comm296 101 marketing blog

http://www.toprankblog.com/2010/11/facebook-pages-for-b2b-social-media-marketing/

After reading this marketing blog on social media marketing, it got me thinking about the promotional aspect of the marketing mix. Clearly social medias such as Facebook and Twitter are becoming modern day marketing phenomenon. 

Google sites handle about 88 billion queries a month and twitter is approaching 20 billion. Facebook alone added over 200 million users in less than a year and Hitwise has reported that Facebook tops Google in weekly web traffic. Clearly companies must look into tapping into these resources for marketing purposes, which will enable them to reach millions of consumers all around the world.

Companies such as Coca Cola, Starbucks and Oreo are effectively using these social medias to their advantage; the most popular Facebook Fan Pages are for consumer products are with Coke (18.2m Fans) Starbucks (17.5m Fans) and Oreo (14.1m Fans). However, even with not so nearly as well known brands and companies, social media marketing is still extremely effective. Take for example TopRank’s Facebook page (which is technically a page for the blog). Is is good example of a B2B Fan page for an agency.  One year ago, there were 54 Fans and today there are 5,335. That’s almost 1000% growth without any contests, advertising, apps or promotions outside of adding the FB social plugin to the sidebar of their blog.

It is therefore undeniable that the face of advertising is changing. And if companies wish to remain competive than they must embrace and adapt with these changes, to ensure that they are able to target their target markets, or as the case in the future may be any market at all.

I think these 2 adverts are hilarious, it is a clear example of how through marketing competing firms attempt to re-gain market share over one another. The adverts are simply but effective and get straight to the point; we are better than our competitors.

The first advert is from Blackberry, advertising their new touch screen phone an obvious and direct competitor to Apple’s iphone. The message they are portraying is clear, ‘nothing can touch it,’ we are the best. They will quite literally destroy Apple.

However it could not be expected that Apple would take this accusation from arguably their main cell phone competitor, without retalliation. Indeed soon afterwards they released their own version of the advert, arguing that they are in fact the ‘best’. Their message is equally confident, showing that the Blackberry cannot touch them. They are without question the superior products, it’s just ‘simple facts.’

This type of propoganda marketing is unique as companies attempt to influence customers into purchasing their products, simply by arguing that they offer the best

https://blogs.ubc.ca/joshk/2010/11/02/making-friends/

After reading Josh’s post on social marketing, and the influence that social medias such as twitter, facebook etc have on our lives especially with regards to making and keeping in contact with friends. This idea got me thinking, and I realised that some marketing campaigns are tapping directly into this social trend. For example the advert for the new Windows 7 phone. It plays on the current social trends of being connected 24/7, especially on our mobile phones. Whether it’s email, facebook, twitter, bbm there are various ways in which consumers stay connected on their phones. Think how often you see students wandering aimlessly around campus glued to their phones, I know that I too am guilty!

I believe this is an extremely effective campaign as it relates to the current social trends, but in a humerous way. Something that we as consumers can relate to. The target market that they are going for, are obviously consumers who want to stay connected, but not to the extreme (this phone perhaps would not be appropriate for Josh’s friend whom he mentions in his blog!)

It is therefore clear that as Josh argues, yes social marketing through the use of social media is extremely effective and is a huge phenomenon with millions of consumers world wide tapping into the resources of social networking sites whether it be through their computer or mobile phone. Yet it must be recognised that this is not desirable for all consumers, some want to live in the real world and demand new, innovative products to provide this such as the new Windows 7 mobile phone. Yet unfortunately I am not one of these, I play up to the stereotype shown in the advert as I remain loyal to my blackberry. So until then, talk to you on bbm!

I find this advert particularly interesting for a number of reasons. It is for Carlsburg, a popular larger especially within the UK. Obviously it is an alcohol beverage, so marketers must advertise appropriately i.e. to the correct target segment, so those of age but they also must take into account the negative stigma attached to binge drinking. There are numerous campaigns throughout the UK (where this advert was aired) but also in many other countries, actively discouraging binge drinking due to its negative impacts. Therefore, I believe it led this particular compnay to take a very interesting marketing approach.

The first thing I noticed is that for the majority of the advert, there is no actual reference to the product. However due to a well known brand it is easy to assume that the advert is for Carlsberg simply due to their logo being used on the door bell of the flat. Furthermore the advert features green lighting and objects, Carlsbergs’ signiture colour.

