It feels like just yesterday that I switched into Section 203 and thank goodness that I did!

This semester has been a remarkable experience and the course itself was great not only because we had one of the most passionate professors at Sauder, but also the amazing  individuals I got to work with for the group assignments. To be brutally honest, I was somewhat skeptical about the majority decision to choose Caffe Artigiano as our company as it was small private company thus making information somewhat scarce. However, this challenge wasn’t as formidable once we got started and everything went pretty smoothly after that. The group worked really well together and we each used our individual strengths to contribute to our assignments. These assignments were also great because we had the chance to progress through different steps and then use them in our final video project assignment.

Some skills I enhanced  were my research and writing abilities which had been somewhat slacking with the multitude of  quantitative commerce courses this year. Additionally, I was able to develop the skills necessary to complete a marketing analysis which I think will be very useful going forward. Taking this analysis step by step provides a lot of crucial information about a company and its market and how it can be improved.

The only thing I would do differently next time is to participate more in class but that is linked with actually doing readings – which, I will admit, I wasn’t as on top of during the last half of the semester due to having a million things to do. Hope you can forgive me!

My top takeaways from this course was the fact that marketing plays a large role in our lives whether we know it or not. Having gained some basic insights, I feel more aware of the influence marketing has on different aspects of businesses and consumer life.

It has been a great year! Just have to pass the final now…

I used to be one of the most loyal and dedicated Blackberry users that you could possibly know and so when I came across May’s blog on the newest line of Blackberry devices, I had to share my own thoughts!

May did a great job in analyzing the positioning of the old and new devices, especially when it came to the keyboard. When I originally got my Blackberry, it was  the must have phone of my graduating high school class. It was amazing how their devices had catapulted into such success in such a short time and you can largely contribute that to BBM and the physical keyboard. I personally could never see myself using a touch phone once I had become a full “crackberry” addict so it was shocking when RIM (now officially Blackberry) launched it’s first series of touch screens with the Torch because for me, Blackberries were synonymous with QWERTY keyboards.

Z10 and iPhone 5. They almost look exactly alike…

As the company went downhill, I found myself with fewer friends who still had their Blackberry and I grasped on to hope that it would regain the glory days it had once had. I was sadly mistaken. It was clear from the unveiling of the new operating system and physical devices – such as the Z10 – that RIM had become like their competitors. As this article puts it, “[they] are just cloning what everyone else is doing” and thus positioning themselves out of an opportunity to capitalize on the large group of consumers who still use the keyboard because “no one owns that space.”

As a wise and disappointed consumer, I realized that getting a touch screen phone was now inevitable and the alternative touch screen phones were much better than the new Blackberry product line so I am now a proud owner of the Samsung Galaxy s3 (LOVE IT) and I’m sure many others abandoned ship as well.

Imagine heading to work in downtown Vancouver and seeing this bird sculpture being strangled by a gigantic plastic six-pack ring. I’m sure it would stop any one in their tracks for at least a few seconds to consider why it was there in the first place, which is exactly what the Plastic Pollution Coalition (PPC) was aiming to do.

Over the last few years, the dangers of plastic in landfills and in the environment have become more prominent and this publicity stunt’s main purpose was to protest “against the mass consumption of single-use plastic.” I personally found this approach very unique because usually most companies that are trying to educate consumers on switching from using typical plastic bags advertise at the point of purchase where you can find company branded alternatives to plastic bags. Instead, the PPC has took it upon themselves to do a public demonstration to raise awareness about this critical issue.

It is hard to gauge how effective it actually was but if we consider the AIDA model, you can see how this form of promotion could lead to the end goal of reducing single-use plastic items. The first step is to raise awareness and with the gigantic plastic six-pack rings on display in downtown Vancouver, this is definitely something that would catch people’s attention. The next step is to get people interested and that is closely tied with awareness because, for example, when I saw the image, I was curious to know what the message behind it was and learning more about the facts of plastic. The third step is desire – convincing the consumer they want a product or service – and that is linked closely with action which entails leading consumers toward taking action. While it is difficult to say if the PPC was successful in the last two steps, it is surely possible if it builds on its awareness and interest.

Everything aside, I love the idea and uniqueness of this idea and I feel the message was definitely delivered!

