Kelsey Ingham's Blog

Ecotique Spa & Salon has cooked up an interesting campaign; they’re handing out $50 gift cards to any self-confessed Vancouver rioter. Read about it here. Their argument that all the rioters need is something to help them relax, is an interesting one, but I don’t think that it’s the actual rioters that they’re targeting at all.

Looking at this campaign, it seems to me that Ecotique is targeting everyone but the actual rioters. Of course free gift cards and samples are usually seen as shaping, a form of learning that influences a consumer’s behaviour, but their seems to be something bigger at play here. I don’t think that they’re trying to actually get rioters through their doors; I think that they’re trying to spark CONVERSATION about their brand through shock value. What gets people talking more than controversy?

However, only time will tell whether the publicity will pay off. Many people are offended by the campaign, insisting that this incentive isn’t just a way to try to get rioters to turn themselves in, but that it’s a reward for their actions.

If I could, I would get inside their top marketer’s head and ask so many questions. Are you trying to approach this as a form of cause-related marketing? Is this simply a strange form of shaping? Or are you really just trying to turn on the most effective marketing tool of all: Word of Mouth?

I look forward to seeing how this campaign unfurls…

This week, Dr Pepper launched a new product, Dr Pepper 10. It isn’t the product that’s bold – a soft drink with only ten calories – but the way that the company is reaching out to their target market.

Dr. Pepper recognized an opportunity to expand their market share by reaching out to health-conscious men who want to maintain their masculinity. Thus, they created the new alternative to diet soda with only ten “manly” calories. After segmenting the market and choosing to target this group, they created a solid marketing campaign that positions the product as a new drink for manly men. From the packaging – gunmetal silver, to the slogan “No women allowed”, to the testosterone drenched advertisements that feature all things macho – ATVs, jungle adventures, and strong men crushing cans with one hand, Dr. Pepper positions their product as “the manly diet soda”.

Dr.Pepper was able to create this new product category because they put in the effort to conduct market research that signaled to them that men avoid diet sodas (even if they are concerned about their health) because they seem too feminine. With the product development of Dr. Pepper 10, the company has found a way to target men directly through a single-position strategy, which allows them to maintain the image and marketing strategy of the main Dr.Pepper brand, in order to keep existing consumers on board.

Of course there will be the handful of feminists who scream “misogyny!”, but overall, I think most people can recognize the humour and marketing brilliance of the campaign. Check it out yourself at their facebook page!

http://www.facebook.com/DrPepper?sk=app_198122958170

If you ever want to have your ear talked off, ask me how I feel about the current K-12 education system and how I would change it. But for now, watch this; there’s some incredible ideas in there!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zDZFcDGpL4U

A student interrupted our professor in class today to announced that Steve Jobs had passed away. Within seconds, each laptop screen in the room displayed not the class notes, but articles recounting the innovator’s life.

I ask the same question that everyone else surely will: What can we learn from his life?

In addition, Bill Gates offered a statement, solidifying my faith in the business world. Despite immense competition, we are all peers in the commerce community and its important that we continuously recognize this and respect the environment that we belong to.

Microsoft chairman Bill Gates has issued the following statement:
“I’m truly saddened to learn of Steve Jobs’ death. Melinda and I extend our sincere condolences to his family and friends, and to everyone Steve has touched through his work. Steve and I first met nearly 30 years ago, and have been colleagues, competitors and friends over the course of more than half our lives. The world rarely sees someone who has had the profound impact Steve has had, the effects of which will be felt for many generations to come.For those of us lucky enough to get to work with him, it’s been an insanely great honor. I will miss Steve immensely.”

Kyle Hoffman, a fellow classmate, raised the issue of ethics in marketing, with his discussion of a hoax video campaign put on by Hi-Tec Waterproof shoes.

Ethics in marketing, and business in general, tends to be a grey area, but where do we draw the line from being concerned about the safety of consumers, to recognizing the difficulty of maneuvering the constraints that society places upon marketers?

