Category: Uncategorized

No, I don’t drink alcohol. However, research shows that sleep deprivation is just as bad as alcohol impairment so I have rightly titled this post as the “Sober Second Thought” after copious (11!) hours of sleep.

At any rate, this is a follow-up post on yesterday’s article, Z.

If you do not wish to read the giant wall of text I wrote yesterday, I blame you not. Thankfully, I have enclosed a tl;dr to the dilemma I encountered yesterday:

Problem: How do you compare the scores of competitors in martial arts competitions in different events (separated by age, sex, skill level and style) without re-testing such competitors in similar brackets?

“Answer”: Seeing as each competitor’s score is already a mean score calculated by averaging the scores given by several judges, and given the fact that each event has at least two competitors in it, it should be relatively simple to calculate the Z-scores of each competitor’s score by finding the mean and standard deviation of the scores in each event.

Advantages – The advantage of calculating Z-scores for each competitor’s event score makes it so that we can compare competitors across different age groups, styles and level, based on the performance of other competitors in the same event. The process of calculating Z-scores can easily be automated through Excel as long as you have a working database that can log competitor scores.

Disadvantages – The main roadblock to the Z-Score method is that we cannot assume normal distribution through the Central Limit Theorem for all the events, since not all events have at least 30 competitors in it. In an ideal world each event would be normally distributed, but I’m not going through all this to forego reality and wish for a better scenario; I’m trying to think up some tools to combat problems that I see in the competitive scene (in terms of efficiency, mind you, the current process is still fair and relatively unbiased).

So, what now?

My original hypothesis was to draft a method that would allow me to compare events without bias. However, after some careful thought I have realized that it is not the correct approach to try to remove bias from the individual events, especially for large prizes (Best All-Around, Grand Champion). This is because competitors in the “advanced” divisions deserve to have higher scores on average (9.2, 9.5, 9.7, etc) as opposed to lower scores in the novice and intermediate divisions (6.5….7.444, etc) because they have earned such scores just by being in such a bracket. To sum it up, if you’re teer-tottering and wondering if you belong in an intermediate or advanced division and end up choosing intermediate, you deserve to have a slight disadvantage in going for the grand champion or best all-around trophies, because your mentality would be that you’re “not good enough to compete in the advanced division.” Therefore, my aim to remove bias from the different events is fundamentally flawed. We WANT bias in these events.

So, seriously, what now?

Three thousand words later, you’re probably not surprised at my final conclusion: Nothing.

That’s right, we change nothing.

If the events are already biased towards giving “advanced” competitors an advantage over “intermediate” competitors, then the average scores of such competitors are already reflective of their skill and ranking over other competitors. This means that, in order to find a grand champion/best all-around competitor, all we would have to do is average the competitor’s scores (for BAA) or just choose the highest score (for GC). Besides, if we were to use the Z-Score system, competitors who were in event with very few individuals would have highly variant Z-scores (waaay better than the average or, in a scenario where the competitor is the only one in the division, a Z-Score of 0).

It’s been an interesting experience. I’m sure this will be useful for me in the future. Mostly as a good laugh when I’m 30, or an “oh wow you really are wasting time over the summer” moment when I’m in my mid-20’s. Hurrr.

Signing off,

Chris

Angus Chak raises a very interesting question in his blog post Results of Market Research; he asks as a closing thought “Does market research results changed based on changes in society or does society change based off the decisions of market research?”

Having just finished a Marketing and MIS presentation in the past week, this question really got me thinking. I feel that traditional Marketing is constrained by societal values (i.e. you wouldn’t market ways to cheat on tests) and reacts to trends in society (i.e. everyone thinks that ___ is hot, we have to market ___ more/give it a spin/emphasize values/etc).  However, I feel that the most effective Marketing techniques challenge societal views and attempt to change them. For example, not-for-profit campaigns such as the Canadian Breast Cancer foundation, Kony2012 and similar campaigns aim to alert society to pressing issues. Marketing can also challenge societal views to gain more attention (“EXTREME CARROTS ARE HEALTHY AND AWESOME”).

But, sadly, Marketing can also have negative impacts. Privacy concerns such as those raised in targeted marketing contribute to consumer unease and the ever-present stigma that Marketing is “Profit-driven” and “evil.” To add on to this negative stigma are the abundance of advertisements that have already desensitized and changed modern society through “culture as anaesthesia“.

