Things and Stuff

Remember around 1995, when all of a sudden the social conscience of the world seemed to explode in a wave of pre-millennial guilt? That was when Nike, global athletic wear brand, came under a harsh spotlight for allegations regarding its labour abuses in overseas countries. Images such as the one shown below ran rampant:

The interesting thing about this public reaction was that Nike was not alone in outsourcing its labour and paying peanuts for wages. Many other manufacturers, those of clothing especially, saw in the rise of cheaper global transport an opportunity to cut costs.  It is likely that Nike came under such harsh criticism initially due to its strong position as an industry leader and a well-established brand, especially one with humble, ‘of the people’ origins.  However, once this snowball of criticism had started, ordinary consumers found themselves caught up in protests and boycotts that shook Nike’s brand value around the globe.

And then, what happened? Nike is currently an extremely popular brand, and through the years it has expanded its offerings beyond simply athletic clothing to include a women-specific apparel line and many lifestyle pieces, most recently focusing on hip-hop apparel and shoes.  In doing so, Nike has solidified its role as a leader, both in its original field and in apparel industries beyond this.  Although there are still some individuals who bring up sweatshops as a sticking point when refusing to purchase Nike apparel, the bulk of consumers (at least the observable ones) in Nike’s target markets seem to have forgotten this unfortunate incident, or at least find Nike’s new offerings more favourable than a boycott at this point.  I am an example of this; although I consider myself to be socially responsible, one of my favourite pairs of shoes is a pair of Nike hightops.

Yes, it is true that Nike made commitments to improve working conditions.  Yes, they did employ more transparency methods in their manufacturing processes, and begin a Nike Corporate Responsibility handbook.  But many of these issues, while somewhat addressed, were not solved and still exist to this day. 44cent wages and cramped spaces still exist, as they do in the factories of many firms. It’s almost as though we’ve stopped caring…

But I don’t think that’s it.  We just care about our shoes more.

vs. 

When perusing my friend and classmate Daniel Kong’s blog The Black Renaissance, I stumbled upon this post from last week regarding the supplanting of Google by Twitter.  In his post, Daniel discusses how via Twitter, consumers and marketers are now able to perceive trends and find changes in public perception before they have even become noticeable enough to be picked up by major search engines – namely, Google.

This leads to an interesting thought process regarding the nature of each website.  When originally released, Twitter was thought of as a social media network, meant for businesses to keep target consumers updated, while Google has always been primarily a search engine, albeit the most well-regarded and powerful in the world.  However, as each firm seeks to develop their product and domain further, the inevitable is happening: turf wars.  Google has Gmail, Google Docs, and Google chat, each of which, while not directly competing with Twitter, competes with Twitter for consumers’ time when they are online.  Twitter. on the other hand, is being used at an increasing rate by trend watching websites and consumer behaviour analysts as influential individuals are likely to post their thoughts on, say, a fashion show via their Twitter immediately after it happens. Thus, consumer ideas and burgeoning trends are available for comment before they can even become substantial enough to register in a search engine.

However, I am still of the belief that Twitter could never compete with Google where it matters.  While it may be fabulous for monitoring trends, the only way that these trends hit the population as a whole in this modern day and age is via a solid page or domain that can generate the hits necessary to create a stir among consumers – thus, Twitter may catch on to the ideas first, but the ideas become trends via hits on Google.  This applies not only to the fashion industry, but also to general trends regarding consumer preferences, reactions to new products, and changing social movements. All in all, I feel that the two regard each other with a competitive mindset, but can in fact benefit each other. The competition only starts once Facebook is factored in…

This past Remembrance Day was marked by the lowest ever attendance of WWI and WWII veterans to ceremonies across Canada, and it is no surprise why: as the years from these wars grow in number, the remaining veterans conversely decrease in number. There are currently only 3 or 4 surviving WWI veterans in the world (depending on how veteran is defined – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I, and when they no longer remain, the entire global perception of the First World War will change. It will change from being within living memory to suddenly being a conflict long past, the details of which are remembered only in textbooks rather than in the vivid and fresh stories of individuals.

Our collective memory of WWII faces a similar, if not as urgent, problem.  It has been estimated that approximately 1700 WWII veterans pass away each month. Soon, this too will pass from living memory.

How will this change our perception of Remembrance Day? The poppies have always been associated with John McCrae’s iconic poem In Flanders Fields, relating directly to the First World War.  Even though the message of Remembrance Day and the significance of the moment of silence at the time of Armistice have transcended the boundaries originally set by WWI, for many the perception of the day is one of recognition primarily of veterans from wars long past, and of modern day veterans second.  In light of this, many Remembrance Day celebrations have started to include costumed individuals to represent the war veterans who can no longer be with us, yet the gravity of whose sacrifice must still be acknowledged.

