We chose to analyze Lululemon Athletica for the marketing plan assignments for a number of reasons.  Firstly, we were very fortunate to have a team member who worked for Lululemon’s corporate office last summer.  We also reasoned that Lululemon was a publicly traded company, which meant that there would be plenty of online resources available for research purposes. We believed that it was a very unique company and liked the fact that it was founded in Vancouver.

In the first assignment, our team really focused on productivity to complete the Situation Analysis and SWOT assignment.  Our meetings were definitely effective, but we were not entirely cohesive as a group yet.  Perhaps we should have met as a team outside of the school context, because I strongly believe that effective communication comes from being comfortable with each other. However, we spent hours polishing our first assignment and I was very proud of the end product we delivered.

Our experience with the second assignment was very straightforward. We discussed our consumer segments and divided the work accordingly.  Everyone delivered high quality work, despite the fact that everyone was busy during reading break. Compared to the first assignment, a lot less revision was required. I think this assignment set the standard for our group expectations.

For assignment 3, we were extremely fortunate to have a team member that had excellent visual media skills.  This team member also had video editing software on his computer, which meant that we were able to complete the assignment independently.  This saved us a huge amount of time, especially since the media lab in the CLC was getting consistently busier as the due date loomed. Our strategy for the video was to use clips already available on youtube, because this looked more professional and less awkward than filming ourselves. By this time, we were extremely cohesive as a group, and we were comfortable giving constructive feedback.

Overall, this was one of my best experiences in terms of group projects. Everyone was extremely willing to meet on a consistent basis, so that we never left assignments to the last minute. I would work with this team on another project in a heartbeat!

Christine Cheung’s blog post “Online ads: What makes them successful?” brought Oreo’s “Daily Twist” ad to my attention.  The ad, posted on Kraft Food’s U.S. Facebook page, features a six-layered Oreo cookie that is rainbow-coloured in support of the gay rights movement in the United States. Christine regards the ad as very successful: despite its simplicity, it carries a much deeper social message. I would agree; the “Gay Oreo” has got over 140,000 likes and 19,000 comments on Facebook.  However, the ad campaign faced harsh criticism with comments such as “gays need to leave America” and “this is absolutely disgusting”.

Let’s look at a few other examples of LGBT-friendly ads:

American Apparel’s “Legalize Gay” T-shirts

Originally in opposition of Prop 8 in November 2008, which provided that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”, American Apparel starting printing t-shirts reading “Legalize Gay”. Since then, it has given away over 50,000 of these shirts. On its website, American Apparel states that it “believes in freedom, expression and equality, things that are inherently condemned in the prohibition of gay marriage”.

Amazon’s “Husbands” Ad

In a television commercial for its Kindle e-reader, Amazon sends a gay-friendly message that has been generating both positive and negative buzz, other than the usual conservative criticisms. In the ad, a man and a woman sit on the beach and compare the iPad to the “superior” Kindle. The man proclaims that he’s just ordered a Kindle Paperwhite, and suggests they “celebrate”. The woman replies that her husband is already buying her a drink, and the man responds “so is mine!”. Some critics argue that the punch line is underwhelming or that it does not really fit with the plot of the commercial. However, the fact that the punch line is unsurprising means that LGBT-friendly marketing has been making progress.

Sources:

Online ads: What makes them successful?

http://www.thestar.com/life/2012/06/27/pridethemed_oreo_unleashes_cookie_controversy.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8

http://www.americanapparel.net/legalizegay/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/american-apparel-legalize-gay-marriage-france-t-shirts_n_2272608.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnmDlk6F3d0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/amazon-kindle-gay-marriage-commercial-_n_2732827.html#slide=2114281

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/amazons-gay-kindle-spot-nice-surprise-or-little-forced-147758

http://www.policymic.com/articles/28450/new-kindle-gay-marriage-commercial-paperwhite-ad-signals-changing-times

VS.

Dove has centered its advertising campaigns on criticizing the beauty industry for giving unrealistic expectations of beauty.  In the popular “Evolution” video, Dove showed how Photoshop can transform a woman’s face to have model looks by manipulating the image to have a slimmer face, exaggerated lips and doe eyes.  The Dove has also launched the “Campaign for Real Beauty” which is an educational program to build self-esteem in young woman.  The video’s caption reads: “Dove invites all women to join us in creating a world where beauty is a source of confidence, not anxiety.”

