There’s always a tendency in content and concept heavy classes for students to ignore each other, take notes, leave, take the exams and never interact with anyone else outside of prior acquaintances. Sure, there would be team projects, but often, groups could get by with a handful of meetings, and complete our joint assignments over the internet. Fortunately, the marketing plan assignments in Comm 296 turned out to positively facilitate our group dynamic, and draw us together in order to understand both the assignments and the material.

Our group got off to a productive start, organizing ourselves via Facebook and establishing Google docs for the assignment ahead of time.  This foresight allowed us to quickly adapt as our understanding of Marketing changed to better fulfill the requirements of each assignment. We could cross references sources, and utilize multiple drafts and discussion to get a sense of the true macroeconomic situation of our chosen company, EA Games, while integrating it with our SWOT analysis. This cooperative framework became far more invaluable for us during our second assignment, when we discovered to our horror only two days before the due date that we completely misunderstood the assignment. Since we were able to draw from a common pool of sources, and quickly reference from each other’s work for ideas and support, we were able to quickly rectify this issue.

The in-class assignments we completed as a team also greatly contributed to the understanding we needed for our marketing plan assignments, and inspired our group to formulate ideas which related to our plan.

The one suggestion I would like to leave, is while our Marketing Plan Assignments as a whole proved to be productive, achievable, and effective in understanding the material, the our lack of familiarity with digital media cause significant difficulties. Perhaps to facilitate the Assignment #3 video, surveys should be given out to find out which individuals know how to use media equipment, before dividing groups.

During a discussion about the possibilities of YouTube Sponsorships provide for popular channels, a friend of mine brought up an interesting trend that I was previously unaware of. We are probably all aware of the Harlem Shake and its sudden mass popularity online. As such, YouTubers would watch video after video of imitation Harlem shakes linked to the original on the right side bar for recommendations. This created the effect where all the videos on the top page of the Harlem Shake search rapidly climbed in excess of five million views.

This led me to think of the blackout in the Super Bowl created an incredible online opportunity for marketing teams without commercials in the actual event to relate their products to the unexpected occurrence. As mentioned in Annie’s Blog, these advertising teams took to Social Media and Internet to places sponsored tweets near search items such as “power outage”, “blackout” and “power failure” which they accurately predicted would receive a massive number of searches. While Annie points out this effective us of mass marketing, Matt Wesson’s marketing blog continues by pointing out the lessons which could be drawn from this. For advertisers who had sunk costs into the conventional ads, this was an unexpected difficulty. Their captive markets had simply disappeared, with viewers quickly attracted to internet discussion about the Blackout itself. However, a few savvy companies, which showed flexibility, quick execution and importantly, an understanding of how to illustrate value to the consumer, were able to massively profit.

Particularly, this Oreo picture generated massive publicity, which was only achieved through a social media team prepared on standby, prepared to react to any situation. From this, we could draw on that not only could viral events be latched on to create brand association, but at a far lesser cost than conventional marketing.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/annieluk/2013/02/04/super-bowl-blackout-perfect-opportunity/

http://www.pardot.com/trends/agile-marketing-shines-super-bowl-blackout

I was wandering around Cracked.com and recently came upon this gem of movie trivia, which was incidentally highly relevant to the Promotional mix we studied in class. Among the types of advertising media, it could be argued that the most subtle and overlooked could be brands placed within movies. When aware of this median, we may occasionally note certain brands prominently displayed within popular films, but usually seamlessly and not detracting from the experience.

“Mac and Me” (1988) was a movie constructed entirely for the purpose of shameless marketing, unrepentantly parroting the virtues of McDonalds, Sears, Coca-Cola and skittles. With its alien-in-suburbia plot rather obviously ripped off of the popular ET, it was described by Leonard Maltin as “more like a TV commercial than a movie.”

