Month: November 2012

This post is in response to Conor MacDonald’s Pepsi vs. Coke Advertisement.

Although Coca-Cola seems to be winning its ongoing war with Pepsi, I wouldn’t be so quick to credit it to product superiority. In fact, in most situations, I find the two products to be fairly similar, although I am a Pepsi fan myself. However, the real upper hand in this battle is due to product placement.

Movies have become a novel way to market products, so it’s not a surprise that the two soft drink giants have capitalized on this opportunity. According to Geek Tyrant, Coca-Cola began appearing in movies in 1933, whereas Pepsi followed almost 30 years later in 1961. Furthermore, in 2012, Coca-Cola appeared in over 50 movies, while Pepsi surfaced in fewer than 30. So why is Coca-Cola a more recognizable brand? Because it has more opportunities to be recognized.

Marketing has drastically evolved over the years. While advertisements like Coca-Cola’s iconic Mean Joe Green (“Hey kid, catch”) commercial will still bring up a smile or two, subliminal marketing – product placement – is the future of the industry. When people watch their favourite movies, they naturally associate the brands they see to the satisfaction they get from that movie. So in order for Pepsi to compete with Coca-Cola, it needs to ensure that its product and brand are getting as much exposure as its competitors.

Image: Skyfall / Coca-Cola Advertisement – Image from starspanglge200.org (http://starspangle200.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/bond_coke_zero_skyfall_01.jpg)

This post is in response to Guy Wasaki’s 10 Things You can Learn From the Apple Store.

It’s no surprise that the “Apple Store is the most profitable retailer in America.” Apple doesn’t market its product; it markets the experience of its product; and the Apple Store is a prime example. They’ve ridden the traditional setup of isles and checkouts and replaced it with an open space filled with company representatives whose goal is to answer questions, not to sell.

But why is this technique revolutionary? Because it’s psychologically enticing. One of the most exciting moments in my iPhone purchase was pulling off the top cover of that cleanly crafted box and seeing my product lying perfectly before me. And unlike most other products, I still have the box. From walking into the store to unboxing your product; Apple sells an experience that customers want to be a part of, The Apple Experience; products come second.

The whole idea revolves around brand value. Apple has developed a name for itself as a revolutionary, reshaping everything about technology retail from product innovation to marketing. And its sales approach combined with high end products have resulted in an almost unparalleled customer loyalty, allowing Apple to sell high priced products and still have customers leaving with more utility (value from the purchase) than its competitors.

Image: The Apple Store Pacific Centre – Image from cnd.iphoneincanada.ca (http://cdn.iphoneincanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/photo_pacificcentre.jpg)

This post is in response to Logan Parker’s post on Ten Tree Apparel.

The success of Ten Tree Apparel is proof of the booming social entrepreneurship market. As Venture Communications CEO Arlene Dickinson would say, planet profit is not just a fad.

And although the clothing is neither relatively inexpensive nor expensive when you look at comparable products, such as those made by LRG, Ten Tree Apparel has the benefit of intrinsically rewarding its consumers, providing it with that ever so valuable point of difference as it ignites the global citizen within them.

But social entrepreneurship doesn’t come cheap. Along with the added cost of planting ten trees for every item sold, Ten Tree Apparel must factor in the costs of maintaining an environmentally and socially conscious business model. Companies claiming to be “planet profit” have to keep transportation at a minimum and pay all workers equitably in order to maintain their brand image. And while the latter may never be an issue, transportation costs may be if this company wants to expand to global markets. Furthermore, even if the company managed to keep production local to the markets that it sold in, it may also experience issues with product consistency as it “ethically” wouldn’t be able to transport production factors either.

All-in-all, Ten Tree Apparel has built a solid brand for itself as a company; however, it may experience issues, especially if it continues to grow at the pace that it is.

Image: Ten Tree Apparel – Image from newstalk650.com (http://www.newstalk650.com/sites/default/files/news-image/Ten%20Tree%20Apparel%20-%20logo%20on%20facebook%20page-%20local%20business%20Regina-%20on%20Dragon’s%20Den-%20Oct%202012.jpg)

The fast food giant McDonald’s has been storming the market ever since its conception. However, as the fast food markets entry barriers decrease and competition within the market rises, will it be possible for this chain to stay competitively priced?

When I was young, McDonald’s enticed my family for two reasons: Happy Meal toys and cheap food. However it was these points of difference that kept me loyal to the chain, this is no longer the case as Wendy’s, Burger Kings, Subways, and restaurants alike have already jumped on the child friendly bandwagon. And as for the cheap food, that statistic is true only if you buy solely off the Value Picks menu, as a regular meal can run you anywhere up to $10.

So why choose McDonald’s over another restaurant? Well that question is becoming harder to answer. Personally, I would rather invest my $10 in a restaurant that’s a little more “high end” than the traditional fast food burger joint. Though, the $1.56 including tax specials will keep consumers buying for a while.

The point? Product differentiation draws customers. Although McDonald’s did this well when I was young, the company now needs to find something to set itself apart from the Wendy’s, Burger Kings, and Subways of the world or risk losing its customer base altogether.

Read the article here.

The auto manufacturers Kia Canada Inc. and Hyundai Auto Canada Corp. overestimated the fuel efficiency of 13 of their 2011 to 2013 models by 0.3 litres per 100 kilometres. As compensation both companies have agreed to reimburse owners for the false claims based on car usage. However, besides legal obligations, what other motives would these two companies have to pay back their customers?

Globally, middle class vehicles are one of the most easily substituted products. Relatively, there is little differentiation between brands and rarely one superseding manufacturer; there is no fee to switch between companies products and consumers rarely pay the “as-marked” prices. In turn, this displays the consumers’ “buyer power” over the manufacturers, or suppliers.

So why was reimbursing customers a smart move for the companies? In highly competitive markets, producers need to provide consumers with incentives to buy, whether this is high gas mileage, or simply loyalty to customers. By compensating their false claims, Kia and Hyundai showed consumers that they are valued after the purchase as well. And in a market with so many substitutes, that might just be enough to maintain their customer bases, regardless if they made a false claim in the past.

For the CBC article, click here.