kirstinlovas

Shay Segal’s blog post on Consumer-Generated Marketing, (CGM) did a good job highlighting a relatively newer form of marketing that is quite effective. CGM involves people creating advertising for companies in the form of images, videos, blogs and more. Involving the consumer in the conversation about the product is a great way to make people feel more attached to the product and create more brand advocacy.

 

Would it work better for small businesses or large businesses?

For smaller businesses, CGM seems smart as they likely have a limited marketing budget. At the same time, the company may not be as well known, leading to fewer entries and/or entries of lesser quality. On the other hand, large companies may not necessarily be looking at the financial savings as much as the quality of the submissions. For example, in the Dorito’s Super Bowl commercial, they wouldn’t  want a commercial of sub-par quality to represent their brand.

 

An example of a CGM that I think is particularly smart is when a food company offers consumers a say in developing a new product. Since consumers are choosing the most appealing flavor, the company will likely have more sales since they are receiving customer preferences from a direct source. In our group project for Sun-Rype, we wanted to implement a “What’s Your Flavor Campaign” in order to give customers their favorite product, as well as making them feel closer to the company and product itself.

 

CGM is not necessarily always appropriate though. Marketing Strategies and plans can be complex, and often consumers don’t even know what they are. That being said, many of the ideas may not be aligned with the company’s goals.

 

How has CGM spread?

Social Media platforms have really created a stage for consumers to interact with a company and spread their views about a company. Many of the different tools are useful for a variety of purposes, but many companies seem to be under the impression that they must utilize all the different options. For example, Sun-Rype has a twitter account that has under 10 tweets (Follow – or don’t – Sun-Rype’s almost non-existent twitter). Personally, I think this harms the company more than it helps it. It shows that their marketing strategy is not fully developed or working.

To conclude, social media has become one of the most influential forms of communication, but there is a balance between correctly utilizing the tools and just hopping on the boat with every other company.

 

 

Alex’s post highlighted the trend and desire for a sustainable lifestyle. More and more companies are naming themselves sustainable and using this as a key marketing point. In today’s day and age, it’s true that offering products of superior quality is no longer enough to stay relevant and competitive. There’s a strong focus on the brand and company values, which sometimes seems to outshine the product itself – it appears to be less about the actual differences in the products, and more about the perception of the product and company.

The tag “organic” is also associated with this lifestyle. The market for organic products has significantly expanded in the last decade. And so has the profitability that comes from these products. Marketers have been very smart in terms of product branding; the price point on sustainable items and organic foods are significantly higher than their “normal” counterparts.

Consumers’ tastes are shifting to more healthy and organic options. Even during the recession, the market for organic foods increased [1]. With food prices on the rise, the food industry will likely have a great influence on increasing Canadian GDP [1]. Canada, with an abundance of raw materials, research facilities, and water supplies, has the potential to become a world leader in this industry. The made-in-Canada label is associated with being “clean, healthy and high quality,” [1] which is certainly beneficial in aligning the Canadian brand with the increasing healthy and organic trend.

A prime example of a Canadian-made popular organic brand is Nature’s Path. With fun packaging and tasty cereals, they charge well above the Average Joe granola. They are able to do this by playing into the current “food culture” of quality and sustainably sourced ingredients and marketing the company’s values. Doing this has accumulated garnered them success. Is this “organic” and “sustainable” consumer preference just a trend – or is it a lifestyle here to stay?

 

[1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/manufacturing/canadas-food-producers-relish-taste-of-success/article2102832/page1/

 

 

Response to Elisabeth Piccolo’s blog post about Vitamin Water

The power of leveraging famous people from TV shows is not a new concept; look at all the “Got Milk” ads that feature the latest and greatest stars. So what’s more effective – the traditional print ads or sponsorship?

Elisabeth did a nice job highlighting how Vitamin Water aims to appeal to a large market by adverting it’s product as appropriate for any occasion via TV shows such as Gossip Girl. I find sponsorship of TV shows quite interesting because it’s kind of a “behind the scenes” marketing tactic. If done well, consumers subconsciously are attracted to the product because they see their favorite stars consuming or using the product. If the ploy is too obvious, it seems over done and tacky. I watch Gossip Girl, and had also noted the excessive use of Vitamin Water. The immense cost of this type of advertisement means that marketers should be careful and really analyze if it’s an effective method of appealing to their market.