Carlsbeg takes an original approach to marketing their product. It appears that they are not only advertising their lager, but also what it stands for. They show, from the perspective of the typical Carlsberg consumer, the dream flat and dream flatmates, something that is almost too perfect, they are arguing that if they did flatmates, they would probably be the best flat mates in the world. Therefore it appears that their lager equates to such high standards! By simply drinking a Carlsberg it re-creates the experience of living in a wonderful flat, which overlooks the sports stand with your best friend and 2 beautiful girls who love to cook and watch football. Again, it re-confirms Carlsberg’s famous tag line ‘probably the best larger in the world.’

Furthermore, even though the advert is clearly marketed at men – due to the typical male stereotypes portrayed, it does also show women enjoying the drink. Yet what I found even more interesting was that the advert did not show people out on a night drinking. This perhaps is due to the negative stigmas attached to binge drinking, showing that alternative way to enjoy a drink or 2 is at home with your friends.

After reading Jared’s post on how athletes, such as those in the NFL, were used for promotional purposes whether it be for charity or for an actual product. https://blogs.ubc.ca/jaredlo91/2010/10/14/breast-cancer-awareness-month/  Clearly such marketing tactics are highly efficient as people look up to these starts, often influencing their buying behaviour if they associate their favourite celebrity with a certain product.

It may appear that celebrity endorsement is a match made in heaven for both the company which hopes for an increase in sales and the chosen celebrity who will more than likely receive a generous pay cheque. However, what happens if it all goes wrong?

In the early 1990s Nike fell foul of some extremely negative and damaging media attention regarding their outsourcing of production to low cost destinations such as Indonesia and Vietnam. There were a number of accusations against them, but the worst and therefore most well known were the terrible working conditions in which workers were exposed to hazardous chemicals which led to a number of medial ailments, long hours, exceptionally low pay of only 19 cent and hour and perhaps most controversial of all the use of child labour.

Undoubtedly this led to strong criticism for Nike, leading to the company’s first loss in 13 years in 1998, not to mention a 69% reduction in earnings. Clearly the moral issues presented were extremely damaging to the company. Yet perhaps most interestingly of all, their marketing campaign was specifically targeted.

Nike established itself as one of the first companies to participate in celebrity endorsements. Famously, it was CEO Phil Knights’ idea to outsource all manufacturing and pour what was saved directly into the companies marketing. This enabled the company to hire the worlds most elite athletes such as Micheal Jordon or Tiger Woods in appear in their campaigns and publically endorse the Nike brand. However, even though at first glance it may appear that Knight had come up with an ingenious idea it actually worked against the company; their famous celebrity endorsements did not help clear the company’s name through positive association, it in fact had the opposite effect.

The famous Doonesbury cartoons targeted Nike on several occasions but the most well known was the shocking revelation that if you doubled the salaries of Nike’s 30,000 employees the annual payroll would almost be equal to what the company paid Micheal Jordan alone. The time and money Nike had poured into their marketing campaign was quite literally turned into a joke, with the response in Doonesbury reading, ‘Nike can’t pay their Vietnamese work force what they pay Micheal Jordon, he would just want more as he’s very competitive!’ Yet this shows that the negative accusations did not only affect Nike, they affected the people advertising their products.

The point Jared raised in his blog, ‘Pro athletes get paid millions of dollars to play the sport so does it really matter what they’re wearing when they do it?’ the short answer is yes. Indeed athletes such as Jordon received high salaries from their sport alone, not to mention additionally large pay cheques from companies such as Nike. For this reason it reflected extremely badly upon him, that he was publicly supporting a company which was being accused of child and essentially slave labour. Famously when asked, Jordon brushed away suggestions that he was personally responsible for conditions in Nike’s factories, leaving responsibility to the company itself. Yet he continued to be pelted with questions about Nike at press conferences intended to celebrate his athletic performance.

In conclusion, even though I believe Jared was correct in arguing that celebrity support can be extremely beneficial for raising awareness, especially with the marketing of certain brands or products, the relationship must be carefully monitored because if any problems were to arise, it is clear that the effects can be extremely damaging for all parties involved.

