Luke Armstrong's Blog

I came across Jason Kantwerg’s blog where he discussed Golf Town’s plan to move into the American market. This made me think of what we were discussing in class about global marketing. It was clear that Golf Town had done a Situation Analysis and was able to see both differences and similarities in their existing and new markets. In order for them to be successful they will have to focus on the uniqueness of the new market, and perhaps seeing what their competitors do, such as Dick’s Sporting Goods or Golf Galaxy. A key difference in the US market is they will have far greater competition. Here in Canada Golf Town out numbers their competitors greatly. This will have to be taken into account when they begin marketing. They have good brand equity here in Canada, and I hope their expansion goes well, hopefully becoming just as successful there as here.

I came across this image on StumbleUpon and thought it was a great visual of what we have been learning in class. The pictures above make it clear the difference between the topics but I feel they also illustrate the communication channel. The one individual is trying to encode something to a listener, in order for the listener to decode that message it must break through the “noise”. A way to do that is through public relations which affirms the encoded message. The advertising is the repetition of the encoded message to ensure it makes it to the receiver. Branding occurs when the receiver processes the message and responds favorably to the message. This is something we see everyday, broken down into a very simple info-graphic.

I recently read Mihail Baranovschii’s latest blog post about the annoying ads featured before Youtube videos. The best part of using YouTube is to be able to quickly view and search for short videos, and the use of ads makes the service less appealing. My suggestion to this problem is perhaps shorter ads. This may be difficult to do, however the user attention span is very short, far shorter than that of TV ads. Therefore I believe it would be far more effective to have very concise and to the point ads. This will help YouTube keep its appeal and at the same time generate revenue to remain a feasible business. The worst thing that could happen to YouTube is to over advertise and wreck the service they have worked so hard to develop.

On March 8th, in a game between the Montreal Canadians and Boston Bruins, Zdeno Chara hit Max Pacioretty which resulted in Pacioretty suffering a cracked vertebra and severe concussion. The NHL decided the hit was not intentional and that the injury resulted from the collision with the glass stantion not the hit itself. No suspension was given, yet many third parties have decided to weigh in on the topic. One for example is Air Canada. The “chief executive officer ordered up a letter that demanded the National Hockey League end its passive stance toward player safety, backed by a threat that the airline would pull its sponsorship unless the NHL took measures to protect its players… But the league lashed out at the airline on Thursday for meddling in its internal matters, and suggested it could take its business elsewhere.” Clearly Air Canada was trying to establish themselves as “good” in the consumers eyes, but is it worth giving up a large partnership. As a Canadian airline it would hard to imagine taking its business away from the NHL, as hockey is almost part of an identity here in Canada. After the league responded Air Canada made no further comment. I believe that if this were a sincere action on AC’s part they should have pulled out of their deal, however that is not the case. Clearly this action was more for show than any real commitment. If a company is going to take a stance on an issue they better be prepared to stand up for their comments, not just shrink back and try to forget they ever said anything.

By now everyone has at least heard of Charlie Sheen’s latest exploits; as it has been everywhere. From YouTube clips to major news netwoks his name is everywhere at the moment. Moreover, as stated here on AdFreak he has officially become the fastest person to get 1 million followers on Twitter. The company ad.ly asked him to set up an account, and then they will subsequently pay him to then advertise certain products. They have done it before with such celebrities as Snoop Dog and Kim Kardashian, however this time it is quite different. Obviously Charlie Sheen is a celebrity, however his latest fame is attributed to drug rehabilitation and possible mental instability. With that being said, is he really a person that you would want to associate your product or brand with? We have talked before in class about associative and dissociative figures, of which I would argue Sheen falls into the later (however he may argue otherwise). To me his latest popularity is more based on humor, not the fact that they are genuine fans. So is paying him to rep your brand really worth it? I guess we will have to see, but in my opinion I don’t think so.

A video just for fun.

We were talking in class about how companies try to rebrand themselves to new audiences. There was an example of the Honda Odyssey and their ploy to market to the male demographic. It reminded me of an ad I saw for the Toyota Sienna. Its titled “Swagger Wagon” and can be viewed below.

This commercial not only applies to making the vehicle cool for men, but for women as well. Its funny and very original and I think any parent could find great enjoyment in this. I would have never thought that the van industry would have to worry about marketing themselves to new individuals. I believed that if you had a large family, a van or SUV was your only option, and due to high gas prices a van was probably the best choice. Yet it is pretty apparent that no matter how practical a product may be, individuals still put as value into the “coolness” of the product. The van industry has realized this an has begun to re-brand themselves as not only practical but cool.

