Category: Uncategorized

So collegehumor.com is the latest craze amongst high school and university students. As implied in the previous post, it appeals to this target market by creating and posting videos, articles, photos, and other links for the sheer entertainment of these cohorts all over the world.  From “Parents just Don’t Understand” to “The Seven Types of Impostor Sports Fans”, the articles in particular are highly amusing. Why? Because they describe, or relate in some way to how university students think, their likes and dislikes, and the types of experiences that they are currently going through, be it regarding roommates, dating, or…even video gaming. Essentially this website is a hot spot for students to hang out in between study breaks, watch a few videos, read a few articles, and laugh their pants off.  And that’s not all. The site’s writers make their own videos as well, including but not limited to regular series’ such as “Jake and Amir” and “Bleep Bloop” whereupon they poke fun at the every day workplace at collegehumor.com, and (comically) review random video games to the delight of its audiences. Here’s a sample of just one of many Jake and Amir webisodes:

In a nut shell, it’s clear that this website has done so well because frankly, it knows exactly who its target market is (males and females from 13-25) and works with that cohort by solely focussing on their likes and dislikes and appealing to them with relevant content. I’d say they should expand to the parental market, but given the fact that they spend half of their time making fun of them, perhaps that wouldn’t be the best idea…. 😛

(see what I mean here: http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1809449 )

Dear CollegeHumor.com,

Thank you for giving me something to look at while I pretend to take notes on my laptop in class (not in marketing class though, of course! :P). Your articles on everything from college roommate nightmares to how to avoid bear attacks I find particularly entertaining and relevant to a university student such as myself. Yes, even the bear attacks. I also appreciate your viral video uploads, cats playing the piano and all, to get me through those long periods at home when I should be studying but instead am, again, browsing the internet. Your appeal to university and college students worldwide is a remarkable strategy I must say, given that your website essentially takes hours of youtube, Facebook, and blog searching in the hopes of finding something funny or the latest hilarious craze, and squishing it all together onto one website, saving us the time of filtering out all the useless crap that we would otherwise find in our lengthy quest for comedy.  Please continue to upload videos, both viral and your own, and collecting hilarious stories from college students around the continent (especially the ones people send in about their parents and their comical lack of technological skill).

I look forward to many more years of entertainment…or at least until I realize I’m too grown up for this site.

Sincerly,

Jackie Murchison

PS: I’ve included the link to your website. Y’know, in case you forget how awesome you are: http://collegehumor.com/

I’m sure a lot of us have seen this Axe Detailer ad:

I think it’s safe to say that there’s no way this could ever make it to the tube…for…obvious reasons. We wonder why companies even BOTHER to spend money to make such racy, innuendo-clad advertisements, when it’s so blatantly evident that they would never make it to that commercial spot between How I Met your Mother and Friends. My answer? Online marketing. As more people start spending more time on their computer than sitting on their couch, companies are willing to spend their time and money on making these not-for-TV advertisements to advertise their latest products. And as an added bonus? No (or at least far less) censorship. That’s right, put as much sex, innuendo, and half-naked people you want into your campaigns, because the FCC ain’t got nothin on the internet. And not only that, but the mere fact that these ads are so offensive/ inappropriate acts as word-of-mouth marketing on its own.  “Oh hey did you see that banned Axe commercial with the chick and the (sports) balls?” or “Dude check out that banned superbowl ad with the chick and the orgy” have become, oddly enough, some of the most effective words coming out of consumers’ mouths in the eyes of marketers.

So, are there any downsides to this kind of marketing? Well it depends on who you’re targeting, but sure there are. Take for instance this banned Superbowl ad from Guinness (the one previously mentioned): WARNING: must verify you’re 18 or older

Now to me, avid male beer drinkers range in age from 19 to 60, and while the first say, HALF of that demographic is known as a more technologically-savvy and internet-friendly segment, the rest (say, 40 and up) are not. Therefore, this banned beer advertisement,from an internet point of view, only reaches about half of the target market. Other downsides to uncensored online advertising? It’s main strength is word-of-mouth marketing, and while highly effective, there are few alternative marketing sources apart from youtube or their home pages to spread the popularity. From what I understand,  I’m pretty sure companies aren’t supposed to post these ads in public domains/ areas that are frequented by their target markets lest younger viewers get their hands (or eyes) on them.

So a final say on all of this: personally, as the main target consumer for the majority of these banned online commercials, I think it’s a brilliant marketing technique. I mean, I find the majority of these ads funny, appealing, entertaining, and overall very effective. Sure, there are a couple of downsides depending on who you are and to whom you are marketing, but otherwise I say keep doin’ what you’re doin folks, because I like a good laugh in between using my Axe Detailer and drinking my Guinness.

