Mark Guo's Blog

I’ve always had a great interest in marketing. I believe that with the right tactics and people, anything in this world can be sold. However this may result in ethical ad moral issues, and marketing is more than just selling stuff. Through this course and this assignment, I learned the fundamentals of marketing which include parts of psychology, sociology, commerce and many more disciplinary subjects.

The course project didn’t offer me anything new until the video making part. The first two parts were fairly routine at this stage of my education; do the research with group and edit, make up some logical assumptions and recommendations. However I had very little experiences making videos, especially in groups. The biggest problem I had was that due to the simple fact that editing can only be done by the person with the footage and program, that person had to do all the editing. I wanted to contribute, yet I didn’t know how. Should I stay with the editors the whole time while they edit? It would be time consuming for me and I don’t think my presence would have helped much anyways. Should I purchase the video editing software and offer to do the editing? The programs are pricey and it would be a waste of resources since my teammates had them already. In the end, I simply offered some of my advises and recommendations during the final meeting and left the editing to some of my teammates. I felt bad, and if this happens again I’ll definitely try to help in any way possible. Not having the technology is not an excuse, and I won’t make the mistake again.

I read my classmate Melissa’s blog about her doubtfulness in the blooming video marketing trend. She states that in order for a video marketing strategy to be effective, it has to go viral. Without millions of people watching it online the advertisements would be a waste of money. That’s true in some ways for large corporations that spends millions making these viral videos, but what about small companies that didn’t spend much making them? Saving money is the whole point of advertising on YouTube, because these companies cannot afford to be on TV. Therefore as long as the video is creative and informative, it can go viral regardless of the budget. And even if it doesn’t, it wouldn’t have costed too much anyways. To be honest, I find it hard to believe that a company will use YouTube solely as a way to market themselves. From what I see it’s a chance for companies to get extra publicity at a low cost, they will be satisfied with anything they get.

There is another reason for companies to make videos, to guide the people who can’t/unwilling to read and demonstrate their products and services with visuals. These videos won’t necessarily go viral and earn a lot of views, but they will find their way towards people who search for them, and it’s exactly the target segment companies desire.

And if everyone’s doing it, might as well join in the trend. It’s not good to lag behind your competitors in terms of effort.

I am a huge movie buff. I try my best to watch a film every weekend regardless of my schedule. It is a collection of all artistry within the human civilization, combining moving images with story and music seamlessly. I choose my movie mostly based on the International Movie Data Base’s Top 250 as well as reviews from the most prestigious critic today – Roger Ebert. Surprisingly, I have never read any of his blogs until this assignment and I can’t believe it took my this long to discover them. In his blog movie don’t stream themselves, Roger states the problem he sees with streaming over conventional laser disks. He doesn’t have a problem with the streaming industry itself, but he is simply worried that others will be affected.  It is problematic for the small productions since the profit margins for streaming is much lower, and companies that handles classical film restoration will also take a hit.

I agree with Roger that some industries will take a hit, and this new wave of delivery system will eventually take over. Just like digital cameras replacing conventional film cameras, technology will find it’s way in humanity regardless of the struggles of existing companies. The most important thing is that these companies find new ways to adapt to the evolving world, adjusting their marketing mix and strategies accordingly. There are still people who will always prefer hard copies over digital data, and companies need to find ways to capitalize on these people while satisfying the market demands. Independent movie markers also need new ways to promote and sell their movies, this will include streaming their movies online.

Humanity always find ways to cope with their changing enviorment. That’s why our species survived hundreds and thousands of years. Technological change will abandon some people, and that’s just nature doing its thing in evolution.

Rest in peace.

On Feb 20th, Sony announced the successor to the PS3. They hosted a large scale revealing event in the middle of New York City where thousands of industry professionals and reporters arrived on the scene. The PS3 was released a year after Xbox360 and the slow start gave Sony quite a hard time to catch up to the competition. Learning from their mistakes, Sony decided to unveil the PS4 before the next Xbox. The event was streamed worldwide over the internet with millions of viewers expecting to see the next generation of home entertainment. Famous developers and publishers went on stage to showcase their excitement for the machine, demonstrating what they could achieve on the new platform. The interior chipset for the PS4 was shown showcasing the power of the new machine. However as the event drew close to the 3 hour mark, Sony still did not show the actual machine to the world. Sony teased the audience even more by showing the new controller, but ultimately the machine was not shown at all.

Many people were angry at the event, feeling that they were letdown by the hype. Nintendo did this years ago with their gaming systems and it worked to a certain extent. It gave the world a glimpse of the console, revealing more and more in future events. This way they can still keep their competition at bay, while continuing to generate buzz and excitement. I think it’s a great tactic. Why show all of your cards  at once? Once Microsoft reveals their machine, Sony still has the chance to improve the design accordingly. Regardless it’s a good time for investors and gamers with the next step in home entertainment.

Michael Jordan and Nike popularized the notion of endorsing an athlete as a marketing tactic in the 80’s with the hugely successful Jordan Brand. It’s still a popular today among basketball players, despite branching out from the Nike name completely. Companies all over the world have been trying to do that ever since, whether its LeBron and Kobe in basketball, Messi and Ronaldo in soccer or Federer and Nadal in tennis.

