Anyone who’s taken a bus (or strolled around downtown) in the past month would be hard-pressed to miss the stately white horse gracing banners for Cavalia, the equine version of Cirque du Soleil that’s recently arrived in Vancouver. The show’s venue, mammoth-sized white tents located near the Olympic Village, are equally noticeable. The billboards caught my attention during particularly dull commutes, but I was unsure of what was really being promoted. Apparently the repetitive, if uninformative advertising did it’s job in this case, since my family ended up buying tickets.

The promotional picture shown above perfectly exemplifies the show: the emphasis is on the grace and intelligence of the horse(s), while the human trainers and acrobats are just along for the ride. Cavalia or, to be official, Cavalia: A Magical Encounter Between Human and Horse was a mixture of ethereal horse choreography and fast-paced trick riding. Television host Larry King lauded Cavalia as “the best show [he] has ever seen! Like being in a dream,” which is an apt description of the atmospheric performance and garnered it additional publicity.

The billboards and promotions are clearly aimed at horse enthusiasts, a group I previously wouldn’t have thought very prevalent. I loved the show despite having zero experience interacting with horses, but the couple sitting in front of me waxed poetic about the animals’ “braided forelocks and gleaming flanks.” People even have the option of buying more expensive “horse lover” tickets, which are basically a backstage pass, allowing holders to interact with the horses in their stables after the show. Judging from the success of the award-winning and continent-spanning show, so-called horse lovers have the potential to be a surprisingly profitable target market. Who knew?

It’s official: Rebecca Black is more popular than both Justin Bieber and Britney Spears. By iTunes’ standards, that is. According to forbes.com, “Friday,” the 13-year-old’s debut single, “amassed a staggering number of downloads, reportedly topping 2 million” only a week after its release. The fun, fun, fun song gained near-instantaneous notoriety for being, well, really bad. As everyone with a computer is probably already aware, “Friday” deals with such prominent issues as choice of breakfast cereal and vehicular seating arrangements – on a Friday, of course. (Re)watch the video below, but be warned that the song is as addictive as it is lyrically uninspired.

More than anything, this shows the incredible, nebulous potential of interactive video-sharing sites. YouTube is inundated with content, much of it overlooked in favor of videos with the highest view count. But when something grabs viewers’ attention – such as a catchy song of unparalleled mediocrity – it has the potential to explode into prominence due to the social, accessible nature of such sites; parodies of Rebecca Black’s video, one of which was my first exposure to the viral sensation, are everywhere. And YouTube isn’t the only social media site suffering from “Friday”-overload. Twitter is all a chatter with mentions of Rebecca Black, who continues to be a trending topic.

Judging from the content of its website, Ark Music Factory – the company that produced “Friday” – is exactly what the name implies: a mass-marketing manufacturer of indistinguishable, pint-sized pop stars. The record label is currently promoting “Butterflies” by Alana Lee, “the girl who introduced Rebecca Black to Ark Music Factory.” As shown below, her song and video follow the same formula as “Friday:” simple, repetitive lyrics + peppy tween girl + incongruous appearance by older male rapper = viral success in the making.

Before I jump into the varied and extremely effective (and affective!) components of the Canucks brand, let’s rewind a few years to the first time I watched an NHL game live: excitement was palpable in the sweat- and hot dog-scented air as fans of the opposing teams (Vancouver and Toronto, my hometown) traded insults and brandished their respective paraphernalia. Boring! I promptly took out a book, and, to the horror of my dad and brothers, proceeded to read for the entirety of the tense game.

Cristalle Lau recently wrote a blog post examining the Canucks’ branding benefits, which got me thinking about what makes the Canucks – and sports teams in general, really – such powerful cross-promotional partners. Not long after the Vancouver-Toronto match-up mentioned above, I moved to Vancouver and was bombarded with Canucks advertising – the green and blue logo tacked on shirts and cars, the “Go Canucks Go!” sign that flashes across buses, promotional posters and billboards. It’s difficult not to get caught up in the hype, especially when the team is performing so well (still number 1!).

