Wow. It’s hard to believe that the term is almost over! I feel like it was just yesterday I walked into Marketing class to see Tamar’s warm smile welcoming us in the doors! Through the last couple months, I have learned a great deal about the fascinating world of marketing, but what could be even more important is what I learned about myself.

Being more of an independent worker, having the opportunity to work in a group to complete various assignments has helped me become more of a team player. I have been able to voice my opinion while still taking input from the rest of group, resulting in great ideas and efficient work. Because our team shared our strengths and weaknesses upon our first meeting, we were quickly able to delegate tasks to each person, making our future projects a great deal more productive.

Personally, the biggest lesson I have learned from marketing is the importance of the target market. One can create an extremely unique and creative marketing campaign, but if it is targeted at the wrong population, the whole project is useless. And more than just that, once a target market has been selected, one needs to figure out how to get that product to them, which may be more complex than it seems.

If I were to do these assignments again, the only thing I would alter is selecting a company that it closer to home for me. Although Lululemon is a very interesting business that has been creating somewhat of a cult (if you will), I would have been a bigger asset to my team if it were a clothing company that I wear regularly.

All in all, ‘Introduction to Marketing’ has shown me the value of efficient team work and that there is a great deal more to marketing than just advertising!

With the advanced technology that we have been introduced to over the last couple years, it shouldn’t come to a surprise that companies are using it to bring past celebrities “back from the dead”.

In a recent commercial aired in the U.K. by Mars Inc.-owned Galaxy Chocolate, CGI graphics were used to bring the once-famous actress Audrey Hepburn back to life. In the commercial, Hepburn is seen looking out of window on a broken bus in Italy, when she spots a handsome man in the vehicle next time them. She proceeds to get off the bus and join the man, while eating Galaxy chocolate as they drive on the coast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6C5wlrS0Yo

Despite Hepburn’s sons approving of the commercial, the final verdict of the advertisement is still uncertain to many viewers; some see it as a sweet tribute while others a creepy type of “grave robbery”.

Although this isn’t the first time that dead stars have been used for commercials, the method of digitally constructing her face to be super-imposed on a another woman’s body is quite new. And technology isn’t slower down. Just last year a hologram of Tupac Shakur was created and played at the Coachella music festival alongside current rapper Snoop Dogg.

It is predicted that we will be seeing many more of these types of endorsements in the future. And why not? A digitally constructed person is more reliable than a human star, already has instant recognition in consumers eyes, and the endorsement will never be hurt  by the possibility of unforeseen scandals. (ex. Tiger Woods)

Like these or not, be prepared to see many more in the future. Who knows? Next time you’re watching T.V. you may just see your favorite actor from the 20’s make a guest appearance?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/a-marketers-chocolate-charade-brings-back-audrey-hepburn/article9189654/

Due to losing their monopoly in Western Canada over the sale of wheat and barley, the Canadian Wheat Board has had to become quite creative in order to attract their customers. Their latest advertisement, which features a scantily dressed cowgirl on top of a fence with the slogan “Still on the Fence?” has received quite a lot of attention. The slogan was targeted at those farmers who are unsure if they should keep using CWB’s services or start selling grain on their own, but all the focus has shifted to the lovely pin-up girl portrayed with her red boots and long legs.

Ranchers across the west coast have responded negatively to the advertisement, saying it is “in such bad taste” and not “the way farm women want to be portrayed.”

Professors who have analyzed the ad have concluded that the problem lies in targeting the wrong audience. They state that farmers are generally conservative, family-oriented people and this ad doesn’t align with their ethics. As Professor Barbara Phillips from the University of Saskatchewan stated, “the ad is better suited for advertising a rib-night at a Montana’s restaurant.”

Dayna Spiring, the chief strategy officer of CWB fought back with her own remarks, claiming that they wanted something “that caught people’s attention and got people talking.” Good or bad, it has done just that.

Although there hasn’t been enough time since the advertisement has launched to observe its success rate, I think people are over-reacting to this whole situation. The Canadian Wheat Board is new to this department of their business and for them to test the waters of their advertising campaign is completely reasonable. My suggestion is that they partake in more market research to acquire a full analysis of their target market. This will ensure they are appropriately marketing with the right idea in mind, as to possibly avoid what has happened with this advertisement.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/the-canadian-wheat-boards-still-on-the-fence-ad/article8012256/?from=8011826

While scrolling through blog posts on “Drew’s Marketing Minute”, I came across one regarding one of my favorite things in this world: Football.

