Tierney Rocky's Blog

In our last Comm 296 class, we briefly discussed Nike’s brilliant marketing campaigns that stole market share and spotlight from Adidas during the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. Despite the fact that Adidas was the official World Cup sponsor, anyone could have easily mistaken that role to be taken by Nike. How did this happen?

In class we wondered if this could be seen as unethical, however I absolutely see this as pure brilliance. Nike simply repositioned itself around its competition through the use of pump up, adrenaline-boosting ads, along with some unique new-found campaigns targeted at the ever-growing tech savvy segment (see their LCD light ‘billboards’ on the side of buildings). As a result, the company was able to appear just as, if not more, involved with the World Cup as its actual sponsor… without spending the $184 million.

Now, this reminds me of Anoushka Patel’s blog where she discusses how effective Nike was at damage control for the French team. Not only was Nike able to distract fans with an exciting, heart pounding ad that would make every soccer fan’s (French or not) eyes stay glued to the tv until it was over, but they worked to facilitate an improvement in the team’s image and morale by marketing straight to its core: to its players. As Anoushka says,

“The fabric was specifically engineered for the team and consists of a new fabric which will enhance the functionality of the jersey. Keeping in mind that footballers are attached to their ‘favourite Tshirts’”

Not only does this create a fresh new look that could be associated to some fresh new (winning) performance to be proud of, but it also was a sneaky way for Nike to win over players who actually spend much of their money on soccer gear and who get attached to their favourite sports brands. Clearly, Nike’s marketing department has many tricks up their sleeves, and as an avid soccer fan myself, I can’t wait to see what they come up with next… who knows, maybe I’ll be a part of their marketing department some day?

As I was taking a break from studying and watching a show with my mom just yesterday, we were stunned by the newest addition by Telus. I’m not sure why we were surprised, considering the leaps technology continues to make, but this ad made our jaws drop and our eyes roll.

Although this is another new technological feat, after the recent introduction of the Apple IPad, and shortly after the IPad 2, it almost feels exhausting to see another slightly more advanced piece of technology being released. Nevertheless, this is what it is about:

Social networking meets television in a new application. Telus has introduced a Facbeook app that allows viewers to stay in check with their Facebook friends’ activities, in a format similar to a side-bar that is simultaneously visible as their favourite episodes play un-interrupted. Not only can you see others’ status’s, but you can browse photos, walls, and profiles, and even leave comments and ratings. All this can be done through the tv’s remote, except for typing which must be done through the tv’s touch-screen capabilities.

Sign-in to the Facebook app on the TV is password-protected, so different people sharing one television would all have separate sign ins lnking to their own Facebook accounts.

The introduction of Facebook to Optik TV appears to be only a first step in Telus’ plan to expand social networking on its television service, as they are now making plans to include Twitter.

One thing I have not addressed so far is: who the heck actually wants to go onto Facebook while they are in the middle of watching tv? Are ads really that boring? I think consumers should just suck it up, maybe go outside and run?  Ha, knowing how inseperable my fellow generation X-er’s are with our Smartphones though, I am sure our phones (which already have fully functional facebook capabilities) will only be an arm’s length away as they watch!

Source: http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/techsense/archive/2011/03/10/telus-optic-tv-the-future-is-facebook.aspx

Apparently, making mistakes can actually allow your company’s brand to be more positively perceived. I recently read this interesting post in a blog called Duct Tape Marketing, by John Jantsch, called “Fail in Favor of the Customer”. In it, he seems to blend a bit of marketing and HR. Essentially it is the idea that

“you can define your company’s brand in a way that generates a reputation for remarkable service, loyal customers, and confident and supported employees.”

Although a boss should not encourage mistakes, being flexible in such a way can actually lead to empowering your staff. With the spot light lately being turned onto companies like Google and Lulu Lemon, who are treating their employees extremely – almost unbelieveably – well, this is now an aspect that job-seekers want to be offered. So why aren’t more companies adopting similar strategies? Besides the fact that they may not have the financial resources to offer so much to employees, the major roadblock is simple; they can not figure out how to install this culture into their own business.

