Month: October 2011

As mentioned by Laura, Apple did an excellent job of commemorating the memory of Steve Jobs after he passed away. (https://blogs.ubc.ca/lauramacdonald/2011/10/10/remembering-jobs/) His life was celebrated through numerous events and the Apple homepage displayed a large image of Steve Jobs in honor of his memory. However, Apple was not the only company to tribute the life of the Apple founder. On the day following the loss of Steve Jobs, Google decided to commemorate his memory by posting a simple epitaph on the webpage.

The majority of Google’s revenue comes from advertising. Whenever you use the search engine “sponsored links” will appear, and for every click Google charges the website a certain fee. You may have also realized that Google sponsored links appear on various web-pages. These links generate revenue for Google in the same way that their search-related links do.

Even though Google’s revenue is mainly driven by advertisement, the company chose to commemorate Steve Job’s memory using their “prime advertisement space” for no charge. Even more remarkable is the fact that the hyperlink was to Apple’s homepage, not to their own search results. On the same day, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt stated” “Steve was so charismatically brilliant that he inspired people to do the impossible, and he will be remembered as the greatest computer innovator in history.” (http://www.marketingpower2.com/blog/marketingnews/2011/10/googles_display_of_class_and_h.html#more) This respectful response is likely to have further strengthened the company’s popularity among consumers.

After reading Drew McLellan’s post on mixing media to achieve maximum impact on consumers, I became more interested in learning more about the research surrounding this topic, and to see if McLelland indeed does have support for his claim in the academic community. McLelland argues that in order to really reach the consumers and create a lasting impression on them, one must “access more of the audiences senses.”

In Christian Gronroos’s academic paper entitled “from marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm shift in marketing”, Gronroos explains that the marketing mix theory and the 4 P’s (Price, Product, Place, Promotion) was first introduced in the 1960’s. This theory quickly gained a lot of support from the academic community, and before long it became an “indisputable paradigm in academic research.” (from marketing mix to relationship marketing) However, the 4 P’s is by many considered too simplified. The theory was created 50 years ago, and it hasn’t integrated the changes in technology and the new ways in which marketing is being conducted. For instance, industrial marketing and international marketing are areas of marketing where there is still much dispute among academics – there is no general consensus regarding what strategies are efficient.

It is clear that there is a lot of uncertainty, and still a lot of research that can be done on what marketing strategies are successful in today’s society. Nielsen Media Research found that 50% of people remembered a brand they saw in TV ads, but 74% of people remembered the same brand after they saw ads from the company on TV and online. However, this “mixing marketing channels” strategy is only consistent if the ads provide the same key message. There is still much research to be done, but it appears that the 4 P’s & Marketing Mix model is too simplified to fully accommodate the needs of modern day consumers.