The ongoing team project throughout this term was an extremely helpful, valuable experience which allowed me to not only learn more about marketing but also develop my teamwork skills.

The written marketing plan assignments gave me the opportunity to actually research, develop and produce a marketing strategy for a real company. Although we had previously learned about many of the concepts in class and through our textbook readings, the hands-on experience of researching and writing the marketing plan gave me a first-hand insight into how marketing is easier said than done. For instance, certain aspects – such as the analysis of the macroenvironmental factors, including culture, demographics and so on, and identifying a narrow target market – were much more challenging than I had anticipated.

In terms of the final assignment, which was the video, I had the opportunity to learn and develop new, creative skills that other courses in Sauder don’t cover. The project was challenging, as none of our team members had any experience with video filming, production or editing. Nonetheless, we were able to effectively collaborate in all stages of the video project; we each contributed ideas for the storyboard and script of the video, making sure to give constructive feedback to each other. We learned how to make our video more visually appealing through the use of framing and a variety of shots and angles. Overall, I’m extremely satisfied with how the video turned out, and I’m so proud of our team for being able to stay dedicated and supportive throughout the entire project!

I recently read an article posted on Adverblog titled “This store shelf is stalking you”.

Yes, it really is as creepy as it sounds. Allegedly, certain shelves in supermarkets such as Mondelez, are now able to detect the shopper’s identity, age, gender and other basic information thanks to Microsoft Kinect technology installed in the shelves.

The author did point out some of the benefits associated with this tactic. For instance, the data can be used to provide the customer with useful, personalized information (such as customized recipes). Each customer would presumably have a huge amount of data accumulated over time, and I can see and understand how this “scanning” strategy and the data the system collects can be extremely useful, for example to make future product recommendations based on the customer’s historical preferences.

The data collected would also be tremendously helpful to the companies, who could use the data to determine the most efficient and effective marketing strategies, thus lowering their costs and hopefully attracting more customers.

Nonetheless, I can’t help but feel that this is a huge violation of privacy. Companies would be able to keep track of you and everything you do. Imagine living in a world where the information on everything you have ever bought or considered buying is recorded, stored and analyzed by someone else? I personally would feel slightly uncomfortable with that fact, even if the only information that would be recorded is about my supermarket purchases.

One of my favourite marketing campaigns to date is the hunter and bear campaign for Tipp-Ex, a brand of correction fluid. The campaign, named “TippExperience“, was an interactive Youtube campaign which allows viewers to use Tipp-Ex correction fluid to rewrite the story of the hunter and the bear. My friends and I certainly found it entertaining, and apparently, so did 50 million other people.

The campaign was a huge viral video hit and was shared widely on social media; its vast success was entirely unsurprising, given that the campaign ticks all the boxes when it comes to marketing to the millennial generation. Not only was TippExperience interactive, it also involved the use of humour, and the short duration of each video clip was ideal for the millennial generation’s short attention spans.

In 2012, Tipp-Ex launched another campaign, creatively titled “TippExperience 2“, this time centering on using the correction fluid to rewrite history. Yet again, the campaign went viral and was shared on social media; Twitter users even tweeted about the campaign once per second. Tipp-Ex also engaged Facebook users by posting different stages of history on their Facebook timeline.

Admittedly, after a couple of minutes, the campaign becomes boring – after all, there are only a limited number of videos the audience can choose. Nonetheless, this is bound to be a campaign that you won’t forget soon, and in that sense, TippExperience has definitely been a major success. In a market like correction fluid, where products are essentially identical, this creative campaign allows Tipp-Ex to differentiate itself from competitors – and ultimately attract more sales. A huge well done to Tipp-Ex for rewriting history!

If you were to survey teenage girls and their mothers on their favourite makeup brands, chances are they would differ drastically. And understandably so: the two segments differ greatly in terms of preferences, incomes and needs.

However, although different companies all have different target markets, they often sell products which are eerily similar.

Revlon’s “Just Bitten Kissable Balm Stain” and Clinique’s “Chubby Stick” are two such products. Multiple customer reviews of both products reveal that they are identical in virtually every aspect, even down to the packaging. So why is Clinique’s product significantly more expensive than Revlon’s equivalent? Ultimately, it comes down to each brand’s positioning in the market, and the associated promotions of the respective products.