Perhaps they need just need to make the jump. Indeed, you may absorb a few projects gone bad,

“but the potential good buzz created by making a decision that has a positive outcome for the customer, will pay dividends far beyond the decision to jump in and spend money to fix something gone awry.”

If all goes well and companies in the next ten years increasingly follow this trend, then our graduating class will be eating at fine dining, sending our children to daycare, and taking breaks at the gym – all paid for by our company.

For insight on a different view of how treating employees well is more like treating them like kids, click How Google Keeps Employees by Treating them Like Kids.

This video says it all. Hot actress. Cute animals. Cheap-shot pain. Sexualized content. I am almost certain that these are the top 4 topics that young adults of today search for online when they are bored: attractive actors, animals, humorous pain, and sex.

With the recent Charlie Sheen extravaganza, it is obvious that our generation is easily amused by cheap entertainment. It seems that all that is needed to grab our attention is exactly what Jennifer Aniston’s ad claims. Although the ad is a slight parody of these advertising tactics it still makes use of them, and as Jen mentioned, is probably getting 100,000 more hits than it would have without her kicking the geek where it hurts.

By the way, how many of you actually remember what the ad was for? … If you forgot like I did the first time I watched it, it is for Smart Water. Although Jennifer is holding a bottle and mentions its tagline: “The purest tasting water there is”, the ad hardly focuses on the product itself but on other recent mainstream concepts as seen on YouTube, including the ‘lip-singing boy’ and the ‘so-high-on-drugs-seeing-double-rainbow guy’; some of the most infamous videos that have earned the highest number of hits. But why does Smart Water essentially divert attention away from itself? Well, it is actually quite …smart! They have carefully positioned themselves around their competition, focusing on the perceptions of the consumer rather than on the reality of the product, as they hit their target market (in this case, most young adults) and differentiate themselves as a water company that does not focus on health or nutrition but on fun, meaningless, procrastination-friendly entertainment – something that we (sadly) actually want to hear about.

Kopi Luwak advertises its premium coffee with a cat and the tag line: “Good to the last dropping!” The value the company communicates to consumers is that it offers the most exotic and rare roast, as it comes from the Indonesian island of Sumatr (…well, to be even more precise, from a cat’s bum).

Although we already mentioned this shocking business plan in class, I found it so unappealing that it made me reconsider the thought-process of consumers that fall for prestige pricing.

The luwak, who is in fact not a cat but a mammal, eats red cherries of the coffee tree, which while in the stomach undergo chemical treatments and fermentations. Eventually the still-intact beans exit the digestive system and are collected from the forest floor, cleaned, then roasted and ground just like any other coffee. Because of the strange method of collecting, the average total annual production is only around 500 pounds of beans, and most regular cafes do not sell it.

Because of its rarity, the price is quite extravagent; around $300 or more for one pound. In other words, you are paying for the experience of enjoying such an unusual and rare delicacy. This brings up the non-intuitive idea of prestige pricing, where goods are often intentionally difficult to get a hold of, creating an allure that only the best can have it. But just like how Louis Vuitton hand bags had to deal with copy-cats, Kopi Luwak has faced similar issues due to vendors who sell diluted, or simply fake, versions of its unique coffee.

So how come people are willing to pay these high prices for goods that really cannot be told apart? Is it just about status? Think about our blind Coke taste tests of in class, where many of us made incorrect guesses about which drink was the original Coca Cola versus the cheap no-name brand. But perhaps that it is the beauty of brand management in marketing. Creating a psychological build up in  the consumer’s mind to make them believe they want what you offer. Apparently, whether or not they really want to eat cat droppings is irrelevant…

Source: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/fooddrink/a/kopi_luak.htm

If you read Graeme Law’s blog,  you will read about the idea that social media marketing will not be as necessary in the business world as its recent progress has suggested. Instead, Graeme believes that communication mediums like linked in, twitter, and facebook have been overestimated in their abilities and have no intrinsic way of describing or measuring their value. However, I disagree.