It’s gotten me thinking about how we define the phrase false advertising. What Reebok did with its EasyTone campaign was take advantage of consumer’s belief in data and statistics, with unfounded claims that the shoes toned up to 28% more than regular shoes.

What Hi – Tec did was create an amusing video that was clearly a spoof on the typical sports documentary. The difference between what they did and what Reebok did, is that the information they provided allowed consumers the opportunity to recognize that the campaign was a joke. Reebok provided pure numbers that implied real research and qualification. How easy is it to believe that shoes can help you tone your muscles? Pretty easy. Reebok took advantage of the window for belief. How easy is it to believe that people can walk on water? Not very. Hi-Tec did not take advantage of a window for belief, and it can be considered that for this reason, their campaign was not false advertising.

These are not dictionary definitions for false advertising, but simply my interpretation of what it means. How do you define it? And how can we can ever properly regulate it if we all define it differently?

Advertising Standards Canada might be the answer for some, but is there room for progress? Take a look and decide for yourself.

When discussing brands & self-concept in class, I realized that my outfit was heavily branded today. I tend not to wear brands too often, not as a statement, but simply because I’m usually more drawn to basic v-necks and band shirts, and I’ll take any pair of jeans that I can fit perfectly into.

However, today I was wearing a DC Hoodie, Element Jeans, and Vans sneakers. They’re all lifestyle brands that you would assume display my self-concept as they all fit into the same “extreme sports/adventure” lifestyle. The funny things is…that doesn’t explain me at all. Despite being incapable of skateboarding and never having touched a mountain bike, I have somehow become part of the group that this company represents.

I’ve come up with three hypotheses!

1) I see myself as spontaneous and adventurous, so even if I don’t associate with the extreme sporting lifestyle, I still associate with the excitement that the brands offer.

2) When I was about 13, I was very into punk and underground culture, which lead me to discover the Vans Warped Tour (which I now consider nowhere near punk or underground, but that story is for another time). Despite never actually having the chance to attend the Vans Warped Tour, I still began to associate the brand with my interests and favourite bands. Despite DC and Element not being directly related to these interests, I was still drawn to them because they fall into the same lifestyle category as VANS.

3) These brands are developed for people with crazy lifestyles who are constantly “on the go”. I’m not the type to spend too much time getting dressed in the morning, so I relate to these brands and how convenient & basic their pieces are.

The funny thing is, I could go on brainstorming hypotheses all day. For awhile, I haven’t been able to figure out why I love these brands so much, and it’s myself we’re talking about. How then, can we as marketers find ways to figure out why CUSTOMERS choose our brand?

Sunk Costs – A matter of opinion?

“Whenever you make a decision, it has to be made according to what you know now and upon reasonable expectations of the future. Hoping that bad results from a past decision will eventually “turn around” if you stick with that decision is wishful thinking of the worst sort. It always takes courage to admit you made a bad choice and that you need to change your mind, but it is the only thing to do. It takes even more courage to try to convince others that they made bad choices and need to accept the sunk costs, but that’s something you sometimes have to do.”
[source: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SunkCost]

The idea of sunk costs hit me in a new way in Managerial Economics today. We were reviewing the concept and suddenly it crossed my mind how differently the world would be if we applied the theory to our every day lives – to our friendships and relationships – not just to our financial situations.

It seems cold and heartless to think that someone might apply this concept to a life-long friendship. If I’m frustrated with a best friend of 10 years, should I disregard history and simply make my decision about moving forward on what’s happening at the current time? I never could. It seems impossible that I would ever be able to separate the time already invested from the problem at hand. Relationships and matters of the heart seem to cover territory that Economic theory is not well suited to advise.

