Do What You Love
This is arguably the most famous quote from the classic movie, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, and it’s particularly important in a university setting. When our motivation to attend Sauder comes up, my peers generally admit they are motivated mostly by the job security having a BCom from a reputable school would (hopefully!) bring them.
When Tom Dobrzanski walked into the room to speak to our Comm class, I didn’t realize that he was a part of a band that has been on my iPod for years. I was amazed by his fusion of his love for music and his business acumen in creating Monarch Studios, filling an the need for a mid-size studio that could produce professional sound quality without the strings inherent in a big record label.
(courtesy of “The Globe and Mail”)
His example is truly inspirational to a business student such as myself. I especially liked the anecdote of how he would come to class with sawdust on his shoes from building his first studio in his parents’ basement- it just goes to show that with hard work and a little bit of ingenuity, you can create your own job and cater you life to your interests. His lecture reaffirmed my determination to use my business degree in a way that I find engaging, and make sure I never miss an opportunity to combine my interests with my career.
Once Upon a Market
Whenever I think about some of the great commercials I’ve seen, this one from Tim Hortons always springs to mind:
In today’s day and age, information is consistently broken down into bite sized portions. Marketing is reduced to taglines and blurbs on Facebook pages- but is that really effective? After reading Drew McLellan’s blog post for the Content Marketing Intitute, I’m starting to think it isn’t. Drew argues that “We buy based on our emotions and justify the purchase with the facts offered. But we very rarely buy on facts alone.” He cites campaigns such as the Dunkin Donuts “Fred the Baker” commercials and the Folger’s Coffee “Peter Comes Home for Christmas” advertisement as examples of storytelling marketing that provide a more subtle, nuanced marketing than today’s ‘just the facts’ approach.
Upon reflection, I have to say I agree with McLellan. The ad campaigns I remember and appreciate evoke an emotional response in the viewer- and those emotions can come from very unexpected sources, like this 2002 Ikea ad which won a Grand Clio and the Grand Prix at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tetOSMilRKg
Some may argue that, in today’s world, this kind of storytelling is obsolete, but I think the connection it establishes between the consumer and the brand is a rapport that can be invaluable. As McLellan suggests, I would love to see storytelling integrated into today’s digital media tools- perhaps as in this Google ad?
Something to think about.
Some links for reference:
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/183589/Watch-Crispin-Porters-Ikea-Film-Grand-Prix-winner/
http://www.boardsmag.com/articles/online/20030522/clios.html
The Pursuit of Happiness
After reading my friend Kat Wong’s blog on the TEDtalk “The Happy Secret to Better Work“, (check out her summary and thoughts here) I was inspired to check out the video. I was impressed with the speaker, Sean Achor, who was both funny and engaging, but I think that he misses a few key points in discussing the psychology behind productivity.
Achor posits that we need to “reverse the formula for success”, as our current understanding is hard work leads to productivity, which in turn leads to success, leading to happiness. Achor instead argues that employees that are happy in the first place will be more productive. In all honesty this seems like relatively simplistic reasoning to me which does not take in to account the complexity for human motivation.
Achor speaks to how, once we achieve the first ‘bar’ of success we set for ourselves, we tend to push expectations higher and remain unsatisfied. Though he may view this continuous goal setting negatively, I tend to consider this in a more positive light. It reminds me of a quote from one of my favourite movies, The Pursuit of Happyness:
“It was right then that I started thinking about Thomas Jefferson on the Declaration of Independence and the part about our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I remember thinking how did he know to put the pursuit part in there? That maybe happiness is something that we can only pursue and maybe we can actually never have it. No matter what. How did he know that?”It is impossible to define happiness, because it’s so specific to each individual. We can and should, as Kat points out, try and find happiness where we can in the little everyday things, but the bigger happinesses, especially in the workplace, are never truly satisfied.
What I would argue to Mr. Achor is this: Happiness can never fully be realized by anyone at any one moment in every sphere of their lives, and, if it is realized, that is no cause for joy. With the absence of something to strive for, we lose touch with the human condition of a constant struggle. For a company hoping to motivate employees, giving them comfort through things like benefits, positive office culture and incentives is a way to engender loyalty but, more than that, you need to give employees something to work for, whether it’s a social impact or a higher position.
