David Brown

Film production is by no means something I find particularly enjoyable; pre-production is tedious, filming is time consuming, and editing can be very frustrating. I can however see the value in having that skill set, especially when it comes to doing any sort of social media marketing campaign. Even if you are – rather than doing the actual production – overseeing a film-based marketing campaign, having done projects like this really helpyou to understand what is involved in the production process and how long it can take. This will certainly help if we ever need to make a timeline for when a video needs to be completed by. Pre-production is supposed to take the majority of the time, but as a group we found that getting a single, brief shot would often take a quarter of an hour.

I feel as though this project taught a lot of technical, practical skills and not a whole ton about marketing, but I have no qualms about that as there was plenty of marketing content in the lectures and readings. I’m glad we had this assignment as opposed to a group presentation or group paper, both of which bared their faces in other courses I was enrolled in this semester.

Gross, disgusting, abhorrent. There are countless words to describe finding a dead rodent in the bottom of your drink, and it certainly sends shivers down my spine to think about it, but is it as disastrous to the company as you say? I would beg to differ for a few reasons.

First of all, we have to look at the target audience. Energy drinks are not the fine wine of caffeinated beverages, and their flashy packaging, “monstrous” size, and sugary content are not targeted to the white collar worker looking for a mid-afternoon pick-me-up. While I am not suggesting anyone would be okay finding a rodent at the bottom of their can, I would bet that a large portion of their market base is not going to hear about the incident, and those who do would likely write it off as an innumerably rare accident. In more direct terms: Monster’s core market is likely a younger audience with a lot going on who has little time or care for current events, and if they do see the article, will be quick to right off the chances of it happening.

Then there’s the fact that this is not a normal event, and while it may seem to be the only thing we can think of every time we see a Monster can now, that effect is unlikely to last. While vivid cases such as this do stay in our memory longer than mundane incidents, they will eventually fade. Besides, if we value the benefits we receive from the product more than the unlikely risk of this happening to us, we may opt to still use the product regardless.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/kellysongmeigu/2013/10/09/the-monster-within-monster/

Coca-Cola has announced that “it will not be spending any money on advertising starting on November 18.” Is this Coca-Cola’s way of saying marketing is no longer necessary? No, not at all. Coca-Cola is instead redirecting their marketing budget to help aid relief efforts for the damage caused by hurricane Haiyan in the Philippines.

This move has brought a lot of criticism to Coca-Cola, as in taking this action it has indirectly drawn a lot of attention to itself. People are claiming that Coca-Cola is only offering the support because they know it will strengthen their brand image as a “caring” company. This seems like a reasonable claim, and if Coca-Cola was really doing this for entirely selfless purposes, they may not have announced it publically.

I think the thing to keep in mind in this scenario is that it would be unreasonable to expect a corporation to take an action which did not benefit them in some manner, and to keep in mind how appreciated the support they are sending is going to be. The storm was absolutely devastating, and Coca-Cola – among many other donors – is offering to help try and rebuild what has been lost. Whether Coca-Cola’s main objective is to strengthen and promote its brand or not, a by-product of this campaign is saving lives and helping to put people back in shelters. This sort of practice should be more common, and I will certainly be more inclined to support Coca-Cola after hearing about what they’re doing.

http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/441/You-Won-t-Be-Seeing-Coca-Cola-Ads-For-A-While-The-Reason-Why-Is-Amazing

Observational data, as demonstrated by the tie-rack example, can help gauge the effectiveness of different store layouts and promotional displays. It can also be quite expensive, which is why this new form of observational data is so exciting. Using the unique MAC address associated with any wireless enabled device to track consumer’s movements throughout a brick and mortar store is a spectacular way to amass detailed information about people’s shopping behaviour. The article extensively discusses the privacy concerns linked to this system, but I was more impressed by the system itself. Some of the information which can be derived from data collected this way is shockingly specific: how long does a customer spend in line waiting to pay? How many customers never approach a till? Which displays are drawing large crowds and which are not as effective? Once a system is put in place to collect this sort of data, the cost lies solely in analyzing the data as opposed to both collection and analysis of data.

The insight marketers can gain from this system is staggering, and it is an interesting way to build a database with the size and quality typically associated with digital store databases. The path typical customers take through the store can be tracked and used to optimize promotional display positioning. I am interested in seeing where else this technology could be applied. Tracking potential consumers during their morning commute would allow for more targeted ad space on billboards and public transit systems. Imagine if Translink could track what demographic uses a specific bus the most. This would increase the value and demand for the ad space available vastly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/19/how-stores-use-your-phones-wifi-to-track-your-shopping-habits/

In Michelle Darr’s post about marketing a new start-up restaurant, she addresses a major concern for many small business starters: getting the most out of your dollar when it comes to advertising. She talks about CPM, the cost per thousand customers your advertisement reaches, and its importance when deciding what medium to advertise through.

As a numbers person I love the idea of tracking how many people see your advertisement, and I agree that it is definitely something you should consider, but the other half of my brain can’t help but notice a major flaw in looking at just this one statistic: who is your message reaching? You could have a CPM of $1.00 per thousand customers (meaning for every dollar invested, one thousand people see your advertisement), but if your restaurant is a small café in North Burnaby and your advertisements are running in Richmond, the odds of any of those thousands of customers coming to your café are slim.

Ms. Darr addresses my concern, at least in part, with a quite humourous video (I embedded the video in my blog for ease of access) demonstrating the importance of understanding who your marketing is targeting.

So is CPM the be-all end-all metric to determine whether or not your medium of marketing is effective? Probably not. It would be very effective in an initial appraisal of marketing options, but there must also be a metric in place to see how many of the customers your advertisement reaches are in the realm of potential customers, and within that category, how many are persuaded by the advertisements to go to your restaurant.

http://youtu.be/TZXUq7Pln3g

Michelle Darr’s original post:

http://www.landersandpartners.com/blog/entry/restaurant-marketing-101-media-buying#.Uk8uULyUDlQ.reddit

Larry Page, co-founder of Google, announced September 18^th that Google intends to start a new company, Calico. The new project will be headed by Arthur Levinson, well known for his work as chairman of Apple, and will try to improve quality of life by addressing the aging process in humans.

This seems like an ambitious goal, even taking into account Google’s track record with the seemingly impossible. This bold move may help boost Google’s brand image though, especially if it is successful. Page made the announcement over Google+, making good use of one of Google’s less popular ventures, showcasing its potential as more than just a social network, but also a site capable of delivering current news. He also ensured shareholders that Calico will only take up a small fraction of Google’s attention and funding. I think this is a good move for Google because it shows their attention to fields other than technology without spreading themselves too thin.

So how does this whole process tie into ethics? There are many risks involved with prolonging human life beyond its natural means. The most concerning is the planet’s ability to support a growing population, a direct side-effect of longer lifespans. If Google is successful in attaining its goal, we may see an older, more senile general population which will have serious implications on resource allocation and economic activity. Many economic systems are already struggling to cope as the Baby Boomer generation passes through retirement. Imagine the volatility of having two generations retiring or being retired at the same time.

This is an interesting move by Google. If they are successful in achieving their goal, they will be revered as the company with no limits, but what sort of long term impact would such success have?

https://plus.google.com/+LarryPage/posts/Lh8SKC6sED1

Words: 298