Mac and Me

Needless to say, “Mac and Me” effortlessly sweep the Razzie Awards that year, and garnered immense negative criticism, including an astounding 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Perhaps the only consoling part would be how the sheer absurdity of the movie still attracts publicity to the film itself. We could take a reminder from this marketing scheme, that like co-branding, co-marketing, sponsorships or any other joint marketing method, integrating the products together in such a way to positively improve public perception is a crucial step. Especially for a well known brand in a mature market such as McDonalds, the purpose is not to saturate potential consumers through every possible communication channel, but to persuade them of the superiority of the products, of which little aliens in a poorly scripted movie is of little utility. There was no real marketing strategy behind this decision, with no new products being released, no specific segment being targeted and no objected specified. While occasionally, we do see movie advertisements that make us cringe, we have hopefully stepped past these clumsy yet amusing efforts.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16574_the-10-most-shameless-product-placements-in-movie-history_p2.html

Recently, when a friend of mine made mention of really business opportunities through multi-level marketing, I figured that it was just another booming market which would be ultimately inaccessible to mere students. As an individual, I would freely admit that my strengths are not in subjective courses such as marketing, but rather in studies such as Economics or Accounting. However, an opportunity is an opportunity, and when he dangled the carrot of being able to network with the son of a wealthy, successful entrepreneur, I jumped at the chance immediately.

What I was presented with in fact was the direct selling private company called Amway, which engineered its marketing structure in a truly ingenious way, which coincidently allowed me to make incredible connections in understanding this course in itself. In sort the company itself functions as the retailing for a range of higher quality, wealthy brands, acting as retailer directly to the consumers. This in itself facilitates a greatly simplified channel of distribution, in which the manufacturer has sells all its products exclusively to Amway. Instead of employing large numbers of salespeople, Amway instead invites people to become “Independent Business Owners”, franchisees charged with finding clients and new potential IBOs. The payout for each participant would be calculated from both sales of immediate clients, as well as the sales of IBOs which you have invited into the organization yourself. This creates enormous incentive for IBOs to recruit more IBOs into their own chain of organization, while developing thousands of points of contact with the consumer market, allowing brand awareness and distribution on an enormous scale. In essence, every IBO becomes an independent retailer, providing products not available in any store shelves.

In its product mix itself, Amway has chosen products not conventionally selected for salespeople. Instead of sophisticated, highly valuable products, Amway sells common necessities, such as health, body care, and beauty products, which would attract customers in their network of customers to continue their purchases, and thus retail profits.

Sitting in the living room of Executive Diamond level member Dan Yuen’s home, this seemed like an unbelievable opportunity that I could not pass by. I was outlined massive projected profits of up to $60,000 for my very first year, granted I introduced on new IBO a month, and they in turn introduced one IBO a month.

In doing some research of my own, I found radically polarizing opinions on Amway, and it’s potential. While some arguments cited the vast potential inherent in such a system, others decried the massive profits higher level members would reap from the work of blindly loyal lower level network members, who would rarely make profits over $150 a month for incredible efforts. Many questioned the ability to retain customers and IBOs, which could leave anytime, and most strikingly, the ethical aspect of creating a pyramid shaped structure that benefited the most charismatic. Amusingly, I thought this was oddly reminiscent of my Political science class, where Marx lambasts the stereotypical capitalist who steals the profits of production of the working class.

The opportunity for me is there, but as of this moment, I’m truly torn on whether it’ll be the right thing to grasp it.

Twenty years ago, a particularly technologically minded individual might have a Walkman for Music, a Desktop computer at home, a television for nightly entertainment, a camera to record memorable moments, a pager for business alerts, a cellphone out of home communication, and perhaps a primitive laptop at his workplace.

Merely two decades later, many households have reduced this wide swath of electronics with a mere three devices; a Smartphone, a laptop, a television.  Even among these, the capacities provided are increasingly overlapping, with videos being available via services such as Netflix, online capacity for all devices, applications and data readily transferable from one to another. Not only are our needs being satisfied, modern computerization has allowed a far greater value to be derived, much of which consumers wouldn’t have even known before a generation ago. Textbooks and novels could be read online with E-book functions, communication and travel has been greatly facilitated, and mobile Apps can provide literally any service imaginable.

