Month: March 2011

A while back I read an unfortunate story about a mother killing her 3 month old son for interrupting her Farmville game.

This tragic story made me wonder how something as simple as Farmville could have such a strong influence on people.

Until recently, I was playing a Facebook game called Tycoons. Every day, I would buy raw materials at low prices and sell finished goods at high prices, with the sole objective of amassing as much wealth as possible. After a few months, however, I realized that the game has lost its fun – it was more of a routine than a game that was true to its name. In no way did it resemble the path to becoming a Tycoon. I have blocked the application since and have never looked back.

Yet Farmville continues to remain popular, surpassing 80 million users in February 2011. Why? I’ve identified several reasons:

1) Some people who like the idea of farming find a (farming) simulation fun.
2) Farmville is free and easily accessible (anyone with a Facebook account).
3) “Farmers” are able to interact and help each other out.
4) With the game going viral, more and more people start each day, hoping to compete with their friends. (I admit that I often try out new applications after seeing them on my news feed.)
5) Most importantly, it’s a combination of all of the above.

As the Facebook Apps Product Life Cycle nears maturity, and as App developers are offering more and more new ideas, apps like Farmville will need to continue updating their products to retain their fans and players alike.

I came across an interesting article while surfing PSFK.com.   Kyana Gordon discusses a new venture, known as eDealdujour (literally translating to e-deal of the day): by Lawrence and Krystal Leurquin Ouaki.  This concept, not unlike sites such as Groupon and Living Social, is quite simple:  each day, a single man is highlighted and appears on the front page of the website.   Women are then given time to respond, or to take advantage of this “offer”. 

The idea came from Chris O’Donnell, a young billionaire from New York city who decided to purchase the front page of a newspaper to let the world know that he was single.   In eDealdujour, a single man submits a photo, a biography, and states the type of partner he is interested in.   Their profile stays on the front page for 24 hours, with a timer on the site, like Groupon, that lets viewers know when the offer expires.   Currently, the site is accessible and usable by anyone, free of cost, but those who desire to may pay a fee to have their profiles archived. 

I’m not sure these sites provide much more than dating sites being currently used (not that I know from experience).  I feel that the power in such dating sites derives from the ability to chat in real-time, and from being able to talk to many people at once.  How will eDealdujour be able to sustain this concept if the user base grows?  Will they charge people for putting them on the front page?  How will they accommodate everyone?  Will many interested viewers essentially be ‘competing’ for the man of the day?  And how will eDealdujour be able to validate the submissions/profiles?  These are some challenges that they will need to address effectively before they can succeed like Groupon. 

The website can be viewed here: http://www.edealdujour.com/

Ah, where would the world be without cars?  To fortunate, wealthy individuals, cars are highly relevant, exciting topics to discuss.  To the rest of us average university students, a car is but a foreign concept that will only be realized years into our careers.  

Yet how has a product that was originally intended to provide a convenient, time-efficient means of transportation branched out so much?  It’s amazing to see how much the car has evolved.  Not only does it look so much different (and better, in my opinion) today, but technology has also allowed it to exponentially improve its performance specifications. 

We have sedans, hatchbacks, convertibles, minivans, pickup trucks, crossovers, and SUVS.  We have Audi, Mercedes Benz, BMW, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan, amongst other leading brands.  We often hear discussions about European cars, North American cars, and Japanese cars. 

What exactly fuels these discussions? 

I find that car companies have done an excellent job of differentiating their cars and meeting the needs of their customers. 

Japanese car companies like Toyota and Honda have excelled by promoting safety and reliability in their products.  It has come to the point where many driving instructors use Toyotas and Hondas, thereby promoting, through word of mouth, to a potentially enormous market in new drivers.  These cars are especially suitable for the busy, high-traffic Japanese roads.

European cars, on the other-hand are extremely performance-driven.  Many of the German cars are extremely expensive, and many feature a well-engineered balance of performance and luxury.  With the Autobahn in German globally-renowned, these fast and beautiful cars extremely attractive to the population.

North American car companies such as Ford, sell vehicles such as pick-up trucks and SUV’s like the Jeep, good for consumers looking to traverse the North American terrain.

One brand that particularly stands out to me, and was mentioned in the textbook, is the Mercedes- Benz.  It is so much more than just a car.  It is a symbol of status and success.  The brand has become so strong that professionals purchase Mercedes just to signal success (known as conspicuous consumption).  It doesn’t matter what series or what type of Mercedes you have, there will always be an assumption on someone’s wealth just by seeing his or her Mercedes.

Here is one of Mercede’s ads, and an example of its excellent branding strategy

Gordon’s Blog talks about how companies (water-bottling companies in particular) manage to differentiate products that are essentially commodities.   I have been wondering about this myself for quite a while now.  How are brands such as Evian, Aquafina, and Dasani able to sell bottles of water for two dollars a piece when water costs virtually nothing from the tap?  After reading Gordon’s blog, I think there are some things to consider:

1.  Convenience:  Bottled water are sold refrigerated at vending machines, fast food chains, and even supermarkets and dollar stores.  For some people, it is just worth it to pay $2 for a bottle of water and avoid all the hassle with boiling your water at home and then bringing your bottle with you wherever you go.

2.  Health concerns:  Some people believe that tap water contains harmful or unwanted chemicals.  They believe that bottled water has gone through a careful distillation process and that it is safe to drink, even though research has shown that little difference between branded bottled water and tap water.

3.  Branding/advertising:  Undoubtedly, producers of bottled water do an excellent job of advertising their products.  They essentially have to, in order to get consumers to choose their product in a sector of largely undifferentiated goods.  Logos including pictures of glaciers, polar bears, and fresh mountains also create a positive impact on the consumer’s perception of taste.

These factors play an essential role in consumers choosing bottled water.  Once the habit begins, it is hard for them to switch over to tap.  This leads me to Gordon’s question:  whether these companies fabricate news stories just to get consumers to fear tap water and switch over.

We know from economics that people’s beliefs and attitudes towards certain things affect their buying habits.  While unethical, this could potentially be exploited by companies trying to sell products that don’t really offer large noticeable benefits.

Angela Wong discusses Puma’s new initiative, the “Puma Social” in a recent blog post.

Puma Social is a strategy being employed by Puma to change its brand and to increase its market share.   It targets what Puma calls the “after-hours athlete”, people who like to have fun with activities other than the traditional competitive sports.  Also a part of this campaign is a chain of “Puma Social Clubs”, night events that enable Puma supporters to get together and have a good time.  To date, have taken place in major cities such as Hong Kong, Toronto, and Los Angeles.

I agree with Angela in that this is a good marketing move and that it could really pay dividends for Puma.  The sports gear category, which is currently in mature stage, has its major players such as Nike, Adidas, and Reebok looking to sell their largely undifferentiated products by making use of advertisements involving high-profile celebrities.   Reebok has signed Sidney Crosby to the richest endorsement deal in NHL history.

I believe that this will be a very effective move for two reasons:  Puma, Nike, and Reebok gear and accessories are already being used for casual wear, yet no one has really tried to market it as such.  In addition, by targeting this specific segment, Puma is giving consumers a very clear reason as to why to choose its products.

If companies can successfully differentiate eggs, so can Puma.  I believe that Puma will succeed and that this will be another step for companies to realize the importance of branding and differentiation, and to devote energy and resources to creating just that.

Angela’s blog can be found here:  http://xsimply-me-myself-and-i.blogspot.com/