But then I look at so many people who get caught up in dysfunctional relationships, who accept less than they deserve in relationships that don’t allow them to reach their full potential, because they’re clinging to sunk costs. They’re clinging to things that once were and not realizing that all the hours they put into maintaining the relationship don’t add up to anything if the extra time put in won’t get them to a point where they’re happy again. Life changes, people change, situations alter and sometimes you have to recognize that certain people don’t fit into your life in the same ways anymore – even if it seems like you’re throwing away three years of your life by letting that relationship “fail.” You can never throw away time that’s already passed; you can only waste the hours, days, weeks, years ahead. So, does Economic theory actually somehow fit into decision making on a deeper level? Can our textbooks teach us how to manage love?

I guess it depends on whether you believe love can (and should) be managed or not.

Last week, Google launched its latest offering Google Wallet . With this comes a huge opportunity to create value for customers, but also poses the question: do consumers trust the Google brand enough to give up their financial information?

Google is known for delivering superior value with everything that it offers, from its initial function as a search engine, to its recent jump into the social media sector with Google+. It has found a way to offer us products that enhance our lives (how often do you open a real map vs. a Google Map when you’re headed into the unknown?) without ever asking us for a penny. They’ve built a lasting relationship with consumers by personalizing our searches, targeting their advertisements, and offering us deals based on what we as individuals have been doing online. This customization of the online experience has allowed Google to provide us with the information we want, when we want. But truth be told, Google has always had a dark privacy cloud hanging over head. From the eeriness of personalized ads to a slew of Google Street View privacy concerns, people may be giving up their information in exchange for the value Google offers, but does this have a limit? Is the value of a quick and convenient payment method worth handing over our financial data to the company that is increasingly beginning to seem like a modern day Big Brother? Given the way we hand out our personal information to Google like candy (how fast did you jump on Google+?), I think that their brand will be able to brave this storm. Google has somehow perfected the art of offering enough value to cloud our security judgements. An act of marketing genius or an act of delivering great values to customers? It’s all the same thing!

To top it all off, they’ve got the first mover’s advantage, which will enable them to attract customers before more trustworthy brands, such as well established banks, move into the market. Well played, Google.

Entering Sauder last year meant entering a world of firsts. I remember my first trek across campus, a rain-soaked forty five minute adventure from the bus loop to Henry Angus. It seems ridiculous now that such an easy route could take so long, but at the time having my best friend, a damp map, and a handful of people passing by to ask questions to, wasn’t enough to make sense of the maze that is our campus.

I remember the first friends I made at Frosh. I remember the goofy nicknames we gave each other and how they stuck so well that when we passed each other in the halls the next week, we realized we’d never learned our real ones. I remember an anxious conversation on the way to the first night event with a new friend; I remember us spilling out our fears and the fact that as much as we were ready for Commerce, we didn’t feel like Commerce was ready for us. It was the moment when I found the first person who didn’t fit the stereotypical “businessman” personality, but rather fit me. It was the first moment when I realized that I might actually fit into the Sauder culture.

I remember my first class, my first midterm, my first team project. I remember the smell of my first textbook, the shake in my knees as I paid out way too much money at the register. I remember calculating how much money I had, how much I needed for books, how much I needed to save, how much tuition was, how much scholarship I had, how much PANIC I felt.

Everything was a first, from the day we got lost in the Forestry department, to the day I landed my first position in a club at UBC. Life was scary, but it was always so revitalizing.

And then the summer rolled around and again it was a season of firsts. It was my first office job. It was my first time getting a monthly salary. It was my first time applying school concepts to my job, my career. It was my first time socializing with people in their 30s. It made me realize that age isn’t all that important, especially when you get to where we are in our lives. It’s your maturity and your willingness to respect others that makes it possible for you to interact and develop relationships with other people, not a number on your ID. I realized that these wonderful women that I was working with face the same fears and issues as I do. They don’t quite know where they want to end up in life, and they aren’t quite sure where their career is headed, and sometimes they fight with their husbands. They like to go out late with friends and sometimes spend too much on specialty coffee. They are just people: wonderful,caring people.

