Sheena Ahmed's Blog

A study  reported in Time) states that online sales are more likely to result from search engine results than from links in social media postings eg Facebook, which get credit for only about 1% of the sales made.  However, 48% of respondents in the survey viewed social media as “a great way” to get product information, but that raises the question of whether such information availability, actual increase brand preference or sales.

I personally think that the effect of social media on inducing sales of specific items may be somewhat overestimated by both consumers and some marketers.  Although it is true that brand preference, share or sales are related to each other, but it doesn’t mean one of them causes the other. For example, it is true that some of the most popular brands such as Apple, Samsung, Nike, to name only a few, have the highest number of Facebook fans or “likes” but that is because they already have a high number of users and advocates. These likes are an expression of pre-existing brand preference and not a cause of it. Some studies state that Facebook fans spend more on a product than Facebook users who are not fans. For example, Facebook likers of Starbucks coffee spent more in store than non-likers. This behaviour by consumers is predictable because if they prefer certain brands, they are likely to spend more money on those brands – which is the whole purpose of consumer marketing and the process of building brands. So yes, there is a relationship between Facebook likes and brand performance but the relationship is caused by the strengths of the brand that almost certainly existed before the impact of Facebook. The Facebook like is not the cause of brand preference but simply a reflection of it.

Sources:

http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2191957/Why-Facebook-Ad-Haters-Are-Wrong-Heres-How-Marketers-Can-Do-Better

http://thesocialskinny.com/what-is-the-value-of-a-facebook-fan/

http://www.forrester.com/Less+Than+1+Of+Online+Purchases+Come+From+Social+Channels/-/E-PRE4104

Nestle, although being one of the most successful food-based companies in the world, has continuously resorted to unethical marketing strategies to sell many of its products. For example, Nestle has been aggressively promoting infant formula, especially to poor countries. Issues have been brought up because their promotions have increased infant deaths and health problems.

The picture above is the picture of Nestle’s baby formula sold in developing countries. Mothers in these regions are made to believe that such products are a better substitute to breastfeeding. Lack of education among people in developing countries makes it very easy for Nestle to market its products and increase its profit margins. Organizations such as the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) claim that Nestlé’s promotion of formulas over breastfeeding has lead to serious health problems and deaths among infants in less developed countries. The usage of such infant formulas has caused great loss to the health of infants in different ways. For example, since the formula needs water, contamination is a major issue. Also, because it’s expensive, mothers add more water to make it last longer, which causes malnutrition. Milk powder also doesn’t fulfill the nutrition requirements (e.g. – antibodies) that natural breast milk provides, so babies aren’t being protected from viruses.

Nestle has been accused globally for this practise as they manipulated mothers’ mindsets by convincing them that the formula was much healthier for their children than the natural breastfeeding. A company like Nestle, which is already so profitable and famous internationally should not take advantage of vulnerable people and should care about their consumers especially because it pertains to their health and longevity.

Resources:

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=240

http://info.babymilkaction.org/nestlefree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott#The_baby_milk_issue

I was absolutely certain about writing on PSY’s “Gangnam Style”, a song which has broken all records in history. On 8^th November 2012, Today PSY was honoured with a Guinness World Record for the most liked YouTube video in history. Yes, PSY beat out Justin Bieber’s “Baby” with 4,911,981 likes. http://music.cbc.ca/#/blogs/2012/11/Gangnam-Style-makes-YouTube-history-lets-all-horse-dance. I absolutely agree with the reasons Anthony Chen’s gave in his blog post for the popularity of Gangnam style outside South Korea, even though nobody actually understands what the song means or conveys as it is entirely in Korean except for “the sexy lady” part. The song is the first K-pop track I have ever heard and not surprisingly, its music and video both made me love and it was on repeat for over a week on my ipod (I hardly listen to the same song for over a week so you can tell how much I loved the track). The music style is so catchy and the video captivates you throughout its duration along with its unique “horse riding dance” which is its signature dance move. http://www.cbc.ca/news/petermansbridge/peterGangnam-short.gif

However, there are additional reasons for the success of the song. If the video weren’t as outrageous and hilarious as it is, it would not have gotten the traction it did in Western markets. The success could also merely be luck because when PSY was questioned to explain the popularity of Gangnam style, he said, “I don’t know. People call this song, literally a phenomenon. And we can’t tell or analyze or predict a phenomenon. So if I got one more hit or one more success after this, then I can tell (if there was) something I did this way so I (had) some success. But now I just live today.” Whatever the reasons for the massive hit of his song are, we wish this South Korean pop artist-rapper the best of luck for his future endeavors!