However, Unilever has been criticized for the hypocrisy of Dove’s advertising campaigns, as the company also owns the Axe brand. Axe has been accused of having sexist themes in its advertisements. The ads are used to endorse the idea that if a man uses Axe products, he will become more attractive to women. In its Superbowl ad this year, a handsome lifeguard rescues a helpless woman from a shark attack, but she ends up leaving the lifeguard when a male astronaut turns up. The ad was designed to promote the launch of Axe’s Apollo products, which is promoted by a contest promising to send 22 winners to space. The contest’s tagline reads: “Leave a man; return a hero”. This gives the impression that only men can enter the contest, despite the fact that officially, women are welcome to enter. This has most definitely ruffled some feathers, considering that there is a gender gap in scientific careers. Others argue that because Axe is a men’s brand, it is acceptable that the contest would be open to only male competitors. However, despite any sexism present, the ads have been undeniably successful, making Axe the market leader in its category.

Unilever has delivered very different and conflicting messages about women, and the inconsistency of its message devalues the legitimacy of the Dove “Campaign for Real Beauty”.  Unilever has dismissed the Axe advertisements as simply joking and “not to be taken literally”. But undoubtedly, the hypocrisy of Unilever’s ad campaigns makes the consumer question if Dove’s objective of building self-esteem in women is truly sincere.

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/whats-behind-the-culture-of-photoshop-in-advertising/article10111740/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mahaatal/2013/02/04/axes-super-bowl-ad-fail-when-sexism-doesnt-sell/

http://seattletimes.com/html/living/2004050655_axeads03.html

15 years of Axe Effect: the world’s most sexist advertising campaign

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omBfg3UwkYM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rSY7zpINa4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWpNTNjyzr8

A recent post from the Canadian Marketing Association blog discussed the Most Influential Canadian Brands, from a study produced by the ICA and Ipsos Reid. In particular, the CMA discussed “Tim Horton’s – The Good”, “Blackberry – The Bad”, and “Google – The Best”. It also highlighted five key criteria that are important in establishing “brand influence”. These attributes are: trustworthy, engagement, leading edge, presence, and corporate citizenship.

Here is the top 10 list:

1. Google
2. Microsoft
3. Apple
4. Facebook
5. Wal-Mart
6. Visa
7. Youtube
8. Tim Hortons
9. Air Miles
10. 10. CBC

Let’s discuss Apple in terms of these characteristics:

 

Apple was described as the “most leading-edge brand” in the survey. On average, Canadian respondents felt that 45% of statements such as “trendsetter”, “innovative”, and “edgy” described the company. In contrast, only 24% of the statements were applicable to Google and 23% to Microsoft. In terms of trustworthiness, Apple consumers are confident that its next product will be cool, fun, smart, and sleek, and will enhance their lifestyle in terms of work or leisure. In order to engage its customers, Apple has created a unique retail experience, using empathetic, friendly, and well-trained employees, to create a sense of transparency. Perhaps where Apple falls short is in its corporate citizenship. Apple’s scores in the survey were lower than average, which may be due to the perception that it does not recognize customer loyalty.

In contrast, “Blackberry – The bad”:

Recently Blackberry has been lacking in terms of the leading edge, engagement, and presence criteria. Blackberry has not released a new product in over a year, and sales of its PlayBook were pitiful in comparison to that of the iPad. In response, Blackberry announced the release of the upcoming q10 and z10 in a commercial during this year’s Superbowl, but consumer expectations are not high.

Sources:

http://www.the-cma.org/about/blog/who%E2%80%99s-hot-and-who%E2%80%99s-not-new-study-ranks-most-influential-canadian-brands

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5465

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/blogs/insight/canada-most-influential-brands-light-homegrown-icons-173827951.html

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/223125

http://n4bb.com/blackberry-playbook-failure/

Why are companies willing to dish out $3.8 million (US) for a thirty second Super Bowl ad?

Here are some key reasons:

• Nowadays, there are fewer occasions in which a significant number of viewers watch the same television program. The Super Bowl has over 100 million viewers.
• For the most part, viewers do watch the Super Bowl live, rather than recording it. This means that more people actually watch the commercials instead of fast-forwarding through them.
• Coverage of the advertisements in newspapers and magazines has increased over the years. People are talking about the commercials as much as the game.
• Iconic Super Bowl ads, such as Apple’s 1984 commercial, are becoming increasingly popular. These types of ads may be celebrity endorsed and may only air once.

