Mingchi Choo's Blog

Time-consuming as it was, the team video assignment was an amazing learning experience as promised. It also provided a great opportunity for myself and my teammates to take advantage of skills we had that might not otherwise have been applicable in business school — for example, I personally have experience with writing both screen and stageplays, while another member of my group had experience editing videos. Hence, it was a refreshing break from the usual type of project such as papers and presentations.

With regards to our video specifically, there is a lot to reflect on. I think it turned out a lot more ‘professional’ than any of us expected. The camera quality and use of different angles gave it a less amateur feel, although naturally it could have been done a lot better given more time and preparation. Immediately noticeable is probably the choppiness of our video, which I take responsibility for seeing as how I was responsible for writing the script. Originally, our video was 14.5 minutes long after all the clips were put together. As a result, a lot of unnecessary time was wasted, in a) writing an overly long script, b) filming those scenes, and c) figuring out just which parts to cut during the editing process. In other words, I learned the hard way to be a lot more careful with regards to length in the future — since while it’s easy to overwrite and then cut when writing a paper, something which I tend to do with everything (including this blog post!), I realized first-hand the impacts of doing so with something like a video project.

The peer video review had value in the sense that watching and critiquing my peers’ videos helped me better understand the strengths and weaknesses of what my group had produced.

Andrew Leong brought up some very important and relatable points in his blog post regarding “Christmas creep,” which is a term describing how companies aim to artificially lengthen the holiday season. I think we’ve all had that moment where, upon hearing the first notes of Christmas carols streaming through the mall way too early or seeing Christmas displays before Halloween, we’ve wanted to give the instigator a piece of our mind. Granted, the statistics show that a good number of people (40%, to be specific) have reported purchasing Christmas presents before Halloween. Looking at social trends, it’s possible that the rationale behind this, for both marketers and consumers, is the social trend revolving around how people nowadays tend to consider themselves extremely busy. But isn’t there a certain point at which Christmas is creeping a bit too close, though? The trend is that it’s been getting pushed earlier and earlier, so a decade or two from now, will we start hearing those sleigh bells jingling in the middle of summer?

That scares me, to be quite honest, but maybe I’m just old-fashioned. Personally, I think that going out of your way to buy gifts months in advance turns a holiday revolving around giving into more of a chore. To put it simply, it detracts from the Christmas spirit. Of course, one could always argue about how rampant consumerism has already destroyed the values of Christmas a long time ago, but that would be digging into a whole new can of worms. The bottom line is that I think holiday advertising should stay where it is, since regardless of whether consumers buy presents sooner or later, they’ll still have to eventually. At the very least, marketers should focus their efforts on that ‘eventually’ for the sake of relevance.

Be funny. It sounds so much easier than it really is, but Tesco Mobile mixes a wonderful sense of humor and witty remarks in what may be the perfect blend. The fact that they’re relatively active, with over 40,000 tweets to date, has probably helped as well. In general, when corporate Twitter accounts reply to consumers, that alone is already enough of a pleasant surprise. Adding in a dash of laughter makes it all the better, as several other companies may have found as a result of their tweets going viral.

Entertaining to read as these tweets always are, there’d been a question in the back of my mind for a while: what was the point? Paying people to sit in front of a computer and come up with sarcastically funny replies to tweets didn’t seem like the best allocation of resources at first glance — but then, I read the following blog post by AdFreak. Although other companies likely have their own goals and focuses when it comes to creative use of social media, the aforementioned post provided an eye-opening, closer look at a specific company’s strategy for social media. To put it simply, they’re employing Twitter to change consumer perceptions of their brand name, something which I feel holds a lot of potential in this time and day. If people find things funny, they’ll probably follow for more. This way, they’re not forcefully shoving their content down the throats of consumers and hoping they’ll react. Instead, people are becoming interested in Tesco’s content of their own free will, which is an amazing use of social media in my opinion.

I’m looking forward to seeing what other strategies we’ll see from other companies in the future if they ever choose to be as open as Tesco was with theirs.

Related Links:

AdFreak: Why Tesco Mobile’s Hilarious Twitter Feed Is Actually No Joke

AdFreak: Is This the World’s Chattiest, Cattiest Corporate Twitter Account?

Mashable: 20 Funny Tweets Your Brand Should Take Seriously

“I would never do an advert with a homosexual family. […] if the gays don’t like it, they can go and eat another brand,” declared Guido Barilla, CEO of the world’s largest pasta maker.

So, they did — and weren’t alone.