However recently series of scandles have been occurring with famous athletes, primarily the ones Nike endorsed. Starting with Tiger Woods and his adultery incident in 2010, Lance Armstrong and doping to the recent Oscar “Blade Runner” Pistorius murdering his girlfriend. These incidents have not only ruined the athletes reputations, but also Nike’s. Companies spend millions trying to associate the athlete to the brand, but that’s a double edged sword. Since the athlete’s image is tied so much to the brand, their tarnished images also affect the company greatly.

Sports companies should pick their endorsements more carefully. More comprehensive tests and judgement should be considered before endorsing an athlete.  Although it’s hard to judge a person’s character, it’s a lot better than spending millions on a marketing tactic that could potentially damage the company’s reputation.

The biggest problem with marketing is that they often promote images and values that people are suppose to strive for. This means that certain attributes are encouraged, while others are ignored. Ads on TVs and magazines show what beauty should be, how people should look and the importance of money. As a result, the billions of people around the world who are exposed to these marketing are imprinted with the idea that to be happy they need to be like the people in advertisements.

Just recently, Dove started a new ad campaign that aims to change the perception of beauty portrayed in the media. Their ads involved digitally distorted models and “normal” people, hoping to bring forth the issue of misleading portrayal of beauty.

I think to a certain extent marketing needs to promote these images and ideas which are deemed socially acceptable so their products will sell, but there comes to a point where enough is enough. Some stuff shown on television are simply outrages and dumb, I heard of a show named “Honey Boo Boo“ which is about 5 year olds preparing for beauty contests. A lot of young people who watches these shows will believe they are real and normal, which result in shaping their perspectives of their society. The media is a powerful tool, and if used correctly they can bring endless positives to this world. Companies are trending towards having a positive image with their branding and marketing in the recent years, and hopefully these ad campaigns aren’t just for PR purposes.

India has officially opened its doorsto welcome foreign retail chains. Before, giants such as Wal-Mart and Tesco could only operate as a wholesaler instead of selling to consumers directly. Now they can open their stores domestically in India. However not everyone agrees with the decision, with many fearing it will destroy Indian retailers.

If I had read this article in high school, I would have agreed with the opposing people. Obviously these large corporations have the ability to get better and cheaper products compared to Indian retailers, however with the knowledge I have gained this semester this might not be true. This decision will change India for the better since it’s moving them towards a free market, which means there will be more opportunities and cheaper prices in India. The increased competition will force businesses to work harder for the cash they seek, and for consumers that’s a good thing because they’ll get more benefits.

India and China are most likely going to be the next global leaders in business. Just like 200 years ago, people are once again seeking to trade with those 2 countries. But instead of silk and spice, it’s now labor and opportunities.

In 20 years, China transformed itself from a country that people looked down to a global powerhouse. With a total GDP of $5.93 trillion dollars last year, it is 2nd only to the US.

In this blog from Harvard Business Review, the blogger states that the major cities in China such as Beijing and Shanghai make Western and European cities look like the countryside. As we have discussed in class, many large corporations prefer to have their headquarters located in the countryside for cheaper cost and a stable work force. However the opposite is true for China, where all the large corporations are located in the big cities. Why you ask? Because China is only developed in those cities. I agree with the blogger that the gap between the cities and the countrysides is simply too great. People in the countryside are not educated enough to work in a serious business environment. In order for China to truly become a global leader, it needs to develop all around, not just those couple places they can show off.

But I guess we shouldn’t be too hard on them, after all they accomplished this much in 20 years. Who knows what will happen in another 20.

My friend Aaron Chan blogged about the purpose of going to university. Just like him, I grew up being taught that university is absolutely necessary to attend because it will grant me better job opportunities which ultimately helps me make more money. This article claims that 1 in 5 students with a bachelor’s degree still end up being on the lower end of the salary scale. Other than the obvious skepticism we have discussed in class (When did they graduate? Is money everything? What kind of bachelor’s degree?), I want to add on that education was not created so people could earn money in the future. Living creatures educate each other because they want to pass on their knowledge to the next generation, so that they have a better chance of survival.

My purpose for attending UBC is to learn about life and the extent of my potential, not how to take derivatives. I want my life to be as fulfilling as possible, so when I look back I won’t have any regrets. Money is simply an award that people received when they do a job to a satisfactory degree.

So to answer Aaron’s question, yes I want to be here.

After reading Eleanore Chang’s blog about the Occupy of Wall Street, I thought about the purpose of this protest. In her blog, she stated that it will be impossible to get the message across if people keep on getting arrested. In my opinion, Occupy Wall Street is childish and pointless. However, it is even more absurd that these protesters believe they can change their lives by changing government policy. Do people truly believe that their lives will be better when government gives them more leeway? The 1% in this world are the 1% because they have talent and work hard. I’m sorry to say this but not everyone is born equally, some have better luck while some are truly gifted. However everyone is born with the ability to work hard, and clearly these protesters are utilizing their gift of working hard to their potential.

To respond to Eleanore, yes they did send out a message, but probably not the one they wanted. The message I got was that the 99% are cry babies that want their “parents” to do what they demand. Be glad they are in America instead of the Middle East or Africa, now stop whining and do some work.