However, I believe for Remembrance Day to continue to carry the weight and significance that it deserves into the future, a shift needs to be made in its focus.  By 2015, modern-day veterans will outnumber the veterans from WWII and the Korean War by approximately three to one (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/Remembrance_Day/veterans-by-the-numbers/article1794591/?from=1794568).  Canadians need to understand that even though the scope of our wars may have changed, this does not change the enormity of the sacrifice that our soldiers make for this country.  Veterans Affairs Canada needs to seriously consider rebranding Remembrance Day to put a much more emphasized focus on today’s veterans, who are coming home with a vastly different psychological landscape to a much more lukewarm reception.  In order to truly allow Canadian citizens to feel motivated to participate in Remembrance Day once more, we must be forced to recognize that today’s veterans are among us, and deserve our  appreciation.  I would suggest the creation of more informative advertisements and documentaries by Veterans Affairs Canada, as well as increased funding for celebrations putting a strong focus on modern-day veterans.  The symbols of Remembrance Day, such as the poem and the poppy, should not be dropped, but rather should be used to help put focus on modern-day veterans and warfare.  We cannot afford to forget the past, but in order to keep this memory alive we must keep the tradition alive, and the only way to do this is to adapt the traditions of Remembrance Day for today.

Do you remember those TV spot ads that aired last January about Broccoli, the miracle food? If you haven’t seen it yet, check it out, it’s pretty funny: There was also a pretty strong website going, which can be found here: http://themiraclefood.ca/

However, in late September the Television Bureau of Canada revealed that the ads were not, in fact, an actual ad campaign. No, it was an effort on the part of the TVB to prove that advertising can sell anything. And it’s true. The TV ad alone was able to create a huge fan following after just five weeks, seen in the Facebook pages that attracted more than 20,000 followers and the video’s high ratings on YouTube. More importantly, broccoli sales were 8% higher than they had been the previous year – or, 188,574 lbs more.

So, is it true that advertising can sell anything? Or was the broccoli campaign so successful because it merely repeated what our mothers have always been telling us – but in a much less menacing way? Regardless, I know that I have a new appreciation for broccoli’s health benefits that isn’t going to disappear just because the man with the parachute is no longer on TV.  Without this ad campaign, I would probably still be missing out on all those essential nutrients.

In honour of Halloweekend and all the rowdiness that surely took place (by which I mean too much candy – OBVIOUSLY), I have decided to devote this post to the new Guinness ads that I saw everywhere this weekend.

Anyone who has haunted an Irish-type pub in the last month or so (my choices would be Mahoney’s or Dentry’s, but any will do!) has surely seen these ads, although I couldn’t seem to find one one their website and had to use one from 2008 instead.  Basically, the Guinness Halloween campaign seeks to link the darkness and mystery of Guinness with the darkness and mystery of Halloween – a seemingly difficult task for a brewing company with such a rich history (dating back to 1930) with a traditional focus on its heartiness, high comfort association and classic Irish brewing methods.

However, a closer look makes it clear that this Halloween marketing is a stroke of brilliance.  After all, everyone loves to share a pint or two at Halloween, but it lacks the traditional attention of alcohol companies as there is still a strong association with children at Halloween, and I suppose that while skimpy adult Halloween costumes are one thing, pushing alcohol at this primary school holiday is another.  However, without specifically saying on its packaging that Guinness is the new Halloween drink, all of the ads made the association very clear.  New this year was a drink called Guinness and Blood or some variation on that, which sought to also tap the growing health trend by creating a pomegranate-Guinness mixed drink. I personally never tried it, but I’m sure the bitter beer would have gone beautifully with the rich tang of pomegranate.

All in all, as strange as the Guinness Halloween campaign may seem, it appears to have been successful; why else would it be kept running for four years in a row? It makes sense that management, resenting the brand’s sudden North American popularity on March 17 and much lower, more constant sales throughout the rest of the year, would seek to create a second push. As for me, I am happy to enjoy a Guinness any day of the year… but at Halloween, maybe I’ll have two.

And here are two Guinness ads, one from Halloween 2008 and one from 1930.

I was just perusing my classmate Kim’s blog, which was recommended to me a while ago, when I stumbled upon this post relating to cause-related marketing; specifically, Toms shoes (https://blogs.ubc.ca/kimgraves/2010/09/22/cause-marketing/).  Now, I mean absolutely no offense to Kim at all when I say that I disagree with her standpoint on the benefits of cause-related marketing; I did enjoy looking at her blog and seeing the inventive ads that she had found.  Still, there are some points about the idea of cause-related marketing that just do not sit well with me as an individual.

Within itself, the idea of products being marketed to fund a cause is seemingly a wonderful idea; after all, if a product is going to be purchased by a consumer, then why not allow the profits to benefit a non-profit organization or fund vital research? However, the problem arises when firms intentionally or unintentionally use the cause that is being championed as a method to enhance their own profits first and foremost. There are examples of firms latching onto the causes of non-profit organizations to try and improve poor company images or public relations.  There are instances in which the advertising costs for the initiative are higher than the amount that is donated to the non-profit in the end – although definitely not lower than the firm’s overall profit from the initiative.  And, most significantly, the amount being donated is often only a fraction – say, 5% – of the cost of the product being sold.

