I came across a blog post written by Ted Mininni on Popsop that introduced an interesting concept. He believes that with increased segmentation and more consumers ignoring conventional ads, companies should concentrate on packaging. He argues that people are visual and that visual communication is more effective than verbal communication when attracting customers.

I cannot say that I’ve ever went to purchase a product that I’ve heard of through an ad and ended up purchasing another product because of the packaging, which he suggests we all have done. Although packaging is a great way to distinguish a brand, I feel that it usually has very little impact on what I purchase. Maybe subconsciously it does but I feel pricing is a greater concern for me and I often feel that two products that are the same are priced differently just because of the packaging so I’d rather go with the cheaper one if it works rather than the more expensive, flashier product.An example he uses to prove his point is when Tropicana changed it’s packag

ing design and sales plummeted, forcing them to bring back the original design. However, with continued globalizations a visual form of communication would provide a clear and consistent message around the globe whereas verbal messages may be inconsistent.

Skimming through brandchannel I came across a blog post regarding Pepsi’s new mid-calorie soda called Pepsi Next. It offers the real cola taste with 60% less sugar than regular Pepsi and only 60 calories. In the past both Pepsi and Coke have tried to introduce mid-calorie sodas with little success. Despite this, Pepsi thinks it has it right this time. Through its research and development Pepsi feels that there is a segment of consumers who are resistant to both regular Pepsi and Diet Pepsi and that Pepsi Next will fill this need. The focus of the campaign is “Drink it to believe it” and the Pepsi Next product launch will involve consumer sampling in over 40 American cities.

I am not too optimistic about this new product. I feel that consumers either want a regular soda or a diet drink and very few people are looking for something in-between. However, if Pepsi Next is really able to recreate the same taste as regular Pepsi maybe it has a chance. If enough people try the sample perhaps it can win people over. Personally, I would not go for it because I feel that if I am going to drink pop, there is no use in trying to be healthy by choosing the “diet” option. I also find the taste of diet sodas very unpleasant. It will be interesting to see whether Pepsi Next can make “believers” out of consumers.

Of course we have all seen those perfume ads, where you can actually smell the scent of the perfume in the magazine. However, Jacquelyn Son’s Blog post, “Scented ads” really caught my attention. This is the first time I’ve heard of other types of companies, such as Neutrogena, implementing scented advertisements.

 I completely agree with Jacquelyn that scented ads would probably get more people to notice a company’s ad. Although I see little benefit from Apple having an ad that smells like apples, it would at least draw the attention of consumers , if not actually convince them to buy the product. If the scent is somehow related to the product, I believe this can be of a much greater advantage to a company.

I do feel companies have to be careful when using scented ads though. Although I agree with Jacquelyn that a scented Starbucks ad would probably make most people want to go to Starbucks and purchase a coffee, companies need to consider allergies. The fact that some people are sensitive to scents could possibly have a negative effect.

Although higher costs may be a factor when companies are considering scented ads, newer technologies are becoming available that are decreasing costs. Instead of having a scented insert, companies such as, Scentisphere, offer printable scents, which are more cost effective.

I believe scented advertisements would be most beneficial for products that aren’t normally meant to smell good. Mr Clean has recently partnered up with Febreze and can probably benefit from a scented ad. Since cleaning products normally smell like chemicals, if consumers were to see an ad for this product and actually be able to smell the scent, perhaps they would be more inclined to purchase the product. Furthermore, scents produce an emotional response that could potentially allow the consumer to connect with the company in a unique way. When paired with the right ad, I believe  scents would succeed in interacting with the consumer and ultimately increasing revenues for a company.

Most of us have seen Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty” as well as Axe’s “Axe Effect”. However, most of us aren’t aware that both Dove and Axe are owned by a single company, Unilever. Whereas Dove’s campaign focuses on building the self-esteem of women, Axe’s commercials concentrate on increasing the appeal of guys among physically attractive women . Clearly, any good done by Dove’s ad campaign can only be ruined by a single axe commercial. One can’t help but question the ethics behind a company that exploits stereotypes to make money in such a way. However ethics aside, one must acknowledge how successful each of these marketing campaigns have been and how effective the positioning for both brands are. Both brands connect to their target audiences extremely well. Through these two brands, Unilever is able to tap into two completely different markets.

Hi I’m Nadeen! I’m a second year BCom student intending to major in accounting. I’m born in Burnaby but my parents are from Croatia. I’m basically taking this course cause it’s required. I haven’t had much experience with marketing, other than as a consumer and at my part-time job which includes handing out fliers for promotions and events and arranging the front display at the store. My favourite commercial is the Molson I am Canadian one cause it’s very true and I can relate to it. Looking forward to meeting you all in class!

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