Rosa Jin

The ‘Market’ for Coca-Cola

The decision to focus on Coca-Cola for a series of marketing projects, although exciting at first, and not a regrettable choice, did come with its fair share of difficulties. The majority of them originated from the fact that the brand is so established and successful. In the first and second assignments, the task of analyzing the brand’s successes and not-so-successes (it wouldn’t be accurate to call them failures, after all), came as a surprise when our group – despite our extensive research – could not present cases of weakness or fault as strong as the cases we found of strength and success. We had chosen the brand out of interest, but also under the assumption that as a company with such a broad history, there would be more material to work with and expand upon. True in part, but as we quickly found out, this also meant that the company had, over time, gained the experience and ability to basically perfect their marketing strategies.

However, through hard work and determination, our team was able to select a target segment of the market (for the third assignment) to focus on, aided by the consideration of Coca-Cola products in our own day-to-day lives. This segment of Canadian students in their undergraduate degrees, according to our analysis, is an important section within the brand’s target market that should have more resources geared toward promoting to, because the benefits offered by the company’s signature product, Coke, is directly aligned with many of these consumers’ tastes and consumption preferences (flavour, flexibility in use, caffeine-content, etc).

Being able to analyze the vast information offered by the internet, scholarly articles, and company reports, and choose an effective segment, not only taught me about the ways large companies work and how they might miss smaller, more specific, but nevertheless important consumers (due to generalizations or an inability to stay grounded like a smaller company might); I learned more about the importance of persistence and improved my ability to analyze and be a critical thinker. Although choosing a smaller, newer, or less successful company to analyze may have proved for a slightly easier project, it tested my work ethic and I learned about the difficulties and accomplishments professionals in marketing, especially that of market research, might face on a regular basis.

A fellow student in my faculty, Kelsey Ingham, published a blogpost on discussing the common, thus ‘necessary’ components of a viral video, on her website. According to Kelsey, there are five factors which increase the odds of “[landing] your brand a viral video”: the promotion by and association with Tastemakers, the opportunity for expansion by the audience via Participation, unexpected Originality, having Optimal Shareability to allow for the most views and greatest distribution, and having Minimal Branding.

It is interesting then, to consider the ways in which the websites responsible for promoting said viral videos (such as those mentioned in her post, “Nyan Cat,” “Girl Catches on Fire While Twerking,” etc.) market themselves. This extends to marketing firms as a whole industry, but established marketing companies are able to use previous ads or productions as examples of their abilities. How to virtual “marketing” sites (that market these viral videos) or blogs expand or gain popularity as a source of these trends, if what they are promoting is not a result of their own work?

In many ways, Kelsey’s five key ingredients for a viral video also work in symmetry, in the marketing of a virtual “marketing firm” …

Tastemakers: Uploading viral videos or general content featuring popular, relevant celebrities or internet sensations, means that the more the story or event is searched for online, the more your site will be used to access this hot-off-the-press news. Obviously, featuring the recent activity of Miley Cyrus is bound to bring your site closer to the top of search results.

Participation and Optimal Shareability: Having a section for comments and posing questions, in the body of the summarization of the viral video/story, that stimulate responses, as well as having an recognizable domain or name that can be easily remembered and searched, is sure to be effective in the growth in popularity, especially by word-of-mouth (“I saw the video of Sharkeisha on XYZ.com“)

Unexpectedness: Having an original view or analysis of a scandal, or maybe even providing an unexpected remix of a viral video, is bound to catch the eye of viewers that have seen dozens of similar accounts of the same scenario. Perez Hilton, during the peak of his website’s success, clearly gained attention from the blunt and often vulgar summarization of the latest entertainment news.

Minimal Branding: No one wants to hear the name of a site at the start of every remix, or have their view of the video obstructed by a site’s watermark at the start of the video, much like many graduating seniors dislike having to cough up enough cash to obtain cap and gown photos without the “PROOF” label slashed across their faces.

Marketing the world of marketing. Marketing marketing. Marketing squared. Who knew it would be be so symmetrical?

As the wave of midterms pass by in a whirlwind of highlighted notes, last-minute cramming, and caffeinated hours spent in coffee shops and university libraries, students everywhere are a little more than ready to wind down at the bar with friends, classmates, and acquaintances alike, over a drink or two.