So I was reading the Globe and Mail today and learned that Microsoft is steppin up it’s game and playin with the big boys now: That’s right, the smart phones. Well, actually, they entered THAT market eons ago, but this is the first I’VE heard of them actually planning to get their butts in gear and advance their technology to match that of  Apple and Google.

Behold, the much anticipated Windows Phone 7:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/microsoft-ramps-up-for-windows-phone-release/article1710740/

And ohhh isn’t it shiny. By the looks of it, this handy dandy gadget will have all sorts of AMAZING features- yeah, so amazing that I couldn’t help but awkwardly capitalize the word itself. I mean I’m talking video streaming, WiFi access, it’s own app downloads, and don’t forget it’s sleek, black, palm-fitting exterior…

Oh darn, was I describing the iPhone or the Windows 7?

That’s just the problem. The phone, while easy on the eyes (remember, shiny) resembles far too much the already popular iPhone and the Google Android. What’s more? There’s already buzz that the Windows 7’s going to severely lack in qualities such as app selection (especially since Microsoft is creating its own database, something that will draw consumers away from it given that Apple already has a HUUUUUGE app marketplace with iTunes), and even in simple features such as touch-screen sensitivity (take a look at this video, and you’ll see what I mean:   ).

This is a pretty gentle way of saying that, frankly, this phone is gonna suck. Which is pretty harsh considering it hasn’t even been released yet.

Simply put, Microsoft is relying FAR too heavily on the creativity of app developers to make this phone match the quality of Apple and Google’s products. I mean, it’s no secret that Apple already has one of the largest shares of the smart phone market, and if just a few differentiated apps are Microsoft’s answer to gaining a larger market share, then Bill Gates might as well chuck his wallet in the trash right now. Regardless of the “quality” of these apps or their abundance, it’s going to be a slow pickup for consumers to be convinced that the Windows 7 phone is superior to other smart phones already out there. Yeah yeah, we know that Microsoft may still have the largest market share in the computer industry, and it’s pretty obvious they’ll be relying heavily on the loyalty of hardcore PC and Microsoft users to make this phone even somewhat successful, but frankly the company’s sheer rate of development in phone technology is nothing compared to Apple’s, who  seems to turn out new products in a matter of months.

Why start the race when it’s already been won?

SO, while in theory Microsoft’s (albeit gradual) entrance into the smartphone marketplace seems like a good idea, with so many huge firms already actively competing, AND with their own MUCH more popular and advanced technology, it’s going to be an uphill battle for the Windows 7 to win over consumers.

…I guess they could always draw on sense appeal in their ad campaigns with bright colors and some upbeat indie music. Wait, it’s been done already, by Apple? Oh. Awkward. Well then, yeah, good luck with the hunk of metal, Microsoft. But hey, when the time comes, at least you’ll have a nice share in the market for ridiculously expensive doorstops.

As a major form of social media used by hundreds of companies to promote themselves and increase profit, looks like Twitter might just gain a share at last by hosting company advertisements. But will these be a good strategy for the network?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/twitters-new-strategy-making-money-140-characters-at-a-time/article1533404/

Given the information, the answer is yes. Twitter has built up a base of millions of users including major companies such as Google and Virgin. With so many people involved, it will be easy financially for Twitter to cash in by hosting these companies’ advertisements.

The strategy itself seems promising, considering it will supposedly be “non-invasive” (i.e., don’t expect any annoying flashing popups that make you want to kick whoever made them in the you-know-whats).  Twitter’s main goal has been to add “value before profit”, and considering how much, again, other companies have already increased their profits by advertising on their site, it seems not only smart that they take a cut of the profits, but fair.

Social media is quickly seeping across the world, and while from a marketing perspective other companies may get more recognition than Twitter on its own site, this strategy seems so ideal, it’s almost a wonder that they hadn’t implemented it sooner.

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpposted/archive/2010/04/08/fp-marketing-nike-ad-featuring-voice-of-tiger-woods-dead-father-polarizes-public.aspx

Looks like Nike’s trying to justify their holding onto Tiger Woods as their major celebrity endorser.

As one of the few sponsors who chose not to drop Tiger after the golfer’s numerous sex and infidelity scandals blasted the media, we can’t help but wonder: why?

From an ethical standpoint, the opinion seems to be that given Tiger’s tarnished reputation, Nike should’ve dropped him to maintain their wholesome reputation.  However, from a business perspective, keeping him on board may have seemed like a good idea, and here’s why:

Tiger is still the #1 golfer out there, regardless of his actions, and people will still watch him play. Without his other sponsors, Nike will become the most advertised brand therefore when people see him perform. And while we may think sales will drop because of his presence, thus far, there’s been no change.

