Kelly Trach’s blog entry, “Comment, Tumbl, and Tweet Professionally” had some excellent suggestions as for ways to ensure that people respect the online boundary between fun and inappropriate. However, what interested me was the implicit assumption that this only applies to people who are currently employed. Assuming this gives high school students and unemployed university students the impression that they are free to act as they wish with no concern for future repercussions, which is untrue. In reality, each picture uploaded to Facebook is saved, and repercussions can appear at any point in a person’s life.

A fantastic example of this was seen in a recent episode of The Good Wife, where photos from a political candidate’s freshman year of university resurface 20 years later during the campaign. This is a PR advisor’s worst nightmare – the ridicule factor can be one of the most difficult things to combat in a political or marketing campaign. In the case of the episode, the candidate was unable to come back from the ridicule of a photo of him “pleasuring” a plastic Santa Clause. The entire campaign was ruined and his career was over – this is the impact that unprofessional actions can have, even if they are done during a point where the person is not directly employed. It is crucial that students remember this and ensure that they conduct themselves properly not only while working, but in general. Else wise, with Facebook tracking and Googling becoming standard pre-hiring checks, the student could find themselves having serious regrets.

Re: Era of Sustainability by Vivian Lin

https://blogs.ubc.ca/comm101sec105/

There are hundreds of blogs that discuss the practicality of sustainability in a business sense, but Vivian Lin’s blog asking if a company is “doing it for the right reason” sparked my interest. I respond to her question with one of my own: does it matter?

Having recently attended the CUS Chasing Sustainability conference, I found my question answered by Janice Cheam, founder of Energy Aware. In explaining how her company received funding, she touched on the idea that simply “putting up photos of melting ice caps” does not work when trying to attract large electric company buyers. These companies are interested in making money – there does not seem to be logic in an electric company giving people a product that will reduce their electricity bill. Thus, Janice suggested a new strategy: showing the company how using Energy Aware could positively impact their business by ensuring that the demand did not start outstripping the ability of the company to supply energy.

This relates directly to the question above – does it matter if a company is “doing it for the right reason”, as long as they are doing it? Whether a company decides to only use sustainable inputs for moral reasons or because it would be a strong marketing strategy, the bottom line is that the company will start using more sustainable inputs. The overall goal is to reduce the impact that we are having on our earth, not to force every person to become an eco-friendly tree hugger.

Re: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=b45078fa-24d7-46e4-9806-dabe343c1597%40sessionmgr13&vid=1&hid=21&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=44733301

Many seem to revere Zappos’ human capital management system. Silliness and parties seem to abound, and the company continues to be profitable even through the economic recession. However, while Zappos’ hiring and training model is certainly well-thought out and attractive from an employee’s point of view, it’s workplace atmosphere is inappropriate. Hiring and training can be one of the most expensive parts of an employee’s employment at a company – in essence, they are being paid while not necessarily contributing to the company’s revenues. Zappos does an excellent job in ensuring that the employees hired are well-trained and committed to their jobs in order to minimise this cost, as read in the article and discussed in class. However, the atmosphere within the centers leaves much to be desired.

The Zappos call center seems to be akin to a Kindergarten classroom, complete with hula hoop contests at the reception desk and box car races in the finance department… all during hours that will end up on a future paycheck. In plain terms, Zappos takes the idea of enjoying work too far, to a level where it is juvenile. These employees are not Kindergarten students any more, and the moment they come to this realisation they quit, meaning that Zappos’ strong hiring and training processes are put to waste. It would be more profitable for the company to pursue a strategy that maintains an encouraging workplace and positive atmosphere while keeping a professional environment – inspirational quotes, celebratory drinks, and after-hours office parties can keep employee morale high without taking away from work time or encouraging a childish atmosphere.

The iPod, the iMac, the iTouch, the iPad… “i” has taken over hearts and minds across the world as Apple continues to innovate and expand.

