dlehnersauder

As I was sifting through my classmates’ blog posts to write my final Comm 296 post I came across Chris Choi’s blog post regarding differentiation through product innovation, “Marketing blog #2 (Braille Burgers).” His post reminded me of a new phenomenon in dining (and service differentiation) that I became aware of this past summer – dining in the dark.

“Foodies” – fine dining aficionados – are constantly striving to find the best eating experience. A new trend of serving guests gourmet meals in pitch-black restaurants is supposed to enhance the flavours of the food by employing sensory deprivation. Depriving sight from a diner is supposed to increase customers’ feelings of taste and smell for an enhanced dining experience. Servers are often completely blind or are visually impaired in dark restaurants.

Some might argue that these restaurants are simply the creation of avant-garde chefs who regard food and flavour as an artistic expression. I, however, choose to look at these restaurants from a marketing perspective. Restaurants are commonly perceived to be one of the most difficult businesses to start and maintain. There are thousands of substitutes for an individual restaurant so differentiation is difficult to achieve.

The dark restaurants compensate for this shortcoming in the restaurant market by offering innovative service differentiation. Instead of simply trying to promote that one’s restaurant has the best food, the best service, or the best atmosphere, the dark restaurants are promoting an entirely new service offering. This type of service differentiation serves as both a unique product but also a means of promotion. The uniqueness of the service offering is enough to engage and capture a target market of not only foodies, but individuals looking for a novel experience.

I may be reading too much into the marketing mix of dark restaurants – the restaurants could simply be the creation of chefs and restaurateurs driven by their passion for flavour. Or maybe I’m one of the few to not have the wool pulled over their eyes by noticing the marketing brilliance of dark restaurants.

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner

Craig DeWolf, a channel management professional, wrote a blog post titled “The 3 Basic Tenets of Channel Marketing” which breaks down the 3 most important aspects of channel marketing that are often overlooked or violated. The 3 tenets are:

1)The channel is made up of independent businesses—each having their own agenda.

2) Channels are about efficiency–they should be the preferred alternative to you engaging customers directly.

3) Your channel strategy should be aligned with how, and where, your customers want to buy.

His blog post reminded me of a blog post I wrote last year about Best Buy’s difficulties in managing their marketing channel during the economic recession. After reading DeWolf’s post, I would like to reexamine Best Buy’s channel strategy failure as defined by the “3 Tenets.”

1)The channel is made up of independent businesses—each having their own agenda.

Best Buy failed to fully align their market strategy with their suppliers. Their largest failure in this respect was recognizing the differing lifecycles of their partners’ products and adjusting their engagement strategy accordingly. Best Buy typically orders their products 6 weeks before they want the stock on shelves, which is often not enough time for suppliers to meet demand. Demand declined during the recession and retailers cut back inventory orders so suppliers frantically decreased production. Retailers were understocked and unable to meet consumer demands and upkeep with product lifecycles – which is relatively short in the consumer technology marketplace.

2) Channels are about efficiency–they should be the preferred alternative to you engaging customers directly.

“Unsold inventory only loses value as newer technologies hit the market.” Therefore, efficiency is essential. Best Buy’s indirect sales model is becoming outdated. In the age of online sales, consumers can peruse through a larger variety of consumer electronics and components at cheaper rates than offered through Best Buy’s retail experience. An indirect marketing channel will result in more inefficiency than a direct model – with more levels comes a longer process and higher final price on the final good. Best Buy has failed to effectively address this issue in their channel strategy.

3) Your channel strategy should be aligned with how, and where, your customers want to buy.

Predicting consumer trends is a very difficult aspect of marketing. Because Best Buy is not a trendsetter – but simply a retailer – they must market themselves as completely up-to-date in technology trends. DeWolf states that Best Buy is dying because “[it is] no longer the preferred shopping outlet for consumers.” Best Buy has not aligned their channel strategy to efficiently move their products to end users – a trend that began during the recession. With online sales, direct sales and various other channels for consumers to buy products stocked in Best Buy’s stores, Best Buy is failing to deliver the shopping experience favored by consumers. This is largely due to their antiquated channel strategy.