It is somewhat grim to think that people view Marketing in such a negative fashion.

Few people recognize that the true value of Marketing is to cater to the customer, to raise lasting relationships so that a firm can MORE EFFECTIVELY serve a customer, not simply to raise money. A firm that does nothing but raise money will eventually lose out to a firm that can effective instill enjoyment from their customer base.

If only more people were aware of that.

Economics and Marketing. Two simple terms that have enraptured me since the beginning of my University career.

Supply and Demand is the reason why goods sell. These concepts derive from consumer behavior and profit-maximizing firms. A fairly simple concept. One that Marketing turns upside down, inside out, and hangs to dry just to laugh at.

The four P’s of Marketing are Price, Product, Promotion and Placing. These, the Marketing Mix, are responsible for the sales of a product. But sometimes the obvious use of these variables are…not so obvious at all. Take a look at Stella’s post on luxury goods and you’ll see what I mean. DeBeers sells diamonds during a recession not as a luxury good, but as a necessity of love, an eternal link between a couple, a symbol of the eternal, a lifetime, your future…

But probably not as a rock.

Marketing has the amazing feature of adding value to almost anything, from a rock (diamonds), to soda pop (see my first post) and even pieces of paper. Yet, I feel that the most fascinating way that a company can create value is by creating a man-made shortage in supply, otherwise known as “limited edition” or “luxury” goods. These goods go for miles above the average price for any product, matching the full willingness to pay from a consumer (consumer surplus, begone!). DeBeers and their monopoly on diamonds effectively allows them to control the world’s Supply and manipulate one’s valuation of the good’s price, affecting Demand. Effective marketing leverages this (supposedly natural) phenomenon and allows the company to effectively sell “rocks” for a fortune.

Adding value is always the ultimate goal of Marketing. But sometimes, if we take a step back, we can see how much marketing really affects us. Sean Dales mentions in his blog about how “invasive marketing is BAD” because it is blatant and annoying. I agree with many of his points but I have a different opinion. Blatant and obvious sure is annoying…but wouldn’t a force that acts in the background to influence our decisions be even…creepier?

Hi there!

Chris here with my third Marketing blog post. Today I’ll be referencing a blog post by David Sirlin, professionnal game designer/balancer. Sirlin is well-known for his involvement in balancing popular games such as the Street Fighter series and for producing fun, BALANCED card games and board games. He is also known for his acclaimed book “Playing to Win” in which he analyzes the different types of gamers and their mentality of gameplay (A most interesting read which you can find online for free here).

As a passive gamer I am not an expert on game design but as an aspiring Marketing student I am highly intrigued at the way in which Sirlin markets his games. Take a look at his blog post here.

Pay attention to the way in which Sirlin describes his games. In particular, I noted the following:

“Yomi is a card game that captures the essence of fighting games such as Street Fighter […] The decks resemble poker decks, and that makes them pretty easy to learn […] The game focuses on the mind-games that happen in high level play in real fighting games, but extracted into a turn-based form so you don’t need any dexterity.”

In this paragraph Sirlin is pitching his card game Yomi to individuals who have often wanted to play high-level fighting games but lacked the dexterity and practice to go competitive. He segments these “passive” gamers into their own segement and actively targets them by positioning his game as one of the MOST balanced card games in the WORLD that can simulate a fighting game (I could go on for ages regarding this point, but I’ll let it rest). Sirlin indirectly (and directly) references other games in his post, further positioning himself by pointing out the weakness of other games and capitalizing on his game’s balance. He also capitalizes on big game names such as Starcraft and Dominion, comparing the advantages of each game with his own. By doing so, not only does Sirlin attract the specific target of geeks who crave balance in game design, but piques the interest of those who play these games and want something fresh.

A few leaving quotes from Sirlin’s post:

On Puzzle Strike:“You build your deck as you play, so it’s the same genre of game as Dominion in case you’ve heard of that, except it’s far more interactive and suited for tournament play”

“We have […] leaderboards, ranked and unraked matches, and the ability to save replays and watch other people’s replays. Even League of Legends didn’t launch with that, ha!”

“Those years spent on balancing ensure that you can play them for years and still find them strategically interesting. There’s a growing competitive scene and frequent online tournaments, so join in! (Casual fun is also allowed!)”

Sometimes, listening to your own consumers may give you a good idea of what to expect if you release (or hold off on releasing) a product.