The iPod, the iMac, the iTouch, the iPad, the iGrill? The iMed? Apple continues to expand and innovate, but there is a limit to the iBrand that Apple marketing executives must pay attention to in order to retain the currently strong iReputation. When most people are asked about what they associate the iBrand with, their answer is along the lines of “innovative portable technology for the “hip” iGeneration”. It is associated with fun and easy user interface. As much as Apple should harness the amazing power of the app store and the iBrand, it needs to be careful not to diversify the brand to a point where consumers are overwhelmed. In this case, introducing products such as the iGrill and the iMed to its iBrand actually has a negative impact. The iBrand does not inspire thoughts of medical technology or barbequing – it is already associated with the image of a young, hip 20 year old enjoying music, photos, and videos. This is Apple’s main market, and by introducing iBrand products that are focused on an older, middle-aged market, Apple is asking people to change their conceptions of the brand. Considering how strong the iBrand currently is, trying to change it will have more of a negative impact than a positive one – the “hip” will be removed from the brand image.

That is not to say that Apple should not continue to innovate and take advantage of its amazing app store power – just that the products aimed at a different market should be under a different brand that consumers can then associate with the app store itself. Leave iBrand for the young technology, not for it’s more middle-aged directed applications.

Interesting marketing campaign – frankly, I’m not quite sure what specific company its for, but I love seeing smart marketing campaigns that involve environmental awareness. In fact, not-for-profit companies are starting to become some of the most effective marketers, with campaigns that appeal to logos (logic), ethos (morals/ethics), and pathos (emotions). Combined together in a series of marketing campaigns, the three aspects of appealing to any human being have the potential to change the direction in which the world is heading.

Recently there is a strong surge of interest towards sustainability and sustainable business practices in response to great public demand – but where does this demand come from? The answer was mentioned above – the demand for more ethical and sustainable products comes from the amazing marketing campaigns of companies whose sole intentions are not to make profit, but instead to “better the world”. These marketing campaigns have resulted not only in an increased awareness, but also in a fundamental shift in the way humans are starting to make buying decisions. At the moment, any company in the world would benefit from taking advantage of this shift and heading towards  a “greener” future.

Examples of eco-marketing campaigns from both for-profit and not-for-profit companies:

BC Hydro: BC Hydro Power Smart

WWF: Light Bulb

Greenpeace: Dove Onslaught(er)

This campaign resulted in Dove declaring that it would be using only sustainably harvested palm oil by 2015.

Blue jeans: the classic clothing of the US Midwest and an internationally recognised fashion item. They are also a fantastic example of entrepreneurship and exactly how it can change the world.

Levi’s was first created when Jacob Davis, a tailor who purchased his bolts of hemp cloth from Levi Strauss & Co’s wholesale wearhouse, approached Strauss with the idea of using copper rivets to reinforce areas of high stress on men’s pants. The two purchased a patent for the idea and in 1890, the first pair of Levi’s 501 jeans was created. They would go on to become the world’s best selling item of clothing. Within 30 years, the company had grown exponentially. 15 salespeople had increased to over 22 000, two plants had become 50, and what had once existed only in California now had offices in 35 countries across the globe.

Levi’s is a picture perfect example of entrepreneurial success by any definition of the word. They introduced a new, innovative product, and expanded into new markets by making a pair of jeans a staple item for any closet – male, female, or child. It should come as no surprise that the amount of wealth created by the sale of blue jeans is incredibly substantial, and as discussed above, the company grew to a multibillion dollar company extremely rapidly. Finally, the Levi Strauss & Co. took a large risk in deciding to move from the wholesale wearhouse business to a jean making focus.

Although blue jeans may not be the attire of choice for the business world, they  certainly are an example of a true business success.

External Blog: http://www.canadianmarketingblog.com/archives/2011/11/what_we_can_learn_from_the_occ.html

Merril Mascarenhas hits the nail right on the head – the strongest modern day marketing campaign doesn’t involve mass marketing. Rather, it involves social activist marketing. With the internet becoming more of a staple, people become more aware of issues around the world and the number of social activists increases. This trend influences lifestyles, including purchasing decisions – people are more likely to factor social responsibility into their decision making process, and therefore a company with a strong CSR strategy will have a competitive advantage.

So how does this fit into the Occupy movement?

Most people will agree that the movement is a strange one that is unlikely to achieve anything as it has no central aim and no demands – so why is it so successful? How can so many people (at the time of this blog post approximately 2609 towns had occupy movements) have such deep rooted support for a cause that has no direction?

The answer lies within social activist marketing. As much as most protesters do not know what the end goal is, they are united by a common theme that they care deeply about – being the 99%. It’s a big theme that, as the article states, “is above a specific need, want, or desire” – and it works. It attracts people and draws them in, which brings us back to marketing and CSR – attracting people and drawing them in are exactly what marketing aims to do, and CSR provides the larger theme or purpose. If a company wishes to be successful in the long run, it needs these two departments to work together to create a campaign that truly attracts the heart of the consumer.