Such promotional activities have allowed the Canucks to succeed in establishing an unbreakable community connection; this relationship with fans is additionally sustained and strengthened through contests and PR initiatives, such as the Kids Fund Telethon recently supported by the team:

Using sports teams as promotional tools is nothing new. Pubs and restaurants, for example, often offer discounts and special features on game nights. Fans associate positively – often fervently – with their favourite teams, so marketing one’s brand alongside a popular sports team can likely be very lucrative. And judging by the vast array and variety of companies that are included among the Canucks’ promotional associates (shown below), all types of companies can benefit from such partnerships.

How much would you pay to download a digital album comprised of the above songs? $1.00? $9.99 plus tax? Nothing, perhaps? These were the questions Radiohead asked fans upon releasing their seventh album, In Rainbows, with the following message splashed across their website: pick your own price. As one of the aforementioned fans, I was thrilled, but also curious about the motivation behind such a surprising decision.

This sales-oriented pricing strategy was likely influenced by the prevalence of free music downloading, which – though illegal – is accessible and socially acceptable. Radiohead’s risk paid off, with critically-acclaimed In Rainbows making $10 million in its first week. And by releasing the album exclusively through their website, rather than an online music store like iTunes, the band actually benefited financially from the increase in sales. Radiohead also profited by foregoing representation by an expensive record label, a partnership that lead singer Thom Yorke notably referred to as a “decaying business model.”

Just as Subway circumvented rivals’ odd pricing strategies with its catchy ‘$5 footlong’ promotion, Radiohead’s ‘pick your own price’ policy differentiated them from the competition due to its being unprecedented in their industry. This is even more significant given that Radiohead is a relatively indie – that is, not mainstream – band, which implies fewer grand-scale advertising opportunities and, consequently, limits the size of their audience. The sales-boosting release of In Rainbows likely attracted new listeners who were able to sample Radiohead’s music with little risk, allowing the band to reach a broader market with future releases.

This assumption will soon be tested, as the band’s eighth album, the King of Limbs, hit shelves computer screens just last month. A physical CD version will also be released on March 28, which I’ll definitely be picking up – despite the $8.99 price tag that will accompany it.

According to a recent  post on AdFreak, the Doritos “Pug Attack” commercial – along with Bud Light’s “Dogsitter” – triumphed as the best commercial of Superbowl XLV. As can be seen above, “Pug Attack” relies on three key elements to grab viewers’ attention: ridiculous overacting, dramatic music and the undeniable power of Pug Cuteness. The commercial’s simplistic humor is endearing, but I don’t find it particularly interesting or groundbreaking.

But Doritos has since won me over. Not with an adorable animal = likable product advertising scheme, but rather with a weird one. Every time I turned on the TV last week, it seemed I was watching the following commercial.  Even if my mind was elsewhere – say, considering possible topics for my next marketing blog post – it inevitably caught my attention with its inexplicable French dialogue.

This commercial is so weird. I love it! Every detail accentuates the weirdness, from the strange, cubic containers that each conceal a single Doritos chip to to the sweat peppering the nervous inventor’s face. Rarely do I get this excited over a simple commercial, but that’s the point: unlike the Doritos Superbowl ad, this commercial is anything but simple. It is unique, creative and engages the audience’s attitudes on every level. Behaviorally, I’m incited to explore the contest’s website and contribute my own outlandish entry, while cognitively I’m inclined to think of Doritos as a brand that is innovative – they’ve proposed two previously unheard of flavors, Buffalo Wings N’ Ranch and Onion Rings N’ Ketchup – and cares about the input of its customers. As my excited reaction attests, I also feel more positively about Doritos – a product I was previously apathetic toward.