Interestingly enough, I would like to back up my own views with… Grey’s Anatomy. After watching one of the latest episodes, I am convinced that social media will be increasingly valuable across even more businesses and industries, as a communication method. In season 7’s episode 13 (called ‘Don’t Deceive Me’ – watch it for a better idea!) twitter is used directly inside the operating room while surgeries are being worked on. In fact, the idea was initiated by one of the chief residents as a way to tweet to students the steps taken during surgeries she performed, like a high tech version of ‘in-class’ notes. Then, an intern took the idea one step further by bringing her Blackberry directly into the operating room, so she could tweet each step in real time . Quickly, many doctors from different schools were following the progress of Seattle West Hospital’s various surgeries, even suggesting advice and new methods to the working surgeons during times of complication. For example, when it was realized that the patient needed a heart transplant fast, someone from a different city responded to the tweet saying that her hospital had an available transplant with the proper characteristics, and that they could send it by air to get it to the patient in time. These actions were taken and of course the patient was saved. A little unrealistic? Maybe. Just a Hollywood production? Sure. But is it so hard to hope that the new-age word of mouth suggested by this show may actually progress into something real and life-saving?

Before reading my blog, please take the time to watch this short video:

As you can see, Sun Chips launched a new addition to their placing strategy (from the 4 P’s). The company has altered their packaging to redirect their segmentation and appeal to a broader audience by capturing the eco-friendly target group. However many existing consumers have fought against the innovation by sending in complaints about how noisy the new 100% biodegradable packaging is! Is the idea of ‘saving the world’ really too daunting of an idea, or are people just that lazy and self-absorbed? Personally (and unfortunately) I believe it is the ladder: where so many individuals prefer to spend their efforts writing about petty complaints like how to preserve the precious silence of their chip bags just so they can munch away without being noticed (and therefore judged), instead of focusing their efforts on real issues like how to be environmentally responsible.

Despite this, it is clear that there are some consumers out there who do respect the idea of being eco-friendly. A few comments responding to the YouTube video express their frustration: “You know what’s noisy? Garbage trucks making extra trips to overflowing landfills” and even: “people are so dumb. I have an idea. How about we just get rid of all the f***ing snack foods all together. That way, we will save the earth and save ourselves from being fat asses at the same time.” (I apologize for the swearing – their words not mine!)

Ultimately, which strategy would be more sustainable for Sun Chips? To respond to the unhappy consumer feedback to retain it’s current market share, or to continue with the biodegradable idea in the hopes that they will gain more eco-friendly consumers that they will lose frustrated/lazy customers? –Oops, you don’t get time to think this one out, because Sun Chips has already decided to discontinue its biodegradable packaging of its travel size bags for most of the flavours.

It is true that the major mistake of the Production era was assuming that just because products are new, they will sell themselves. However, maybe that idea holds some merit. What got me to reconsider were Target’s ads. While scoping YouTube to watch more besides the three (relatively unique) ones we saw in class, I realized how little information they actually offer, and that the majority of their ads just have you laughing at the “Crazy Target Lady”. Really, she is crazy (see Crazy Lady- No Oversleeping). See the ads I have posted for your self. The thing is, Target’s ads do not need to push their products on anyone because well, everyone loves Target as a brand anyway. Instead, their ads are carefree, witty, and affective (appeal to viewers’ emotions), with very few cognitive bits. In fact, the most information they offer is having the crazy lady sing low prices to a Christmas tune (see Crazy Lady- Prices), or when the title of the latest deal drops down and a voice-over says nothing but its date and time (see ads Crazy Lady- Holiday Spirit and Crazy Lady- Gingerbread). I think the whole reason companies spend so much energy, advertising, and money on supporting their brand’s image is to achieve this whole idea: Products really can sell themselves. Think of it this way: how often have you gone to a store, walked right down the aisle to the exact product you want, without looking at any alternatives? This is because the brand is so strong, reliable, and familiar to you. With this, the brand has enabled this product to sell itself to you, just by sitting on the shelf and looking pretty at your local store.

