Impersonating Morgan Freeman, then “mixing up the market with the 4P” and breaking down what Abercrombie and Fitch does wrong in a rap, not your typical marketing presentation, of course you never expected for a bunch of guys to take on A&F as their company of choice. Overall it was a very good experience, my group had amazing chemistry and we really did learn a lot.

In terms of chemistry, we used to do long meetings and actually get a lot of work done. I mean we would start the meeting with “this needs to get done”, then divide the work and work in smaller subteams. This worked during the first two assignments, but in the third one, we found that everyone had to become a bit more specialized. In a way this proved what we had learned in OB about the speed specializing has.

Furthermore, I realized that what normally happens in team projects,where one person, normally in charge of the project, starts to complain about everyone else’s work and acts like they know what they are doing is NOT EFFECTIVE. Rather, a better approach to take is to completely get rid of anyone acting as that person and instead have everyone do their part then come together to give feedback. I have found that strategy to work very well, because everyone is good at something, but there could be a mismatch between the job and the person’s skills, therefore having everyone look at the work, means that there will be consensus as to what is good and what is bad. Lastly, there is much less risk taking in this strategy, as opposed to the one person taking charge.

This group project is going to be a memorable experience and I plan to use what I have learned doing this for future group projects.

According to Eric Wittlake’s blog the ability to change marketing strategies is very important. I find this interesting, because we always talk about how effective marketing strategies, but we do not talk about the importance of changing and adapting marketing strategies.

For example VIsa, before the recession VIsa used to advertise with people buying expensive, somewhat luxurious goods, like in this VIsa ad where James Bond gives a young man his Visa card to repair a broken cart. The man ends up using the card to buy a motorcycle for his cart. This is showing that VIsa wanted their card to be used for more expensive goods. On the other hand, after recession hit and more people were using credit cards for everyday purchases visa released this Super Bowl Ad. It starts with the narrator pointing out that the customer is using his visa card for an everyday purchase.

Changes in strategy are not always successful, JC Penney recently tried to repositino itself to a more “everyday low prices” brand, but was not successful because consumer’s were unable to understand some of the new concepts Penney had introduced to sustain this new position. Unfortunately, Penney was forced to change strategy again after their strategy was proven to not be effective or increase sales.

This post shows what Wittlake had originally said in that being able to change marketing strategy is one of the most important aspects for a company.

In Elyssa Heng’s blog, she talks about the rivalry between Coke and Pepsi, but there is no better example of their rivalry than when Pepsi created Pepsi crystal and coke killed it.

Back in 1992 Pepsi decided to try and create a clear pepsi to try and compete with non-cola drinks, such as Sprite and Fanta. In taste tests this drink seemed to be very popular and consumers liked it. To these consumers, the clear color meant wellness, which Pepsi tried to reinforce by making the drink caffeine-free. Pepsi was also looking to launch on superbowl, which is known as one of the best times to advertise.

Then one day, Coke came and introduced “Tab Clear”, a drink similar to “Crystal Pepsi”, but diet. This subtle change ended up taking advantage of the confusion consumers had in thinking of “Pepsi Crystal” as a wellness drink, with the same great taste as Pepsi without caffeine and repositioned Pepsi Crystal as a medicinal drink. Within six months, both “Tab Clear” and “Crystal Pepsi” were taken off the market. This is one of my favorite stories of the adversity between Pepsi and Coke, because it shows the affect both have on each other and has an amazing strategy.

According to a recent study conducted by Cologne University, eating popcorn while at the movies makes the moviegoer immune to advertisements before the movie, this phenomenon is the result of our inner speech being disrupted by our chewing. As a result of our inner speech being disrupted, we are unable to repeat the pronunciation of a new name we hear when we encounter it, thus we become immune to advertising.

This phenomenon affects the promotion part of the four p’s, meaning communicating the benefit a good can give you through movie advertisements is obstructed by the theater’s popcorn revenue. Seeing as moviegoers can become immune to movie advertising by eating popcorn, we can conclude that the effectiveness of these advertisements will be put to the test over the coming years.

Furthermore, the movie theater has strong connections with the advertising companies who pay the theater to show the advertisements. This raises the question of how the nature of the partnership between theaters and advertising companies will change over time. At the moment, it looks as though theaters will be choosing between popcorn revenue and advertising revenue.

From the consumer’s point of view this could make the popcorn bought seem worth the $10, considering you are no longer affected by advertisements. This could be profitable to movie theaters if they market this effect popcorn has properly, but at the same time it could hurt the relationship between theaters and advertising companies.

Have you ever seen that logo before? Do you know what it represents? No, then you should watch the video below:

Dollar Shave Club ad

That video managed to get DollarShaveClub.com (DSC) 12,000 customers within the first two days of going online. Furthermore, the video applies strong product differentiation to make an effective advertisement.

Competition- From the very start, Mike tells us about the razors’ “stainless steel head, aloe vera lubricating strip and a pivot head” differentiating his razors from those of his competitor’s with a “flashlight, a backscratcher and ten blades”. This positions DSC’s razors as cheap, simple and inexpensive, while alienating customers from expensive fancier razors.

JIT– Mike emphasizes that DSC is able to deliver the blades on a monthly basis right to the customer’s door. This is an example of JIT (just in time), where the customer will be getting their blades right when they need it. Not only does this make life easier for the customer, but it also means that DSC practices operational excellence, because they are able to get the blades delivered to at least 12,000 customers on a monthly basis. Furthermore, having a necessity delivered to your door is important, because when you go out shopping you often forget to buy these types of necessities, thus DSC is also saving you that extra trip to the store.

The advertisement makes a strong impression on most viewers by illustrating basic marketing concepts, while keeping the viewer’s attention through the use of comedy. This advertisement is a good way to show marketing done right and though it may appear silly at first, it comes off as a creative way to market razor blades.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are commonly known for having a very extremist way of marketing themselves, this way of marketing themselves can sometimes be seen as unethical, to the extent that some of their marketing misrepresents products. Below we have an example of such marketing

Here we have an example of PETA’s extreme marketing and this example of marketing is unethical, because it misrepresents the reasons for going vegan. Rather than talk about actually going vegan, PETA wants us to consider eating chicken to be just as inhumane as eating our cat. Unfortunately, meat is a necessary part of any diet, especially for those of us trying to put on some more muscle.

Furthermore, PETA has gone out of its way to try and misrepresent other products, such as Pokemon. Above, is an example of PETA’s parody of the popular children’s franchise, which they believe encourages animal cruelty, in the form of having other animals fight. I have played the pokemon franchise and I know that the pokemon franchise encourages friendship and strong bonds between the player and his pokemon. This could relationship between trainer and pokemon can then be adapted to real life in the form of a strong bond between human and their pet.

Additionally, PETA does not do any good marketing for the Vegan community or the community trying to help end animal cruelty. Instead, their unethical advertising campaigns, just subtract from the message and meaning of both these communities.