Image from http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/uv-online/cassidian-uses-mini-cooper-cars-test-mobile-ip-nod/

Repeat purchases in the automotive industry – this is a concept that I imagine many of us would find difficult to grasp. In a blog post written by Jackie Huba, MINI Cooper is employing a unique, yet effective strategy to increase sales. Rather than target individuals who do not own one of their vehicles, MINI Cooper directs its marketing initiatives towards current customers in order to generate brand loyalty. Surprisingly, this strategy was effective in generating repeat purchases from faithful MINI customers.

Why did this strategy work so well? MINI Cooper makes an effort to establish strong relationships with its existing customers. By sending merchandise to customers through direct mail and hosting large events such as MINI Takes the States, MINI is able to provide an exemplary level of service after a purchase is made. This distinguishes MINI as a value-driven business. Customers captivated by MINI Cooper’s strategy provides the company with several key benefits, ultimately giving MINI a competitive edge. Loyal customers are more open to providing MINI with important feedback and information, and promoting the company through word of mouth. I would argue that this strategy is just as effective as targeting new customers.

Another thing to note is that MINI Cooper’s vehicles are much more affordable in comparison to competing products sold by other luxury car companies. I believe this is the main reason why MINI Cooper is actually capable of securing repeat purchases from current owners. Because MINI Cooper holds this cost advantage in the luxury car market, MINI Cooper’s strategic decision to engage existing customers complements their position perfectly. Competitors such as Tesla also offer strong post-purchase support like MINI, yet the price of their cars prevents them from getting repeat sales altogether.

The Television Bureau of Canada recently pulled a commercial advertising Science World British Columbia from television, after claiming that the ad featured an excessive amount of violence. In order to explain to viewers that “optimists feel less pain,” the commercial whimsically depicts a man stepping on a nail, being set on fire and hit by a school bus.

This commercial accurately illustrates a trend that I am seeing more often in marketing today. Advertisers are more willing to create ads with shock value and provocative imagery, knowing that the controversy generated from their advertisement will attract more attention. With science being such a broad topic, the agency that scripted the Science World commercial could have produced an ad that was completely different. However, they purposefully chose to create a commercial with a controversial plot line that had a greater chance of being taken off the air. Even though these ads are sometimes loosely related to the actual product or service being promoted, I still consider this marketing strategy to be effective due to the popularity of social media. Articles and reports reacting to the advertisement can circulate around the web, indirectly exposing the ad to a much larger audience. For the Science World British Colombia commercial, a simple Google search reveals that many online news sources have already posted articles discussing this controversial ad.

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/conquer-your-fear-for-the-canadian-cancer-society/article20164078/

Image from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1228399/Viewpoint-Cant-GP-Heres-blame-.html

When comparing public and private health care systems, public health care is often viewed as superior. It does a better job of ensuring that all individuals, regardless of economic standing, can receive affordable access to the care that they need. For example, governments negotiate with the private sector to set price controls for treatment and medication. However, public health care systems can also have glaring imperfections. Canada, a country praised for its publicly funded health care, ranked poorly in quality of care, efficiency and timely access to care in a study conducted by the Commonwealth Fund. Additionally, 99% of all Canadian hospitals and medical centres are publicly owned. To an extent, I consider this practice by the Canadian government to be unethical, as Canadians have very little choice over where they receive care from. I fully agree that the government must be responsible for providing everyone with these services, which is usually considered to be a basic human right. However, the government should not be restricting access to privately funded health care, which burdens and alienates the individuals who can afford and are willing to pay for a higher quality alternative. In other countries, such as France and Germany, this issue is less prevalent as more hospitals (around one in three) are privately owned.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/yanick-labrie/private-health-care-canada_b_5736760.html

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/2/6089693/health-care-facts-whats-wrong-american-insurance