing to become a vegan is a big decision as it is almost a lifestyle. Does PETA really think scaring children will cause them to become vegan, let alone stop eating turkey? Children may feel shocked from the ad, but they have short memories and this probably won’t leave an impact on them after a week. As well, I doubt relying on children to stop the consumption of turkey for Thanksgiving will be effective, as this is a long-standing tradition in society and children are usually not the decision-makers in families for this. The purpose of the ad seems misaligned with the message and target market. Therefore, in addition to it being unethical, it will also probably be unsuccesful.

Sources –

ABC News

Global Issues

This is a response to Seth Godin’s blog “The Bell Curve is Moving”, where he questioned the tradition model of production adoption, which, coincidentally, was the same model we learned in class consisting of early adopters. However, Godin stresses that this “bell curve” is changing, partly because of the efforts of “marketers work(ing) to change to the market”, to “turn people into geeks”. There are more people willing to line up to buy the latest gadget or adopt a new service because of the increasing amount of advertising, and simply because it is easier to convert. This issue was also addressed in the textbook briefly. Godin’s modified curve is shown below:

I found this blog really interesting, and, like Godin, I think it applies more to products and services in the tech industry, a rapidly changing sector where things go almost obsolete in a matter of months. “Obsolete” not in terms of becoming non-functional, but “obsolete” in the consumers’ minds because of insanely rapidly changing tastes. Pick up an iPhone 3 and it works great, but it is considered ancient history to most of today’s population. It doesn’t take years after a release of a product for a lot of people to switch to the latest “big thing”, instead we see it in everyone’s hands in a matter of months (this observability probably drives sales as well!)

However, this does pose a danger to marketers – with customers so eager to jump on the next big thing, companies will have to constantly innovate to keep their market share and customer base. Nevermind innovation – as each market becomes more competitive, companies have to have marketing teams that can understand fluctuating customer tastes and expectation and properly communicate and position their product or service effectively in order to sustain sales. Having to deal with these restless, almost insatiable customers means marketing will play big role in the future of this industry.