So of course, I was terribly afraid of second year. I somehow got it in my head that second year meant that there would be no more firsts. I was so convinced of this, so afraid of the predictability and familiarity of life at Sauder, that I became negative and hesitant before the semester even started. I could keep that mindset now, but it would just ruin the whole experience for me.

Sure, the firsts come fast and easy in first year, because everything is new and unexplored. That doesn’t mean that you can’t seek your own firsts in second year. We’re only three days into the semester and I have already begun to implement my first student competition. I have already volunteered for my first Commerce Ambassadors shift. I have already had my first day as a MUG leader. I have already attended the first class of the course that will lead me towards my Econ minor. I have already locked in my first sponsorship deal. The world is full of firsts; it’s full of verve and exciting new experiences. You just have to constantly remind yourself that YOU have to seek out those experiences and YOU have to create the life that you want.

The class of 2015 pep really said that you only get one shot at being a first year. This is true, but you’ve got your whole life to take shots at firsts.

Today, go DISCOVER YOUR FIRST __________

I wasn’t surprised that there was a riot last night. Whether that makes me a pessimist or a realist, I’m not sure. I wasn’t shocked that our city was torn apart when we lost, but I was upset. There’s something eerie about sitting in your living room watching a city 20 minutes away burn down, a city that holds an unknown number of your friends hostage, a city that cradles your workplace. Checking facebook for status updates was more about wondering who got home safe than anything else. Despite expecting the riot, it still raised a lot of questions and speculation on my part.

The riot made me assess how much this city means to me. I’ve been doing that a lot more lately on walks along the seawall and down Granville Street, staring out at the ocean and up at the buildings, filled with respect for the city that my family chose to call home. Maybe it’s just something that happens when you get to our age, or maybe it’s because I wasn’t born here, or maybe it’s just something we all eventually come to terms with, but I’ve been filled with great joy and appreciation when thinking about Vancouver lately. That rush of respect hit me hard last night when I watched our peaceful city turn to smoky fury. I didn’t want anyone ruining my city, especially when it was clearly just a bunch of people that wanted to get out of hand no matter what, and not even the true citizens and heart of Vancouver.

A question it raised for me though, was how idiotic do you have to be to run rampant, lighting cars on fire and assaulting police, when you’re obviously on CBC HD Television and living in the social media age? Your photo splashed across FaceBook for easy tagging, video footage of you trashing buildings and breaking windows, it just doesn’t seem like a good idea; even aggressive macho men that find it necessary to justify themselves through violence need jobs to survive at the end of the day.

But that question has been argued to death today and nobody is really talking about how people were reacting to the photos and news online. Racist comments flooded pages, people claiming that the rioters didn’t represent Vancouver because they weren’t white. Cruel comments came in too, mocking a man in a photo who was clearly severely injured and appeared to be on the brink of death. I understand that people are upset at the thoughtless and aggressive behaviour that rioters displayed last night, but these comments are nowhere near decent themselves. I’m ashamed of the people that represented Vancouver on the streets last night, but I’m also ashamed of those who represented us online last night. We are a multicultural city; we are a city of peace – this is why my family immigrated here. We need to come together and look for ways to fix the situation, rather than lay misplaced, derogatory blame.

However, the riot did bring out the good in us. Good Samaritans were to be found all around and within a short while a great student from UBC (Chris Smith) started a group to help clean-up our city, to take back what so many of us love. He made me proud to call myself a Sauderite. And then this afternoon, I saw the boarded up windows of The Bay filled with messages of love and support from all the Vancouverites who wanted to prove that we live in a place where hearts are big, and I was overwhelmed.

Even if the world might see the news from last night as a black mark on our history, and sadly it is, they might also see how many signatures and messages filled those boards and how many great people who love and respect our home there are. We cannot let this riot define us; it is not who we are as Vancouverites. We are so much more than that.