After the above statement was made on an Italian radio channel, there was a global outcry calling for a boycott of Barilla. Other pasta makers joined the protest as well, taking advantage of the incident being in the public eye to position themselves on the opposite side of the spectrum from Barilla.

“For us the concept of the sacred family remains one of the fundamental values of the company,” Barilla had said, followed by: “I have no respect for adoption by gay families.”

Is it more important for a company to stay true to its own values, offensive as they are in the eyes of many groups, or should they focus on gaining the approval of the general public? It’s an interesting question to consider when thinking about how a brand is trying to position itself. Although Barilla was targeting the ‘traditional Italian family,’ they completely alienated other groups in the process.

Barilla released a public apology afterward, but it was too late. Immense damage had been done to their brand, and the obvious contradiction in their statement became the new center of attention: “I apologize very much […] I have the deepest respect for all the people.”

Narrowing your focus is fine, but when disrespectful words that come across as a personal attack on certain groups come into play, Barilla should have realized they had crossed the line on their own — not after public backlash forced them to retract their statement.

Apparently, money and public approval had more value than “the fundamental values of the company.”

Related Links:

International Business Times: Barilla Pasta Homophobic Rant

Slate: Why the Barilla Boycott Matters to Italian LGBT People

BuzzFeed: The Internet Responds To Barilla Pasta Chairman’s Anti-Gay Remarks

Apparently, technology has progressed to the point where it’s no longer necessary to physically go out and meet girls if you’re in search of a hookup. Tinder is a dating app that works on the simple basis of see and swipe. After giving the app permission to sign in with your Facebook ID, which hopefully includes your gender, age, photos, and sexual orientation, it then presents you with a picture of someone you’re sexually compatible with. If you like them, swipe right. If not, swipe left. It’s that easy. Once the app successfully matches you with one of the ‘yes’ candidates who also swiped right for you, you’re given the opportunity to start a private conversation. What happens next is up to you.

Possibly following in the footsteps of Facebook’s success, Tinder first launched its marketing campaign at various colleges. The main difference, however, was specifically which colleges they chose. Rather than aiming for its entire target market at once, they chose to focus on the portion that would act as satellites and would continue spreading the app on their own once they had been exposed to it. That’s what I believe was the most ingenious part of their plan. They targeted schools known for their reputation as ‘party schools,’ such as the University of Southern California, and narrowed it down even further from there, approaching those they considered to be “the highly social kinds on campus, the people that were looked up to in their peer groups.” Within a couple months even the CEO of Match.com was questioning just how they had managed such extraordinary growth, purely through word-of-mouth.

One year after its launch, Tinder makes two million matches a day on average. In August 2013, 3 billion swipes took place.

Related Links:

BloombergBusinessweek: Dating App Tinder Catches Fire

Tinder’s Homepage

At what point does friendly competition turn into an all-out war? And, more importantly: at what point should ethics be considered when waging that war?

With its first product released in 2007, Chobani could be considered an underdog in the yogurt world, especially when compared to a giant like Danone. However, Chobani became the largest seller of Greek yogurt in the US market within two years — so to retaliate, Danone upped the focus on its Greek yogurt line, Dannon Oikos, launching an aggressive marketing plan. Tactics used included changes to the packaging that emphasized the Greek origin of their product, advertising in men’s fitness magazines, and celebrity endorsements by a Greek-American actor named John Stamos. Coupled with a Super Bowl ad and countless in-store samples, this is a clear example of how a well-established player in the market can employ marketing to greatly impede the progress of newcomers.

Granted, this is something that should be expected in business, but it still highlights an interesting question: when should companies draw the line when it comes to aggressive marketing policies? Is it when they have forced all other competitors out of the market? Granted, the Greek yogurt market has not become a monopoly, but how close does it have to get before it becomes a question of ethics? On the flip side, is it acceptable because they are protecting themselves and their own profits?

Since 2011, Chobani’s market share has fallen from nearly 50% of the Greek yogurt market to 39%. This is a 11% drop, compared to Danone whose share rose from 18% to 29%. Chobani is currently fighting back through price cuts in order to hold on to its customers, and has recently recalled a shipment of moldy yogurt that has caused over 200 reported cases of illness.

Related Links:

Medical Daily: Chobani Recall 2013 Update: 223 Complaints Associated With Moldy Yogurts

Bloomberg Businessweek: A Culture Clash in the Yogurt Aisle

Bloomberg Businessweek: Danone Plots Revenge Against Chobani