To close, a quote from Sean Achor:
“If we study what is merely average, we will remain merely average.”
Words to live by.
The Google Culture: “Don’t be evil.”
When reading about Google’s corporate culture recently, it reminded me of Comm classes on “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) and “People, Culture & Teams”.
When Google Inc. was founded in 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while at Stanford University, it was a search engine designed to use backlinks to check the ‘importance’ (and therefore determine the order in which sites would be listed when searched for) of websites. Today, we know Google a tech giant, as servicing a number of needs, including apps, operating systems and phones. This year, as well as in 2007 and 2008, Google was ranked as the most attractive company to work for.
Now obviously it’s appealing to work for a big company and have access to resources you may not have had access to otherwise, but what sets Google apart? It’s likely their corporate culture, which endorses a laid back approach to business and simple, catchy corporate philosophies such as “Don’t be evil” (ie. you can make money without doing bad). This element of CSR embedded in the company’s ethos is certainly an element of what attracts potential employees to the company.
Furthermore, they take care to incorporate this “work combined with play” attitude within the infrastructure of the work environment itself, as you can see by this video, a tour around Googleplex, Google headquarters:
Google is clearly aware of the new ways in which the tech business is being run. As one employee states in the video “Google takes care of us”, and with gyms, free massages, amazing food and even laundry services, Google is creating not just a workplace, but a home, that is sure to attract the biggest talents in the tech industry.
Though not every company can afford to pamper their employees like Google, clearly taking care of your employees pays off. Google has experienced great success, and I would attribute much of it to their ability to cater to their employees and understand that a traditional corporate structure is not always the best one.
Some links for reference:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/2012/full_list/
http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/
http://www.google.ca/about/company/facts/culture/
We Are the Cast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVZA1V4Ttc0&feature=plcp
Recently I had the privilege of listening to Wade Larson speak about his company, UrtheCast. During his speech, I was blown away by both the concept and the work he had done to achieve his vision.
When I realized the play on words in the name of the company (UrtheCast = EarthCast/You Are the Cast), it made me think about my own life in terms probably a little too existential for 9:30 on a Thursday morning. I paid close attention to the innovative ways UrtheCast would integrate social media, monetize their data by selling it to governments, and include product placement on their site. This made me think of my own life, in that I struggle to balance a social life, my education, and finding ways to make money.
Just as we have been taught that business models and strategies can be applied to many different kinds of business, from multi-national corporations to social entrepreneurship in many ways they are relevant to out own lives. They say that art mimics life, and I suppose, in many ways, so does business. In the newly digitized and connected world where everyone is a click away, a site has to be as organic and multifaceted as our lives. UrtheCast is a great example of a company poised to do just that.
Links for reference:
http://www.techshout.com/internet/2012/26/urthecast-plans-to-broadcast-the-earth-in-hd/
http://www.itproportal.com/2012/06/08/urthecast-when-youtube-meets-google-earth-glorious-hd/
Co-opted Culture
Recently, the annual Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show was televised, and great controversy arose from a specific outfit in the show modelled by Karlie Kloss, as pictured below:
(courtesy of Fashionista.com)
The Native American inspired outfit was deemed by many both in the Aboriginal community and others to be offensive and patronizing. This reminded me of a blog by Rachel Warner on the outcry caused when McDonald’s announced their intention to open a restaurant at the base of the trail to the Golden Temple in India. Rachel quotes a protester as saying “It’s an attempt not only to make money but also to deliberately humiliate Hindus.” Many of Victoria’s Secret’s dissenters feel similarly with outrage reaching such levels that the brand has issued a formal apology, and announced that the image and outfit will be removed from all promotional material.
This clothing was especially controversial not just for its appropriation of Native traditions and culture, but because Native American women have the highest rate of sexual abuse among women in North America, a fact which apparently escaped Victoria’s Secret’s notice when designing the racy outfit. As Milton Friedman stated, “the only social responsibility of business is to earn profits while following the law and basic ethical customs.” In my opinion, much like McDonald’s inconsiderateness towards local Indian culture, Victoria’s Secret clearly shows a violation of business ethics in that they are supporting a narrow, stereotypical view of a culture. A business practice doesn’t always have to be as “big” as child labour or hazardous material use in manufacturing to be unethical, sometimes it can come down to more socially constructed conflicts like respecting culture.
