One of our first lessons this year in Marketing 296 was the marketing adds value. In the context of the holiday seasons, this should be a statement about Christmas spirit fuelled by the engines of consumerism, but the forces that be (i.e. the ones mentioned in my previous blog post) do not seem to be generating better Christmas spirit. I would argue in fact, that somehow, instead of increasing the glory and appreciation of festivity, markets have conventionalized them. The classic argument against Hallmark and their holiday greeting cards being part of the capitalistic machine is an old one, and while I do plan on drawing on some of its merits, this post is about summations.

Doing a video project on Rogers (in which we analyzed the market environment and made recommendations accordingly) inescapably drew my attention to the constant difficulty of identifying target markets; a task that an old marketing instructor in high school said in his one substitute lesson with my class was the real key to marketing strategy; namely, that a plethora of factors, events, and information is constant, but the only real tool a marketer has in analysis is people. Marketing is just as much about analyzing the world and deciding how to paint a picture as it is about identifying which parts of the world to analyze, and where the next significant theoretical analysis will arise. On a whole, with Christmas celibacy in the back of our minds, I find it increasingly important that the 21st century consumer and marketer alike be trained to focus; turning off our cellphones at appropriate times and being generally dedicated to what’s at hand scales with exponential benefits. This apparently holds true at any stage in a life cycle of fulfillment: even if we choose to, as a contemporary god of marketing Steve Jobs suggests, never look at marketing research again in our lives, this fundamental takeaway of focusing on the right essentials has been an obvious part of doing well in any marketing textbook or success story.

Eminem’s iconic album “Curtain Call” is an intriguing example of defying conventionality; as the curtain on this term is drawn, and reflecting like this artist here on how I have tried to break the mold, I’ve noticed myself doing best when I un-divide my attention. Maybe it gets more complicated (I wouldn’t doubt it), but it’s the best I have now!

My obligatory video game post comes at an interesting segue from studying; what better way to spend scant study break time than on stress-relieving video games? Or alternatively, we can analyze it: how much do we enjoy, say, embodying the adventurous life of a story from the comfort of our couch? It’s easy to get absorbed in games (usually, that’s the point), and although the discussion around the influence of gaming’s violent themes has died down in recent years, it’s important not to forget what our influences become when we do become absorbed.

Meet “Call of Duty: Ghosts”; a first-person shooter game that I will use for a simple case analysis. Featuring a number of psychologically thrilling, mentally challenging, aesthetically provoking, and thematically violent experiences, the game’s campaign mode (single-player, story mode) not only portrayed war as the ultimate stage for heroics, but more disturbingly inundated players in a patriarchal paradigm. Subtle ideas like male dominance are readily accepted by younger audiences, or uneducated players (who for our purpose, can be male) cruising through the game feeling purposeful, influential, and bound to settle “dad’s score” with the evil murderer wreaking havoc to the United States. Here, I’ll save Bandura’s bobo doll experiment another citation, and simply ask why girls should play with dolls, and boys, guns? History tells us that that is not the way people naturally behave; I believe that people with bigger muscles are not naturally more violent. We can see that the same ingenuity fuelling the proliferation of diamond engagement rings in the latter half of the 20^th century is at work; the same forces behind successful marketing campaigns.

21^st century, value marketing has resolvable roots in recognizing the power of involvement. If you readily subscribe to a belief (a broken paradigm, for example), it can become part of your unquestioned status quo. The danger is when this bias erodes our grasp on reality; perhaps this status quo is the reason we have so much constant, impenetrable clutter, vying for our divided attention in our lives.

Although the scenery is spectacular and mesmerizing in-game, is it really fair to experience it as a young man killing men with my brother and my dog, for my country and my father? Sounds like a bit of a… vulgar success, wrought with distractions. Humans were not designed to stand alone against a constant barrage of everything coming at once; or is that what we call heroic?

Recently, I wrote a blog post on a Bloomberg Businessweek article analyzing the legal attacks on the marketing labels of the food industry (see below), and scanning randomly through my classmates’ blog posts, I found that Kate Gao had elaborated on such a case involving Coca-Cola’s “greenwashing” on their packaging. I was particularly interested in the blog’s title: “‘All-Natural’, ‘Eco-friendly’ and Not to Be Trusted”, which is clearly worded to vilify Coca-Cola’s wording in its PlantBottle marketing scheme. The contention Kate is making (if I may paraphrase) is that the PlantBottle brand was intended to lie to consumers; that making something look “green” is inaccurate if only 15% of the product was made with environmentally conscious materials.