After studying Segmentation, Targeting and Positioning in class recently, I couldn’t help but think how much it related to a certain TV commercial I saw this week. I believe that KFC took a concentrated segmentation strategy as clearly, they are targeting men only. They then took time to well define their segment, with certain factors being clearly analysed. After selecting their clear primary target market – men, demographic, psychological and benefit factors were clearly taken into consideration.  For example, demographics will have helped show that KFC’s chosen segment is young-middle aged, working males.

This is reflected in the advert as it shows men working in the office, on a building site etc. Psychological factors are particularly important due to the issue of self-image. By purchasing the KFC double down sandwich, men are declaring their masculinity; it’s real man’s food. No bread, just meat and cheese. This idea is reinforced by the advert as it shows men working on building sights – a male dominated industry and men trying to attract pretty girls, skateboarding and posing in front of cars – stereotypical male interests! Furthermore the psychological factor will help explain lifestyle. Obviously the double down sandwich is not healthy; however KFC does not disguise this fact. Health conscious people are not their target market; it is men who want a meat feast! The men in the advert re-enforce this; they are everyday guys, with normal bodies, in everyday jobs. They may only have a thirty minute lunch break, they want something fast and appetising regardless of its healthy or not, they don’t care; this ties in with the benefit factor. KFC is a well known producer of fast food that you can grab at lunch, and will keep you going for the rest of the day in only 5 minutes.

The double down sandwich is well positioned, as KFC rely on their well known symbol to sell the product as they already have a strong brand and strong brand loyalty amongst consumers. They also position themselves as a popular choice amongst men, against competition from other fast foods vendors such as Burger King, and their more ‘masculine’ food options such as the ‘Whopper Burgers.’ However, KFC stresses that their double down sandwich is even more a statement of man hood as it has no bread, just double meat, double cheese, double bacon, double awesome!

https://blogs.ubc.ca/mtsuimarketing/

After reading Michael Tsui’s blog post, regarding the ways in which numbers affect marketing with his argument ‘Get the word out there that a lot of people are using your product! People follow people naturally, so let them do so!’ I had to agree that he had raised an excellent point.

In another course that I am currently taking, we are studying the ways in which people’s behaviour can be influenced. The idea raised by Michael, also known as social proof I believe could be extremely effective when it come to marketing strategies. As Michael suggests, it states that one important means by which people decide what to do or believe i.e. what products are good and therefore must be purchased, is to look at what other people are doing. Thus, it is clear that we decide what is correct by observing what other people think and do. This tactic therefore could be extremely useful, as if marketers are able to tap into a certain target market then it is probable that they will be able to influence the buying behaviour of similar others. This often proves true as indeed, the condition under which social proof is most powerful is when the people targeted are similar; we are more inclined to follow the lead of similar others. Perhaps this is how the latest trends are set, how marketers often tactically manipulate the ‘craze’ surrounding the new ‘must have’ products. This idea is touched upon in Michaels post, yet I believe the idea can be expanded further. If you drive into a golf club, you are often greeted by a sign stating ‘members only.’ This suggests that it is popular, a good thing to do, everybody is doing it so instantly you want to join this one, follow the trend, get in with the other members. The club next door which is ‘open to the public’ no longer seems as desirable, as it not appear as popular but more importantly there is no exclusivity, the product on offer does not seem scarce and difficult to get a hold of.

Not only do we like to follow the lead of others, often with regard to our purchasing behaviour, our desire to obtain the product or service is simply heightened if we are aware that our desired commodity is scarce. Again I believe that marketers can use this tactic to their advantage. It is a well known fact that people assign more value to products and opportunities when they are less available as psychologists have found that the possibility of losing something is a more powerful motivator that of gaining something. This is extremely useful information for a marketer as often firms are able to use this to their advantage through the use of effective manipulation techniques such as ‘limited numbers’ and ‘deadlines.’ Think how many times you were about to put those shoes back, until you found out they were the last pair in the store…!

For the past few weeks I have been focusing upon marketing campaigns specifically related to adverts, so I decided to take a different approach and instead focus on campaigns produced by government organisations. I believed there would be a distinct difference, as unlike most campaigns, they are not trying to persuade us to part with our money in exchange for the products or services they offer. Even the majority of charities still base their campaign around obtaining money, through the form of donations or sponsorships. Many, such as Oxfam, rely on charitable donations from the public and thus heavily direct their adverts towards achieving this goal.