There’s something addictive about Jeopardy!. It lacks the cheesy glitz of Wheel of Fortune and the gimmicky draw-in of Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?, and yet, I can never help but be amused by the obscure questions – ranging from pop culture to geography – or the gentlemanly, ubiquitous presence of host Alex Trebek. Whatever the intangible quality that attracts viewers, Jeopardy! is generally considered the intellectual paragon of game shows (which is not, admittedly, saying much); with this reputation, the show was the ideal venue for IBM to showcase its latest product development: a supercomputer named Watson.

Jeopardy!’s most famous winners, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter, were Watson’s human punching bags opponents. The recent three-night spectacle played out as one would imagine: Watson’s logarithm-enhanced brain triumphed over the more common sense-based knowledge of its human competitors, albeit with the occasional glitch.

More interestingly, IBM logos and propaganda were prominently featured, with commentaries from the engineers who designed Watson accounting for half of the three 30-minute shows. While not exactly market testing, IBM used Jeopardy! to provide a simplified explanation of its innovative product in a way that even I – a near-technophobe who still struggles with the complexity of text-messaging – found understandable. IBM clearly invested a significant amount of time and money on simplifying Watson’s design; on Jeopardy!, the so-called “learning computer” appeared as a human-sized, rectangular avatar and spoke in a (near-comical) simulated voice.

IBM took immediate advantage of the publicity garnered by Watson’s win. According to an article in the Vancouver Sun, the company recently revealed that Watson is intended to assist hospital staff in diagnosing patients with unprecedented efficiency, in addition to speeding up “everything from the checkout lines to search engines.” And after that, who knows? World domination, maybe?

“That’s so silly,” was my mom’s disparaging comment upon glancing at the following commercial for Electronic Arts’ Dead Space 2.

Initially, I agreed with my mom’s assessment. It wasn’t until I read the Dead Space-related post on Victoria Capron’s blog that I reconsidered my opinion from a marketing standpoint. The commercial is undoubtedly silly; the appalled reactions of real-life mothers (200 of whom participated in EA-sponsored focus-group sessions) are juxtaposed with violent, cringe-inducing footage from the game. The promotional website highlighted in the ad – appropriately titled yourmomhatesthis.com – emphasizes the game’s Mature rating, which it garnered due to excessive “blood and gore, intense violence and strong language.”

So, as a woman in the commercial asks, “Why would they even make something like this?” The ad appears to be targeting teenagers and tweens, for whom parental outrage – and associative products that are “too cool” for the older generation to grasp – can be an appealing prospect. However, with its 17+ rating, the game is being marketed to a demographic that can’t legally purchase it. Additionally, the commercial is only shown in the evening, when viewership among kids is low. Therefore, there is a discrepancy between the ad’s apparent target market and those who will view the commercial and legally purchase the game.

Perhaps, as Victoria pointed out in her blog post, Electronic Arts is betting on children influencing the purchasing decision of their parents. But maybe Electronic Arts could better – or, at least, more accurately – market Dead Space 2 by promoting the game’s overwhelmingly positive reviews, rather than relying on shock value and hype to attract young buyers.

An England-born franchise revamped as an MTV production, “Skins” is, according to the Parents Television Council (PTC), the “most dangerous television show ever made.” You might have heard of it. Or maybe not, considering the show is losing advertising faster than it’s gaining viewers.

Skins has more than earned the controversy it’s incited, with its glorification of teenage debauchery and rampant partying. Prior to the show’s recent premiere, MTV managed to secure endorsements from several big-name companies like Mars, General Motors, Schick and Kraft – all of whom have since rescinded their promotional efforts. This is primarily due to the PTC’s slandering the show for marketing its controversial subject matter “directly to children.” And ethics-conscious parents aren’t the only critics; fans of the original British Skins are just as vocal. Though as the following tweets attest, their criticism of the new show has more to do with preserving the sanctity of the original:

MTV, hoping to capitalize on the controversy, launched an extensive – and expensive – marketing campaign. Both clever and potentially harmful, the campaign included a Facebook app that encourages teens to publicly divulge their bad behaviour in order to earn a “wildness” score. This raises an important marketing question: When does it go too far?