Here is a link to the famous commercial, which is based on the dystopian future of Orwellian novel. This ad was used to help launch the Macintosh computer. It only aired once, but it recovered its production and broadcast costs in one afternoon of sales.

Most Effective And Least Effective Super Bowl 2013 Ads:

First Place: Budweiser’s “Brotherhood”

From Super Bowl 2013, the most effective ad was determined to be Budweiser’s “Brotherhood”, which features the relationship between a man and his horse.  Budweiser’s Clydesdale horses traditionally appear in its Super Bowl commercials.

Second Place: American Dairy Association’s “Morning Run”

In second place, comes the American Dairy Association’s “Morning Run” ad, which features The Rock chasing a dairy truck in his search for milk. This is the latest effort from the popular “Got Milk?” campaign.

Last Place: Calvin Klein’s “Concept”

Calvin Klein’s “Concept” commercial was named Super Bowl 2013’s least effective ad. The provocative clip features model Matthew Terry flexing in a pair of Calvin Klein briefs, promoting the new Concept underwear line.

Second Last Place: Go Daddy’s “Perfect Match”

Model Bar Refaeli appears in Go Daddy’s Super Bowl commercial, which has a close-up of the model kissing nerdy actor Jesse Heiman in a pairing of “sexy” and “smart”. There were very mixed reactions towards the ad.

In all, it appears that celebrity endorsements or sexy bodies could not make up for old-fashioned emotion, humour, and creativity in the Super Bowl 2013 commercials. Here is a link to the full list of the Most and Least Effective 2013 Super Bowl Ads.

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/why-companies-pay-big-bucks-to-advertise-during-the-super-bowl/article8099853/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2013/02/07/most-and-least-effective-2013-super-bowl-ads/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/03/godaddy-ad-reactions-twitter_n_2612676.html

http://www.stylenotes.ca/2013/02/calvin-klein-to-introduce-calvin-klein-concept-with-super-bowl-debut/

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1514339-the-rock-really-needs-his-milk-in-2013-super-bowl-commercial

Lance Armstrong’s recent confession that he used performance-enhancing drugs throughout his cycling career has major implications for the Livestrong Foundation.  Armstrong has since resigned from his position as chairman of the foundation, in which he developed to inspire people in the fight against cancer.  The Livestrong image has been closely tied to the Lance Armstrong name and now it must separate itself from his tarnished reputation.  Livestrong’s credibility is being questioned now that its founder has been caught cheating and lying for several years.

To counteract the negative publicity, Armstrong stepped down as chairman and later cut all ties to Livestrong.  He also publicly admitted to using EPO, blood doping, and various hormones during all of his Tour de France victories in his interview with Oprah Winfrey.  The foundation relies on donations, but the allegations surrounding Armstrong did not seem to affect donation levels in October 2012.  However, these statistics came before the report released by the United States Anti-Doping Agency.

To distance itself from Lance Armstrong, Livestrong must promote itself through its mission to fight cancer and away from Armstrong’s individual story.  It officially changed its name to Livestrong, as formally, it was still called the Lance Armstrong Foundation.  A new vice president of marketing has also been appointed.  By focusing on Livestrong’s successes in its own right, it may be able to overcome this setback to attract donors.  Livestrong’s reputation must be restored as a worthy charitable organization to support and inspire those living with cancer.  It will be interesting to see if the foundation can fully recover from this challenge.

Lance Armstrong also lost sponsorship contracts from Nike, Anheuser-Busch, and Trek bicycles.  Interestingly, Nike continued its contract with Tiger Woods after his personal scandal in 2009.  There appears to be a danger in sponsoring individuals in marketing campaigns.  The take- home message is that the mission of organizations must become larger than the individuals involved.

Sources:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2013/01/18/livestrongs-challenges-as-a-consequence-of-lance-armstrongs-confession/

http://theconversation.edu.au/spin-lance-armstrongs-confession-and-livestrongs-future-11616

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/cycling/story/2013/01/17/sp-lance-armstrong-oprah-winfrey-interview-live-tweets.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/lance-armstrong-steps-down-livestrong-loses-nike-bud-contracts-1C6512991

http://allthingsd.com/20130120/how-nike-revives-a-fallen-sports-star/