It seems like just yesterday our group was beginning to sift through the list of companies we would do our marketing project on. Alas, we chose on PepsiCo, and from their I was taken aback by the vastness of PepsiCo and the outreach they possess. In analyzing the company through background writing and doing the STP, it quickly became apparent that they were not a niche brand in which it would be fairly black and white in analyzing them. PepsiCo holds an array of brands, and products which can cater to many niches. From Quaker Oats to Tropicana to Frito-Lay unto the Cola itself, they had a way of finding their way into ones’ pantry in one way or another.

As such, narrowing down our field of analysis was paramount, and as we delved into the current issues we thought focusing on the sports-fan would be not only something we’d all enjoy writing on, but informative as well. The sports-fan at home demographic is important to PepsiCo, as much consumption of their products take place during a person viewing entertainment, and as such they have segmented themselves as a premium and prevalent brand within this market.

Just a few of the brands under the PepsiCo umbrella.

I felt that our group worked extremely well together as we had great cohesion, not only in working together but in terms of punctuality and meeting self-set deadlines(we finished the project early!). Overall the entire process was enjoyable as the collaboration between us all was magnificent, and I feel that our video reflects that. I find it amazing that a group of people came, most of whom were relative strangers to one another came together and had such an understanding so quickly.

Having the luxury of a great group made understanding marketing even more enjoyable as the application of it truly took form. The only thing I would have tinkered with is possibly selecting another company. PepsiCo is fascinating, but it did cause a few headaches whilst we were researching and compiling the information we needed. Having a more black and white company may have saved us some time!

A recent CBC article made me flash back to my own childhood, and remember the joy of looking at, and if I was lucky having a toy purchased for me. What I did forget was the vast difference and prevalent aisle or department segregation performed by these retailers. My brother and I would flock to the “boy toys” department which was laden with goods such as lego, action figures and sporting goods whilst elsewhere in the store there was a very obvious girls department which was predominately pink and filled with dolls, and arts + crafts and the like(I think!). The point being, that from a young age each gender is almost told what is socially acceptable for them to play with for their respective gender.Whilst I don’t completely agree that separating the aisles/toys is wrong, as based on sales studies and statistics it’s probably the most efficient method to sell goods, it caused an engineer to create a new toy.

A young girl playing with Goldieblox

Debbie Sterling, a recent Stanford engineering graduate created Goldieblox. Goldblox are little construction sets, that like lego, are separable and attachable and can form various objects. Unlike lego however, the colours are of the pieces are pink, purple and line amongst other colours that are found in the “girls department”.  She believes that having a mathematical/scientific toy for girls at that young of an age, may spark an interest in those kinds of skills as they grow older, and pursue degrees.

Irish airliner Ryanair has quickly risen within the aviation industry and become one of the largest airlines in Europe. The airline has done so through a strategy of robust cost slashing which many feel is to the point of being unethical and at the expense of costumers. Examples of such strict policy by Ryanair include large fines for bags over size limit, failure to print a boarding pass and having to pay a premium to board and choose a seat. All of which are upheld through black and white application leaving no room to accommodate travellers regardless of situation or circumstance.

This policy being enforced by CEO Micheal O’Leary is summed up by his view on costumers: “People say the customer is always right, but you know what – they’re not. Sometimes they are wrong and they need to be told so.” Well, now Mr. O’Leary is the one being told so as such strict adherence has lead Ryanair to being named the worst of the 100 biggest brands serving the UK by readers of magazine Which? .

O’Leary has seemingly taken note recently announcing a new strategy for Ryanair: “be nice to customers.” What a revolutionary strategy! Who would have thought that accommodating clients would be a way to build loyalty and satisfaction?

Having flown Ryanair(regrettably) in the past, it’s a welcome change. If not for the low fares and vast destinations, I would not have taken Ryanair as they do a great job of making you feel unwelcome. It’s truly an ethical paradox that a company can have what feels like a disdain for consumers, yet attract 80 million annually. It will be fascinating to follow Ryanair’s future as they’ll now actually care about the costumer…or at least pretend to!