With this trend emerging, this had me wondering about the future of our modern high tech industries. When targeting market opportunities, we learn to segment markets to fulfill the needs of buyers and increase value. Does it mean of us then if a single product would eventually satisfy not only multiple market segments, but all market segments within the broader portable computing market?

Could there really be a single product, which when marketed to multiple market segments, will be able to fulfill all consumer needs?

This in itself creates yet another issue. As technology progresses, and the complexity of these multi-function devices advance, fewer and fewer companies are capable to competing in this increasingly cut-throat market. Companies which formerly existed independently of each other are now engaged in heavy competition over the same market, as is the case with Google and Apple. Entire markets, such as the handheld cameras, have been eradicated outside of niche specialties  to the detriment of former giants such as Kodiak.  Even companies formerly at the innovative tip of their market such as Nokia and Blackberry have fallen behind when entire markets merge together, which occurred with phones, computers, and cameras merged in the Smartphone. Those who remain either rely on partnerships with larger and wealthy companies to maintain the Research and Development required to stay competitive, or are subsumed by the few truly visionary corporations; Apple, Samsung, Google, Microsoft, and their like.

In May, 2008, Oscar Pistorius was named one of the three most influential people on the Heroes & Pioneers section of Time Magazine’s annual list. As an individual who had overcome adversity through his early disability to achieve greatness, his inspiring story drew admiration and respect, becoming a role model and inspiration to many. It was only natural that Nike would associate themselves with his image, even going so far with unfortunate slogan, “I am the bullet in the chamber”.

As recent news Pistorius’ murder of Reena Steenkamp illustrate, this want not adroitly decided.

While endorsements by prominent athletes have long been one of the hallmarks of the sports attire market, particularly by industry giants such as Nike quick research shows a history of scandal ridden celebrities in Nike’s drive for positive role models. Aside from Pistorius, Lance Armstrong’s disgrace following the revelations of the US Anti-Doping Agency, the disastrous collapse of Tiger Wood’s marriage with his extra marital affairs surfaced, American Sprinter Marion Jones, Justin Gatlin and Michael Vick round up the group. Considering that $4 billion is spent yearly on endorsements alone, a full 15% of yearly revenues, these failures are incredibly costly. This is further exacerbated with its company tradition on centering its focus on a single, dominant, athlete, beginning with the iconic Michael Jordan in 1984.

In building these myths and powerful image around its celebrity athletes, Nike stands to gain, and lose much in its bid for positive association. Seeking to create the next great hero, the company has repeated established widely acclaimed athletes, who repeated fall short of expectations. To their detriment, Nike doesn’t seem to have grasped negative connotations of this approach.

And so, even while a parade of greats are ousted or sidelined, Nike continues to bring in fresh faces, with world number one golfer Rory McIlroy signing a $250 million deal as the new face of their brand.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/14/nike-oscar-pistorius

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/golf/article-2227463/Rory-McIlroy-signs-250m-Nike-deal.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578304340546753724.html

Increasingly in recent years, businesses are expanding the scope of their missions to include corporate social responsibility, positively influencing all facets including the environment, society and consumers. These have been implemented to great success for companies such as Bell’s phone collection policy and Home Depot’s eco-friendly renovation suggestions, with corresponding increases in both public standing and brand awareness for these organizations.

Our dilemma arises when the profitability of companies is directly threatened by what would be the ethical thing to do.

For corporations which deal in products such as soft drinks or fast food, the industry’s meteoritic growth has concurrently led to the continuing rise of obesity rates in both Canada and the United States, These statistics, estimated to reach 44% in by 2030, illustrate the vast influence marketing can have on consumer trends and behaviours. Particularly worrying that 26% of children are already overweight or obese, illustrating that age is no object to the subtle indoctrination.

So how are companies reconciling these two conflicting issues? The “Coming Together” Coca Cola ad, seen in this recent Time magazine article illustrates one approach, to emphasize the companies growing transition to more healthy drinks, promotion of socially responsible habits, and warning of the dangers of its own products. However, there still remain complaints in the dangers of the chemical products used to replicate the taste while keeping calories low. Consumers are divided between those wary of false promises, and those accepting of the Coca Cola’s new stance.

