From meetings that started at 11 pm to changing the media of our final project a few days before the due date because of our inexperience with the technology, I was always learning something during the 3 marketing assignments. A few of my favourite takeaways:

1) Meeting in person is always the best way to go. After filling out 3 different “Doodle Schedules” to no avail, my group had to shrug our shoulders and agree to simply meet online rather than in person. It worked, but messages got crossed, and Google Drive’s discussion feed made it difficult to follow conversations. However, the one time where classes were cancelled and we met face to face was amazing and taught me the value of direct communication. We were more productive in that 1.5 hour meeting than we were in a 3 hour session online, communication flowed, messages were sent and received clearly… it was like magic. Even in a technological age, meeting in person will always be necessary.

2) Learning new media is difficult. Although we went through two sessions with the magicians at the CLC and spent additional time practising, it was amazing how difficult it was to work the technology needed to make a video similar to Khan Academy or Minute Physics. While I’d love to continue learning how to use different digital media forms, I’ve learned that even with lessons, final projects are not the place to experiment with new forms of media.

3) Marketing is complex. It looks simple – just put what’s in the textbook on a set of flashcards and do well on the exam. However, during the project we were exposed to plenty of little nuances and different interpretations of terms, and in this realised just how complex and detailed of a field marketing is. Thankfully, to me this makes it all the more interesting!

4) After writing 2 reports about it and making a video, I never want to drink an Odwalla smoothie again. Ever 😛

Thanks for reading! Until the next blog assignment,

Jen

As much as I agree with many of Rachel’s comments in her blog post, “Marketing Beyond the Field of Marketing“, I struggle with one major aspect: the lack of personal connection mentioned.

As we’ve been talking about all term, modern day marketing is about values and creating a personal relationship with the customer. When it comes to self-marketing, this means going beyond “show up, dress right, talk right”. There’s nothing personal in that mix; it belongs back in the 1920s-1980s era of sales and marketing focuses and develops a mindset that there is only one purpose a consumer can have (to buy), or in this case, that a networking partner can have (to hire).

Just as modern day marketing people have had to keep up with the times and develop value based marketing strategies, so do current students. It’s important that students don’t network in an attempt to “market [their] qualities”, but to have conversations which lead to information exchanges and budding relationships. The term “relationship” is key – a two way connection that is mutually beneficial. What does the poor person listening to a student promote themselves at a networking event receive from the experience?

Through having conversations with HR representatives and those senior CA firm partners, I’ve learned that the number one thing they want to develop with students is a relationship – one where they are able to receive feedback or information (whether it be about their firm’s current recruitment strategies, current trends, or even information on a completely non-commerce related topic), and then in turn, more than wanting to simply find a new person to hire, they want to become a mentor to the student: guiding, educating, and helping.

To me, that sounds like a much better deal then simply going to a conference to sell myself.

In May’s upcoming elections, many are calling for the B.C. Liberals’ defeat in the wake of multiple political “scandals”. However,  the Liberal’s track record is on par with the majority of political parties who are in power. Instead, it’s their handling of such scandals that has given them their poor reputation.

In his blog, Christopher Penn outlines the 3 key components of crisis communications using the metaphor of putting out a fire. If political parties learned to use these strategies to their advantage, perhaps they would be better off.

1) Knowledge: BC politicians’ track record for sharing information with voting constituents has never been great, but seems to have fallen to new lows in recent years. In turn, this makes scandals even greater as nobody is quite sure what the real story is or why decisions were made the way they were. In the case of the HST introduction, an advertising campaign educating users as to the benefits of an HST system would have silenced a significant portion of the objections.

2) Speed: As much as typically very little information is shared, the speed at which information is released tends to be extremely slow as well. Returning to the HST example, there was no major attempt to promote the HST as a positive thing until months after anti-HST campaigns had started gaining momentum. The initial lack of reaction ended up being a critical PR error.

3) Ownership: Politics is possibly the last place where anybody expects to find an organisation taking ownership for a mistake – typically any wrongs are blamed on the opposition or on a convenient scapegoat. However, it is exactly this lack of ownership that gives politics and political parties a bad reputation. For parties to develop a credible image, they also need to be willing to admit to their own shortcomings (and then explain how they are working to strengthen these areas).

So there you have it – some PR recommendations for whichever party is elected come May. Unfortunately this election actual issues are going to be eclipsed by the mishandling of these communications crises, but hopefully with some careful PR in the future we can focus on which party actually has the best policies for B.C.

During a recent bout of food poisoning due to the consumption of some expired chicken, I arrived at a fairly common stage: denial of responsibility. Of course it wasn’t my fault for not searching the package for the expiration date, nor was it my boyfriends’ for having kept expired meat in the fridge. Instead, the blame was all on the company for not having stated the expiration date in a more obvious manner.

After I began feeling well, this led to a more interesting question: to what end do companies have a responsibility to label possibly harmful products as such as opposed to consumers having responsibility for knowing the risks they take? 

We are all aware of the various labelling laws as they appear on certain prominent products: packs of cigarettes display disgusting images of rotting lungs and decaying teeth, “greenwashing” of products with the use of ambiguous “green” terms that are not yet defined under advertising laws, and the debate over the labelling of genetically modified foods. Yet, aside from advertisements and packaging that are flat out falsehoods, where is the line drawn between information that is hidden and information that is simply not said due to a lack of space or difficulty of communication?