This week in Comm296 we discussed the topic of research and the many methods of gaining primary and secondary information. Research can take place the form of a survey, an experiment or simply a quick browse of secondary sources on the Internet. Yet, often the signals that companies need to pay attention to are right under their noses.

Take a look at the gallery above. How often do you see something like this on YouTube? These are comments I’ve randomly collected from various product suggestions and innovative ideas shared online. Individuals are often quite responsive towards their consumer experiences and some are apt to share their opinions with one another through various means of communications such as online forums or live gatherings. This tendency to rate products is the backbone of various sites such as “gamespot.com” that rate products  varying from video games to food. Listening to such feedback is, in my opinion, just as important as conducting surveys or experiments (and less costly as well!)

Our Marketing textbook mentions the concept of responding to the Marketing Environment (Chapter 4, pp. 145-147). It features several examples of companies responding to negative feedback that begin to cascade and negatively impact a company’s brand. As harmful as these comments may be to the brand, there are often golden pieces of advice and observations that, if properly dealt with, would help a brand solve many problems and may strengthen the consumer-producer relationship.

The consumer is your greatest critic. Listen to what they have to say!

I’m looking at you, Facebook & Co.

signing off,

-Chris

I love Dr. Pepper.

I really do. It is an incredible drink. I go to great lengths to acquire my Dr. Pepper.

But if you were to ask me why I love Dr. Pepper my answer may or may not surprise you (depending on how well you know me).

To answer this question I must first supply some background information.

A few months ago I watched Steins;Gate, an amazing science-fiction anime about a group of self-proclaimed scientists who create a time machine and are on the run from SERN, an organization that wishes to create a dystopia using time travel technology. The amount of enjoyment that I gained from watching this anime is comparable to X, where X=Your favorite hobby/tv show/celebrity/etc. This show was that awesome.

Now that I’ve provided you with some background information, please take a look at the following links:

These clips speak for themselves. I don’t know whether or not the company was paid to mention Dr. Pepper in their anime but you can clearly see that Dr. Pepper is highly acclaimed by the characters in this show, often referred to as a “drink for the Chosen Ones” or an “intellectual” drink. It was not too long after watching this series that I had my very first Dr. Pepper and fell in love with it (but was it due to the taste or the intellectual stimulus it may or may not boast? That is the real question).

Ever since that day I have had Dr. Pepper as often as possible. Dr. Pepper with any takeout meal. Dr. Pepper at parties. Dr. Pepper with my friends. Dr. Pepper by myself. Dr. Pepper. You get the point.

You will probably induce by now the direction of this post. Just by mentioning Dr. Pepper in an anime that I love, Steins;Gate boosted my consumption of Dr. Pepper over its various cola substitutes by a great deal, a lot more than any commercial Dr. Pepper could ever come up with individually.

And I’m not the only one who acts this way.

This article addresses the rising sales of Dr. Pepper in Japan. Dr. Pepper was never a popular drink, but is now starting to sell out in vending machines. Years of marketing tactics proved futile to boost the sales of Dr. Pepper, but suddenly the drink became popular after the release of Steins;Gate.

This gives way to a phenomenon I like to call “accidental value creation.” There is probably more specific, scientific term for this effect but until someone coins it and sticks it in my marketing textbook I will continue to refer to this as “accidental value creation.”

If I have not caught your attention by now or if you refuse to believe the power of accidental value creation, take a look at this article.

K-ON is an anime about four schoolgirls that form a high school rock band. This simple plot grew into a phenomenon, and the anime’s success fostered a giant effect on the music industry in the form of guitar sales: a whopping 800% increase in sales for the guitar models featured in the anime.

An 800% increase in sales, and the makers of the guitar didn’t have to raise a finger. This is the power of accidental value creation.

It is because of these quirky effects that I love Marketing. It’s never as straightforward as it seem. There is no standard way to market something that will guarantee an increase in sales, yet sometimes the most trivial things can cause an uproaringly large effect on consumer decision making. Throughout my blogs this semester I will attempt to identify certain quirky modes of marketing that pique my interest and review their causes and effects.

Look out for my next entries where I tackle the concepts of targetting using examples from [C] and marketing tactics using examples from the big guy himself: Konami.

Not sure what [C] is? Don’t know why I refer to Konami as “the big guy”? Tune in for my future blog posts to find out.

The first comm296 blog post is complete.

Signing off,

-Chris