Another alternative we’ve seen is government intervention, such as Quebec’s 1980s ban on child-directed advertising. This has demonstrated marked effectiveness with a 13% decrease in fast-food consumption, yet the question still stands. As new markets and industries develop, it becomes increasing difficult to regulate and reconcile sustainable practices with our growing appetite.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/galleries/2012/10/22/newsweek-green-rankings-2012-green-companies-with-best-consumer-perception-photos.html#9a4cf2a9-2fa1-4535-864f-38d5a9034669

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/18/us-obesity-us-idUSBRE88H0RA20120918

http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/15/coca-cola-launches-anti-obesity-ad/

http://www.globalnews.ca/ad+bans+lead+to+less+fast+food+eating+in+quebec+study+says/6442578275/story.html

                With the way in which Muammar Gaddafi finally met his end, the future of Libya was already in doubt. Certainly, the logical method to repay the dictator for his innumerable crimes was simply to execute him, yet therein lays the difference between organized society and mob rule. In western society, usually the government brings the charges, in the idea that the accused party has committed crimes against society and the law. This rule of law allows justice for all victims, a clear framework for a strong government.

                Therefore, the manner that Gaddafi dies sets a horrible precedence, forcing the new leaders to bring the killers on trial to appease and reassure foreigners. Mere days following the end of the revolution, Sharia law has been imposed, and an Al Qaeda flag flies from the Benghazi courthouse. Libyan militias from rival tribes have been clashing for control of key locations. For all the hype of freedom and democracy, we seem to have allowed an Islamist regime which struggles with anarchy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054344/Gaddafi-dead-Mob-killers-trial-vow-Libyas-new-rulers.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055630/Flying-proudly-birthplace-Libyas-revolution-flag-Al-Qaeda.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/world/africa/six-dead-as-libyan-militias-clash-near-tripoli.html

                The Occupy movement as a whole has swept the imagination of people across the industrialized world for the past months, whether from exasperation at their stupidity or admiration of their courage. As Jasmine Yeh has pointed out, Occupy itself already lacks a cohesive goal, claiming to address a range of issues from corporate greed to economic inequality. Furthermore, as Piper Hoekstra describes, a majority of the populace is made up of hardworking individuals, who are willing and able to make sacrifices for future economic success. However, Occupy gets worse.

                Recently, it has decided to begin a side operation called Occupy Christmas, directed towards boycotting businesses by either not buying business gifts at all, or avoiding purchasing from large corporations. This completely neglect the fact that the very economy they depend on for their livelihood is powered through the very same consumer spirit they hope to avoid. In the case this movement was truly a populist struggle, the effects would cause businesses to collapse, further increasing economic inequality. As this blog notes, this would cause an extensive chain effect, damaging, manufacturers, service industries, and workers alike. Ironically, all this further fuels the occupy movement.

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=106172

http://www.thespec.com/news/world/article/629532–occupy-christmas-targets-santa

http://www.nychristmas.net/

                Throughout the past few months, all eyes have been on the European Union and its ability to solve its ongoing debt problems. While great progress had been achieved with the €100 billion debt reduction from the IMF, extensive loans and austerity measures enacted in Greece, all this was undone through the Greek Prime Minister announcing the now cancelled referendum. Since then, numerous Eurozone nations including Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal of show increasing signs of economic unease. Most notably, the fall of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and the instalment of Mario Monti’s apolitical economic team have represented the dangerous shift in the encroaching situation.

                This brings into place a stark question; as Tom’s blog points out, is the European Union no longer a viable economic community. With the inability of individual members to control their currencies, internal political bickering and reliance on France and Germany, the future seems grim. Germany, as the most powerful economy of the Eurozone, seems especially poised to shoulder this burden of others’ folly. In throwing its weight behind the collapsing edifice, it may be dragged into the European debt crisis, but neglecting the rescue may mean the collapse of its currency, and ultimately its banks and markets.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/debt-crisis-standoff-puts-euro-at-risk/article2247334/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/09/08/what-would-happen-if-germany-seceded-from-the-eu/