A-Okay!

Anyone remember this?

Okay don’t laugh. I wanted this kit SO badly when I was a kid. It looks pretty cool right? Turn your everyday household items into a hippy’s dream. Or in this case, a child who clearly has no sense of style’s dream.

I wanted this gift more than anything for Christmas. Mom and I went to the toy store one day for me to pick out potential gift ideas, and the minute I saw the kit, I begged her to get it for me. Then she read me the little square of white paper next to the display saying that there were harsh, toxic chemicals in the paint. No Magic Dip for Jackie. Sigh.

Given that this wasn’t recalled by the sounds of it (please correct me if I’m wrong), I wonder if the whole point of putting an adult in the Magic Dip ad was to signify that yes, the company knew there were harmful chemicals in their product, but if an adult is present then it’s okay. Sure, lots of toys indicate an adult must be present to handle them, but to the extent of handling potentially harmful chemicals? Hmm, sounds a little iffy to me.

We talked a little bit about marketing and ethics in our last class the other day, and this came to mind during our discussion. Is it ethical to market products to children knowing that there are potentially harmful chemicals/ substances associated with said product? Sure, there are plenty of arguments for this, however I was so disappointed personally when Mom wouldn’t get me this kit that I wonder if this kind of marketing (implications of requiring an adult present) is ethical in the sense that it is considered fair to the kids who watch these ads, get their hopes up for receiving this product, and when they do either a) require a special gas mask or what have you to play with it or b) have the toy taken away from them once Mom and Dad find out their kid has about six brian cells left from inhaling so many toxic fumes. I personally think these ads create serious buyers’ dissonance for children and adults alike. I mean, kids don’t like having toys withheld/ taken away from them or have them banned from Mom’s shopping list, and parents I’m sure don’t like disappointing their children thanks to misleading advertising.

Perhaps I’m putting too much thought into this one advertisement. Forgive me. I’m still a bit upset over not having my awesome Magic Dip kit. 🙁

We discussed a lot of outdoor advertising last class, and I really enjoyed analyzing various types of advertising, so I thought I’d pick out a few more neat ads and do it again:

:

Oh Kit Kat, how smart of you. Making brown benches look like unwrapped chocolate bars? Awesome. Plenty of people will see this advertisement whether they’re sitting or standing, night or day. The mere fact that this makes me stop and chuckle at the creative aspect of this advertisement stops and gets my attention, making this a rather successful and skillful advertising technique.

Oh man, I hope that wasn’t somebody’s car! A smart (yet expensive) outdoor advertisement once again. Nike establishes its power by literally crushing a car with its giant soccer ball model. Again, this definitely gets my attention, and to competitors this almost says “yeah, we’re Nike. We have a lot of money and we can afford to destroy a car through one form of advertising. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid”.

Well, clearly Adidas isn’t afraid of competing with Nike. In my opinion, this advertisement, while also rather expensive, is clever and viewable by a huge number of people driving down the highway. Adidas is managing to reach a lot of people through a single advertisement, one which gets your attention immediately.

I never noticed how prominent outdoor advertising is in our society. When I look at all of these forms of advertising, I find them insanely creative and well executed, however expensive they may be. I actually wonder how much these all cost…hmmmmm

While I find these ads particularly entertaining and creative, I personally think there are many more less expensive ways to advertise and reach a large number of people. For instance, print is surprisingly popular. I don’t know how many ads I now read in magazines that make me stop and think “hmm wow that’s cool” every time I see a fancy or creative advertisement. Sure, it has its con of being in a single issue of a magazine only temporarily for the duration of the issue, but if it’s well executed it nonetheless will capture the eye of consumers whilst flipping through the pages.

So we’ve talked a lot about distribution- or, “promotion” in terms of the 4 P’s all throughout this class.

I wonder if distribution can be a verbal thing, and not a tangible thing? I.e. is it possible to verbally distribute a message to consumers instead of putting something in a package on a shelf?

…okay I know that’s a bit hard to follow. So let me use an example.

Yesterday I watched this awful video with Bristol Palin and Mike “The Situation” from Jersey Shore promoting safe sex. For those of you that don’t know, Palin is the daughter of (former?) Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and is most famously known for getting knocked up by her country bumpkin sweetheart at the age of 17 and, more recently, for advancing in Dancing with the Stars. As for The Situation? Yeah…not much to be said about him except he too is/was on Dancing with the Stars, and is famous for, well, no reason (aside from being on Jersey Shore that is).

So ANYWAY. The point of the video is promoting safe sex/ abstinence. I’m really curious to find out if distribution has to be a tangible thing, so if anybody has any answers please comment comment comment! 🙂

PS side note: This video made me want to gouge out my eyes the acting was so bad on Palin’s part. I mean seriously girl, I get that you’re not a real actor, but at least pay for an acting coach or something like that…or just don’t act at all, that’d be nice too.