Though I can point out some of the flaws in Best Buy’s marketing channel, I do not have the expertise (or appropriate word count) to offer solutions. Best Buy is experiencing what countless other companies are experiencing – uncertainty in an everchanging market. It’s going to take a team of highly trained professionals to solve Best Buy’s channel problems. I just hope I got the ball rolling…

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner

My classmate, Josh Andler, wrote a blog post titled “Brandwashing in movies?”commenting on the abundant amount of product placement in film and television. As a movie-lover, I wince when I see blatant product placement

Product placement often takes me out of the narrative and forces me to question the motives of the film. Can product placement detract a brand’s target market from purchasing their products?

Josh effectively explains the need and outcome of product placement in media. From a marketing perspective, framing a scene to include some popular brand names and products is an incredible advertising opportunity that can be more than enough to spark consumer interest and shape consumer buyer behaviour.

What motivated me to write this blog was an article I read regarding product placement and the new James Bond movie. Apparently, a third of the 23^rd James Bond movie’s budget ($45 million) is coming from big brands. Though I recognize that James Bond is entertainment for entertainment’s sake, my love for the franchise was slightly besmirched when I saw 2006’s Casino Royale in theatres. The product placement littered throughout the movie served as a consistent distraction that took me out of the movie’s plot developments. My reaction to the blatant product placement can be described as irrational resentment towards the advertised brands.

For example, Sony VAIO – a brand that took up as much screen time as James Bond himself – conjures up feelings of bitterness and anger, not desire.

Why use James Bond?

James Bond is widely considered to be the  archetype for male suaveness, masculinity and “coolness”. I believe marketers recognize the value of James Bond in advertising to a large target market of males who strive to achieve the masculine image that James Bond represents. The character has always been associated with cosmopolitanism, nonchalance, and debonairness. If you can’t be like James Bond – and seeing as he’s a fictional character, no one can – then you can at least use the same products he uses.

However, a major problem is encountered when trying to reach your target market through James Bond. In the pre-Daniel Craig era, the goods and gadgets Bond used were either fictional, or luxurious to the extent that they were unaffordable to a huge portion of the population. The new phase of James Bond movies, however, circumnavigate this flaw.

The new James Bond doesn’t use fictional gadgets – he uses consumer products. The new James Bond drives a Ford – an affordable and available product – as well as an amalgamation of lavish vehicles which are necessary to upkeep his image as debonair man of luxury. The new James Bond is an advertiser’s dream man – a platform to reach the highly lucrative males aged 18 – 54 target market. But does it work? I fall into James Bond’s target market and James Bond hasn’t influenced my buyer behaviour in any way – or at least not in favor to the products placed in the movies.

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner

In recent years I have abandoned watching television the traditional way; opting to avoid paying for cable, sitting through commercials and adjusting my TV-viewing to network schedules. However, under extraordinary circumstances, I am subjected to sit through traditional television and suffer through masses of trite, seemingly endless commercials.

Because I am rarely exposed to the conventional 30 second TV commercial, I have become hyperaware of an apparent advertising strategy trend that is applied to a vast range of household goods.

Approximately 75% of household shoppers for goods such as food, household items and children products, are women[1]. Marketers are very aware of this statistic and thus cater their promotion to appeal to this demographic. Advertising for household products has largely been targeted to women and some contend that the prevalent advertising strategies of consumer goods have shaped archetypal female identities since the 1950s – when advertisers first realized the buying power of women.

At first, it was the marketers who created the female archetype of the housekeeper, however with the rise of feminism and growing number of women in the workforce marketers had to react and adapt. In recent years, their adaptation led to the creation of the “superwoman”: 

However, advertisers noticed the “superwoman” archetype was met with some negative response as the depiction of women in the advertisements were received as unrealistic and in some cases depressing. This marketing strategy created the sentiment that women are inadequate if they are unable to meet the improbable standards depicted in these commercials[2].