Links for Reference:
http://www.umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf
Gender Specific Advertising: Why Cavemen and Cavewomen Affect Our Shopping
Do you remember this Heineken advertisement?
It may be funny, but it also illustrates a great point: as consumers, men and women are vastly different and, therefore, the way in which companies cater to each gender must be different as well.
It’s a well documented fact that men and women have different buying patterns and behaviors, which some psychologists theorize have to do with the societal structure of our pre-historic ancestors. Men were generally hunters, so they had one specific target in mind, and moved with efficiency and purpose towards that goal. Women, on the other hand, were gatherers, and thus would look around and compare quality of goods. This simple difference of biology may account for why women are generally the target audience for marketers.
Our ancient behaviors are echoed in present day shopping mannerisms. Men generally know what they want before shopping, and shop alone, not paying much attention to anything else than their goal. As soon as they purchase their item, they leave and don’t bother to look around anymore. On the other hand, women are more likely to look through a greater selection of things, even if they were only planning to buy one item, as well as shop as a social activity. Also, because of their traditional role as caretaker, women are more likely to comparison shop, looking for the best quality goods for their family as they may have once strove to find the tastiest berries or the cleanest water. As quoted in Terry O’Reilly’s Age of Persuasion podcast from CBC, a study by GE Money revealed that women make 301 shopping trips a year, lasting a total of almost 400 hours. This breaks down to an approximate eight years of a woman’s life spent shopping!
Over the past few decades, marketers have clued in to this ‘caveman psychology’, and now know the value of women as a demographic. Women are much more likely to pay attention to brand image and messaging, and, thus, women are the target demographic of most commercials-for example, I’m pretty sure Kenwood wouldn’t run this ad now:
As professor of marketing at Wharton Steven J. Honch has stated, “Women think of shopping in an inter-personal, human fashion and men treat it as more instrumental. It’s a job to get done.” This realization is the basis of female-oriented business strategies, especially in our technological age. For example, online sales are now a huge component of sales techniques, fulfilling a woman’s need for wide selection and easy browsing, as well as the incorporation of social media through sites like Pintrest and Twitter, which satisfies a woman’s desire to make shopping a social activity. As well, marketing is getting more and more targeted, with sites like Facebook offering personalized advertising to your interests, which plays into a woman’s need for personal investment in her shopping experience.
As we move into the future, you have to wonder- will this trend of advertising to women continue, or will marketing and retail strategies shift to be more equal between the genders? It seems that, for now at least, women will continue to be the most sought after demographic for marketers- and rightly so.
References:
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1848
O’Reilly, Terry, auth. “Men Are From Sears, Women Are From Bloomingdales” The Age of Persuasion. CBC Radio, 01/14/12. web. 5 Oct 2012.
Advertising to Minorities- Risky or Visionary?
Recently, there has been some controversy in the retail community over print advertisements for JCPenney. Joining other progressive companies like the Gap, Ray Ban and Urban Outfitters, JCPenney has begun showing non-traditional families in their marketing- ie. homosexual partners and their children. The original ad, pictured above featuring homosexual mothers with their daughters, was intended to be a promotion for Mother’s Day. In particular, this ad caused an uproar with the group ‘One Million Moms’, who claimed that JCPenney was “continuing on the same path of promoting sin”, and encouraged consumers to boycott the store. This conservative group has previously opposed JCPenney for choosing talk show host and gay-rights activist Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson.
In response to hostility from conservative elements, JCPenney released another advertisement, this time for Father’s Day, featuring two gay dads with their children, entrenching themselves even more firmly as pro-gay rights. Though JCPenney’s ads are much less shocking than, say, some United Colors of Benetton ads, JCPenney remains under attack from groups touting so-called ‘traditional’ values.
