First of all, I would like to say that working with my group throughout the semester was a tremendous pleasure. I learned a lot from both my peers and the work we accomplished as a team.

The assignment as a whole was well spread-out throughout the term. The different stages and deadlines for each step really helped our team get together and work on a regular (weekly) basis. This in turn helped us put together great content and continuously improve our analysis of WestJet’s marketing strategy.

Regarding peer-reviewing the marketing videos, I think it would have been useful to do this earlier in the term and use this as feedback to make changes if needed. Our group was rather inexperienced in terms of video creation and it therefore the early feedback would have helped us improve.

I thought that is was really considerate of Elaine to give us a couple classes to work on the projects as a group. This allowed us to meet more than we could have otherwise and the quality of our project most definitely improved as a consequence.

In retrospect, I learned a lot from the project and I feel like I really assimilated content.

On her blog, Lauren writes about a John Lewis ad called “The Hare and The Bear.” She argues that what makes the ad effective is its focus on selling a message rather than mere products. The ad convinces its target market to “Give someone a Christmas they will never forget,” by visiting the John Lewis online store.

I particularly liked the ad she mentions and it particularly reminds me of the recent Chipotle, “The Scarecrow,” which also communicates a powerful message through incredible mis-en-scene. Both companies confidently spent a lot of money creating entertaining 3mn videos (north of $7 million), putting a wager on communicating a message over a product.

Chipotle’s marketing its use of ethical non-battery farm meat creates a lot of brand loyalty as it is a ‘social’ issue of tremendous importance to many consumers.

Here again, we can witness the effectiveness of online ‘viral’ videos as long as they communicate a message with the customers. (see previous post on Old Spice videos)

Nearly everyone has heard about Amazon’s plans to deliver your online purchases to your doorstep in 30 minutes via a quadra-copter drone. They say it is currently research in motion, and we all know how RIM turned out… But seriously, does anyone actually believe this will happen by 2015, 2016 or 2017?

Let us consider a scenario where Amazon can do these drone deliveries flawlessly – without a toddler somehow getting sliced, where the FAA is accepts drones flying around uncontrolled (even though iPods are only just now allowed during flight takeoff and landing) and where no one will take a baseball bat to the flying target for giggles: do consumers REALLY want ANOTHER large company hovering and peeking into our backyard? (literally)

Lets just take a look at all these factors  and come to a reasonable conclusion: although Amazon IS interested in improving its delivery and operating efficiency, a fully functional drone delivery system by 2015 let alone 2020 is completely and utterly unlikely.

But here is the thing, people love the idea of drone-delivery, they L.O.V.E. it. In the last few days, I have had at least three close friends excitedly mention their eagerness for Amazon’s drone delivery. They all say Amazon is the future now.

This is where I say that Amazon’s revelation could not be better timed, right after black Friday and right at the beginning of the largest shopping spree on the year: Christmas.

This is another example where one could argue that any attention is good attention, as Amazon has definitely managed to raise more brand awareness and drive traffic to their website. Amazon has truly positioned themselves as THE online retailer for Christmas by creating hype around the brand.

However, although people are excited by Amazon’s revelations, I am yet to observe true customer advocacy as demonstrated in the Old Spice article (see previous post).

This post is in response to the article written here: http://tomfishburne.com/2013/05/controversy-marketing.html

In the article, it is argued that although the marketer’s worst nightmare is “indifference,” not all attention is good attention. The author speaks of a Hyundai ad depicting a man unable to commit suicide by inhaling a vehicle’s fumes because of the vehicle’s low emissions and fuel efficiency. Even if many viewers find this sort of ad amusing – such as myself, the author makes the point that “going viral” or gaining YouTube views is not the bottom line: marketers need to ensure these messages can be decoded by potential consumers.

“No brand wants to be ignored. But I think marketers sometimes forget whey their brands exist, and who they’re trying to serve.”

Here is an example of an ad that went viral and also effectively appealed to their consumers: Old Spice, The Man Your Man Could Smell Like

The Old Spice brand has more than 300 videos on YouTube, with a combined viewership of more than 1.6 Billion. Although the ad is effective on many levels, one of its best qualities is how it speaks to its target market on very instinctive level: be a man, act like a man, smell like a man, buy Old Spice.

Interestingly, the title of the video “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like” appeals to both male audience and a female audience. It infers a sense of seduction, elegance and sophistication that urges men to purchase Old Spice in order to attract women while also inducing women to purchase it for their partner, as a birthday present for example.

This is a great example of a viral advertisement that effectively communicates with consumers. In fact, the efficacy of the Old Spice advertisement has created brand advocates on the internet. For example, here is a spoof of the original video with “Puss In Boots” and here a remake made by a young teen that appeared on the Ellen Show WITH the person from the ad. If this isn’t great marketing…!

I think an adequate conclusion is that if a company can make an amusing video that truly appeals to its consumers on an instinctive level, the internet and its followers can can do amazing things for their brand.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” – George Orwell, 1984

If marketing is an effective tool to communicate the true value of goods and services available to consumers, it can also be effective in misleading consumers.

The image below is an advertisement from America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) aiming to promote natural gas. In front of an image of a blue sky and a beautiful landscape are six words that ‘jump’ out of the page so as to attract the viewer’s attention. One can immediately feel oneself breathing in the fresh air of the mountains while six simple words resonate in the background: “Protecting air… Preserving land… Protecting water…”

After drifting into the utopia illustrated in this advertisement, the viewer notices the entity’s logo and name in capital letters: AMERICA’S NATURAL GAS.

Soon thereafter, the association between the image & words and the logo & name has been formed and ingrained in the viewer’s mind. He/She is now inclined to believe that natural gas is a rather clean source of energy.

This, however, is most definitely misleading. Those who have researched hydraulic fracturing – the method by which natural gas is extracted – can attest that it is by no means an environmentally friendly process. The truth is, it is impossible to extract natural gas without releasing copious amounts of methane into the atmosphere while pumping highly polluting chemicals mixed with water deep into the soil.

(I invite you to compare and contrast the attached advertisement with the trailer for the documentary “Gasland,”  which deals with the consequences of hydraulic fracturing)

I believe this example illustrates how marketing and ethics are intrinsically inter-linked. Here, AGNA represents the interests of profit-maximizing firms such as Chesapeake Energy (NYSE:CHK) and is not as interested in the realities surrounding natural gas. AGNA’s objective is to convince consumers that natural gas is in fact “natural” gas while consumers are misled to support an activity which will in actuality harm their “air, land [and] water” at the expense of a few firms’ profit.