Take a look at Revlon’s print ad for their product:
The ad makes use of colour,  and it’s also interesting to note Emma Stone’s partnership with Revlon; Stone is an actress well-known by most adolescents, and she herself is only 24 years old. The colourful ad, combined with the endorsement from a young, popular actress, suggest Revlon positions itself as a relatively youthful brand targeted to adolescent girls.

Clinique’s print ad is similar, yet slightly different:

While Clinique’s ad also uses vibrant colours, it’s less cluttered overall. Clinique positions itself in the market as a “higher quality” brand, as its cosmetic products are associated with skincare benefits and are “Allergy Tested. 100% Fragrance Free”. The clean and simple print ads Clinique uses as promotion reflect and reinforce the brand’s position in the market.

It’s intriguing to see how slight, intangible differences in promotions and positioning can allow certain brands to sell the same product for a higher price, based solely on how consumers perceive the brand and the product. Either that, or the Clinique product has some magical power worth the extra $10.

My classmate Tatiana Mawani recently blogged about the ethical issue of excessive marketing of unhealthy food, such as McDonald’s, to young children.

It shouldn’t surprise me that McDonald’s is exploiting such a vulnerable market in order to make a profit, and it shouldn’t surprise me that McDonald’s main business goal is not to focus on charitable ventures such as the Ronald McDonald House. After all, McDonald’s is a business, and presumably its business strategy is to make a profit. Nonetheless, many of the points Tatiana highlighted in her post, specifically some of the statistics she stated, came as a huge shock to me.

Perhaps the most astounding fact was that the entire fast food industry “collectively spends over $5 million dollars each day on advertising unhealthy food to children”. In my opinion, this figure seems exceedingly high, and I agree with Tatiana – this carries potentially dangerous implications for children’s health. How could the fast food industry spend such a colossal amount per day on advertising?

And then it clicked.

In addition to the traditional advertisements produced by fast food companies, such as the “Fry Kids” commercial Tatiana mentioned, most companies use other techniques to market their products to children; namely using toys to advertise.

Think back to when you were a kid – buying a Happy Meal from McDonalds wasn’t just about the meal. There was always a cool collectible toy which was only offered for a limited time, and buying enough meals meant you could collect the complete, coveted set. By offering toys and other promotions (such as McDonald’s partnership with the popular family game Monopoly) in conjunction with the food, McDonald’s was marketing to children without explicitly doing so.

The marketing strategies McDonald’s employs are undoubtedly effective – but in my opinion, several tactics are extremely unethical.

It’s no secret that sex sells.

Clothing retailer American Apparel (AA) has long been utilizing this technique for its advertising campaigns. The company is infamous for its overtly sexual print ads of models advertising lingerie and AA’s other items of clothing.

Although other lingerie retailers, like Victoria’s Secret, also produce ads with skin-baring models, AA is notorious for going even further. Certain ads are extremely provocative and depict partially or fully nude models. AA sometimes uses the same controversial, sexual approach even for clothes which aren’t lingerie, especially if the model is female.

Aside from the obvious problems arising from such racy ads (exposing children to inappropriate images, offending certain audiences), the ads also proliferate and perpetuate sexism. In an ad for a jacket or hoodie, a male model will usually be fully dressed, while a female model is more sexualized. In fact, some ads don’t even feature the model’s face, instead focusing entirely on the clothing item and surrounding skin. Female models are therefore objectified and dehumanized, viewed simply as sexual objects.

 

 

So how do the ads fit into AA’s marketing campaign? One of AA’s selling points is that its clothes are sweatshop free; it’s brand identity builds off this, so AA is portrayed as an honest company that believes in social responsibility and fair practices. The ads tie in with the brand’s image: models are either AA employees or “real people”. The ads are simple and honest: excessive Photoshopping is rare. It’s for this reason that AA ads, although controversial, are often applauded and awarded in the marketing field.

AA conveniently seems to forget its commitment to fair, ethical practices when it comes to the objectification of women. AA’s CEO knows, after all: sex(ism) sells.

References:

http://www.americanapparel.net/presscenter/awards.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/american-apparels-unisex-ads-2013-5