Kieran Collery

This guy has some great stuff. This topic isn’t so much about marketing, he is commenting more on the nature of platforms that provide free, user-created content that are, in his opinion, going to create better quality products/offerings than “curated” (controlled) efforts made with a limited scope of people. So how does this apply to marketing?

Lay’s has recently been undergoing a campaign for users to submit a new flavour of chip, and in return snag a slice of profit and the prestige of saying they invented this-or-that new chip flavour. This is smart marketing for several reasons:

–          It engages consumers

–          It plants the idea in their head that there is a new chip flavour coming out suggested by an amateur, thus differentiating it and piquing interest

–          It reminds consumers to buys Lay’s potato chips in an interesting way

This fits perfectly into Seth’s idea of “the previously unfound star get[ting] found”, where there will be many terrible chip flavour ideas, but also a few great ones the best taste experts at Lays may not have thought of. This is a new type of marketing only made possible in the last decade or two, and it reaches out to the audience while in return giving Lay’s a great idea at what it likely a cheap cost. It is, in a sense, democracy in marketing.

With the increasing ease of creating new products, I would not be surprised if our world is moving in a direction similar to what Seth describes, where the “stars”, whether they be products or people, get found much easier. This is good for consumers, because they get better products in an efficient way. It is also just plain cool.

Sources:

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2013/03/most-people-most-of-the-time-the-crowd-fallacy.html

http://www.pepsico.ca/en/PressRelease/Martin-Short-partners-with-the-Lays-brand-and-invites-Canadians-to-create-the-br02042013.html

The whole group work process was very interesting, and as a relative newcomer to serious group work I enjoy it, but also am starting to grow wary of its pitfalls. Let me lay it out.

Positives for me include the diversity of opinion a group setting brings, the ability to collaborate leading to a more complex and hopefully more refined idea, and my group themselves. They were enjoyable to work with, everyone pitched in and we were mostly stress free. The different skills we each brought to the table really left me impressed with the overall work we did, and I would like to thank my group for all the hard work they put in.

Negatives also include the diversity of opinion, something that led in our group to a clash of two completely opposite styles. While in the end everything turned out alright, the tension at the time was difficult to sort out, and (in my view) was two effective but very different approaches butting heads. This is the frustrating side of group work, but it also probably made our project better, so I’m grateful for it. Other downsides are scheduling times together, which is quite a minor point, and the slow nature of five people working on one document.

Overall I am happy with my group (you guys are all awesome) and I’m happy with the work we did. I’m not averse to group work, and as an intended Marketing major this is probably a good thing. However, I am becoming increasingly aware of my good experiences with groups potential to run dry… Hopefully this is not the case.

In my classmate Francesca’s blog, she writes that McDonalds is engaging in unethical marketing practices by targeting children with its Happy Meal product, based on the unhealthiness of the product offered within. I respectfully disagree, and I’ll believe so for two reasons: The controlled environment children within the age of a Happy Meal consumer mean that they have little control over the decision made regarding whether they actually get a Happy Meal, and it is not unethical to be unhealthy.

To cover the first point, my reasoning is this: a child of the Happy Meal age has no financial independence and will, in any normal circumstance, be without a parent or other figure deemed responsible enough by the parent at McDonalds. A child may know it wants a Happy Meal, but it is wholly up to the person accompanying the child to decide what is best for him or her. So the question is, is it unethical to sell unhealthy things to children?

The answer is clearly no. If it were, countless candies, sweet treats, drinks and food should be banned, or at least appropriately censored to make packaging unappealing and advertising nonexistent. Being unhealthy may be unwise, but it is certainly not morally wrong to eat a McDonalds cheeseburger.

For these two reasons I contend it is legitimate for McDonalds to advertise to children. If kids had the power to go out and buy unhealthy food without their parents knowledge, it would not be. However, there are barriers preventing such reckless behaviour. On a personal side note, it seems good to me for kids to see something, want it, but learn that they can’t just have it all the time, or at all. This is certainly not a bad way to build character in a child. Finally, I ate Happy Meals as a kid, and I’m doing alright in regards to health, so I think damning advertising to kids and unhealthy eating as unethical is a step too far.

Sources:

https://blogs.ubc.ca/francescamoscone/2013/01/21/happy-meal-not-a-healthy-meal/

I find it very interesting to see just how much an ad can pidgeonhole the demographic it wants to reach. Mercedes Benz brought out this advertisement during the Superbowl, for its new Mercedes Benz CLA. The automobile is clearly geared towards the 24-32 year old male demographic, for a whole host of reasons:

– It is priced at under 30,000 dollars, making it a reasonably affordable car for a young professional or tradesperson.

