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