The quandary for advertisers then is how best to reach women (the target demographic for household goods) who are largely of the baby boomer generation and are therefore aware of the paternalistic imposition of the submissive housewife, and yet is daunted by the expectations of the supermom archetype.

Enter the “super idiot” – the advertising trend I picked up on.

In many commercials for household goods, men are being portrayed as foolish buffoons. This strategy enforces the notion that it is fine to fall short of the supermom standard while maintaining the woman’s relative superiority to her male counterpart. The danger of this technique is that it may alienate the other 25% of the household product market.

Though the textbook (up to chapter 4) assesses the social  criticisms of marketing, the creation of negative stereotypes through advertising campaigns is not suggested. In effect what these advertisements are doing is creating a negative archetype of men that mirrors the negative archetype of women created by advertising campaigns in the 1950s. Should the social impact of advertising campaigns be taken into consideration by marketers in developing a sustainable promotion campaign? I think from now on, I’m going to stick to downloading TV programs…

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner

Though I have learned an enormous amount about building my brand, creating a competitive cover letter and resume, interview etiquette, and job search and career research techniques, what I have learned about myself in Comm 299 is far more important.

I have learned that I have the natural skills necessary to excel in interviews, but I am not naturally skillful enough so that I require no preparation. I know several people, some of which share my DNA, who can succeed in a 45 minute interview with absolutely no preparation. I do not share that same talent. During my Comm 299 interview, I forgot most of what I prepared. Though I received great marks for the non-verbal component of the interview, I fumbled and forgot the verbal components. Thus, I have learned that it is necessary for me to prepare and practice extensively before an interview.

I have also learned that my confidence is highest in two situations. The first situation is when I am completely natural, unprepared and off the cuff. Perhaps it is a false sense of confidence, but I feel as if I am completely in control of the situation, charismatic and very personable. I came to this realization when I was reflecting on my interview. In the past, I would never prepare for oral presentations or interviews, was always confident and seemed to always succeed. During the interview I was nervous, stumbling and forgetting what I had prepared (most likely because I did not prepare enough). However, the TA who marked me commented that I would have been very excellent had I prepared more thoroughly for the interview. I have since had two interviews for summer jobs, prepared extensively and was not only well-prepared and well-researched, but as confident as I am when I am completely natural.

Comm 299 has taught me a lot about practical application of career fundamentals. Comm 299 has also taught me about my confidence and my need for extensive preparation to excel in the business world.

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner

Throughout my young life I was barraged with a multitude of “life lessons” provided by my parents, teachers and anyone who felt they had unique and applicable philosophical advice to give. Most of their teachings fell on deaf ears. I was bombarded with catchy sayings generalizing how I should conduct my life and I recall rarely implementing the teachings. However, every so often a catchy saying would be pertinent, forcing me to ponder on the teaching and actively attempt to incorporate it into my conduct and personality. When I was 11 years old, my father gave me his first (and to the best of my knowledge his last) corny, catchy philosophical saying:

“Treat every opportunity as if it was the only opportunity you will ever receive.”

Though overtly simple and somewhat trite, this lesson has proved to be the most important lesson I have ever learned. My father understood opportunity. As a refugee, he came to Canada with few possessions and even fewer opportunities. However, he told me he worked tirelessly and embraced every miniscule opportunity he received to improve his standard of living. He worked his way from a non-recognized refugee to a well-respected professor and researcher. He lived, and continues to live, by his corny, catchy saying.