What are the kids drinking these days anyway? An excellent question, to which Guinness has provided a heartwarming response. The popular Irish brew, dark and distinct in flavour (one might say it’s an acquired taste), has been commonly associated with the masculine drinker, capable of handling the strong, burnt, and thick profile. This connotation is exemplified by the brand’s recent ad campaign, using the brotherhood of a team as the fuel for its endearing commercial which features a group of friends in wheelchairs playing a game of basketball. Aided by the swells and crescendos of the Cinematic Orchestra’s “To Build a Home, That Home,” the significance of each pass of the ball and shot at the hoop becomes evident at the end, when all but one of the players unstrap themselves from their wheelchairs, and the chair-bound friend rolls out of the gymnasium, together with his able-bodied teammates.

“Dedication. Loyalty. Friendship. The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character.” 

Without explicitly pushing the desirable value of a Guinness into the faces of the audience, the brand conveys dedication, loyalty, and friendship, into the minds of consumers, promoting the aforementioned camaraderie associated with their product. If this is the commercial that “the boys” think of when they meet up after their last economics or organic chemistry midterm, the ad has done its job. Advertising doesn’t need to annoy its audiences with pushy proposals and vies for their pocket money by comparing themselves to other products or by listing out reasons to purchase A over B. Despite the dark, bitter taste of the drink itself, Guinness’ ad leaves the viewer feeling uplifted and refreshed. And we could all use a little inspiration in our day, no?

Watch the ad here.

Recently, Maddi Koop posted “You Are What You ‘Like'” on her blog, a look into data mining using a person’s ‘Likes’ on Facebook, and how consumers can be targeted according to their publicly stated tendencies, interests, and lack of interests. I largely agree with Maddi’s approach to liking or not liking pages on Facebook, and have to commend the engineers behind such data mining businesses on their ability to weed out the extraordinary and uncharacteristic Likes, amongst the vast number that actually do fit with the consumer’s preferences.

That being said, imagine this.

Would it be feasible for a consumer and/or group of consumers to boycott the system? If enough profiles (thus consumers, from the perspective of businesses) like specific pages, related or unrelated to their actual interests, could this not lead to the creation of a new market segment, to which products or services might be tailored toward? A little imaginative, yes, but it is important to note that such data mining should not be a main point of reference for businesses in the development and marketing of their products.

The issue with technology as such a prevalent factor in our day-to-day lives could also be the reason for wasted resources – by relying on technology to sum up and draw conclusions from data, as opposed to live, interactive research, we run the risk of drawing false conclusions, of dismissing intuition or human experience in favour of the ‘facts’ being presented to us.

Boo!

If that wasn’t scary enough, maybe the screams of these kids will get you into the Halloween spirit.

Earlier this month, Crest released an ad quite contrary to what one might expect from a toothpaste and dental health company. The cleverly designed campaign video provides a comedic take on Halloween, testing out kids’ reactions to receiving ‘healthy’ treats, in place of their candy corns, lollipops, and chocolate bars.

Their responses varied from forced politeness,as Adrianna tried to like the taste of an artichoke buttercup: “It’s kind of good, kind of bad,” but upon being directed to be honest, she came out with the truth, “It’s bad,” to full-on rioting (around the Crest representative’s knees, no less).

More than just a funny promotion though, this was a smart and strategic move by Crest  (P&G), a way of opposing and solving the problem posed by Halloween, the night epitomizing cavities and dental decay. By embracing one of the sugariest days of the year, because “Nothing is more horrifying than Halloween without candy,” the company encourages us to indulge in the treats we love, and make up for the havoc wreaked on our teeth and gums with Crest and Oral B products. A ‘convenient’ trade-off and a spot-on take on communicating value to consumers.

It might be a little dated, but in terms of immoral marketing, this one takes the cake. In fact, it walks away with the cake.

Earlier this summer, PepsiCo. collaborated with rap artist Tyler, the Creator to produce a creative and fresh ad to promote Mountain Dew as a culturally relevant drink (like Tyler, the Creator).  What they released turned out to be a little less fresh, a little more sour. The commercial was only released online, and due to the more than negative feedback, was pulled almost immediately. The clip features a battered woman at a police station being asked, by caucasian police officers, to pick out a perpetuator from a line-up of only African-American males and a talking goat.

