A few weeks ago, in my creative writing class, we were taught about the concept of transmedia, and how it was used in marketing. Quite simply, transmedia is the telling of a narrative through several different channels; it creates a story that is both immersive and encyclopedic.

This is evident in literature, such as JK Rowling’s addition of the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, a themepark, and her site, Pottermore to the entire Harry Potter experience. James Cameron has sketches and scientific names for every single plant that was in the background of Avatar, the movie that shattered any semblance of a record.

However, this is also used in marketing. Most prominent is the Why So Serious game  that was heralded as pure marketing genius. Before the release of The Dark Knight, Warner Brothers decided to release this alternate reality game in which people could experience Gotham mayhem in real time. Players pledged their allegience to the Joker by wearing his iconic smile in face paint, campaigning for a fictional Harvey Dent, and picking up phone calls from cellphones baked into cakes. Each tiny detail would end up being a subtle reference to a scene in the movie and when players finally ended up in a random IMAX theatre to watch the first scene of the movie, they realized that all the tasks they were to do helped the Joker commit the bank heist in the opening scene.

The Why So Serious campaign kept The Dark Knight in the media for over a year, and it won several advertising awards. If you’re geeking out right now, here’s a recap site that pretty much proves that people are still talking about this campaign. I am at awe at the genius of people.

This is a response to Alice Wo’s article: Dove’s fake beauty campaign

In her blog, Alice draws attention to two issues with this campaign. The first being the fact that it is clearly a marketing strategy in order to gain loyal customers with that feel-good factor. Most importantly, it actually contradicts their earlier statements about self esteem and redefining beauty by magnifying the fact that these women are incredibly at awe and overly delighted to see that other people think they are pretty.

While the problems that surround this campaign are already quite expertly being taken apart by eighteen year olds struggling in university, I’d like to add to the conversation by bringing in another point.

Dove’s brand image is all about true beauty and loving yourself. They have women of colour (sort of) in most of their ads, women who are stick thin, women who are chubby, and they are all labeled as equally beautiful. They want to build your self-esteem and worth as a woman by telling you that you are beautiful.

Here’s the thing: Dove is owned by Unilever. You know who else Unilever owns? Axe.

Yes, Axe, the bane of everyone’s existence, save for delusional boys in middle school locker rooms. Their campaign is based solely on the idea that wearing Axe will get hordes of gorgeous, buxom, white, blondes with perfect tanned scantily clad bodies to fall deeply in love with you.

Therein lies the problem: an inconsistency in branding. Yes, Unilever is a blanket company that owns many brands, but I find it hard to buy into one brand when another is saying something completely different.

As many people know, the disaster that is Typhoon Haiyan has struck central Philippines, leaving only destruction in the path it wrought. Naturally, everyone’s first instinct is to donate as a way of helping with relief efforts. However, this blog sheds some light on the ethical dilemmas that surround relief ops.

The Surrey Leader warns against inexperienced relief ops and charities that aren’t as credible as we’d hope, which got me thinking about the ethics involved in such donations, especially in the Philippines.

One of the biggest ethical dilemmas surrounding relief operations for Typhoon Haiyan is the commercializing of donations. Several businesses have openly pledged to support by donating a part of their profits. Mayors, senators, and governors have all given bags upon bags of food and supplies.

However, the ethical dilemma lies in their intentions, not in their actions. Are the businesses that offer to give some of their profits simply donating as a marketing strategy, or as a part of their corporate social responsibility? Their publicizing of this simply blurs the line between altruism and taking advantage of an opportunity.

The government officials that have given supplies ship them over in bags with their face emblazoned on the crisp plastic, making certain that refugees know for sure who brought them. And who to vote for in the next election.

It’s a topic I presently struggle with, because while these people don’t have the best intentions, they are still doing good. So, with that, I leave you one question: does the end justify the means?

https://blogs.ubc.ca/sammassooleh/2013/11/17/the-magical-ddb-visit-part-2/

Here’s Sam’s blog. He talks (humblebrags) about his recent experience touring the DDB office, and how Lance Sauders delves into the rapidly changing nature of the advertising industry.

Of course, what Saunders notices is not exclusive to the marketing industry, but certainly here it is the most prominent. Since the boom of the internet and social media, traditional outlets of advertising have began to appear outdated, and what used to be a point of difference has become a point of parity.

For example, this online revolution has sparked the emergence of companies like Blast Radius, a purely digital marketing agency that has revolutionized the way we interact with businesses and companies. This is the agency responsible for the Starbucks card app, the Nike website, and several other digital campaigns devoted to making the world of marketing much more engaging and immersive.

What’s interesting here is that marketing aspects like differentiation are not limited to the business itself, but the businesses’ marketing as well. In fact, companies must be different, not only how they make the product, but in how they sell it too.