I think Vitamin Water’s focus on appealing to a broad audience is smart. They used to focus on promoting the health benefits, but it became quickly known that Vitamin water is not actually a healthy drink – 33 grams of sugar per bottle, and no actual juice. It was smart for the company to focus more on the drink’s versatility than on the not-so-impressive nutrition facts.

This example demonstrates how important it is for marketers to decide what aspect of their product they would like to highlight depending on what their target market is looking for in a product. Whether it’s actually the drink for both athletes and CEO’s, that’s for the market to decide. I know that I don’t plan on buying a Costco pack anytime soon.

 

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfCIhi3Zxe4[/youtube]

Funny, or too much?

When I think about marketing I generally think about it in the context of businesses. However, the Canadian Wheat Board is an interesting example of a marketing agency. It had a monopsony (a single buyer) over the wheat and barley produced in select provinces. It was in charge of marketing these products to consumers in order to get the producer’s the best price. This basically meant that the farmers did not have to worry about marketing their own product, but that also meant that they could not determine their own prices.

I believe a consumer bases their purchases off of two things:

(1) How the product appeals to them

(2) The price of the product relative to the value

By having the board, the farmers gave up the ability to influence both of these (keep in mind that the board was funded by the farmers and subsidized by the gov). If you think about this, a producer is a lot less competitive if they don’t make decisions about these two aspects. For this reason, the monopsony power was recently evoked because farmers no longer wanted to give all of this power to the board. Now that farmers have the ability to choose if they want to use the board, we may see different advertisements for wheat and barley.

Farmer’s are going to get creative.

 

Check out a news article  here!

 

Originally, I considered COMM 299 to be an extensive amount of work for one credit. The grading scheme was also extremely rigorous, and quite intimidating. I mean, a 0 out of 40 for a formatting mistake? Ok, the grading ended up being slightly more lenient, but I certainly had to work hard to perfect my resume. This class has actually taught me a lot, specifically how to feel comfortable in a business setting. I feel more confident in both a networking setting and an interview setting now that I have a better understanding of proper etiquette. Learning how to write a proper resume, cover letter, how to ask for informational meetings, and how to write an approach letter have all been very helpful. This course also opened my eyes to all the resources and career help that Sauder offers and has been valuable in teaching practical skills and information. A last important thing I learned is that I can set myself apart best by simply being myself.

The greatest lesson I’ve learned, specifically in college, has been about time management. In high school, I had a lot of work, but also a lot of time to get it done. I could therefore spend hours doing work for each class. I expected a certain level of quality of work, and was not satisfied with any less. My first semester at UBC caused me to re-think my approach to school, and it was hard. I no longer could spend an exorbitant amount of time on every assignment; I had to prioritize, and most importantly, use my time wisely. I struggled with this at the beginning and was constantly behind. After facing failure, I became much more organized (thank goodness for ical!) and am now more efficient while working. Although I still have much to learn about time management, I’ve  taken a step in the right direction and will be able to handle more on my plate.

*Social media definition:  Web-based technologies that turn communication into dialogues

Social Media is everywhere. Everyone seems obsessed with twitter, blogs, Facebook, etc. to get their message out, for both personal and business purposes. I used to use these channels of communication, but before this class, I stopped being inclined to do so. The reason for this is that I prefer personal interaction because so much seems to get lost in cyberspace. I’m slowly changing my avoidance of this form of networking as I see how important it is to the quickly evolving business world. It promotes rapid organization and can be used as a great promotional tool. This only seems logical by vast number of users of these technologies; 500 million for Facebook! It’s like a jack pot for advertising. Ways of doing business are transforming and the world is becoming more connected- smaller in a way.

Social media and entrepreneurship also go hand-in-hand. For example, Andrew Mason founded Groupon, which is a social media buying site that offers discounts on local businesses. He was offered $6 billion for acquisition by Google – not bad at age 29.

Takeaway: Social media is a profitable business to be in, and a profitable means of advertising to use. It is here to stay, so I better get back on the boat.

