You have to Run to keep up

I have often disliked working in groups as I always feel that I shoulder most of the work, or that my fellow team members are not very invested in our final product. However, this was certainly not the case with my marketing team this term! I gained a new appreciation for teamwork, and how nice it is to have people on your team that actually put in effort, and can be relied on.

Initially I was very apprehensive about the video project as I have had no digital media experience and did not really desire any either. I planned to make use of the DML we were informed of in class, but it turned out we did not need to. This assignment provided me with a great learning experience as I now have a marketable skill I lacked a month ago. We used “Prezi” to make our video and I was amazed at how easy it was to use. I would use it for an assignment again for sure, even if a video were not required. I even showed the Prezi site to my mom and she is considering using it to format her presentation when she speaks at an international conference in a few months.

After evaluating some of my peers’ videos I am even more confident in saying that the final cut we produced was professional and well made. This is a project that I know I will never be able to empty into my computer’s trashcan because it is really something that I feel proud of.

Overall, one thing I would have done differently would have been to arrange more private meeting spaces by making use of the Canaccord Learning Commons’ resources instead of meeting in public spaces like the Sauder café.

Finally I would like to say Thank you! I really enjoyed this class 🙂

We talked about ambush marketing in class, but what about plain old ambushing people? The blog “Adweek” recently published a post about a crazy video that Pepsi uploaded to YouTube staring American NASCAR racer Jeff Gordon.

Watch the Video Here

The short clip shows an unsuspecting car salesman being taken on the ride of his life, curtsey of a very well disguised Gordon. The drive is captured on film by a tiny camera hidden in a Pepsi can, the only time the brand is really seen or mentioned.

While Adweek’s interview with the director of the clip is very informative (over 30 million views, yes the car salesman is a real guy, and no, there was not any one harmed in the making of the video), they never touch on whether or not this is an effective ad.

When we think about effective advertising, this video gets a homerun for some of the points for sure. Does this ad grab my attention? Of course! I could hardly look away and before it was even half way through I had already sent the link to my car-obsessed boyfriend. By the next day I had probably mentioned the video to at least three people, yet, without mentioning Pepsi even once.

Promotion is defined as “getting the right message to the right audience through the right media.” This video is certainly reaching the right audience through the right media, but is it sending the right message? In a market where Coke and Pepsi are so competitive I wonder if this ad will really make any difference towards market share.  My thoughts after watching the clip were along the lines of “This is so crazy, and who is Jeff Gordon anyways!?” as opposed to “wow Pepsi is SO cool.”

I think it would have been a good idea to shoot more of the Pepsi logo and mention the company once or twice more to really let the message sink in that Pepsi is fun and cool, and not just this video. While my attention is certainly held, I do not feel the need or desire to do anything about it. Anyone feel differently?

If there is one thing I have learned that is essential to marketing, it’s positioning. The way your company’s products, employees, actions, etc., are perceived and valued by consumers is paramount to any businesses’ success. Take Apple for example, a company that has always been suave, new, and technologically offering the “coolest” products around. It seems hard to imagine a world where Apple is not on top.

Of course I am a biased iPhone user myself, which made Millie’s blog post regarding the power struggle between Apple and Samsung even more surprising to me. She poses the question “is Apple just too popular to be popular?” I have to admit, that I have in fact (obliviously), lost the image of what an iPhone used to mean to me. I once thought them to be the epitome of technology, an awesome gadget, and now? Heck, my grandpa has one! An iPhone has become an everyday object to me, almost like a toothbrush – needed, efficient, but not exactly cool

What does this change in view mean to Apple? Personally, I love my iPhone. It has all the features I need, and its easier to use and conveniently smaller than an Android. If it were to break, I would want another one. And while I agree with other teenagers that it has lost the “cool” factor I do not think this will significantly affect sales. Apple has really connected with the “older” generation (generating more sales), and Apple products are rampant amongst my peers.

Could iPhones be following in the footsteps of Ugg boots? These comfy booties were once considered to be “cool” and now people consider them as basically outdoor slippers – yet, almost all girls wear, want, and buy them! Ownership of Ugg boots seems more popular than ever, and what marketing department can complain about that?

What this really all comes down to is positioning. Apple has to decide if it wants to try and reclaim “coolness” or if it wants to go after something else in order to differentiate from Samsung.

Sports wear giant Nike has suspended all contracts with Oscar Pistorius, a three-time Paralympic gold medalist and as of Valentines day, the only suspect in the murder/shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

The above ad (including the unfortunate word choice) has been pulled.

What is the best action for Nike to take? So far the company has extended its sympathy to the families involved, but has yet to make any definitive statements regarding Pistorius’s sponsorship.

Sportsmanship and fair play are essential in all sports, and should be qualities portrayed in the athletes endorsed by Nike. However, the list of Nike’s tainted sponsorshipsis growing. Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, and Kobe Bryant, are only a few of the “bad boys” that Nike is inadvertently collecting.

Nike is certainly getting a lot of publicity from the Pistorius drama.  But is it the right kind? The company’s mission statement is “to bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world,”and chances are they do not wish to inspire people to violence, drugs, and infidelity.

Nike’s spokespeople should embody the values the company wants people to associate with their brand. The way Nike is perceived, and the attitudes people have towards the company, will affect sales, target markets, and aspects of the marketing mix.

However, considering that Nike has reacted respectfully to the crisis and held off on making any definitive sponsorship decisions until at least after trial, I think the brand’s popularity will benefit from the media influx surrounding Pistorius. Whether the increased popularity will be good or bad remains to be seen. Anyone feel differently?

When it comes to a great ad I don’t think you can top the recent “Brotherhood” ad released by Budweiser for the Super Bowl. The ad, which depicts the story of a clydesdale and his trainer, is more than heartwarming, it is tear-jerkingly wonderful. Okay, yes it is a little sappy, but in all the right ways.

Watch the add here

What makes this ad so strong is the way it evokes people’s feelings. By establishing a genuine emotional connection with all demographics of viewers, Budweiser is effectively marketing its brand and values.

Do great ads really make a difference?

I love this ad, but will it really inspire me to choose Budweiser over the competition? As I am not a real beer advocate, I might easily be swayed by lower prices, etc., even though I view Budweiser as an acceptable brand within the evoked set.

It would be interesting to survey people purchasing Budweiser in the immediate weeks after the super bowl and inquire if this recent ad had factored into their purchase. Additionally, focus groups could expose the correlation (if any) between the ad, and sales.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has been “skirting the line of decency” for some time with their advertising, but this newest video crosses the line of ethical marketing.

Watch here.

Published in the National Journal, this article draws attention to the NRA’s campaign to position armed guards in American schools; however, the problem is not their goals, but how they are advertising them. The ad refers to President Obama as an “elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security” and targets the safety of his two daughters, Malia and Sasha. This ad was released in anticipation of Obama changing legislation regarding the possession of assault rifles, and feeds off the terrible after-affects of the Newtown shooting. Yet, ensnaring the President’s children into a political debate is an inexcusable example of unethical marketing, especially when the ad targets their safety and privacy.  This ad affects those directly involved (the NRA and the Obamas), supporters of the NRA, and all other Americans, especially those with children in the school system. The issue of exploiting the President’s family has not been well received, particularly by other politicians such as New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie who called the ad “reprehensible” and “wrong”.  While it is obviously desirable to launch an ad campaign that captures peoples’ attention and targets your consumers’ desires (such as keeping their children safe), this type of promotion is not ethical, and should not be aired. The NRA should apologize for using the President’s children, and should act with more respect in the future.