Content-wise, Skins isn’t unlike MTV’s current money-maker, Jersey Shore (minus the GTL and lame-witty catchphrases), except for one major difference: Skins features teenagers. And not the young-looking, twenty-something versions popularized by the likes of Gossip Girl and Glee. The actors on Skins are as young as seventeen, which raises additional issues about child pornography laws. MTV maintains that it is in compliance with all “applicable legal requirements, but also with our responsibilities to our viewers.” Perhaps MTV is misinterpreting its so-called “responsibilities,” which should include an ethical component.

Let me preface the negative statements-to-come by admitting something: I love my Snuggie. This defies logic, considering the product’s poor quality and relative uselessness, but there it is. In an attempt to decode the mystery of the Snuggie Phenomenon, which has captivated more than 20 million people in America alone, I considered their marketing mix:

Product: The blanket with sleeves, designed to combine ease of movement with comfort. One size is supposed to fit all; I’m 5”3’, and my Snuggie pools around my feet. But is it as “ultra-soft” as the commercial attests? Not so much. The material is coarse and loses its warmth retention after one wash.

Price: $19.95 plus the cost of shipping and handling – a steep price to pay for what is essentially a backwards-worn bathrobe.

Place: Available since 2009, the Snuggie can be purchased from online retailers like Amazon.com, as well as through infomercial call-ins and specialty stores.

Promotion: The nauseatingly cheesy, overly cutesy infomercial that had me – inexplicably – reaching for the phone the first time I saw it at 2am. This strangely addicting commercial was then parodied into stardom by pseudo-celebrities like Ellen Degeneres and Jay Leno. Snuggie creator, Allstar Products Group, encouraged spoofs – and the buzz generated by them – through competitions and postings on the Snuggie Fan Club website (yes, it exists). Word-of-mouth did the rest.

Competitors – the Slanket, the Freedom Blanket, the Blankoat – have arisen over time, but none can match the hype of the original. I love my Snuggie. My brother may insist on calling me “Harry Potter” whenever I wear it, but I don’t care; this brand’s quirky, silly-fun (genius?!) advertising won me over.

Three heavyweights enter the ring: Kobo, Kindle, Nook. Besides sharing silly – if catchy – monikers, these competitors are also the three foremost e-readers on the market. Each is backed by a big-name bookstore hoping to capitalize on current trends toward easy accessibility and technological advancements.

Let’s meet the contenders:

Kobo (an anagram of ‘book’) is the young up-and-comer, partnered with Borders. Released in July 2010 at a price of $150, Kobo was presented as a cheaper, simpler alternative to more expensive e-readers and tablets. This marketing scheme was ineffective as a sustainable competitive advantage, as competitors quickly responded with lowered prices; however, Kobo succeeded in eliciting substantial consumer interest. Realizing the importance of social media to modern consumers, Kobo recently released the first social e-reader app. The new app enables readers to keep track of their reading stats and interact on Facebook.

Kindle is the e-reader pioneer. Sleek and light-weight, the original $400 version revolutionized the way people think about books. Kindle’s main advantages are its first mover status and connection to Amazon.com, which allows readers to browse consumer-reviewed books and download them straight to their device using Amazon’s 3G “whispernet” technology.

Finally, there’s Nook, the underdog. The original Barnes & Noble Nook boosted in-store support, but received criticism due to the product’s lack of availability and suffered from comparisons to its predecessor: According to PC Magazine, “on the original Nook, page turning took twice as long as page turning on the Kindle.” A slight difference, but significant in the close-fought battle for e-reader supremacy.

It remains to be seen if Kobo will KO the competition with its emphasis on the social aspects of reading, or if Kindle and Nook’s longstanding advocates will ensure their continued domination, but one thing is certain: the Battle of the Books wages on.