As a fan of the NBA, specifically the Nets, the much awaited move from New Jersey to Brooklyn could not come soon enough. Moving into Brooklyn would do many things for the franchise, it would give us credibility among players as it’s in New York, the billion dollar Barclays Centre would be state of the art, and fan support would most likely go up.

Those were the three obvious benefits, but there were more. The team announced it would be completely rebranding itself, moving away from a look that not exactly cool or synonymous with success and adopting new colours, jerseys, and logo. Little did myself, and probably any Nets fan expect what exactly was coming. They would completely differentiate themselves from the brand in New Jersey.

Rap mogul Jay-Z helped design everything, and the result was breathtaking, not just on the eye but in the books. On the day they officially became the “Brooklyn Nets” they had more sales in one day, then they typically would in one season. In fact, this trend has continued as it’s currently the best apparel selling team right now.

Of course, having an international icon pushing the product doesn’t hurt…

It’s crazy how a new colour scheme and a move 30 miles down the road can completely revamp a franchise.

Image 1:https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7250/6983391122_5a17c9994c_n.jpg

Image 2: http://www.nbacircle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/JAY-Z-Brooklyn-Nets-Jersey.jpg

Before it was brought up in class, social enterprise was not something I was overly familiar with.  Upon learning more about it during the lecture, and subsequent video of Save on Meats I quested to delve into it further, and discover more, or at least other social enterprises around Canada.

Along the way I stumbled across this article, which presented not only tales of social enterprise but statistics and recent developments surrounding it as well.  A staggering one third of social enterprises operating in Canada have opened in the last two years. What would cause such a sharp rise in a short period of time? Well, just as we touched on in our class, MBA schools around Canada are trying to shape the budding minds of business students to put to use their business acumen to address social issues.

Also contributing to the sharp rise, is the availability of government and United Way grants for social enterprise. The example used in the article, St. John’s bakery has received $350,000 from the two since 2004. In that time, their profits have risen dramatically, spurring hope they will be self-sufficient in the near future.

Universities educating young minds on not only future self-interest, but societal interests, is a welcome evolution and should continue to spur changes for the good of all.

Image 1: http://www.google.ca/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&biw=1054&bih=655&tbm=isch&tbnid=zUHTmLaR_rtX8M:&imgrefurl=http://www.stjohnsbakery.com/&docid=HR_ekxyrndtD_M&imgurl=http://www.stjohnsbakery.com/media/img/sidebar/stjohns6.jpg&w=180&h=235&ei=5gyqUO-pF83zqAGc14GgBg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=393&sig=102121070711547161704&page=1&tbnh=149&tbnw=111&start=0&ndsp=13&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:72&tx=68&ty=68

Image2: http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/abe/migration_catalog/article4052285.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/WEB-sr-sustainability20rb1.jpg

Pat Owings created an interesting piece arguing that inbound marketing was the way of the future, as opposed to disruptive marketing. To first try and dissect the argument, I had to understand further exactly what each were. Disruptive marketing is self explanatory in that it’s advertising that appears in an unwanted place or situation(billboard, TV, mail) where as inbound marketing is advertising that one comes across, say though social media, a blog or a podcast.

Ready to change the channel

Relating the issue to myself, I would tend to agree with his theory. When it comes to disruptive marketing, I’m not sure I’ve ever paid much attention to it. The fact that they are so prevalent almost creates an immunity. Shows PVRd, ads skipped. Live sports? Turn to your buddy, check your texts,  or quickly check what’s happening around the league on your computer. Seemingly, that’s universal, with according to Owens’ blog, 86% of American reporting skipping or ignoring ads.

Inbound ads tend to be much more efficient for me. When I want to buy something or learn about something I search for it on the internet, be it a blog, social media or video, almost assuredly I will receive the information I want AND have learned about a new product(s), which is exactly what marketers want.

Image 1: http://www.volusion.com/demo/37408/upload/uploadedFiles/tv%20ads.jpg

Image 2: http://janefriedman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/blog2-1.jpeg

Mark Sha’s blog post on Toronto sports teams, and their success in the financial books compared to their lack of it on the court, is both interesting and thought provoking. He raises the notion that the owners of all three Toronto franchises, majorly Rogers Communications for all three clubs are only interested in the bottom line, and not team success. He then asks if this lack of success is down to a lack of hierarchical needs, or improper management. I believe the first bit to be true, but for the second question, I’d answer neither.