Though the job market has become increasingly competitive since the 2009 recession, companies still compete for the best and brightest of each graduating business class.  This contest is won by the firm that best markets itself to commerce students, and it is becoming increasingly necessary that even first year students are targeted to ensure a positive corporate image.

Within the “Big Four” accounting firms, two are clearly ahead when it comes to marketing their companies to Sauder students. Both Deloitte and EY have aggressively introduced their names to incoming first year students through slightly different but successful strategies. EY is clearly the more successful of the two – their campaign involves handing out branded items such as sunglasses, bags, and water bottles that are now seen around campus. As a result, EY is the most frequently mentioned firm among the first year students. Deloitte has also had a successful strategy, sponsoring “Deloitte Luau” Thursday during Business Week.

Unfortunately, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and KPMG are far behind when it comes to marketing themselves to freshmen. With very few sponsorships and low presence on campus, these companies are losing valuable chances to connect with the students. Being that most students have already ranked each company prior to the interview process, PwC and KPMG are risking their offers to the strongest students being rejected due to a subconscious preferment for Deloitte and EY.  If PwC and KPMG wish to remain competitive, they need to recruit and retain employees that will help their firms remain innovative. By not marketing themselves to students, they are risking their own corporate reputations.

Originally excited to see my friends on the cover and amused at the quips that introduced the topic, I rapidly became intrigued by the assumptions of Riley Chow’s article, “Everybody Loses” in The Cavalier. In essence, a political campaign is identical to a marketing campaign. Consumers are replaced by voters, and the products are the candidates and their platforms. The products are all in essence identical – as Chow clearly states, the candidates were “uniformly qualified by virtue of being in Sauder and the position fairly entry-level”. Thus everything in the election came down to how each student marketed themselves to their peers. What I found in the article was an extremely one-sided analysis of the way each candidate was campaigning, resulting in an inaccurate analysis.

Chow states that “anyone who attended the forum knew that [Jimmy Chang and Reef Chiu] had clearly earned their votes” and condemns the election results without looking at the other aspects of the candidate’s campaigns. This is akin to watching 5 minutes of commercials on TV and deciding which product is best solely based on those 5 minutes. Just as most marketers know that one single TV commercial is not enough, each candidate recognized this as well. Some candidates focused on having a particular brand or image associated with their names – Emmett Lee emphasized his blonde hair and courage, and Dilraj Rahal emphasized the idea of change and “bringing us forward”. Others chose to make flashy videos such as Rachael Yang’s “Friday” parody. In the end, however, the most effective marketing technique for these elections was cultivating personal relationships with the “consumers”. What was distinctive about the 2 winners was their dedication to spending time talking to their fellow classmates and trying to listen to and understand what mattered to us. In the end, a company is not successful because it has one good press conference, as Chow seemed to assume. A company maintains a strong client base through cultivating relationships and showing that they genuinely care – just as the election winners did.

Congratulations to all the candidates, and the best of luck Emmett and Armin.

http://cavalier.cusonline.ca/?p=708

We are committed to “phasing out paper procured from endangered forests” (limitedbrands.com). For a company that claims to be “proud of [their] partnership with ForestEthics to raise environmental standards in the catalogue industry” (limitedbrands.com), it is nonsensical for them to be using any unsustainable practices in their marketing campaigns. Each year Victoria’s Secret, a division of Limited Brands, sends out approximately 400 million paper advertisements to households across the globe. Only 10% of the paper used for those advertisements is acquired from companies with sustainable forestry practices. Overall the company has the purchasing power to trigger an industry-wide shift towards recycled paper, which they claim to be working towards, but instead chooses to merely be ambiguously “phasing out” paper from endangered forests.

A campaign known as “Victoria’s Dirty Secret” was introduced by ForestEthics in 2005 to increase awareness of the unsustainable practices of the company, but to date the only improvements have been the increase from 0% sustainable paper to 10% sustainable paper – not the anticipated results. It is misleading for Limited Brands to claim that they are working with ForestEthics when ForestEthics is still campaigning against the company’s practices, and unethical for them to state that their paper policy is environmentally friendly while their practices continue to be unsustainable.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/02/take_action_vic_1.php

http://www.limitedbrands.com/responsibility/environment/paper_products.aspx