Social Entrepreneurship is a really cool concept – you can make a difference while simultaneously generating profit. It’s a hybrid of a business and a charity. What a great mélange- but this causes tension. Why? Social entrepreneurs have two missions, and although they are not necessarily contradictory, their purpose may come into question. If one is looking into this field, I feel it is important to clearly define one’s goals of change AND profit, so that one does not seem insincere about “only trying to help.”

Another issue is what metrics can be used to measure success. Personally I would first look for some quantifiable way to measure those who have been positively impacted. I would then look at the profit of the business, and how much the business is actually helping society in comparison to how much is being spent.

A social entrepreneur who particularly fascinates me is Jamie Oliver. He has a similar passion for cooking and healthy eating, and has followed multiple ventures in line with his passion. He has fulfilled a qualification for being a entrepreneur; he has put his entire future on the line in order to achieve his goals. For example, he quit school at age 16 to attend a catering college, and even put his house as collateral (without telling his wife) to create the “Fifteen Foundation.”  He has been innovative in creating restaurants that train troubled young adults to be chefs. He has also marketed himself and his ideas very well, having multiple T.V. shows. I really look up to him because of his goals and how he has used market mechanisms to achieve them.

Take- away: Hard-work is less “work” is it’s something you love.  Social entrepreneurship = passion + drive

When I think of Vancouver, I think of glass and green. Vancouver has an amazing skyline with glass windows up and down, left and right. Vancouver is not only beautiful, but it has a purpose: its “way of doing business” incorporates sustainability. The businesses of the city and the citizens work in conjunction to reduce greenhouse gas emissions- and are successful. Emissions from municipal operations have been reduced by an impressive 33% since 1990.

* Vancouver has three sustainability pillars: Economic stability + social well-being + innovation

* HOW does the city act in accordance?

Vancouver has numerous programs and initiatives to meet its goals. For example, Vancouver Economic Development Commission (VEDC) helps businesses and thereby helps the city’s economic future. The city also ensures that industrial lands, which are the areas used for commercial businesses, are mainly kept within the city limits in order to promote economic growth and reduce emissions resulting from commuting. Vancouver also has a City-wide and Regional Planning Division that is devoted to increasing the city’s livability and sustainability.

In addition, the city focuses on sustainable and ethical purchasing. This constitutes purchasing products that are made without harm to individuals or the environment. Finally, hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games resulted in the creation of a number of new jobs and investing opportunities.

* Result= green jobs, clean air, renewable energy, less at-risk species, and individual commitment to the city’s goals.

* Conclusion=Vancouver takes a proactive approach that constantly requires change, which results in NEW technology and ideas.

* Comment= Doesn’t get much better than here.

Source

Article: Foreclosures and banks’ debt to society

(picture of family victim to predatory lending)

Who can we blame for the ongoing subprime mortgage financial crisis?

The banks allowed it- but the consumers bought into.

Either way, we are still living through the effects, and will continue for years.

What happened?

Of course it’s not a simple explanation.

Lending was out of control. Subprime mortgages did not require equity from the purchaser, making it an interest-only purchase, and one that requires little documentation at that. Sounds like a BAD LOAN, but many bought into it.

-Sounds pretty crazy and risky.

It was great for people who could not afford a home or for illegal immigrants without documentation, but then housing prices dropped and interest rates rose. These elements caused many loan defaults.

The article Foreclosures and banks’ debt to society talks about a loss of justice in the U.S., namely from the rewritten bankruptcy provision.  Banks are taking away homes from people who have defaulted on their loans, and even from people who have no debts. Banks are doing WHAT? They are calling this collateral damage. We can actually say; “Thank goodness for government intervention.” The US government is preventing the banks from increasing the rate of foreclosures. People simply can’t pay back these loans, so the banks have changed the rules of this dangerous game. “Partial indentured servitude” takes places of the loan; an individual would pay a large percentage of their income for the rest of their life. The US has a procedure called Chapter 11 that applies to corporate bankruptcy. It involves converting some debt to equity. The author, Joseph Stiglitz, calls for a Chapter 11 that applies to homeowners. Sounds like a good idea. It’s true that the people choose to take these subprime mortgages, but the banks took advantaged of the needy, who just so happened to be very little educated about finance.

Takeaway from Thursday’s lecture: GET EDUCATED ABOUT FINANCE

Also;

If something is too good to be true, it is.

–  That million dollar home still costs a million dollars (actually a lot more)