I embrace this life lesson and apply it to everything I do. I approach my education as an opportunity and privilege and work as hard as I can to make the most of it. Every job opportunity I am given is scrutinized to determine if the job is suitable for me and if it holds benefit to my development. Often, opportunities are not simply given. As a result, the opportunity must be created through initiative and effort. If an opportunity is not present, I will do my best to create it. Whether the opportunity pertains to my education, professional and/or personal life I will always do my best to embrace and explore it. Like a catchy song, a catchy saying can get stuck in your head. Unlike most catchy songs, I never want to forget this saying.

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner

Case 3, class 23, and class 24 all involved analyzing Bell’s $200 million dollar bid which won Bell exclusive telecommunications sponsorship of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Debates regarding whether the pricey investment was a good investment and whether it paid off for Bell absorbed Comm 101 class. My case 3 assignment argued the Olympic sponsorship was a good investment for Bell. Many persuasive arguments justifying both sides were made during class discussions. I still contend that the sponsorship was a good investment. I will present additional justification for the sponsorship (from a financial standpoint) which I excluded from my assignment (I focused heavily on marketing).

Bell experienced a 61 percent jump in profit the first quarter following the Olympic games. Bell Canada largely attributes their massive revenue growth to their aggressive Olympic marketing and advertising. Additionally, because Bell had exclusive Olympic-centric telecommunications marketing during the Olympics, their competitors’ (TELUS and Rogers) ability to counter Bell’s aggressive marketing (especially in Western Canada) diminished significantly. Bell boasted their market share for postpaid wireless phone activations rose to 42 percent, compared to just 19 percent the year previous. Bell CEO George Cope stated Bell’s overall market share growth goals from Olympic marketing were surpassed, meaning Bell’s initial goals measuring the worthiness of the expensive sponsorship (increasing its market share in mobile phone and satellite TV services by more than 1 percent) paid off.

Since Bell’s 2010 Q1 results, Bell’s revenue and profit growth has increased at a decreasing rate. More time is needed to measure whether Olympic sponsorship will benefit Bell in the long-run. If McDonalds and Coca-Cola’s successes from Olympic sponsorship are any indication of long-term benefits, Bell could be looking forward to a profitable future. Bell secured their brand presence in Canada to a similar extent that McDonalds and Coca-Cola position and secure their brands. All three companies fulfill the circumstances determining if costly Olympic sponsorship will be beneficial (I defined these circumstances in my case). Bell’s increased brand presence in Canada has already brought the company profits, and could potentially increase Bell’s long-term profitability, demonstrating that Bell’s Olympic sponsorship was a good investment.

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner

In my second blog post, I argued in favor of Friedman’s perception that the “only social responsibility of a business is to pursue profits” to the constraint of legal and ethical conduct. I supported this point by drawing parallels to what I believed was the embodiment of the ideal business man, the fictional Wall Street character Gordon Gekko. Though I believed this was viable, in reality, the pursuit of profits often encourages ethical and legal standards to be broken.

I did not take into account the willingness of firms to circumnavigate the law and ethical practices, nor did I recognize the consequences of the firms’ actions. In class 17, we examined the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, which in summary can be attributed to the unrelenting pursuit of profits from banks and investment firms. The pursuit of profits from these firms did not create wealth, which opposes Friedman’s argument, but instead encouraged deceptive business practices. Whether over-leveraging, shadow banking, the housing bubble or predatory lending are ethical or not – they are all legal – it led to a global economic catastrophe, all in the pursuit of profits.

My entrepreneurial and business ideals were erroneous, and I was doubtful if profits and societal benefits had any correlation. My doubts were quashed in class 20, when we learned about social entrepreneurship. A social entrepreneur uses the innovative, opportunistic qualities of an entrepreneur to make social change by applying business principles to make some type of social change, all while making profit. Social entrepreneurs benefit the lives of individuals by achieving, or attempting to achieve, social change, yet still have the capacity to make profits. Micro-franchisers, for example, supply ambitious, underprivileged individuals with the ability to operate a business and earn a livelihood. Though it may seem like a charity, a micro-franchise makes profit to sustain business, and do not solely rely on donations and outside funding to continue operations. Social entrepreneurs may not prioritize the pursuit of profits as the most important aspect of their business, but it is an essential part of their business function. Social entrepreneurialism has reshaped my perspective regarding how businesses can benefit society.