Putting aside my personal feelings about discrimination against homosexuals, one has to wonder if taking such a strong stance on a controversial issue is a good business move for JCPenney? Sadly, this new marketing strategy has seen a dip in JCPenney’s stock; however, though it’s a risk to alienate some potential clients, I believe that many times a simple statement of belief can create more brand loyalty and recognition than flyers, in-store credit cards and catchy jingles alike. Though they may have seen an initial drop in stock price by joining other progressive retailers like the Gap, Ray Ban and Urban Outfitters in showing non-traditional families in marketing, I believe over the long run JCPenney’s willingness to portray the diversity of their clientele will pay off. Even as groups like One Million Moms crow over their success due to the fall in stock prices since JCPenney began its inclusionary campaigns, customer satisfaction and goodwill towards the brand climbs. Hopefully, JCPenney will soon see a return on their investment towards a more tolerant tomorrow.
References:
http://bruni.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/penneys-gay-wager/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/13/jcpenney-gap-gay-advertising_n_1510567.html
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/03/anti-gay-group-slams-jcpenneys-over-fathers-day-ad/
The Name of the Game: Can a Brand Become Too Recognizable?
In general, public recognition of a brand name is incredibly desirable to a company, but, sometimes the name of the brand becomes so prolific that it comes to refer to products of that type, rather than the brand itself.
For example, when was the last time you said, “Hey, can you pass me a facial tissue?”
You’d be more likely to say “pass me a Kleenex”, right? Here’s the catch: though, on one hand, Kleenex would be gratified with your strong memory of the brand, if you use the term ‘Kleenex’ to refer to any facial tissue, Kleenex has cause to worry. If the word ‘Kleenex’ is judged to to colloquially refer to tissues of any generic brand, Kleenex could lose their trademark and no longer have the exclusive right to use the name ‘Kleenex’.
This is a worry echoed by many other brands. For example, Band-Aid has changed the lyrics to their jingle from “I am stuck on Band-Aid”, to “I am stuck on the Band-Aid brand“, as part of their efforts to save their brand from becoming genericized. The same fear has struck Google as well, as evidenced by this blog post.
The list of genericized brands that have lost their trademark include some familiar words you may not even realize were once brands, like:
- Asprin
- Escalator
- Petrol
- Zipper
- Thermos
When does a brand become too successfully associated with their product? Is there anything companies can do to prevent ‘identity theft’? Is there any real way to prevent consumers from using your product name colloquially? It seems clear that this is a case where different departments (legal and marketing, for example) would have to work together to protect a brand’s interests.
References:
O’Reilly, Terry, auth. “Genericide: When A Brand Becomes Generic.” The Age of Persuasion. CBC Radio, 06/05/11. web. 27 Sep 2012.
Marketing from Conglomerates: When Hypocrisy Attacks
You may have heard of the Unilever- and if you haven’t you’ve certainly used their products. A multinational consumer goods corporation, Unilever owns such brands as Dove, Axe, TRESemmé, Lipton etc. The only thing is, with so many brands under one umbrella, Unilever can’t help but send mixed messages through their advertising. Take this Dove commercial for example:
Pretty positive message right? Along with images like these:
It seems like Unilever supports positive body image in everyday women, and rejects unrealistic ideals and perceptions of women generally perpetuated by the beauty industry; however, Unilever also owns Slimfast, a company which manufactures products that are supposed to replace meals and help you shed weight. In addition, Unilver owns Axe, a men’s hygiene products made famous by commercials like this one and this one, which many women’s rights groups denounced as sexist, and encouraging the objectification of women.
The question is: Should Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty be taken as refreshingly positive marketing in the beauty industry, or just a cheap attempt to play on consumer values, with all talk and no action? Is it ethical for Unilever to promote such conflicting brand values?
Personally I would say it’s unethical, but in many ways unavoidable- falling within that ethical shade of gray that so often colours the marketing field. In the era of giant multinationals and conglomerates we live in today, it would be nearly impossible for one parent company to keep brand values consistent among all its subsidiaries. If anything, I think this case just proves consumers need to be more cautious when lulled by the image a brand has created for itself. Buyer beware- not just of the product you’re buying, but of what you’re buying into.
-Lara
Some links for reference:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ad_report_card/2007/03/the_girl_in_the_shower.html
http://www.unileverusa.com/brands-in-action/detail/Slim-Fast-/296155/