The ad was accused of promoting racial discrimination and stereotyping, as well as making light of violence against women. Strangely enough, PepsiCo.’s response (to the public’s reaction) was less than ideal (see image on right). Although the corporation has taken full responsibility for their actions, critics still discuss PepsiCo.’s selective phrasing in the words “could be perceived by some as offensive.” In addition, the decision to take on Tyler, the Creator as the director, due to his notoriously distinct and often vulgar sense of humour and style, has been a topic of disapproving conversation by the masses (including the likes of Syracuse University’s Dr. Boyce Watkins). It goes without saying then, that perhaps in the future, PepsiCo. should take a moment to consider how their image could be perceived by some as offensive.

Watch the ad here

Dr. Boyce Watkins’ Response

As mentioned in previous posts, the emergence of corporate social responsibility and sustainability is increasing every day. Entrepreneurs are popping up left, right, centre, with a new product or service which is said to “better your life,” but which of these actually improve our living standards or quality of life? Can those that do all be referred to as “social enterprises”? And if not, what makes one business a social enterprise as opposed to a regular entrepreneurial venture?

Social Enterprise
(defn): “[an organisation] with an explicit aim to benefit the community, initiated by a group
of citizens and in which the material interest of capital investors is subject to limits.” (EMES) 

There are countless examples of this type of business, as it is not limited to Nongovernment Organizations (NGO) or Nonprofit Organizations (NPO) – they can include for-profit organizations, if they operate through nonprofit mechanisms or with social/environmental goals. Two examples that recently caught my eye are Kiva and Isang Litrong Liwanag.

Kiva Microfunds, which I discovered through a post by Ashley Belzil, is an amazing organization (NPO) that basically allows you to lend money to those struggling to run their businesses in impoverished, developing countries – all through microfinance. Kiva does not collect any interest, and lenders are “almost always guaranteed …a 98.97% return rate”; the simple act of lending, say $25, is so minuscule in comparison to the beneficial change it brings the recipients.
Isang Litrong Liwanag translates to “A Litre of Light,” and is the name of the business that social entrepreneur Illac Diaz (with the help of others) began in the Philippines. Using water and chlorine in a plastic drink bottle, this enterprise has provided over 30,000 homes all over the world, with solar, sustainable, and 55-watt light-‘bulbs’ – brightening up many households that otherwise would be spending much more money on electricity.

Unfortunately, I feel that the brilliance and impact of this social enterprise (and so many others) are overlooked and do not receive the credit they deserve, especially relative to companies that supply us with luxuries, like electronics or clothing. As a global community, we need to strive to fulfill more necessities rather than desires, even if these necessities are not directly our own – because in the end, we’re affected by the actions of others.

Watch: Kiva         Watch: Isang Litrong Liwanag

 Sources:
http://www.emes.net/index.php?id=203
http://srint.org/terminology/
http://www.kiva.org/about/how
http://aliteroflight.org/about-us/
https://blogs.ubc.ca/ashleybelzil/2012/11/13/the-gift-of-giving/
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1678329/the-worlds-cheapest-lightbulb-is-made-of-just-a-plastic-bottle
http://www.wimp.com/lightenup/

Photo:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ufnyUq4qC-Q/T2d4X5iBx-I/AAAAAAAAAF0/3u8vOPICXHI/s1600/CHOOSESE.jpg

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a growing topic of discussion in today’s world of business, as the global population grows to new heights and endangered icebergs simmer down to new lows. The carbon footprint that each of the world’s seven billion persons leaves is not a matter to be taken lightly – especially by those that have a greater-than-average impact upon others; in other words, businesses.

While the number of companies that are changing, finding new ways to be sustainable, and providing eco-friendly options for their consumers is increasing, innumerable businesses around the world still do not recognize the weight that they carry on their shoulders. In contrast, the scholarly leaders of the ancient world knew much of not knowing much. As an article from Forbes’ CSR Blog said (referencing Princeton philosophy professor Melissa Lane’s book),

“[Leaders of the ancient world] understood that they were embedded in an interdependent social web and they knew that their decisions had to take into account not just self-interest but the collective interest as well.”

It is then implied within that statement, that today’s leaders and business folks think and act according to Adam Smith’s famous self-interest principle. How, then, can we expect advancement towards sustainability in the competitive corporate world, where prices are already much higher than what the average consumer can afford in the current economy?

In response, I agree with David Marks,

“The right strategy could become a competitive advantage.”

And an example of this competitive advantage that other companies should take into consideration is the reinvention of athletic apparel brand Nike; by “addressing impacts throughout [its] supply chain,” Nike is promoting a better image, creating a positive change  on the environment, and ensuring a greater lifespan for the company as a whole. Why all companies don’t do this bewilders me – if we don’t work to be sustainable now, who knows if there will be anyone to do business with in the future !

So consider that.

Sources Cited:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/csr/2012/10/02/ancient-advice-for-todays-sustainability-leaders/
http://nikeinc.com/pages/responsibility
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2009/11/12/how-companies-manage-sustainability-tradeoffs

The online discount site Groupon struggles to find a leg to stand on, as its 3rd quarter reports have investors everywhere shaking their heads in disappointment.

Despite being fairly new (public since November 2011), the company’s share price has dwindled down from its peak (in November 2011 as well) to when it closed at $2.76 on Friday the 9th, 25% lower than its previous “all-time low of $3.68 a week ago, on Nov. 1.” In addition, the company’s predicted earnings of  “$580 million to $620 million” only proved to be a detrimental valuation as revenue grew (however slowly) to $569 million, which still missed the hopes of Wall Street by a whopping $22 million.

As the company watches its value drop lower and lower, new methods of bringing in sales are being introduced – predominantly through Groupon Goods, the brand’s take on e-commerce which actually “[sells] physical goods such as electronic gadgets, housewares and clothes.” This branch into direct retail allows the company to use the whole of the products’ sale in calculating revenue, as opposed to the basic Groupon that shared the sale with the collaborative company – ultimately increasing Groupon’s total revenue. More recently, the business has announced that for the coming holiday season, it is offering “free shipping and returns for items bought through Groupon Goods,” as well as debuting “its first Groupon Goods online holiday catalog.”

These motions, effective nonetheless, are clearly set up with the aim of increasing sales, but will it be enough to reverse the damage that’s been done so far? With this question (as well as my previous post) in mind, I ask:

what does it take for a company to stand up after it’s fallen down?

Sources Cited:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-1110-groupon-20121110,0,7499711.story
http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=GRPN&a=10&b=4&c=2011&d=10&e=13&f=2012&g=d&z=66&y=198
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/106065–groupon-stock-falls-after-3q-results-fall-short
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-11-12/groupon-goods-offers-free-shipping-for-holidays
Photo:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/can-groupon-succeed-with-a-30-per-year-vip-subscription-model/

In today’s society of global communication, constant innovation, and never-ending competition, startups are always popping up right, left, centre; but what makes a startup business successful enough to be more than just a startup, what makes it stay up?

This question was triggered by my discovery of my aunt’s own startup: Snapette, a mobile fashion app that (simply put) allows you to share your style with others all over the world. Despite my initial amazement and awe, I began to wonder how she and her partners had achieved this, let alone the rest of the startup world.

It probably helps when Forbes writes an article about your company, not to mention when your company is linked to a celebrity, like their fashion advisor, actress Emma Roberts. Or maybe the key is doing the impossible – or at least unimaginable, like the founders of Urthecast did. Streaming live feed the world from cameras in space isn’t only unimaginable, it’s “hard to reproduce.” Learning about this Vancouver-based company at school not only opened my eyes to the different kinds of businesses that could be created, but also caused me to further examine what it was about successful entrepreneurs that allowed them to change our lives in the coolest of ways. Upon browsing amongst numerous start-ups (via 500 Startups, Inc.com, Forbes), I found that three common characteristics, of today’s prospering companies, are that they stay 1) current, 2) engaging and interesting, and 3) easily accessible.

Whether it’s a mobile app that geotags favourite fashion items, or an orbiting, high-definition video camera that lets “environmental groups…study the effects of deforestation,” the emerging businesses of today continue to amaze us consumers in their climb out of the Silicon Valley.

Sources Cited:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyapozin/2012/07/19/10-greatest-industry-disrupting-startups-of-2012/
http://500.co/startups/
http://www.inc.com
http://urthecast.com
http://www.urthecast.com/blog/news-stories/wind-chairman-joins-vancouver-tech-startup-board/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2011/10/13/female-founders-of-snapette-not-your-typical-geek-entrepreneurs/
http://www.wwd.com/fashion-news/fashion-scoops/shop-smart-6441467

Photo:
http://militarytobusiness.blogspot.ca/2010/12/start-ups-at-hbs.html