There has been a huge backlash from everyone in regards the the Lululemon Founder Chip Wilson coming out and saying that their product is not meant for women of all sizes. Though I believe it may not had been right the way he went about saying it, it’s true that if people wear clothes that are too small for them, they wear out faster. That’s all Chip was trying to respond to, but he has been cursed every since he came out with those comments. In a blog written by Marci Warhaft-Nadler she states that “Lululemon wants women to hate their bodies” which I don’t believe is true. Lululemon was  being critiqued because of supposed poor quality from wearing out too easily, so the founder responded to these complaints with a valid point.

Lululemon is known for supporting a healthy lifestyle, and that’s who they market for. I don’t believe Chip Wilson deserved the backlash he received after his comments, and though people are saying they won’t shop at Lululemon any more because of his views? Frankly, I don’t believe that will be much of a hindrance to the company, who currently has, and will continue to have a very strong and loyal customer base.

(Marci Warhaft-Nadler. Lululemon Wants Women to Hate Their Bodies. huffingtonpost.ca <http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/marci-warhaftnadler/lululemon-controversy_b_4240422.html>)

It’s true that Coca-Cola has been, and continues to be a very profitable company. As Albane Le Provost finely states in his blog post, Coca-Cola has been so successful for a number of reasons, including first mover advantage, strong marketing strategies, and a “triumphing culture”. Albane does a wonderful job describing Coca-Cola’s business strategies and explaining how they became so popular, though the one section of their blog I had questions about were when he mentions how he believes Coca-Cola has survived the years by “adapting and evaluating current trends and forces”, while at the same time somehow remains “traditional and stable”. I had issues with these two statements because when he mentioned Coke’s ever adapting nature the first thing that came to mind for me was when they came out with their “New Coke”.

This had an obvious backlash for Coke and that’s how they came out with the “Coke Classic”. I would argue that in Coke trying to adapt, that actually hindered their business temporarily. I believe that for Coke to continue their ever growing success they need to keep sticking with their “traditional and stable” side.

(Albane Le Provost. “It’s The Real Thing”. blogs.ubs.ca <https://blogs.ubc.ca/albanelp/>)

Raksha Sachdev’s recently posted a blog commenting on ethics in marketing. She argued that United Colors of of Benetton’s ad that depicted Pope Benedict XVI and Egyptian figure head Ahmed El-Tayeb sharing a kiss was “extremely unethical”. I disagree with Raksha, who argued that it disrespected both religion and homosexuality.

I do believe that this clothing brand challenged the views of many popular religions, and that some may have found this offensive, but I believe this was more of a risk done by the company, so they could share their views and support for the gay community. I feel the timing of this ad must be considered as well. Lately there has been lots of debate over whether gay marriage should be allowed, and a media frenzy recently broke out over the famous Chick fill-A incident where the president outwardly said he did not support homosexuality. United Colors of Benetton knew that this ad would cause some controversy, and I don’t really believe that to be a bad thing. They are showing their support and wanted people to start talking about them, and this strategy is clearly working for them. I don’t believe Raksha looked at the whole picture when critiquing this campaign.

(Raksha Sachdev. One Kiss too Far, An Example of Unethical Marketing. blogs.ubc.ca. <https://blogs.ubc.ca/rakshasachdev/>)

The evolution of shame in our culture is an interesting one to look at. Take body odour for instance; in the early 1900’s people were not ashamed of having it, so why invest in deodorant? This provided an interesting obstacle for some businesses at the time, who were trying to sell a product that society didn’t believe they had a need for. Lifebuoy came up with an interesting tactic to solve this problem. Their ads started to introduce body odour as being a bad thing, and portrayed how shameful people should feel for having it.

By simply implying body odour was a shameful thing to have, their sales increased, and they managed to reshape societal views. Advertisements have a bigger impact on society than one may originally think, Lifebuoy was able to reshape the view of society by simply introducing an idea in a few ads. This example makes one think. Had such ads never been introduced, would these typical things we deem to be shameful still be such a big faux pas?

(Terry O’Reily. Shame: The Secret Tool of Marketing. Under the Influence. cbc.ca. Published June 1, 2013. http://www.cbc.ca/undertheinfluence/season-2/2013/06/01/shame-the-secret-tool-of-marketing/)

Growing up we learn to think of failure as a bad thing, but what happens when failure unknowingly turns into success? We get such multi-million dollar products as Play-Doh. Play-Doh was not invented by someone passionate about the goings on in the children’s play industry, Play-Doh was originally invented as a substance used to clean the soot off of wallpaper in the 1930’s. The wallpaper cleaner soon became obsolete though after many households switched from coal, to oil and gas to heat their homes. Rather than accept bankruptcy, an employee at the Kutol company, Joseph McVicker, discovered through his sister that the putty substance was actually a big hit with children and decided to re-market the product geared towards them. So Play-Doh was born, they soon began selling in an array of colours, and is now one of the most famous toy brands in the world.

To be an entrepreneur is takes more than a good idea. A person has to be driven and be able to adapt to ever changing surroundings and problems. Had Joseph McVicker given up on this putty substance and accepted its fate, he never would made a multi-million dollar brand, and Play-Doh would not exist today.

(Terry O’Reily. Accidental Brands. Under the Influence. Published March 17, 2012. http://www.cbc.ca/undertheinfluence/season-1/2012/03/17/accidental-brands-1/)

In the world of marketing it is of course the goal of a company for their ads to be as successful as possible, but what happens when the ad is too successful? Take H&M for instance; in 2003 they set up an ad campaign in hopes of exposing their new bikini line in Germany. Their advertisement idea was simple; just plaster posters of supermodel Heidi Klum all over the country wearing their sexy new bikini.

The ad worked better than anyone imagined. Within hours all 750 posters had been stolen, and display cases had even been smashed by people trying to get them. Their entire ad campaign had been stolen. Rather than scrap the entire ad campaign they had already paid for, H&M decided to do some problem solving instead. H&M managed to incorporate the posters popularity in a manner that worked in their favor. They decided to give out the posters for free and bikini sales soared. H&M expressed a newfangled approach to a problem by embracing it rather than trying to fight against it. By embracing their initial problem, they were still able to make major profits off of what initially could have been seen as a marketing failure.

(Terry O’Reily. Charlie Bit My Ad: When Ads Perform Too Well. CBC Radio. Published April 14, 2012. http://www.cbc.ca/undertheinfluence/season-1/2012/04/14/charlie-bit-my-ad-when-ads-perform-too-well-1/)