– Kate Upton is featured in this ad, as well as the whole ad campaign. She is widely considered by many 20-something males as one of the best looking models gracing magazines and advertising worldwide, and is an easily recognizable name for most men this age.

– Willem Dafoe, playing the Devil in the ad, is a widely recognizable villain for this demographic of men, stemming from his role as the Green Goblin in Spiderman, a movie many men now able to buy this car saw as teenagers.

– Usher, a musician whose career has also grown with the musical tastes of the target demographic, is featured with the ad’s protagonist dancing. His lifestyle is probably something this typical male would want to be involved in.

– Wired magazine and GQ are both popular magazines for the 20-something male, and they are both featured in the ad, with the protagonist gracing their cover. These magazines appeal to the interest in the high roller, gentlemen’s lifestyle and techno-savvy image men this age like to convey.

– This ad was shown at the Superbowl, an obvious event for the intended audience to watch.

Mercedes Benz knew exactly who they wanted to sell this car to, and exactly what buttons to push. This is an example of simple, effective marketing that targets a demographic and goes straight for the wallet. It was successful.

Sources:

http://ca.askmen.com/celebs/women/model/kate-upton/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIgRFQv92dM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/04/02/mercedes-benz-cla-suv-diesel-sales/2044331/

The Northern Gateway Pipeline has been under fire for over a year and half now by many in the general public of BC. It is a highly controversial project, in regards to both the company overseeing it, Enbridge, and the route it takes to get to the ocean, specifically through the Great Bear Rainforest in what some say is a dangerous marine route. Demonstrations and public events denouncing the pipeline have been very prevalent in recent months, and public opinion does not seem to be improving.

Meanwhile, another pipeline with a terminus in Kitimat is also in the works: the Pacific Trails Pipeline. It is a 1 billion dollar pipeline carrying natural gas extracted via fracking, regarded as highly destructive to the environment by many. It faces many of the same dangers as the Northern Gateway Pipeline does, yet many people have not even heard of the Pacific Trails Pipeline. I contend that this is due, in large part, to effective public relations and marketing.

Chevron, the corporation heading up the construction, first cut a 200 million dollar deal with the fifteen Native American bands who would be affected by the pipe’s construction. This meant that no bad publicity could be derived from anything perceived as exploitation by Chevron. The pipeline also has effectively “hidden” behind the Enbridge controversy. With the public and government of BC so busy with the Enbridge pipeline, it has effectively hogged the spotlight, meaning Pacific Trails has, in effect, a scapegoat to take PR hits.

Enbridge, with its much-maligned track record, large portion of public interest, and cavalier attitude towards public opinion has granted a competitor an advantage. Whether this could have been avoided is a different question, but it seems that, judging by the Pacific Trails Pipeline’s coverage and public opinion (nonexistent), it goes to show that a good marketing strategy really goes a long way.

Sources:

http://mediacenter.kitimatlngfacility.com/Resources/Upload/PressRelease/Files/2834/PTP_News_20130225_FNLP.pdf

http://www.kitimatlngfacility.com/Supply/pacific_trail_pipelines.aspx

Controversy has been brewing ever since the Consumer Electronics Expo took place earlier this month in Las Vegas. As visitors to the expo went from booth to booth, they found themselves interacting with “booth babes’, attractive women hired to showcase their products, and formally called promotional or trade show models. This is not a recent phenomenon, but this year they have been receiving ample coverage over the past few weeks, partially in part due to controversy over Apple accessory manufacturer Hyper’s semi-nude, body painted models.

All this has really boiled down to one criticism: the use of “booth babes” is degrading to women, in general and specifically pertaining to the women modelling. Critics would overwhelmingly like to see booth babes either toned down or removed altogether.

First, let me say there is a massive double standard in pointing out that “because tech doesn’t involve sex, there shouldn’t be booth babes”; it is arbitrarily singling out one industry. The same could be said about the use of sex appeal in fast food, animal rights and (warning: this one is really racy) toilet paper. Nothing at all to do with sex, yet there they are.

Personally, I don’t think sex should explicitly be used as a selling point. I think it cheapens something that should remain valuable, and over exposes something that should be private.

However, I also disagree with the idea that booth babes should be banned or looked down on. I think it is ethically sound to say that if a woman signs up to model at a show, as long as she clearly understands her job and is not forced into a situation, she should be free to model how she chooses. It is fallacious to try and say these models are degrading to women in general, since they can only represent themselves and their employers. I am not responsible for these women, and my views are not theirs, so what I or anyone else thinks is meaningless. Their companies should be free to market as they wish, and these women should only be held accountable to their own standards.