RELAX! United Airlines isn’t literally crashing into the ground, but it might as well be considering the awful job they are doing in satisfying their customers. The dissatisfaction is strongly focused with their website which has been labelled one of the worst in the travel industry. This blog, written by Rohit Bhargava, comments on the many different problems that users can find when trying to use the United Airlines website, but what stuck out to me the most was this picture:

Maybe they are waiting for 100%?
Source: http://www.rohitbhargava.com/2013/03/14-lessons-from-the-best-and-worst-websites-in-the-travel-industry.html

So how can they possible fix this problem?

One idea that instantly came to my mind was the diffusion of innovation. While this theory has more to do with new products, I feel like it is something that United Airlines never thought of when they launched their website because it clearly hasn’t been able to diffuse properly due a number of reasons. The major problem is, in my opinion, the complexity and compatibility of the service. Customers want something quick and easy so that they can quickly accomplish what they set out to do, but instead it is more of a “scavenger hunt” (quoted from blog). Furthermore, most travelers like to browse and see the possibilities of where they can travel; yet, United Airlines discourages browsing by trying to force customers into picking vacation packages and other trips early on in the selection process. On top of this, United Airlines has competitors who have much better online experiences and more importantly they forgot the key to success: listen to the customers and use a more valued-based marketing approach when creating the website.

It’s hard to believe that a company could go a whole year without realizing the negative feedback it was getting; however, if you go on their website today, it is exactly the same and I think it’s only a matter of time before they go into a full nose dive should they not address the matter.

One of the greatest spectacles in the all of sports has to be Super Bowl Sunday and as a football fan, I can attest to that. The amount of media attention and hype even before the big day is truly amazing. Whether it is about the game itself or the half time show, the media world is a buzz about the Super Bowl and there’s nothing quite like it.

Every year one of the biggest attention grabbers is the advertisements run during game day, but what many people don’t realize is how much companies such as Mercedes-Benz and Subway actually pay for these 30 second spots. It is estimated that it cost about 3.8 million for every one of these spots and with around 60 advertisements, CBS made upwards of 220 MILLION DOLLARS. Many companies are even bold enough to say that it is worth it because not only do the reach over 100 million viewers, but they also get free media attention from news networks, talk shows, and trend on social media websites who continue to talk about them and replay their advertisements well after the game is over.

Obviously this is any marketers dream opportunity if they create the perfect advertisement, but what I don’t understand is why the general public don’t question this splurge of money considering we would probably question such an investment of money for an advertisement at any other point in the year. If these companies were so keen on getting media attention, why don’t they donate this money for a good cause instead? I’m sure that would make a similar ripple effect in the media and give them a better corporate image as well.

– One of the more popular commercials from the 2013 Super Bowl.

Next time you watch one of those amazing Super Bowl advertisements, you might want to consider the good the money used to create and air them could have done.

Most of us turn on the lights at some point in every day; however, the light bulbs that we grew up turning on are soon to be banned from being sold. Starting next January, a new regulation will come into effect that bans the sale of incandescent light bulbs which follows similar regulations implemented by other places in the world such as the European Union. Replacing the regular bulbs are the more energy efficient light bulbs like light emitting diodes (LEDs) and compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). These new bulbs are supposed to last longer and use less energy thus saving a typical consumer money in the long term and supposedly helping the environment as well.

An incandescent light bulb and a compact fluorescent light

You may be wondering: so what is the big deal about this change? Aside from the higher initial cost for the bulbs, Canada is unprepared for most of these energy efficient light bulbs because many contain mercury: an extremely toxic chemical and neurotoxin that most advertisements and companies won’t tell you about. Mercury waste facilities are almost non-existent meaning that many of these new bulbs would end up in landfills where they could potentially enter water streams. While there is only a small amount of mercury in each light bulb (up to 5 milligrams), if you consider how many each household requires it is truly concerning the environmental danger that these bulbs can bring when they end up in landfills in large numbers.

“Environment Canada says the mercury contained in a typical thermometer can contaminate five Olympic-size swimming pools to toxic levels.” – Globe and Mail

Clearly Canada is not ready for this change. I believe that this regulation needs to be put on hold until there are facilities or a plan in place, such as a “bottle-return” system, that can be used to store or dispose of these toxic containing light bulbs in a safe manner. Canada could look at the EU’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE Directive) for an idea on how to deal with this problem while making sure consumers are aware of the danger of these new bulbs through advertising and labels so that these bulbs end up helping the environment rather than harming it.