Anyhoo here it is:

So I was reading Dan Le’s blog today and came across his post on Del Monte’s newest way to enter the market- prepackaging their fruit in order to maintain freshness and quality.  Dan thinks this is an excellent idea as it allows for market development and potential for Del Monte to increase sales by further differentiating their products since bananas (among other things) are rather similar to those sold by other companies.

While I can definitely agree with Dan in the sense that this most certainly will differentiate and further develop the banana market for Del Monte, I have to wonder if this new idea will have the opposite effect on the markets in the sense that people may think through packaging bananas it will compromise quality. When I say this, I mean people may refer to these bananas as more processed/ fortified than other unpackaged bananas. Personally, if I saw bananas prepackaged in the grocery store, I’d be less inclined to purchase them given that to me, it would seem unnatural to have bananas last as long as they would sealed in plastic than if they were in the open air. While I understand that there are plenty of fruits and vegetables that are non-organic and grown using pesticides and chemicals, the packaging would just remind me of the non-organic qualities of the fruit in question, and therefore I’d be more inclined to purchase bananas elsewhere.

Given this mindset, I’d imagine prepackaged bananas would shrink Del Monte’s segment of buyers who prefer organic/ natural-looking produce. As well, should the packaging cause the bananas to be more expensive, I’d again be less inclined to pay more for the banana(s).

Dan makes plenty of valid points with regards to these products, but I guess predictions of potential sales growth for Del Monte depends on which market you’re looking at- those preferring packaged foods vs. those preferring more natural-looking foods.

Just walked through the Sauder CA Hall…

Does anyone think that playing music when you’re at a ticket-selling booth actually brings in sales? Sure, I know SOMETHING is going on when I hear music, but is it really effective enough to actually get people to buy tickets to whatever event is being promoted?

Hmm…

So I was being a creeper and came across my friend Olivia Chiang’s blog today. After skimming some posts, I found one that quite tickled my fancy, and brought up an important issue:

https://blogs.ubc.ca/olivemylove/2010/10/19/misery-loves-company/

Essentially her post entailed a video against Prop8, the elimination of gay rights to marriage in, I believe, California. The video was a humorous take on the proposition, essentially with the message that getting married sucks and, in a nutshell, if people want to ruin the gay lifestyle, they should vote against Prop8 and let them get married because, as Olivia puts, misery loves company.

She states that this blog has great marketing power. I for one, agree. By using major actors such as Justin Long and Mike White, and by giving this issue a humorous spin, the creators of the video use their star power as well as humor to reach a widespread audience and at the same time get their political message across.

However to play devil’s advocate, this video might also have the opposite effect on appealing to older audiences. Personally I think that this ad appeals to younger audiences as Justin Long and Mike White star in movies that generally appeal to this demographic. While some might find the kissing and cuddling of two men hilarious (primarily because it’s common knowledge that the two are heterosexual), others might find it offensive. If that’s the case, then this could, in an extreme case, turn people to vote FOR Prop8 as they dislike the gay lifestyle.

With this in mind, it reminded me of another Vote No on Prop8 video that someone posted on Facebook. Again, it’s an  effective, in-your-face political ad, but it could be TOO political and TOO offensive for some people. The video entails speakers, gay and straight, telling people to “F*ck Prop 8”.

WARNING: Explicit content.

With swearing and some harsh makeout sessions, again this could have the opposite effect and turn “vote no’s” to “vote yes”s.

But maybe that’s just me.

Is it just me or did Halloween candy get smaller and dinkier?

I guess with these new incoming health regulations re: not advertising fatty foods to kids on TV, not selling junk food in schools, etc, it’s really not much of a surprise. At first I thought I was crazy, maybe it was just my imagination that the Coffee Crisps had gotten flatter, or that the Snickers pieces had gotten smaller. But NO! I’m sitting here as I type this, stuffing my face with who knows how many different kinds of chocolates galore, and these things have definitely gotten smaller!

Y’know, I get that since everyone’s promoting health awareness and the consumption of healthier foods marketers of junk food want to show that they too can take a share of this healthy market, but come one. This is Halloween candy. Unless companies want to go about making a healthier Kit Kat recipe or something to the likes of that, I’m still going to sit here and stuff my face just as much as any little kid post-trick or treating. I’m not going to think about how this butter will clog my arteries, or how this chocolate will give me a sugar high and withdrawal in about six hours, or how I’m going to have a massive stomach ache after eating this whole bag. No. All I’m thinking right now is “how fast can I get these Twix bars into my mouth without making a mess on my shirt”. Maybe this is the fat kid inside me talking, but I honestly don’t see much of a point to marketing Halloween candy in smaller and “healthier” portions. In reality, most kids (and adults) aren’t going to be thinking “ooo how many calories are in two pieces of Mars bar”. Sure, there will always be the small group of people that DO in fact take nutrition into consideration, but I just think the majority of people on Halloween will not have health being their number one concern, and therefore I honestly don’t think marketing smaller, fewer calorie snacks will be the most effective marketing plan.