Ultimately though, I think when a company has the ability to feature a crazy character in the majority of their promotions, that’s when you know that products can in fact, sell themselves!

MTV’s  “Skins” is a crude teen drama that portrays teens engaging in sexual activity, and drug and alcohol abuse. Parents Television Council accused MTV of aiming “the most dangerous television show for children” at underage viewers and urged companies to pull their ads. Since then, numerous advertisers including Schick, Taco Bell, L’Oreal and Subway, have done so. Now, its audience has dropped by more than half, of which 1.2 million are under 18. To make matters worse, some of the series’ actors are minors, meaning the show may be guilty of violating federal child pornography laws. The show’s producers have been ordered to “tone down some of the most explicit content,” but the creators’ response was that they had “no plans to change or edit its content” in hopes of “maintaining the show’s authenticity”, and to which MTV said “we review all of our shows… to ensure our shows comply with laws and community standards”.

News like this makes me wonder: why would MTV market to a younger audience? What makes them think these shows are appropriate for minors? Although the idea behind target markets and the 4 P’s is to guide companies towards being profitable, we forget that the most profitable consumers are often the most impressionable. Is this really responsible? Maybe companies have become so focused on finding which target market will fall for their sleazy, trashy shows (ahem, Jersey Shore anyone?) that they forgot just where the line is.

I also wonder whether the companies who pulled their ads will lose valuable market share or become more appealing by appearing responsible. With recent rumors that adult oriented companies like Trojan Condoms are filling in the deserted advertising slots, perhaps the original ads should reconsider the opportunities they are giving up. However I personally think that protecting a company’s brand is important, especially if they are a not part of an industry associated with the explicit and controversial habits portrayed in the show. In other words, L’Oreal should focus on what they do best and let the condom companies take over the market. Besides, shampoo is meant to keep kids clean… not dirty.

Click below to watch a short news clip about the contraversy over the show. Then watch the opening clip to the show. Notice how the opening hardly represents the harsh reality of what the show is about…

Skins ABC News Report

Skins Opening

Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/skins-ratings-plunge-on-s_n_814066.html http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-skins-controversy-20110127,0,772831.story

As Commerce students, we truly understand the desire, correction: addiction, consumers have for their daily coffee fixes. In class, we talk about turning shoppers into loyal customers, then to avid patrons. But perhaps the real aim is to turn consumer desire into consumer obsession. Take Starbucks for example; It has created an addiction around their products and services. Yes, we already know how Starbucks creates its own upscale culture by re-naming its sizes as ‘tall’, ‘grande’, and ‘vente’. However, this is only where their innovative marketing begins. In fact, every word on the menu has been thoughtfully chosen to connote certain emotion while ordering. For example, ‘Macchiato’ simply gets you steamed milk with espresso, but the word itself is Italian and rolls off the tongue, subconsciously leading customers to feel more cultured than if they were to order a lousy ‘steamed milk’.

But enough about Starbucks jargon, this company is more innovative than just that. They have now created apps like the ‘Starbucks free’, which finds any location with your phone’s GPS, and provides the entire drinks menu including all nutritional information. It even has a drink builder to decide your order when you want to try something new. Furthermore, alongside the original Starbucks Rewards Card (which offers free refills, a free drink on your birthday, and complimentary beverage customization), there is now a Starbucks card mobile app that includes a barcode so that simply scanning their phone can make payments.

It seems to me that Starbucks has actually taken the typical marketing goal of creating avid customers one step further, to create obsessed customers. The routine of going to Starbucks in the morning, with your Starbucks-branded tumbler in one hand, and your Starbucks-app laden Smartphone in the other, not only feels comfortable and familiar for the customer, but it feels like the only option that offers them the coffee high they are looking for.