Sources:

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/the-k-pop-industry-why-8216gangnam-style-became-a-hit/3045

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/09/marketing_gangnam_style.html

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/gangnam-style

The results have been revealed after one of the closest presidential election seasons in America’s history: Barack Obama has secured another four years in the White House.

But the reactions to the news across the US and the world are far from unanimous. While some people screamed with joy, others were dismayed and disappointed over Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s loss. http://news.linktv.org/videos/world-reacts-to-obama-victory-with-ecstasy-relief-caution .

The latter could be best illustrated by mentioning Pakistan’s response to the election result. According to a statement issued by Pakistan’s ministry of foreign affairs , the Pakistani President Mr Asif Ali Zardari warmly felicitated President Barack Obama on his re-election as the president of the United States of America and also expressed the hope that the relationship between Pakistan and the US would continue to prosper during President Obama’s new term in office.

However, in reality, Pakistan was the only nation which least favored Obama to be re elected as the American President. In a BBC World Service pre-election opinion poll around the world, Pakistanis said they favoured Romney. Pakistan was the only country out of more than 20 sampled to do so. However, large numbers of people polled said they were indifferent to, or unaware of, the election. This reaction was because Obama’s first term was marked by a severe deterioration of relations between Pakistan and the US, especially since the killing of Osama bin Laden by US special forces in a northern Pakistani town in May last year. Obama said repeatedly during the campaign that the killing of Bin Laden was a major victory for US counter-terrorism and a key achievement of his presidency, much to the frustration of many Pakistanis. Controversial drone strikes, which are deeply unpopular in much of Pakistan and a technical breach of the country’s sovereignty, all happened during Obama’s reign.

Sources

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

http://www.mofa.gov.pk/mfa/pages/article.aspx?id=1360&type=1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/obama-wins-world-leader-react-_n_2087796.html

Just a few days ago, I was having lunch with a close friend in her fourth year at Sauder, who is quite savvy on social media. Soon enough, our conversation turned to the value of LinkedIn as a sales tool, but prompted a lively discussion as to how to best use it. I have only 150 contacts so far on this site but that is because I limit LinkedIn contacts to those with whom I’ve actually spoken to or connected with. Not all of those connections are strong, obviously, and that is why LinkedIn provides me with a platform to build on the communication initiated earlier with my contacts and also to get to know them better.

My friend, however, had a different take. She thinks people should add everyone they can, whether they know them or not. This leads me to think if the norm of adding names of people you don’t know is eroding the effectiveness of LinkedIn as a sales tool. LinkedIn is a professional tool, built for mature professionals. It is not a social networking site, like Facebook or Twitter, but is solely used to build business connections. However, I strongly believe that adding employers and professionals who we have never met or spoken to before, might display a impressive huge ‘connections’ number on our profile, but in reality, it would not demonstrate a list of legitimate business contacts. It is better to start small and keep your list focused but effective. Make an effort to meet more people and get to know them better and hence expand your contacts by repeating this approach. This might take longer but in the end, only close and strong connections can help you get your dream job instead of having thousands of superficial contacts on your LinkedIn profile.

Sources:

http://www.linkedin.com/answers/marketing-sales/advertising-promotion/direct-marketing/MAR_ADP_DMA/999931-8424757

http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/5-signs-linkedin-profile-effective/

http://www.businesscomputingworld.co.uk/10-easy-steps-to-improve-linkedin-networking-effectiveness/

Future of Blackberry Smartphones: Are They Hear To Stay?

There has been a lot of speculation on the notion that blackberry (RIM-Research in Motion) will soon go out of business and that it will lay off 2000 workers. This is ofcourse due to increased competition from Google and Apple making Blackberry’s domination over smartphones no longer visible. This may be because they did not embrace touch screen designs, or an open app market quickly enough, causing iPhone and Android devices to take an ever increasing share of their business. The article http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/03/rim-going-out-of-business_n_1400838.html does give solid reasons for blackberry going out of business. However, while these opinions formed by the media and the audience might be true, I firmly believe that this won’t be the case as Blackberry is still the device of choice for corporate users owing to the Blackberry Push email service which makes the device receive emails instantly, instead of waiting around for a sync request. Also, even if RIM were to fail, the Blackberry brand name, patents, software designs, and other assets will not disappear. Another tech giant might buy them out or something, but we will always have a Blackberry device group. Worse case scenario with Blackberry might be a repetition of what happened with Palm which designed a super device operating system while they were bleeding cash. Eventually HP bought them out and continued making cell phones using Palm’s webOS device platform.

Again, this would be only probable if Blackberry fails to turn sales around. I am pretty confident that even with declining market sales, Blackberry is here to stay for atleast another 10-15 years.