But then again, maybe that’s just the fat kid inside me wanting her giant portions of Coffee Crisp back instead of these puny “healthier” portions.

am I starting to not really give a sh*t about sexism in advertising these days? Funny thing happened yesterday at my VCPE meeting, one of my friends was watching (ironically) the banned Guinness commercial where this woman appears to be engaging in an orgy-like scenario with three guys who happen to be sharing one beer off her back. Here’s the vid again just in case you have NOOOO idea what the heck I’m talking about (warning: may be found offensive):

Now, she was totally repulsed by this, and kept exclaiming how sexist it was and inappropriate. Yeah, she’s right. It’s sexist. Yeah, it’s inappropriate. Weird thing though? I, being a female, didn’t think “wow that’s so sexist” the minute I first watched the video. No, my first reaction was “HOW ARE THEY KEEPING THE BEER FROM FALLING OFF OF HER BACK?!”. Now, maybe that’s just my inner guy finding this to be entertaining, but have I (and perhaps some other females) become so desensitized by advertising that I no longer react when my own kind is being objectified? Huh. And do I care? Nah, not really. Maybe this was the ultimate goal of marketers, to give them more flexibility in how they deliver their messages to consumers without offending them, and maybe it worked, because honestly? All I care about is if the ad grabs my attention and/or makes me laugh. ‘Nuff said.

So I read one of these pro marketing blogs today, and I quite enjoyed this particular post:

http://markettingblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/wind-under-jet-blues-wings.html

While the whole point of the post was to discuss the value propositions of Jet Blue and the overall effect of the posted advertisements, the post started off showing how, by the looks of it, Jet Blue had “stolen” their advertisement video’s idea from Wind Mobile. This got me thinking actually about companies that seem to “steal” their campaign ideas from other companies. SO, with that in mind, it made me want to find out about a few more companies that have done the same thing- nabbed ideas from other businesses for marketing their own. Here’s what I found:

A Canadian Tandori restaurant apparently plagiarized an original ad from India, but you be the judge:

“copied” ad:

aaaand the “original” ad:

not to put a spin on anyone’s opinion, but personally I think they seem pretty damned similar to me. Another example of this “idea thievery” I found was from Coca Cola (yes, by the looks of it even the big companies like to pick up other peoples’ ideas once in a while). Apparently they copied a foreign ad for chocolate milk when creating their superbowl ad, take a look:

Coke’s ad:

and the chocolate milk ad:

is it just me, or is the music the same too? Welp, there ya have it folks. By the looks of it, even the big companies get a little starved for ideas once in a while.

So for our MIS class we were supposed to read and discuss the following article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38763243/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/

Essentially it revolves around Facebook’s latest addition “Facebook Places” and how it works/ potential issues that have arisen about it. For those not into a lengthy read on a Friday night (believe me, I don’t blame you), Facebook Places is basically a tool that allows you to update your Facebook status to indicate where you currently are, and with whom if you so choose. An issue in particular surrounding this new application would be the ethical issue of privacy concerns. While the article goes on to almost defend the application, I still wonder: a) how far is too far in terms of what personal information people post online? and b) how stupid are people to put so much of their lives on Facebook that if I wanted to come rob your house, all I’d have to do is check out your profile? Not…that i’m going to do that anytime soon of course, but after reading this article I noticed one person’s comment below it saying “just another way to say “i’m not at home, come steal my stuff”. That really got me thinking. While from a company POV this seems like a real gem of a tool- now marketers can conduct market research and  advertise promos to us when we’re in the area of certain stores- but from the perspective of a Facebook user, it seems like one more way to tell the world more than the world needs to know. Of course, not EVERYONE will likely be using this tool (I know I certainly wont), but it just seems unnecessary and almost TOO in-depth in terms of information that Facebook can collect from us and then either use themselves or sell to companies to advertise to us. As a potential marketing major, I know it’s probably near blasphemy for me to be saying this, but I feel as though there should be a limit to how much an organization can/should know about its consumers. Demographics, sure. Likes and dislikes? Why not. My exact location at this exact time? Uh, no. As indicated before, it’s not only “TMI” in my opinion, but potentially dangerous. You may have five thousand “friends” on Facebook, but how many do you really KNOW? I know I have plenty of “friends” that I never speak to, sometimes whom I’ve only met once, so how can I be 100% sure they’re not going to happen to be in the area and feel like popping into my neighborhood for a quick attempt at swiping some swag? Okay, yes, I know I sound paranoid (well, honestly in my head I think I’m sounding like my mother :P), but I’m sure I’m not the only one worried about this kind of stuff out of the millions trillions kajillions of people that are on Facebook!

Alright, I’d better stop ranting before I start composing an angry letter to Mark Zuckerberg (and no, I don’t know how to spell his last name :P). But to sum up, while this whole Facebook Places thing, from a marketing POV seems like a great idea to market and advertise to consumers, I have to say that while I’m all about the marketing, I have to put my foot down on this one and say that I think it’s going a little (well, a lot) too far.