So what’s up with the ad? By the looks of it, Nike’s trying to make themselves look ethical by shaming the golfer. With mixed reviews however, we ask, “how does this ad uphold in terms of damage control?”. Given the range of responses from “manipulative” to “heartwarming”, looks like Nike’s attempt at justification perhaps wasn’t as effective as they’d hoped.

So, I just calculated my “carbon footprint”, and managed a magical 2.998!!!

….If you’d asked me what that meant 10 minutes ago, you would’ve gotten a very, VERY blank stare.

This 2.998 figure is how many tonnes of carbon dioxide I’m producing every year.  And apparently, this is good. Very good, actually.

Am I surprised? Naw. Honestly, I live on-campus, and commuting leaves you with a whopping number, even when taking the bus.  I walk to class every day, live by myself, and make use of my Edward Cullen blanket often instead of attempting to turn up the heat (wow…this makes me sound rather sad actually…).

The thing that got me was my meat and food intake: yeah, I’m a carnivore I’ll admit it, and I probably should cut down on the imported TV dinners and up the organic nummies consumption, but the real question is, will I be motivated enough to actually do that?

Pfft. No. Honestly, I’m a student. I can’t afford to buy organic foods, nor do I have any desire to drag my butt all the way to the organic grocery store every week.

Naw, I make my contribution already by not commuting…even if it’s through not even trying.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/11/cnet.sony.move/index.html?npt=NP1

It looks like a Wii controller, works like a Wii controller, but it ISN’T a Wii controller?! Sony announced its plans to introduce the Playstation “MOVE” motion controller  to rival the Wii’s, but will this new addition gain them a larger market share in the gaming industry, or leave them outrun by its largest competitor?

Given their similar appearances and almost identical functions, seems like this new toy will have some difficulties entering the market and by differentiating itself from the Wii product, particularly considering the Wii controller currently occupies the majority of the motion-control gaming market, and that both will have the same target demographics (ideally those between 13 and 25).

Nintendo already outruns Playstation financially by about $2 billion, and while this new industry may seem quite attractive to competitors given the Wii’s success, by the looks of it Sony’s going to be facing quite a few challenges in gaining revenue. Sure, hardcore gamers will be more than ready to purchase a MOVE , but overall  Sony’s ignoring the general market principal stating: “if you can’t be #1 in one part of the industry, find somewhere else to be #1”.

With that in mind I say: Godspeed, Sony. Godspeed.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/02/15/kevin.smith.southwest/index.html

We’ve seen the headlines- director Kevin Smith being booted off a Southwest Airlines flight because he was “too fat to fly” is nothing new. Smith made a huge ruckus over how he was a victim of fat discrimination, and while there are certainly many opinions, business-wise, Southwest may have been in the right.

Consider this: Southwest explained how

they’ve had policies in place for years regarding their larger passengers- that is, should they require a second seat, they can purchase a second seat at a discount.  For a business responsible for their own passengers, it’s a safety and comfort issue: I don’t want the big guy next to me blocking my emergency exit or encroaching on my space any more than he wants to suck it in for 14 hours to stay on his side.

Financially, too, Southwest’s policy makes sense: as with baggage, more weight = more variable fuel costs.  And with North America’s growing waistlines, eventually these extra costs add up.

Sure, some people may be less inclined now to choose Southwest, but given their strategies in damage control following the incident: an apology + a $100 voucher + a logical explanation for their actions, I’d say they’ve shown that Southwest cares.

Within the supply chain of a company, management can face several challenges.  Producing, shipping, and storing inventory can cause many issues when it comes to a fast-changing market with a constant demand for different products.  In the fashion industry for instance, trends are always changing or being modified in some way.  In this case, management faces the challenge of consistently changing their production methods to meet demand, as well as incurring the costs of shipping to where the demand is located, and of course distributing the goods on a timely basis without inventory accumulating excessively.

Some companies have managed to shorten their supply chain by providing “buy direct” options.  This essentially eliminates the middle-man, selling products to consumers directly from the manufacturing location as opposed to spending more on sending items to retail stores or warehouses where they are then distributed.  In this way, consumers are obtaining their purchases from a less lengthy chain of command, and manufacturers are cutting down on any extra expenses that would otherwise be incurred.  Dell and Amazon are prime examples of companies who employ this idea, and given their past success, one may argue that improvements to their supply chain efficiency was a key factor.