They have tried an array of approaches in hiring executives who they hand sole control of the team ranging from hiring sought after “rising executives”, to paying a premium to hire two general managers who were proven and highly  regarded(Brian Burke and Bryan Colangelo) to employing a young economics graduate who believes in the qualitative and innovative method of sabermetrics. Can upper management be to blame for lower managements failures? I believe that they have done the right thing in trusting in who they employed, and not simply firing them believing the savvy acumen that lead to past success has vanished. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and returning Toronto teams to prominence is no different. Time and money is prevalent, and now it’s up to the employees to pay back ownership.

Recently FC Barcelona announced it would continue its partnership with UNICEF, a prominent world wide charitable organization. The agreement stipulates that the club will continue to pay one and a half million euros a year for the right to dawn the UNICEF logo on their shirt.  FC Barcelona paying someone to be on their shirt illustrates just how devoted they are to helping the community, as the only other third party to appear on their shirt, Qatar Airways, pay 34.2 million euros a year for the right.

FC Barcelona’s demonstration of corporate social responsibility is imperative in today’s game as it continues evolving larger monetarily and in popularity. With so much attention being focused on the bottom line and clubs reaching new markets, it would be easy to forget the opportunity they have to promote and enrich social wellbeing. Having such a widespread stage to showcase a noble cause, is even more beneficial for charitable organizations as it is now on a stage that can be seen more or less anywhere in the world, and will reach demographics it might otherwise not have.Furthermore, this has spurred similar movements

, as other renowned clubs have joined in.

konyonglee explores just what McDonald’s does that makes it so endearing to seemingly everyone in every culture. He comes to the conclusion, that it is their innate ability to adapt to every market. I’d agree with that, and further suggest it is not just about the changes they make, but the familiarity they keep.

With its established brand recognition, one already knows what they’re getting when they enter a McDonald’s Restaurant. A quick, easy, tasty, and cheap meal that probably isn’t healthy(however hard they try to adapt to todays desire for health foods – ie introducing salad and yogurt). Those four aforementioned adjectives apply everywhere no matter the location. Personally, I’ve been in two of their franchises in China and Brazil, and even though the language on the menu differed the “experience” if you will, did not. Store layout, colours utilized, and general decor was constant in both places.

Such familiarity is endearing to many, which is why their adaptation to a diet within a specific culture is overshadowed by the continuity that is prevalent in every establishment no matter the culture.

Image 1: http://www.weirtondailytimes.com/photos/news/md/565956_1.jpg

Image 2: http://www.hawkblocker.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Hawkblocker-Chinese-McDonalds.jpg

A lot has been made around the world about clubs potentially “buying success” as seen with the meteoric, and seemingly overnight rises of clubs such as Manchester City and Chelsea.

Both clubs were purchased by billionaires, one a Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, the other the Middle-Eastern Prince, Sheikh Mansour. Each immediately pumped hundreds of millions into the club for player transfers and wages. This brought success to each club with Chelsea winning the Premier League 3 times in 8 years(having not won it in 50 years previously) and Manchester City winning the league last year after numerous relegations and no trophies since 1976.

In essentially buying success, UEFA, the European governing body introduced Financial Fair Play rules(FFP) which basically state a club cannot spend money if they are losing more than 30 million euros a year. Even though that number sounds high, Chelsea and City have been known to lose in upwards of 70 million pounds a year.

To bypass this, Sheikh Mansour had a company who he has close links with, Etihad Airlines, pay a sum well above market value for sponsorship, thus allowing him to keep up with his massive spending.

Doing such a thing is not ethical, as the whole reason for introducing such rules is to level the playing field spending wise, and in funding his revenues himself he is bypassing the standards set by UEFA and giving his team an unfair advantage.

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/protectingthegame/financialfairplay/index.html

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2866/analysis/2011/05/11/2479628/what-is -financial-fair-play-and-how-will-uefa-enforce-it-on

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways