What did you learn about yourself, teams, and marketing?

• I learned that I am a tad over-controlling. I like to take on a lot of responsibility because I like things done my way.
  
• In response to this, I learned that my teammates are a lot more capable than I think they are. Once we delegated tasks, all my teammates (well, most of them) not only completed their work but also did a really good job. It taught me not to be so controlling and have a lot more faith in my teammates.
• At the start of the project I was one of those people that, if you said you did marketing, I would assume you were an advertiser. However, throughout the course of the project and class, I learned that marketing is a science, and a very complex one at that. It involves research, analysis and strategising.

What skills did you enhance or develop?

• I developed both individual as well as team skills. My writing skills were strengthened through being the primary writer of Assignments 2 and 3. My team decided to deviate from the typical divide and conquer approach. We met at as much as we could and brainstormed ideas together for all assignments. This helped strengthen my collaboration skills.

What would you do differently next time?

• I know this is a really typical response, but I would not procrastinate as much, especially for Assignment 3. We ended up having a real dilemma a couple of days before the assignment was due.

What are your top takeaways?

• Marketing is all around us. It affects us on a daily basis.
• Don’t try and control everything! Trust your teammates to do their job and do it well.

As a little conclusion, I just wanted to say a HUGE thank you to Professor Milne for making Intro To Marketing so enjoyable and educational. This was honestly the only class I’ve ever had where my interest in the subject matter was piqued and fostered. I am genuinely considering choosing Marketing as an option now and want to thank Tamar for exposing me to such an exciting field. And I quite like this blogging thing too…

I was watching the news the other day, as I do (yeah right), and there was an interesting segment regarding BC’s upcoming general elections. The reporter was talking about Justin Trudeau and the massive public support he has behind him. Here’s a pic in case you don’t know who he is:

The reporter then said a phrase that piqued my interest. He said that an important aspect of politics is to “define the politician before he does himself”, meaning that all the pre-election propaganda should define who the politician is before he goes into office and then his actions will define him. This brought to mind the concept of branding. By creating a strong brand, a company can gain a competitive advantage in the industry and increase their market share. Or in Trudeau’s case, a politician can gain a competitive advantage  in the election and win.

There are many ways in which a politician can create a strong brand and Trudeau employs a number of these. At a Liberal Party event the other day, Trudeau made a convincing speech in which he placed a strong emphasis on distinguishing himself from his competitors. He not only communicated his beliefs and ideals but also differentiated himself from fellow party candidates. By doing this, Trudeau tells us not only why he’s a good candidate to lead the Liberal Party, but why he’s the best candidate. This differentiation strategy has helped create a strong brand for Trudeau and has established him as a major player in the election.

A few weeks ago, I got into my car and completed the usual pre-drive procedure (check mirrors, plug in iPod etc). I started the car and noticed that the gas tank was empty. Great, I thought, another trip to the gas station. I put my foot on the accelerator and noticed something really odd. The speedometer dial wasn’t moving. I tried it out a few more times to no avail. I put 2 and 2 together and realised that must’ve been why the tank was on empty to. I drove the car to my local Kia garage (calm down it was only a couple of blocks away) and asked them to check it out. They said it’d be a couple of hours (apparently they were busy) so I walked home. They called me back later that day and told me that a tiny but important part was damaged and needed to be replaced. They then told me that the part had to be ordered from Toronto. A few days pass and I decide to call to check up on the car. They said that they checked but didn’t have the part in Toronto and that they’d have to order it from Korea. With all the recent trouble in Korea, it’s taken a lot longer than expected. A whole month later and I still don’t have my car back. Luckily they gave me a courtesy car.

So what was the point of this long-winded story? To show how ineffective Kia’s channel structure is. Take a look at this diagram showing some generic channel structures:

An important aspect of an effective channel structure is strong facilitation of information throughout the channel. In Kia’s case, I’m convinced that it’s not so strong. Kia did not immediately know that there were no parts in Toronto, instead they had to wait several days for confirmation. If they had a good inventory information system, they would have known there were no parts in Toronto, but instead I had to wait. The delay has negatively impacted my view of Kia and the trust I have with the brand has weakened. I knew I should have got a Ford…

Google Glass. It’s the wave of the future, straight out of a sci-fi movie. Wearable technology they’re calling it. The headset allows users to access a variety of web-based technologies through a heads-up display. Imagine it, you’re walking down the street and you see a cool poster. No need to pull out your mobile, just say “take photo” and, as if by magic, you have a picture of exactly what you’re seeing. How cool is that! But hold on a sec, doesn’t this all seem a tad unrealistic. That’s exactly what the skeptics are saying. Just like the early days of computers, mobile phones and the internet, the device is likely to be clunky and plagued with bugs. And not to mention how unresponsive voice technology still is (do I need to mention Siri). But it’s still exciting nonetheless, well, at least I’m excited.

So where does marketing come into this story? Well, with the inception of Project Glass, Google is facing a challenge it never has before. It has to figure out how to market a product. Google is primarily in the business of services, its search engine being a prime example. The  marketing strategy for a product is typically very different than the marketing strategy for a service. This is due to the tangibility of products. Consumers can actually touch Google Glass, adding a whole new dimension to the marketing mix. And let’s not forget that Google’s services are free (well most of them) and available through their website. Now that consumers will be paying hundreds of dollars for a physical item, Google has to determine its retailing strategy. Is it going to open a brick-and-mortar store, sell through other retailers, or create an online store? It’s anyone’s guess at this point.

Google has some serious challenges on its hands with Project Glass. How they face these challenges will ultimately make or break the project and alter their brand image forever.

This blog post was inspired by a post on the Canadian Marketing Association’s blog. Check it out here: CMA Blog

What comes to mind when I say American Apparel? Edgy, cool, hip? Well that’s exactly how they want to be seen. But their recent “Sandy Sale” has sparked a lot of controversy. Have American Apparel gone too far? Take a look at this ad:

I’ll give you a minute to digest the ad. When I first saw it I was lost for words. American Apparel plastered the ad all over their website and emailed it to all of their newsletter subscribers just before and during the time Hurricane Sandy was battering the U.S. East Coast. The email also included purchasing ideas, such as raincoats and umbrellas. The response was public outrage, especially on Twitter, with many describing the sale as ill-timed and insensitive.

The company’s CEO, Don Charney, responded to the outrage stating that the sale wasn’t a mistake and the company had to “keep the machine alive”. He went on to explain that during more economically slow times, such as during a hurricane, company’s need to keep the “wheels of commerce going”. “We generated tens of thousands of dollars from the sale, but we’ll probably lose a million dollars from this event at a minimum. We’re here to sell clothing. I’m sleeping well at night knowing this was not a serious matter.” A spokesperson for American Apparel issued a similar statement but added that the e-mail was never intended to “offend anymore” and “came from a good place”.

Sounds like a load of bull to me. How insensitive can you be! They must’ve known this would generate controversy and perhaps that’s exactly why they did it. American Apparel are known to be cool, hip, and “down with the kids”. In an effort to solidify their positioning and stay young and fresh, they cooked up a controversial campaign to remain in the public eye. After all, all press is good press.

Thank you to Rachael Reddy who inspired this blog post. She makes a very good point regarding American Apparel’s official code of ethics and how they did the exact opposite. Check out her original post here: Are You Reddy

Who doesn’t love Nutella? It’s chocolate… IN SPREADABLE FORM! I’m sure we’re all guilty of indulging in a spoon or 2 (or 5). But what if I told you it was healthy? That it was part of a nutritious and balanced breakfast, would you believe me? Well that’s exactly what mothers all across America did. Check out this ad by Nutella:

Pretty convincing right? A happy, healthy family all sitting round a table enjoying Nutella on toast for breakfast, it must be good for you! But hold on a sec, let’s take a look at the nutritional information:

Wow! 11g of fat and 21g of sugar! No way in hell is Nutella healthy. But did you really believe it was? This is where the mothers of America come into the picture. In 2012, 2 mothers attempted to sue Ferrero, the makers of Nutella, for false advertisement. They claimed that Nutella was being portrayed as a healthy food item, but they were shocked to find out that it contained high amounts of fat and sugar. There has been much debate surrounding this. While many agreed with the false advertisement claims, others had a convincing counter argument. Ferrero never actually claim Nutella itself to be healthy or nutritious. They claim it can be part of a balanced breakfast, meaning that you can eat Nutella as long as you’re having it with whole wheat bread, milk or juice, and a piece of fruit. You can see this clearly in the below screen cap of another Nutella TV ad:

The ad isn’t exactly false, but is definitely misleading. And by using families and kids, Ferrero are appealing to mothers’ affective nature and their feelings towards their children. But many have agreed that the mothers were negligent in their food choices. The ad can say whatever it wants, all you have to do is look at the back of the jar and you know Nutella isn’t healthy. Needless to say, the mothers won the lawsuit and Ferrero agreed to pay a $3 million settlement (each household could claim $20) and were ordered to make changes to Nutella’s label, TV ads, and website.

So, do you think Ferrero are being unethical in Nutella’s promotion? Or do you have to be thick as Nutella to think it’s good for you? (Sorry for the pun…)