On February 6 the biggest day of the this years advertising took place … oh and the biggest day of the year for anyone interested in football. It saw the match up between the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers, with Green Bay coming out victorious. However, for anyone in the marketing industry, the commercials played during the game may be the biggest story. With each 30 second spot selling at a minimum of $3 mil, you better hope you got your moneys worth. Some of my favorites are here.

The reson these ads stand out to me is they strike an emotional cord. Whether its the satisfaction of a child in his “Jedi power” or regional pride in the Imported From Detroit, it was more than the product. Many ads had the big name stars in them, however it is clear that just an aspirational figure does not make your ad great, but rather the power of human emotion. Not everyone faired as well, but I’ll let you be the judge of that.

Other of noteable mention:

Norwegian Commercial about the blind

Several emotions arise after watching this ad. First I found myself laughing, thinking what I was watching was rather humorous. When I realized what the ad was for I began to ask myself if the ad would really help blind individuals obtain a job; perhaps they may be making the situation worse for them. I’m sure no blind individual would like to know that someone thinks that it is funny to change in front of them, because it doesn’t matter right? They are blind. On top of that, many individuals that are blind are not completely blind either, they can make out shapes, and I’m sure they would know something was up if they entered a copy room and at the very least heard people hooking up. I realize that it is just a commercial and that it shouldn’t be taken to serious because it is just a joke. However, is it okay to promote such advertising that pokes fun at a marginalized group of people, regardless if they are trying to help or not? I think this ad may cross some lines. A better ad may show that blind individuals can work just as well as others, not showing that the only benefit is you can do stuff around the office that you couldn’t do when individuals that could see were working their. Regardless of the reaction or insensitivity to those that are blind, the ad is pretty effective in catching your attention. It begs the question, is any press good press?  This question is addressed in the Canadian Marketing Blog.  I’m not sold on that argument, we need to be careful what people might be getting out of our ads.

During the Winter Olympics last year I had the opportunity to volunteer for Coca-cola. In David Lam Park there was  “The Coca-Cola Happiness House” giving away free commemorative Coca-Colas and providing engaging games the whole family could enjoy. As staff one of the main objectives, apart from being the happiest individuals you have ever seen, was to deliver Coca-Cola’s Green Initiatives to all those that came through the door. What was great about it was you could learn about how they were supporting various “green” initiatives and have fun playing games at the same time. Although many received the message, you wouldn’t have known about it unless you were present at the Olympic games. The following article discusses how they will soon begin to communicate this message more heavily.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/adhocracy/beyond-the-bottle-coke-trumpets-its-green-initiatives/article1869437/

“Coke is the No. 1 purchaser of aluminum on the face of the earth – which is one of the most carbon-intensive commodities,” noted Mr. Butts. “The No. 1 purchaser of sugar cane. The No. 3 purchaser of citrus. The second-largest purchaser of glass, and the fifth-largest purchaser of coffee. We could spend 50 years lobbying 75 national governments to change the regulatory framework for the way these commodities are grown and produced. Or these folks at Coke could make a decision that they’re not going to purchase anything that isn’t grown or produced in a certain way – and the whole global supply chain changes overnight. And that in a nutshell is why we’re in a partnership.”

“Coke is literally more important, when it comes to sustainability, than the United Nations.”

Its amazing the power one company has, and its amazing they want to begin making steps in the right direction.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/adhocracy/its-all-fun-and-games—-until-someone-bonds-with-a-brand/article1860689/

I was reading the article above and was really surprised. I had heard of apps like foursquare, however I was skeptical of whether or not they could actually catch on. It is now clear that this isn’t merely a fad, but something that is here to stay. I’ve never been a person that likes to update others on what I’m doing via social media, however if there is a possibility that I could be awarded for it, I begin to ask myself the question why not. It seems like a win-win situation for both myself as the consumer and the company as an advertiser. I tell people where I am and receive 10% off my meal for instance. If my meal cost $20, the restaurant was just able to advertise to my whole network on facebook at the cost of $2. I’m not an expert but it seems like a very efficient way to advertise. Instead of potentially spending hundreds or thousands on an advertising campaign they can reach the same amount of people with the cost of a few soft drinks or meals here and there. It seems like the best way for a small local restaurant to successfully create awareness about their brand. And of course there is always the potential they can communicate deals and promotions through the same application.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/company-news-story.aspx?storyid=201101190704dowjonesdjonline000285&title=starbucks-to-allow-customers-to-pay-via-some-smartphones

However is a free drink or discounted meal enough incentive to use such software? What if you could pay for your visit using the same type of software? Starbucks has announced that they will be offering US residents the ability to pay for the purchases with their app found on the Blackberry and iPhone platforms. It seems like a perfect idea as almost everyone already carries a phone with them anyways.

The technology helps companies advertise and at the same time provide convenience to customers . . . now that’s cool!