The criticism of an advertisement’s wording is largely a question of degree. Companies who come up with a new branding can designate the specific requirements that need to be satisfied in order for said branding to be used – the same way that new words are invented. As students of marketing, we have to be careful when deciding whether a marketing practice can be considered unethically deceptive (the law certainly appears to say otherwise in the Coca-Cola case). Marketers are tasked with portraying the selling points of their product/service in the best possible light, and I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be ethical limits as to how this is done – I’m pointing out that stigmatization makes for good stories. For example, large companies will almost always immediately lose an ethical challenge to your everyday blogger in Joe-reader’s impressionable mind. Usually, the justification is that these large companies/public figures can fend for themselves, but marketers know that altering public perception should not be taken lightly on any level.

When we criticize as writers, should we be criticizing companies, events, and people unilaterally? Or change our ethical assessment standards like we would our marketing practices based on criterion such as size and strength? What defines “vulnerability”?

I think it is important that we remain accountable to our accusations; that we only use protection from our words when we need to, so that it can effectively remain what it is meant to be: respite for the vulnerable, and so that nobody (be it company, public symbol, or individual) is unjustifiably victimized.

I’m a die-hard MEC fan. Their products are amazing, and as a scout leader, hiker, skier, etc. I need high performance (100% functional need satisfying) clothes for when I’m outdoors. It’s important that when I go to their store, I get product guarantees, practical information from their experienced sales team, options to suit my specific, personal camping needs, and the opportunity to consider each product’s application and benefits in an open environment. In short, I’m willing to spend. MEC satisfies not only my camping needs, but as a leader, when we want to buy lasting equipment for the youth, MEC is usually the first name in mind. We know that not only will we be getting premium, tailored products, but also ridiculous exchange/refund policies in case the youth break the equipment; if the product description is not met (say, ten years waterproof), it will be replaced, no questions asked. Of course, the store doesn’t provide coupons, never hosts store-wide sales, and doesn’t even have “customers”; I myself am a proud co-op “member”. This value-added approach has built the biggest local provider of outdoor clothing and equipment in the city, and in fact, when MEC wants to open new stores, neighbourhood retailers often complain about being crowded out.

So the obvious joke here is how a local retailer is threatening the community of… local retailers? Not too long ago, MEC was just another store, started by some concerned campers. But I think this store’s success is an excellently clear example of the power in maximizing a sustained, competitive advantage. On top of which, if you still can’t see the signs of their success, I would recommend popping by a store for a visit, talking to a sales person (try not to buy anything), and watching this service phenomenon unfold. And maybe you’ll agree that sometimes, all you might need to do to succeed is pick the right business/marketing philosophy. And then (borrowing from game theory) even a regular operation like customer service with can be a dominant business strategy.

Just wow. Really? Architecture? Talk about moving beyond being a clothing brand. Just wow.

Class-actions are a marketer’s bane. Or so illustrates an article in the August 26-September 1 issue of Bloomberg Businessweek. Lawyers who made their fortunes suing tobacco companies for misrepresentation have converted to litigating less directly harmful food companies, such as Ben & Jerry’s and Breyers being sued for claiming that their ice cream is “all natural”. Plaintiffs are arguing that these products should instead report that they contain alkalized cocoa processed with potassium carbonate, and other such trivialities.

Although it is unlikely that any of these lawsuits will successfully charge companies for money, it is nonetheless important to assess the business environment in America; while it is incentivized for law firms to indefinitely expand the scopes of their litigations, one may question whether or not the simple exchange of money is useful business operation. Indeed, such symptoms of inefficiency are unsurprising in any well-established bureaucratic organization, and countries are no exception. Society as a whole often suffers from the selfish pursuit of gains, weighing once again against Adam Smith’s arguments if French capitalism was not enough practical proof. But, instead of beating a dead horse, we who are so much smarter in the 21^st century know about value-based marketing and marketing to mission statements; we have existential crises, and question the ends of what we do, generally emerging unsatisfied by psychological egoism; these lawyers, I would say, break the mould. Or somehow, being in an industry or an organization, individuals find the justification to do things that they otherwise would not.

Considering the use of language and technicalities in branding, let us not forget that value-based marketing is nothing without its prerequisite of wanting to live a life of value. So when we think we are cheating the system with our own egoisms, we are really cheating ourselves out of participation. I mean, I don’t think all we want to do is market a life of being rich – rich and… what, happy?

Vague, much? Or does anybody know what this means and would care to comment?

At the beginning of every year, a common theme advertised in classes is academic honesty, or warnings about infringement. Last year, I myself worked on a very small computer science assignment (worth about 1%) with two other people last year, when we were only allowed to work with one, unaware of the strict regulation. I was accused of academic dishonesty when they discovered that our code looked similar, and we all got “0” for the assignment, as well as having our names taken down.

This experience was traumatic for me and my friends. The event itself is an extreme example; for the majority of students, who have not… well, been caught, the consequences are nonetheless heavily solicited to spread fear.