I understand that firm’s must seek to cover their own costs first, but at the same time, the amount of business that cause-related products is significant.  From my own experience running events, when it is stated that an amount close to 30% of the proceeds are being donated to a charity, attendance has improved significantly, sometimes by as much as 50%. Are businesses, and not charities, the ones who are benefiting from these initiatives?

Of course, any non-profit organization appreciates a significant donation, and any money is better than none.  As well, consumers are much more likely to purchase a Project(Red) iPod Nano for $189.00 than they are to donate a portion of this amount to a non-profit organization. Despite the argument that the middleman should be eliminated, the presence of this corporate middleman clearly is helpful.

What I am trying to say is that while they ARE making a difference, for many of these firms the difference they are making is miniscule compared to the potential impact they could have. I am not opposed to cause-related marketing as a practice; rather, I am simply asking consumers to view the practice with a bit more skepticism to ensure that the dollars intended to go to a charity actually end up there.

There is now a growing trend of corporate social responsibility, which is putting more pressure on firms to truly devote their efforts to social growth, not to simply pay lip-service by donating 1% of product sales and convincing consumers that they have made a significant difference in the world when there is so much more to be done.  Firms like Toms Shoes, which offer one pair of shoes to developing communities for every pair sold, are an example of the former, and their success will hopefully act as an inspiration for other firms engaged in these kinds of initiatives.

Or maybe me and my Toms-shod feet have just been a victim of cause-related marketing.

In the constant quest for firms to expand, new markets are always on the radar.  As soon as a subculture becomes mainstream, as soon as an image becomes popular, as soon as an idea takes flight, or as soon as a country’s GDP reaches a certain level, they are suddenly transformed from a niche area into a full-fledged market that attracts the attention of all the firms within a stone’s throw.

One of these markets that is just starting to take off is the new level attention given to the formally named ‘queer market’, or less formally, the gay community.  I am not speaking about certain products that are made for individuals in the gay community; as long as the community has existed publicly, there have been products targeted towards its members.  After all, there are those market researchers who consider the gay man to be the dream consumer: “higher disposable income, education, good taste, and a desire to purchase high quality products.” (http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/advertising/292447-1.html; check it out for a critical look at this stereotype and more ideas for marketing to the gay community) However, keep in mind that this stereotype by no means describes the entire gay population, and you understand the problems with painting the entire gay community with one brush when it comes to product design.

No, what I am speaking about here is the incorporation of gay symbols or images into the everyday advertising that typically tries to connect all customers.  See, for example, the Rainbow Absolut vodka bottle that was released in 2008 in honour of 30 years of the Rainbow Pride flag.  Or, as an alternative, the TD bank ads that portray the perfect couple and happy marriage as extending beyond the conventional man-woman relationship.

This incorporation of the gay community into mainstream society via marketing represents an important societal shift in that it conveys acceptance and equality, both of which the gay community are still striving for on many counts. This Wednesday, Oct. 20, is Spirit Day, created to demonstrate solidarity with the gay community and to encourage open and welcoming communities.  Events such as this, which has over 60,000 attendees on Facebook alone, are demonstrative of society’s changing perception of the gay community.  It only makes sense that the marketing world tap into this as well.

So here is the link to a sweet blog that I’ve just begun following.  shape+colour is written by Jeremy Elder, an advertising copywriter who uses his blog both to comment on marketing stuff and also n general aesthetic successes that he sees in everyday life.  Jeremy brings a nice blend of business, social media and fine art sensibilities to all that he comments on, and he truly has an eye for the beautiful and the unique. shape+colour was also named one of Canada’s top 50 marketing blogs for 2010 by AdAge, which seems pretty good to me.

My favourite post of his is the one on the Gorillaz, one of my favourite bands, which was posted back in July… but take a look around his site, there is definitely something for everyone!

http://shapeandcolour.wordpress.com/

You know what I’m excited about? The new Harry Potter movie.  That’s right. Official release date is still over a month away, and yet I’m already getting tingles and spinal shivers just thinking about it.  The Harry Potter phenomenon is one that hits my generation particularly hard, as we have grown up with Harry, hit puberty as Harry has, fell in love when Harry has, and maybe not fought an evil wizard intent on global domination, but definitely faced down our own fears for the future. We love Harry and his cohorts.  We want to read about him, see him on the screen, go to his amusement park, and drink Butterbeers.

This is why the production team behind the Harry Potter films has made such a good choice in choosing to split the last book into two movies.  Not only will they assuage the typical book-to-movie complaints from fans regarding plot details, but they will be able to truly explore all of Harry’s growth into a mature and self-sacrificing individual (ahem, spoiler alert?) and devote the time needed to understand the nuances of character that occur along with all of the action.

O, and they will also be able to more than double their revenue while making fans even happier.

Dumbledore would approve.

PETA has long been known for their somewhat scandalous, ethically questionable ads in which attractive models bare all to attract attention for the rights of animals.  As attention-grabbing and sensational as this is, though, their effectiveness is questionable: Does seeing Pamela Anderson naked really make me want to be a vegetarian? Or does it just make me want to google more pictures of Pamela Anderson naked?

Whose cause is this helping – PETA, or the celebrities who endorse them?