In light of this, perhaps my reworking of the famous Wall Street quote in my second blog post should be reworked again: “Greed is good, but only if the greed for profits does not outweigh the desire to benefit society.”

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner

http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

http://www.caseatduke.org/documents/dees_sedef.pdf

Alibaba.com is an e-commerce business that embodies entrepreneurship. The company, founded in 1999 by Ma Yun (Jack Ma) in Hangzhou, China, offers businesses a service that allows them to connect with producers, suppliers, distributors, retailers and consumers from around the world. Alibaba.com, China’s largest e-commerce site has garnered approximately $211 million dollars in revenue in the second quarter of 2010 alone. Since Alibaba.com’s inception, their innovative entrepreneurial business model has proven to be successful – between 1999 and 2000, Alibaba raised US$25 million from investors such as Goldman Sachs, Fidelity and Softbank.

Alibaba.com’s success derives from their ability to embrace the essence of entrepreneurship to the fullest extent. Recognizing a new, growing market of e-commerce for China’s 42 million small and medium sized businesses (in 1999), Alibaba decided to offer a unique, innovative internet service. Soon, businesses from around the world, including giants like Wal-Mart and Proctor & Gamble, were using Alibaba.com’s services. In an extremely short amount of time, an enormous amount of wealth was created. Alibaba’s $1.5 billion IPO in 2007 best exemplifies the magnitude and speed of Alibaba’s growth. The speed of the company’s massive expansion of wealth is attributed to their ability to create a new service in a market formerly devoid of attainable  e-commerce. Further, being the first of its kind expedited their growth in a new market and accentuated the uniqueness of their services.

Alibaba.com exemplifies entrepreneurship. The innovative, unique service that launched a new market amassed a large amount of wealth in a very short time. Alibaba.com conforms to Schumpeter’s View of Entrepreneurship.

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner

http://www.quickmba.com/entre/definition/

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/123/the-worlds-most-innovative-companies.html

Communication between suppliers and retailers is the most crucial part of a supply-retailer relationship. In the realm of technology products, communication is especially important. This is because technology is continually changing; products are constantly improving and innovating, and suppliers and retailers need to keep up with ever-changing consumer demand. For a technology business to succeed, turnover rates must be high because “unsold inventory only loses value as newer technologies hit the market”[1]

The relationship between retailers and suppliers in technology is best exemplified by Best Buy. Best Buy can predict, for example, consumers will demand DVD players in the future, and Best Buy tends to order product about 6 weeks before they want them on the shelves. However, it may take twice as long for suppliers to manufacture and deliver the DVD players. Suppliers therefore must predict Best Buy’s ordering habits, and consumer behaviour to keep up with the orders. As the suppliers become further removed from retailers, the guessing increases. Communication is key between retailers and suppliers to minimize blind guessing.

The global recession has revealed the importance of communication in the technology supplier-retailer relationship. Technology suppliers tend to have extremely limited inventory, and huge turnover rates. When the economic crisis struck, suppliers significantly slowed production in an attempt to withstand the harsh marketplace. They did so to match with retailers, who’s plummeting sales forced cutbacks in inventory orders. The phenomenon that followed was suppliers frantically cut production. Retailers were understocked; a downward spiral of low production and low inventory occurred, diminishing profits and prolonging the recession.

If communication was better between suppliers and retailers, perhaps they could have avoided the inventory crisis that was nothing but detrimental to business. If possible, retailers, like Best Buy, should communicate to suppliers what they need with an appropriate time-span. This will allow suppliers to keep up with production, improve inventory turnover, and not force them to estimate what and how much they need to manufacture. Improved communication would benefit all facets of business in the field of technology. Communication is key.

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260855682928885.html