“Retrospective Focus”
Dal Lake, Srinagar, India © Mark Smith

I was fortunate to have an unreal group of individuals to work alongside during Comm 296. Although I was initially quite apprehensive about working in groups due to the negative stories I had heard from a few Sauder alumni, it has been a positive and transferable learning experience.

Throughout the marketing plan assignments I was pushed to apply theoretical knowledge in a practical and challenging manner. One of my largest struggles came during the first assignment. I volunteered to compile the report and I found it tremendously difficult to stay within word count, maintain a consistent and logical flow, and create a seamless document without any missing information. My style of writing is far from congruent with that of my team members and there were definitely some differing opinions. However, in the end we were able to submit a document that we are collectively proud of.

As an avid filmmaker, I was especially excited to see the video project as part of the course curriculum. Due to my past experience, I knew that 10% of a final grade would not be worth the effort needed to create an interesting 7 minute video. However, I made the decision to use the gained intrinsic value as motivation to do my best. I knew that the true reward of the project would not be the grade, but the experience. Therefore, instead of just doing all the shooting and editing myself, I attempted to share whatever skills I could with my group by encouraging active participation. I wanted to create something that my group members and I could show future employers with pride and I wanted my teammates to learn how to produce films as well. Knowing that my peers would be evaluating the video certainly pushed me to make it as memorable and enjoyable as possible.

The marketing plan assignment was altogether a good experience. I now feel more confident in a group setting and I have increased my ability to research information and write a comprehensive marketing plan.

GoPro, the maker of the “world’s most versatile camera” has established itself as the premier option when it comes to wearable and gear-mountable cameras. Due to the youthfulness of this unique product category, GoPro’s rise to market power is especially interesting from a marketing perspective. 

In my opinion, there are two main factors that have allowed GoPro to grasp and maintain their large share of this growing market; these include pricing strategy and market development strategy. There are many more factors, one being the use of user generated content, but I have a word limit so I’ll keep them to myself.

GoPro’s customer oriented pricing strategy is something that has always drawn me to consumer their cameras. I have owned 3 GoPro cameras, all of extremely different quality (ranging from the early standard definition GoPro Hero1, to the current GoPro Hero3+ that can process up to 4k cinema resolution video and has self-contained Wifi capabilities) and the astounding thing is that I purchased them all within the same $300-$400 dollar price point. When GoPro put out its first camera it was $200-$300 cheaper to than its closest competition. This market penetration strategy proved successful as they gained attention as the “most affordable wearable camera”. From there, consumers gathered that the newer, better cameras would be offered at costs relative to the increased capabilities of the camera; however, it is apparent that GoPro intends to hold true to their price point regardless of new product developments. This strategy has proven to be extremely successful.

What started as a wearable wrist camera for surfing has developed into a product that can nearly be mounted or worn in anyway imaginable. This market development strategy has effectively allowed GoPro to push their product into new markets (such as the skiing market when they created a helmet mount); Vastly diversifying the usability of the same product.

Check out GoPro’s most recent add here.

In the action sports industry there are virtually endless endorsements. We see these in the form of stickers on the top athletes’ gear, commercials during breaks in the action, and on-site billboard-style ads. All of these companies have attempted to capitalize on the lucrative marketing opportunities that are presented by the demographic of action sports enthusiasts, who tend to be exceptionally drawn toward trends and heavily influenced by media.

Now, I can understand when Atomic or Burton (top ski and snowboard brand names) are promoting their goods at a snow-sport event. It is relevant and effective. However, in recent years energy drink companies such as Red Bull and Monster Energy have taken over the scene. They have found a cozy niche within the action sports world, where they are now making ridiculous profits and have become extremely effective at encouraging young people to consume their product.

When Austin Smith and Bryan Fox, two top-tier snowboarders, got fed up with the status quo, the “Drink Water” concept was born. In combat of the energy drinks’ impact in the industry, Drink Water simply says, “drink water”. Throw out the garbage and get back to the essentials. And to the athletes, the message is to stop signing contracts with these industry giants and to use their influence as athletes to communicate the importance of healthy consumption.

Although Smith and Fox originally just wrote the phrase on their snowboards, they now supply clothing and stickers for consumers to represent Drink Water and be part of the movement.

