Month: October 2010

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?