This post in reply to Ben Lawson’s post about the success of the Seattle Mariners advertisement campaigns. Ben’s post can be found here:

Seattle Mariners Advertisiments

While I thought Ben made some very convincing points I feel that he may have overestimated the effectiveness that there ads will be able to achieve. I feel that when it comes to a sports franchise, promotion does not hold a large amount of power in bringing in customers. I feel that it may be these least significant factor in the marketing mix. A sports team will receive promotion daily through replays and highlights that the fans and potential fans are already inclined to watch. I feel that due to the fact that it is a relatively expensive activity for someone to indulge in, funny as campaigns are not enough to generate popularity.

Cano recently signs with the Seattle Mariners

I feel that more importantly consumers are roped in by the product. As Ben spoke about, the Mariners recently signed star player, Robinson Cano. This is an improvement of their product and I believe that is what draws fans in to watch games. Price as well, is significant as sports fans come from all different financial demographics and thus, there is a large part of their consumer base that is price sensitive. Change in cost of tickets and services surrounding the game can have a large effect on sales. Place may not have the same influence as the previous two variables, as games are not usually a convenience service.  However, having the stadium in the middle of the city does make it more enticing to potential buyers.

To restate what I have said, if the Mariners are looking to boost sales use the years and years of evidence that show an improvement in the product results in a large increase in fan support.

To what extent is it strategic to risk offending a large demographic in order to create a humorous campaign? The Snickers marketing team are undoubtedly considering this question right now. They recently released an ad in Australia in which construction workers follow maybe their most prominent stereotype, yelling at passing women. However, instead of cat calls and inappropriate remarks, they are shouting uplifting and female empowering comments. The commercial ends with the famous Snickers slogan “you’re not you when you’re hungry,” implying the only reason the workers yell positive comments is because they are not acting themselves.

View the ad here Australian Snickers Ad 

                To no surprise this ad campaign has had a negative backlash in the public as it effectively offends both female and male genders. While I found the ad to be wildly hilarious, I feel that it is more detrimental to the brand than it is beneficial. Yes the ad is funny. However, I don’t believe it strengthens the brand in any manner and it has undoubtedly upset many potential consumers.

What I offer is an alternative. Is there a way in which they could construct the ad to alleviate any offensive content and still keep all of the comedic elements? I believe the solution is clear. Here’s the scene: Construction workers are falling into usual negative stereotypes because guess what? They’re hungry! They consume the snickers bar and then cue the ironically hilarious remarks they make to passing females. Construction workers are respected by showing hunger is the cause for their sexist comments and the positive comments they make to women are merely the way it should be.

Image from the Snickers Ad Campaign

I don’t believe there to be any sexists on the Snickers marketing staff, maybe they were just in need of their own product because hey, “you’re not you when you’re hungry.”

Related Article: http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1287698/viral-review-snickers-courts-controversy-non-sexist-builders-ad

Walmart has attempted international expansion numerous times in its lifespan. Some have been successful, others have failed but for every case the result has been dependent on their understanding of the local environment and preferences. Walmart has a very clear and differentiated market position; they sell product in large quantity for cheap prices. In the United States and Canada consumers are very receptive to this format as they appreciate the cheap prices and find the quality to, at least, rival that of most competitors. However, in other cultures the bulk products are sign of low freshness and the cheap prices give the consumers a perception of low quality.

Inside of a Walmart Super Centre

Walmart has made poor decisions in assuming the strategy they have employed in the United States would have the same effect in countries around the world. A product will not become successful if it is not greatly accepted by consumers upon its inception. If Walmart is not successful in realizing local trends and habits then their products will not even be considered as a possible alternative when the consumer undergoes the decision process. Sure, Walmart could attempt to entirely alter the culture of various nations in order to sprout belief that their product fills an overwhelming need. Would it not make more sense to alter their own market offering in order to coincide with the needs that are already there.

Big Baazar, a rival supermarket

Adapting to cultural differences may pose a threat to the company as a whole because as their company changes they lose brand identity. If each region of stores is tailored to local needs customers will become confused and could quite possibly change their perception of the company entirely. It is possible that the only option is to continue absorbing similar companies already located in the international regions in which they target. With as much uncertainty as there is in the global market place it will be very interesting to see what the next move of Walmart will be.

Related Article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/walterloeb/2014/03/26/walmarts-international-challenge-trying-to-understand-local-shoppers/

Sports and the concepts behind marketing are two things I find very interesting therefore, a sports related commercial is usually something to draw my attention. Earlier today I witnessed a commercial featuring Colin Kaepernick, QB for the San Francisco 49ers, minutes after their playoff win entering the stadium of the Seattle Seahawks; whom they will play in next week’s matchup. The commercial depicts Kaepernick exiting his bus to the jeering of Seattle fans of which he is able to drown out with his Beats by Dre headphones. The slogan “hear what you want” is then presented. My initial interest was with the haste that this commercial was televised. I also believed it to be very well produced commercial. Seahawks fans are illustrious for their ability to rattle opposing teams therefore; the commercial shows that if the ‘noise cancelling’ headphones can drown out their screams and taunts it can do nearly anything.

49ers Quarterback Colin Kaepernick in Beats by Dre Commercial

After doing some research and realizing the commercial was produced in early December my interest turned to a new focus; a, potentially unexpected, backlash occurred from Seattle fans stating the commercial was inaccurate and trashy, some going so far as to say Seattle should boycott Beats by Dre altogether. Although the target audience may have been 49er fans, surely they must have known the commercial would spread all over the US. So why did their company make a commercial that so clearly alienates Seahawks fans. If I had to guess I would say because it’s a good commercial. It’s effective, interesting and if nothing else it has people talking about them. While a potential boycott could create issues, I assume the company would create a new strategy potentially using a Seattle icon to head its campaign. I think it is safe to say that Dr. Dre will get away with slating a whole city with his newest marketing scheme.