Consumers call more and more for companies to be forthright and transparent with their products, which I definitely agree with. Nobody enjoys feeling like they’ve been lied to – in the case of a company/consumer relationship, lying only causes buyers remorse. However, I also believe that consumers need to take more responsibility for what they are consuming – if they care about whether or not a product is environmentally friendly, then they should also be willing to take the time to learn what that term really means.

Ultimately, on both sides it should be about a relationship that helps educate both parties and results in both parties making decisions that strengthen that relationship and strengthen the consumers and the companies in it.

“You may say I’m a dreamer

But I’m not the only one

I hope some day you’ll join us

And the world will live as one”

From an economic standpoint, BC’s economy grew by 2.9% in 2011, the third highest economic growth rate of all the Canadian Provinces. The other main economic metric, BC’s unemployment rate, has been falling steadily since its 2009 high and currently is one of the lowest unemployment rates in Canada. Economic concerns are now on the backburner for the majority of British Columbians.

On a more cultural front, BC Tourism’s motto is “Super Natural British Columbia”. The official BC Government guide states that “British Columbians need to protect their environment” Photos from BC Culture Days reveal that multiculturalism and the outdoors are the two largest aspects of BC culture. Our provincial motto is “splendor without diminishment”. There is no doubt that one of the largest concerns British Columbians have relates to the environmental integrity of their province.

In the face of this, it seems absurd that Enbridge continues to promote the economic benefits of its Northern Gateway pipeline as opposed to the environmental safety standards. By focusing their efforts on promoting the jobs and revenue the pipeline will create, Enbridge is displaying a fundamental lack of understanding of what is important to British Columbians. Examples of this on the official Northern Gateway website are rampant, from the primary placement of “Economic Opportunity” prior to “Environmental Responsibility”, to the “New jobs… and a strong economy” tagline inviting people to “Join in the Conversation”. Fifteen out of the twenty most recent “In the Media” listed news articles on the site relate to the economic benefits of the pipeline (A/N: only news articles selected by Enbridge appear on the site). Even the videos uploaded onto the YouTube account controlled by Enbridge mostly relate to the economic benefits of the pipeline rather than demonstrating concern for the environmental impact.

Next to the comments about BC culture, Enbridge’s strategy seems doomed from the start. They are trying to appeal to an economic sympathy that British Columbians simply do not have, and in that light it is entirely unsurprising that the company’s public relations campaigns have so far done little to satisfy concerns and grow a healthy relationship with the BC population. If the BC Government is to approve the pipeline, it needs to see at least a general sense of support from its citizens or else risk a backlash level comparable to that against the HST referendum. Thus, if Enbridge wants the pipeline approved it needs to appeal to those citizens on topics that matter to them. It needs to convey genuine concern for the possible environmental impact, transparency in the risks of the pipeline, competency in dealing with any possible leaks or spills, and a sense of respect for BC wildlife and forests before the population is likely to even consider accepting the project.

It is estimated that roughly $280 billion dollars are spent each year due to the influence of children on their parents, a large market that marketing departments are all too aware of. Though many countries have legal restrictions on the ways marketers can attempt to reach children, a new trend involving ad placement in school districts is causing some to ask if those restrictions need to be intensified.

A corporate presence in schools is not a new idea. Since 1990, a program named “Channel One” has been shown in middle schools and high schools across the US, purportedly  to “inform, educate and inspire by making news relevant and engaging for young people and sparking discussion around the important issues impacting youth today.” (Channelone.com). However, the 12 minute segment is littered with advertisements and product placement practices. Despite the apparent educational value, the program has sparked contraversy due to a study from the American Academy of Paediatrics demonstrating that “on average, students remembered more ads from Channel One than news stories”. After more than 20 years, a final decision still hasn’t been made on whether or not student knowledge of world affairs and daily news is worth subjecting them to unscrupulous advertising.

However, as old as the Channel One debate may be, a new controversy is on the table. In the face of recession-caused budget cuts, many school districts are seeing the corporate world as the only chance to save district programs and classes. Districts such as Calgary and Toronto are asking parents if they would support commercial advertisements in schools in exchange for programs, a concept becoming known as “Plant an Ad, Save an Arts Class”. What form those advertisements take (flyers in report card envelopes, ads painted on lockers, ad placements on school or district websites, etc.) remains to be seen, however psychologists, parents, and family members are disgusted by the idea:

“To even consider allowing the placement of ads in schools is disgusting.  School is meant to be a place that promotes knowledge and growth, not triggering what your next purchase will be.  Our youth need to be educated, not brainwashed with marketing spam.” (Anonymous)

“Children are vulnerable and impressionable. Schools should be places were children and youth learn to make good, reasoned decisions. We should not take advantage of children by forcing them to be an audience for corporate messages, however innocuous they may appear.” (Lois Yamauchi)

“…By age 12, children have become acquainted with all aspects of their consumer behavior, at least in a rudimentary form… they are able to… evaluate a product and its alternatives… Although today’s children and adolescents have the spending power to utilize their consumer skills, they still often lack the maturity to think carefully about buying decisions. Media literacy research is needed to understand how children and adolescents can be taught to make thoughtful consumer decisions, as well as how to protect them from commercial pressures to buy quickly and impulsively.” (Patti Valkenberg)

 

What is your opinion on the possibility of advertising in schools? Drop me a comment and let me know your thoughts.