Yet for this specific reason, I decided against such adverts, and chose campaigns that did not ask for anything in return from the viewer except an alteration in their behaviour. So how would their marketing strategies differ? The campaign I chose to focus on was one produced by the Department for Transport in the UK. Their ‘Think!’ campaign has been extremely successful for a number of years now and has included a number of emotionally evoking adverts.  The advert I chose is in my opinion, perhaps the most effective in creating awareness and therefore leading to alterations in our behaviour.  It is clearly aimed at trying to raise awareness on the importance of wearing seatbelt every time you get in a car.

 I believe the approach taken in this advert is particularly effective for a number of reasons. Firstly, is the way the scenario is delivered; in poses an everyday, seemingly harmless task that the majority of people participate in daily, such as doing the morning school run. The public can therefore imagine themselves, if not loved ones in this exact situation. Secondly the strangely calm, matter of fact, tone in which the narrator delivers the dialogue is something that I personally find particularly un-nerving. It suggests that sadly, terrible accidents such as the one portrayed are un-common and happen almost daily. Furthermore the bold statement, ‘like many Julie knew her killer,’ immediately conjures images of a threatening group of individuals acting in an aggressive manner. Yet the twist in the tale is that it is in fact her own son, acting not out of the ordinary, apart from the fact that he did not fasten his seat belt when he entered the vhecial. This is perhaps an action that many of the audience can relate to – not fastening your seatbelt when you get into the car, especially if you are only going round the corner, say to the local school. Yet many find it difficult to believe that it could have such deadly consequences, such as killing. The chilling statement, ‘after crushing her, he sat back down’ simply reaffirms how easy it is for someone to be killed in a collision, especially without the safety of a seat-belt. Finally, and perhaps most effective of all is the impact the advert has on your emotions. It shows the boy who wasn’t wearing a seat-belt appearing relatively unharmed after the crash, his sister who did have a seatbelt on, emerged without a scratch (reconfirming the effectiveness of a seat-belt) but was a witness to the accident. The boys’ mother who he sat behind suffered the consequences of his deadly actions, as it was she who was killed.

This message works well, as the scenario does not only seem believable, a situation that many of us have been in before (except the final deadly consequences) but it shows what a terrible impact such a simple decision can make on our lives. We often travel in cars with friends or family members, so it will therefore be those whom are close to us who suffer from our actions. This brings up terrible feelings of guilt; why should it not be us who chose not to wear a seat-belt who suffer? Why should it be the other passengers who took the correct safety procedures? The advert concludes that it will be you who lives with the consequences of your actions. It will be you who is responsible for the death of your loved ones and having to live with the hurt you cause to others, which was easily portrayed by the horror of his sister who watched her mother die, due to her brothers’ carless actions. Surely this harrowing, and not so hard to imagine and readily occurring scenario is enough to make us change our actions. After all, regardless of whether you are a driver or a passenger, how hard is it to fasten a seatbelt when you get into a car?

As in this weeks lectureswe have been talking about consumer behaviour, I thought I would have a think about that and try to look at the different ways marketers attempt to influence consumer behaviour with their adverts. It is widely recognised that through linking celebrities with products, it is a prime way for organisations to cash in on the ‘association principle’ – if I use this perfume/shampoo/face cream, maybe I too will look just like Beyonce! It’s a long shot, but has been shown to be highly effective. Sports starts are eagerly signed to companies such as Nike, in the hope that associating such athletes with their products it immediately conjures images of professionalism and success amongst consumers.

However, the other day I came across an advert that I had not seen before. It was for Motts apple juice, featuring Martia Cross. At first this struck me as strange. Firstly, because most products with celebrity endorsements are either sports goods, cosmetics, perfumes and other beauty goods, or large well known brands such as Pepsi. Motts however, seemed to be aiming its target audience at Mums buying apple juice for their kids, so why did they have celebrity endorsement? Furthermore, Marcia Cross while extremely attractive and well known, is not the usual candidate chosen….after all she’s no Jessica Alba!

Yet on further reflection, I began to see things differently. The other week in a different class we spoke of how authority could influence people’s behaviour and that often marketers used this tactic, especially through association. The example given in the text, was a TV commercial featuring the actor Robert Young waring people against the dangers of caffeine, and instead recommended a caffeine-free brand of coffee, Sanka. The commercial was extremely successful, but why? Robert Young was an actor, clearly with no medical experience so why would so many people take his advice and buy de-caffinated coffee? It was because, as the company had so wisely worked out, people saw him as ‘Marcus Welby,MD’ (the character he played on the TV show.) People associated him with a Doctor, having medical experience, thus linking this with knowledge and authority and were more likely to ‘take his advice’ and buy caffeine-free coffee. (cited from Influence Science and Practice, R B Cialdini.)