Dove’s “Real Beauty Sketches” campaign, one of their most recent, also happens to be one of their most effective and unique strategies to date. The ad creatively shows women everywhere that their beauty is far greater than what they believe it to be and others view them as far more attractive than what they view themselves. However, the storybook ending isn’t necessarily as glamorous as it is portrayed.

Figure 1: Florence, star of Dove’s “Real Beauty Sketches”

Bloomberg has released an article revealing many hidden components of this campaign that Dove didn’t intend on making public. Although this ad was referred to as an “experiment,” that is not really the case. Extensive research was conducted in order to choose women who would most likely produce the results they were after. On top of that the sketch artist was aware of the campaign and new its intentions before he began sketching thus greatly swaying the results of his interpretations.

Figure 2: Sketch Artist Gil Zamora

Is this unethical? Many women and Dove customers will agree that it is based on the level of deception used in the advertisement. The creators would most likely hold a different position as there is no explicit untruthfulness in the ad. I believe the real matter at hand is to what degree we will allow such narrowed framing to shape are perceptions and ideas before we disregard such campaigns for their blatant misrepresentations.

Bloomberg Article link:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-26/dove-s-fake-new-real-beauty-ads.html

It is not necessary for a firm to have an immensely profound idea or an exceptional amount of start up cash in order to be successful. Sao Paulo, Brazil is proving this with the companies involved in their grain production.

Brazilian grain producers face a situation in which they can become greatly profitable merely because of a fortunate situation that has been bestowed upon them. An abundance of land capital and overwhelming need for their product has allowed corn exports to the US skyrocket from $0 in 2010 to $10 million as of now. Drought has left the states with shortages in many farmed products and an increase in the price of that which was produced.

This situation has made it economically viable for the US to fund processes that directly relate to production of cotton and other farmed products in Brazil.

Although Brazil got a late start in this industry, it has surpassed any possible barriers of entry and shows no sign of curbing its economic gains any time soon. With the immense benefits that the United States receives from Brazilian farming and the vast amount of land Brazil has for expansion it would appear that this industry has been permanently infiltrated by a serious competitor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-sign-of-growing-clout-brazils-corn-helps-hold-up-us-market/2012/11/18/3f1c8e0e-2ce3-11e2-89d4-040http:

//www.worldcrunch.com/business-finance/weak-infrastructure-strikes-and-spotty-logistics-choke-brazil-039-s-agriculture-boom/brazil-soy-bean-farming-agriculture-production-silo-infrastructure-grain/c2s9350/#.UKoGYYYa2igc9330702a_story.html

In Logan blog titled “Corn: Food or Fuel?” the concept of opportunity cost was defined very clearly. He used the situation of corn having dual uses both as source of creating ethanol and human consumption to describe the opportunity cost. This particular situation is very interesting as corn has become a currency representing a form of capital that needs to be strategically allocated in order to yield the greatest amount of benefit.

I found this post to be particularly interesting as it raises the question, how many other products will develop an alternate use? The true interest is in what will happen when the function of this alternate use becomes more vital than it’s current one. With more and more entrepreneurs creating innovate functions for current products this question becomes increasingly significant.

The growing importance for the use of corn for ethanol could potentially pave the way for a new market in which a new specific type of entrepreneur creates new uses for old products. Although, this market would have to revolve around proprietary information and unique patents to become profitable, it is possible. This idea greatly aligns with increasing trends toward environmental sustainability giving it viable potential in the future.

http://aste1710.blogspot.ca/2012/09/from-corn-on-cob-to-corn-in-your-car_5.html

I could not agree more strongly with the ideas Louie had in his blog post titled Capitalizing on Disaster.

In the post, Louie writes about the marketing that was involved with Hurricane Sandy and debates whether it is ethical to use such an event in one’s marketing campaign. To further support his idea’s on the issue, while exploiting a tragic event is an immoral marketing strategy, I don’t perceive it as relatively clever one either. While some companies may be able to pump out a little bit of extra revenue by marketing their products in relation to Hurricane Sandy, that is merely a short term stint. After the hype has passed, consumers are only left with thoughts of a company that abused a horrific situation for their own gain.

Louie then writes about Duracell, a company that was offering free power and batteries to citizens affected by the hurricane. This move made by Duracell, although seeming to be a strictly charitable act, does wonders for the image of their company. Duracell was able to use this event to both help affected citizens in need and bring a positive, philanthropic vibe to their brand. In my opinion Duracell will receive much greater benefits for their actions than a company that manipulated citizens for a short term gain.

http://www.pollackblog.com/?p=1394

.

Terrifying your customers into purchasing your products is not an ethical way of operating in the business world.

Al Gore, with a net worth that has sky rocketed since he left government, has taken advantage of citizens and reaped the benefits that have come from it. Gore is famous for his preaching of the upcoming global warming and the need for a more sustainable way to create energy. What is less known about him is that he has numerous investments in the environmentally friendly products that he pushes at his seminars.

Obviously, every producer has a target market, but very few have one that has been created through fear. It begs the question, is Gore’s ideal consumer one that is conscientious about the environment or rather one that is easily manipulated and impulsive. Whether global warming is relevant or not, Gore is forcing his opinion of the future onto an audience that then feels inclined to purchase products that make him profitable. If he truly believes in global warming and he was making money on the awareness of this concept alone that would be noble and just. Due to the large sums of money he has received, I have skepticism in whether those are truly his beliefs or if it is merely an unethical ploy aimed at large profits.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/03/al-gore-the-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire/

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2011/08/al-gore-loses-it-in-colorado-over-g-d-climate/