Interestingly enough, one of the most common dilemmas a business student faces is the dichotomy between school and work expectations. At work, process is much less important than outcome; most corporations do not care about consequences if they have no liability, and regularly get away with small oversteps. Of course, most ethicists would agree that one does not have to stop and consider every individual situation before proceeding with a decision – that is just impractical. “But little things can add up to become big ones,” so then what is ethics good for?

I think the key is that making small decisions, like what colour posters to print, is different from making big decisions about small things, like the subtle messages you are sending in advertisements. What I mean is that adopting a general, ethical policy or drawing fine guidelines is essential to making good choices. If marketing is, in any way, about taking advantage of consumer values through aesthetic manipulation, trust must be preserved in the process. And if you don’t want to risk career-ending consequences (my aforementioned experience in computer science is a good example, or FROSH), or just to feel too guilty from work, it may be useful to operate with defined rather than “Blurred Lines” so to speak.

Speaking with clarity is usually superior to tongue in cheek; questionable claims to parody and subtlety do not usually excuse the mysoginistic messenger in society.

“How do I love thee? Let me count the [days]” – E.B. Browning from Christmas holiday. I want to be home with my family, skiing in Whistler, hanging out with friends, etc. But why do I, and so many students with me, hate dealing with school so much? Aren’t these the most wonderful years of our life?

Well, hopefully not; I like to think that there’s some potential in tomorrow, good or bad. I actually don’t count the days; I don’t care for it. I don’t let the stress of grades get to me. Doing bad on a test doesn’t ruin my day; doing well doesn’t make it, either. It’s about doing what will be most beneficial to me, and for me to have fun while I’m at it. Otherwise, it would be meaningless. Otherwise, I’d just be subsisting, counting the days till the next holiday. What would be the point of my golden years then? May as well make the most of it now, and might as well get down to business with whatever I do, keeping in mind that if I make it so, it can be meaningful to me.

I’m proud to use my holiday remembering what is important, and to take this chance to focus on my life’s work.

More often than not, the concept of gaming draws criticism for being a time waster. And, it is indeed the case that some gamers find that video games absorb a large portion of their time; time that could be spent on other work. But this is true for almost anything; do too much of any one thing, and you’ll find that it is just as mind-numbing and unproductive as playing video games for too long.

Like most other things, gaming in moderation has extensive benefits. Art, marketing strategies, product development, psychological behaviour and responses, and being opportunistic are among the most common examples of things that we can learn examining video games and their industry. If, as a gamer, I remain critical, continuously expect more, and keep my horizons broadened across this liquid aesthetic experience, then I am simply being a good student. I find that many successful businessmen and entrepreneurs hold the same core values as being instrumental to success.

Like my experience with video games, it is important that I keep my mind open to what an experience is telling me. It is important to me that I make what I learn from whatever subject I study a product of my own self-worth.

I’m glad that I’m not the only one who took up the developer’s invitation to roam this city. Or can we not all learn a little about ourselves from this art?

A particularly queer transformation to Save On’s management drew my parents to check out PriceSmart foods – one of their subsidiaries that markets cheaper versions of similar brands. Arguably, there is no difference between these companies; even the green colour scheme on their logos is eye-catchingly similar.

A new manager from the recently ailing T&T Supermarket was hired to completely remake the image and products the store offers. The aisles and counters were filled with tell-tale signs of their new strategy; everything from the signage and employees down to the Asian spices had been changed so drastically that, had it not been for the extra clean floors and shelving, I could have sworn that I was in a T&T. It was like the entire supply chain had moved over with this one manager.

So that’s the power that lending a single person an opportunity can make. I payed extra close attention to how PriceSmart foods took every differentiating point about T&T and made it better in their own store. Talk about evolving a seemingly straightforward business model. I think that they have a winning formula – that they have it right – and in their bright halls, I only thought of doing things better.

I went to New York City last summer. It was, as described, cluttered. More than anything, the posters made me feel small, and in reality, I do come from a small town. Yes, small town Vancouver – home of the outdoorsmen, and the natural aesthetic, which is pretty much as antithetical to a New Yorker as any city dweller can get.

After a week, one comes to see why people fall in love with that lifestyle; the vibe is addicting; the involvement in food, art, culture is ubiquitous. I couldn’t help but appreciate the subtleties, and really came to enjoy myself. However, there is a contingent of marketing yet unaddressed – the direct sales people on the streets.

Most people wouldn’t assume that there are Americans from various ethnic backgrounds waiting at the bottom of the Empire State Building to sell tickets for it. Or women selling handbags on the street, and bus tours, and city passes, etc. America has followed the example of Asia and to become more competitive, people are working harder to survive. If that means transforming New York’s streets from the locale of savvy businessmen to a that of a common marketplace, then at least capitalism is evolving people successfully.