Beyond the original intention (to shift some of the control away from these energy drink distributors and encourage healthy consumption) Drink Water also donates 10% of profits to Water.org, a non-profit organization that works to drill wells to fight the water crisis in the developing world.

This post is in response to an Adobe Digital Marketing Blog post, which discusses the rationale behind Bombardier‘s recent and continuing use of Adobe’s Experience Manager. The blog is titled “Bombardier and Adobe Experience Manager – Unifying the brand of planes and trains”.

Adobe Experience Manager is a software that combines an organization’s existing webpages into one uniform platform. This is especially useful for companies like Bombardier that have many international markets and websites and at least one large diversification in their product mix; for Bombardier, this is planes and trains. By unifying Bombardier’s online content, Experience Manager has effectively allowed the brand to be perceived in one distinctive way.

Companies such as Virgin have had a lot of success by extending their brand into new markets. They leverage their existing positive perception of being a reliable organization in order to gain market share in entirely new markets. This is a common process for many large companies. However, what I found interesting about Bombardier’s story is how they are doing the same process in reverse order. They have existing market share in both the train industry and in the aerospace industry in many international markets, and they are pulling all that back. Regrouping, in a sense. They are attempting to ensure that their extensions are all portraying the same carbon copy image before further dissonance occurs between the major departments of the brand.

A unique aspect of Bombardier is the fact that it is the world’s only innovator in both the train industry and the plane industry. This is their big claim to fame, and in order to showcase it effectively, a level of consistency in the way that each is marketed has been adopted.

More information on Bombardier’s story can be found in this Adobe Success Story.

Ryan, a classmate of mine in my introductory marketing course, recently responded to the slanderous marketing campaign of Microsoft in his blog. Microsoft launched a video that aimed to discount the innovations of Apple. The video, which features two colleges (representing Apple employees) presenting their latest breakthroughs and creative designs to a boss-figure, was quickly taken off the air after widespread negative consumer feedback.

I quite enjoyed reading Ryan’s post as the controversial video had previously never made it past my eyes and his analysis of the video was comprehensive and clear. There was, however, one point where our opinions differed, albeit a minimally important aspect. Many public viewers speculated that superiors in the video were meant to  intentionally resemble Steve Jobs and other Apple execs. Ryan, however, stated that he did not believe this resemblance to be an intentional action on part of Microsoft. Conversely, when I initially viewed the commercial, I made the assumption that they were in fact meant to represent the Apple execs. Regardless of whether or not Ryan’s view is correct, the commercial crossed the line of appropriate and ethical marketing and is simply ineffective.

This negligible variation in our opinions does not take away from Ryan’s overall message. I was pleased to see that he included the Samsung ad in his blog because I truly enjoyed Samsung’s commercial when I saw it on TV. It accomplished what Microsoft intended to. By poking fun at an established competitor in a humourous and coherent fashion, they effectively outline, not only where Apple may be behind but, more importantly, they indicate where their product is in relative terms. There are many reasons why Microsoft’s commercial was unsuccessful, but a key element is that they neglected to indicate that they have been innovating as well.

As I am someone who values authenticity highly, I am always interested by various false advertising scandals. I’m not surprised when a few large companies try to scheme their way into higher profits, but what truly astonishes me is how many companies do it. False advertising can be summarized by any act that encourages customers to purchase products or services that they might otherwise avoid.

Over the years, I have read about many large scandals in the corporate world and one that caught my attention was the Hyundai and Kia Horsepower Scandal. These companies claimed that some of their vehicles had up to 9.6 percent more horsepower than they actually had, which lead to success for the companies and an initially satisfied customer base. It wasn’t until it was proven that the cars, in fact, had less horsepower than originally stated that the customers became dissatisfied. This obvious act of deception is completely unacceptable and it is beyond me how companies are, time and again, willing to target and abuse customers’ naivety. In this case, Hyundai and Kia paid for their poor ethics through a settlement that was estimated to be between $75 million and $125 million to be paid to the mistreated customers. However, this example allows for the assumption to be made that, in the corporate world, there are certainly some unethical behaviours that go unnoticed. A rather extensive, yet far from exhaustive list of false advertising scandals can be found through this link.

I believe that the value of one’s word is more valuable than short-term gains in market share or profit. A company that promotes itself as having sound ethics and credibility is where I will choose to place my loyalty. Shortcuts and get-rich-quick schemes never pay off in the long run.