It got me thinking that Motts’ campaign, and they in fact had not picked a strange candidate for their celebrity endorsement, they had actually hit pure, subtle genius! Martia Cross is well known for her role on hit TV show Desperate Housewives, where her character is Bree Van deKamp. On the show, Bree upholds strong family and moral values and in recent series has been extremely successful with her catering business and cook books – thus suggesting that she is a knowledgeable and trustworthy source when it comes to healthy living and eating.

Therefore, even though Martia Cross herself is probably not much better to take health advice from than you nor I, because of the association people hold between her and her famous TV character Bree who portrays the ‘perfect housewife’, providing wholesome nutrition to all, mothers seemingly would take her advice when it comes to nutrition for their children. As she gleefully exclaim, Motts contains 2 whole portions of fruit and vegetable and the kids wont even notice! Now, who would turn down an inside secret like that!

This is one of my favourite adverts, which I feel is entertaining, effective and appealing. It is from ghd, a British company which was founded in 2001 in my home town of Leeds, who developed a range of hair straighners (irons). I’m not sure if they are available in Canada, they are available in the US, but they are extremely popular back in the UK and even though they are an excellent product (I display firm brand loyalty here!) their success and popularity was vastly increased after their effective marketing campaign.

The adverts main target market is clearly women, as like so many other adverts, it uses extremely attractive women with beautiful hair thus suggesting that if you buy the ghd product you too will have hair that looks like this. However, the plot of the advert suggests the numerous outcomes you may experience if you use their product: women will be jealous of you, men will lust after you or even fall in love with you – ideas that some women may well find extremely appealing. The belief that women want and need this product is reconfirmed by the scenario that sisters will steal from one another to obtain ghd’s and the tag line of the advert ‘the gospel according to ghd,’ suggesting that the product is sacred. It’s an item to be treasured explaining why ‘borrowing without asking’ may be seen in the eyes of the owners as betrayal! Clearly the advert is suggesting that once your purchase their product, it will become one of your most prized possessions.

Interestingly, the actual product is not well documented in the advert. There is only one shot of one of the girls actually using the hair straightners. Indeed the product was fairly well known by the time of this advert release, but as I mentioned earlier, it was this marketing campaign that really boosted ghd’s popularity. I believe this is in fact an extremely clever tactic, as it suggests that the product may not look extraordinary at first glance, hence its lack of air time, but the results certainly are. This explains the majority of the advert showing beautiful women with beautifully styled hair. Furthermore, it subtlety demonstrates that the ghd hair straightner can be used for a number of styles i.e. curling as well as straightening – a curling iron and a straightening iron in one! As the first shot of the advert is a girl with perfectly curled hair – perhaps what you would not expect from hair straightners.

This idea was further expanded in the following set of advertisements, which were based around the emotions of lust, love and anger, all running with the same tag line ‘thou shalt never be the same girl twice’ reconfirming the idea of the diverse nature of the product, as she styled her hair depending on her mood. Interestingly, this follow up marketing campaign did not feature the actual ghd hair straightners once.

The advert did generate some controversy as some felt it was inappropriate to compare a product such as this to something ‘wholly’ or ‘sacred’ by using the tag line ‘the gospel according to ghd,’ but as the advert appealed to so many a little bit of scandal was certainly not a bad thing, and as well as vastly increasing sale, this advert had some more unusual outcomes.

As mentioned earlier, it would seem that the clear market this product is aimed at is women. However, popular demand rose among males as ghd’s became the new ‘must have’ accessory. This led to the company developing a new thinner model, designed for shorter hair – thus males, and again they were an instant hit and extremely popular. People even developed their own parody versions of the advert, but instead the gospel is aimed at men!!

Yet most baffling of all, there was no direct marketing campaign for the male version of ghds. It appeared that this line of adverts was so popular, that the only promotion the new ‘male’ product needed, was positive word of mouth and there was plenty of that around!

So, I am pleased to report that my hair straightners are now safe as my younger brother has a pair of his own!