The post was commenting two commercials that were featured in the 2013 Super Bowl Ads:

1) The Budweiser Spot – The Clydesdale’s: “Brotherhood”

2) The Jeep Spot: “Whole Again”

Drew McLellan commented on the fact that although both ads were tear jerkers and successfully made every viewer call their parents to say “I love you”, they were not effective in all the right ways.

The fact that neither commercial brought up any facts about the products themselves does not make the viewer any more inclined to purchase their product over another competitors. Yes, it is touching, but it is enough?

This post brought up another commercial to my mind, one which was also voted the best Superbowl Ad one year previous to these (2012).

Here is Chrysler’s commercial “Halftime in America”:

Chrysler was extremely effective in hitting several parts of the heart. To start, getting Clint Eastwood, arguably one of the most respected and loved American icons to narrate was clutch. Second, showing several middle class families across the country living day-to-day during economic uncertainty made an affective connection to the viewers. Finally, creating a bridge between the preparation needed to motivate a team to win the second half of a football game with the motivation to bring the great country of the United States of America back to the strong times was truly inspiring.

Although all these tactics were utilized perfectly, did the marketing sector of Chrysler really do their job? Aren’t the point of commercials to prove why your product is better than everyone else’s? What the commercial did for me was remind me that Chrysler’s are American-made vehicles. Although that is not a bad tactic to use, what makes these American-made cars better than ones made in Japan? If I’m a struggling American, I’m going to purchase a vehicle that  is reliable, has great MPG, and can be purchased at an affordable price. None of these are even mentioned in the commercial!

Although I salute Chrysler for making an inspirational commercial, if their goal was to increase the sales of their vehicles, they may need to stop “talking the talk and start walking” (if you will).

Upon reading a post from “Nadia Gunderson’s COMM 260 Blog” discussing Lululemon “maning up” and apologizing to what could possibly be false advertisement, it got me thinking of other companies who may have not been so courageous.

Since 2008, Dannon has been promoting their Activia line of yogurts as being “clinically” and “scientifically” proven to regulate digestion and boost immune systems. By promoting the health benefits and using liked and relatable women such as Jamie Lee Curtis in their advertisements, Dannon has been extremely successful with the Activia line.

Until 2010.

Dannon was sued for making false claims that the ingredients in their yogurt strengthens the immune system and helps digestion. The punishment: paying consumers up to $45 million in damages and removing words on their labels and advertisement such as “clinically”, “scientifically”, and “immunity”.

The court made their decision based on the lack of evidence Dannon has on its yogurts health benefits. Although they say that the probiotic bacteria really works to regulate the digestive system, scientists have concluded that not enough research has been done to conclude that there is a correlation.

Despite their lack of evidence, Dannon stood by their products and did not take fault, claiming they settled the lawsuit to “avoid the cost and distraction of litigation”.

Like Nadia mentioned in her post, I believe that the way a company responds to situations like this is much more informative and insightful than the mistake itself. As for Dannon, they took the easy route out. By brushing off their mistakes and refusing to take full responsibility of their errors, it speaks to the type of company they really are.

Seems like Dannon’s yogurt also lacks the health benefit of growing a backbone.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/dannon-settles-lawsuit/story?id=9950269

Since 2009, clothing company American Apparel has received much heat over what has said to be “unnecessarily sexual” photos for their marketing campaign. The issues began when complaints were sent to the “advertising watchdog” ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) for being inappropriate for children and featuring women who appeared to be under the age of sixteen years old in overtly sexual poses. Although American American has responded to these accusations  by saying the photos were “completely decent and were a fair representation of their product line”, several images have had to be removed over the last three years.

Is this fair? Shouldn’t American Apparel be able to express their product line however they wish? Unlike other companies such as Victoria’s Secret, American Apparel models are not airbrushed and have a very real and natural look to them. The main problem that American Apparel needs to suggest changing is the physical look of the girls. Although they are all of legal age when taking somewhat sexual photos, it is true that they look younger than their actual age. And since a person of any age is able to view their website, teen girls may be getting the wrong impression. Despite racy ads being somewhat of a norm in places such as Europe, they are appeared as offensive in North American and American Apparel needs to step it down a notch.

I believe that the company would get into much less hot water if they began choosing older looking models. Now the real question is would this affect American Apparel target audience? I guess we will all have to stay tuned to see their marketing campaign for 2013!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2243318/Gratuitous-American-Apparel-adverts-BANNED-ASA.html