Wansum Li – Intro to Marketing

The FIFA World Cup is the largest athletic event in the world, drawing millions of spectators every four years. It is no surprise, then, that Adidas’ official sponsorship deal with FIFA for 2010/2014 cost almost $200 million. Nike came out with a clever ad campaign called “Write the Future”. It was a direct move to draw attention away from the official sponsor Adidas. Without explicitly referencing the World Cup, Nike capitalized on the hype to promote its brand. Was Nike’s promotional campaign unethical?

If Nike did not explicitly mention the World Cup, is it off the hook, even if the campaign is clearly referencing the event? Although Nike’s intent was to detract attention from Adidas,I don’t view Nike’s campaign to be particularly unethical. Nike ‘s promotion was clever and likable, used social media to engage the public, and capitalized on the world’s love for the game. In this case, Nike simply outshone Adidas.

Recently, the city of San Francisco banned Mcdonald’s Happy Meals on the grounds that Happy Meals were directly targeting children. More generally, the ban prohibits restaurants from giving away toys with meals that have high levels of calories, sugar and fat. Children, the board of supervisors argued, are a vulnerable audience and should not be subject to promotions for unhealthy living and fast food. This raises an interesting question: who is responsible for “protecting” vulnerable audiences from advertising. In the case of marketing to children, are companies responsible for ensuring that their ads do not target children, or is the onus on parents?

I think that both parties should be responsible, but naturally parents will have more influence on their specific child(ren), whereas companies will be considering children as a collective segment. The San Fran government has stepped in to impose restrictions on companies like McDonalds, but I wonder if a large portion of US states or other countries will follow suit. Lobbyists supporting, for example, fast food, often have substantial influence in politics, which would make it difficult to pass bills that restrict the power of corporations in that industry. I think that the most effective way to protect children, or any vulnerable audience, is through education. Kids who are educated about healthy eating and have role models to look up to are better equipped to make educated decisions about any promotion, whether it is for a chocolate bar, or baby carrots.

That is not to say that corporations are off the hook.  I think that corporations have a social responsibility to not take advantage of vulnerable audiences merely to boost their profits. I guess the most important thing is that companies are perceived as ethical; companies will adapt if their consumers demand it.

An interesting note: Arizona has passed a bill to prohibit cities from “limiting the ability of restaurants to offer promotions, including toys, contests, or admission tickets.” Essentially, the ban that San Fran just instated is now banned in Arizona. Funny how that works.

Recently, social buying sites like Groupon have gained popularity. From a consumer’s point of view, it’s great to score a significant discount on businesses that one would have gone to regardless. It does encourage people to spend more because of the perception of savings. I would imagine that people might end up buying an extra tshirt because “it’s on sale!”

From an organizational point of view, Groupon seems like a great promotional tool. It encourages new customers and rewards existing customers. The problem seems to be that companies are not able to convert new customers to returning customers. Many new customers turn out to be one-time-only customers who are merely looking for the next great deal. As well, many companies complain that the substantial cut that Groupon receives, along with the often more-than-50% discount makes it difficult to profit from such promotions. As well, many customers that purchase the Groupon deal are existing customers who would have generated revenue regardless. So if companies aren’t making additional profit and aren’t converting new loyal customers, perhaps marketing dollars are better spent on other promotional campaigns. If that is the case, I wonder if social buying sites are here to stay, or if they are just another fad.

When I think of Costco, I think of massive shopping carts filled with crates and crates of merchandise. It seems that you can find almost anything there, from food, to furniture, to electronics, to personalized wedding invitations.  Costco’s next step: wedding dresses. I wouldn’t normally associate wedding dresses with Costco, but Costco’s rationale is that some brides-to-be don’t want to spend hours at upscale bridal boutique or spend big bucks on a dress they will only wear once.

I wonder if this is a substantial enough target market for Costco to be successful. With so much pressure to make one’s wedding day “perfect”, I wonder if brides will go for a “discount” dress. Not that I have personal experience to draw from, but it seems that many people look forward to the experience of searching for that perfect dress; it is the idea that no cost is too great for a bride’s wedding day. Perhaps people will be open to the Costco bridal line as a way to save costs or have more money to spend on, say, a honeymoon. But will people want to advertise that their dress is from Costco, even if it looks similar to other designer dresses on the market? Costco has positioned itself so well as a volume discount brand; do people want to associate their wedding dress with the sane place where they purchase their ten jumbo cartons of juice every week? Maybe Costco will the secret wedding dress destination that everyone knows about, but no one talks about. I’m interested to see how consumers react to Costco’s new wedding dress line.

Reading a post in AdFreak about Google’s newest finger fitness program Chromercise got me thinking about the value of corporate April Fool’s jokes. Chromercise claimed to offer consumers a fun way to speedier online browsing, complete with colourful finger sweatbands. It definitely got people talking, and maybe encouraged some to try out Chrome, Google’s internet browser. I was impressed, as mentioned in AdFreak’s post, by the level of commitment in Chromercise. There was a legit-looking website, videos, success stories, and a blog post warning users to “stretch before and after [a] Chromercise workout.” Another prank from Google was Gmail Motion, which described keyboards as primitive, out-dated technology. Again, I was impressed by the incredible level of commitment.

Check out Gmail Motion's printable guide!

Google has long been known for their innovative and elaborate April Fool’s pranks, but it seems like more and more companies are joining the fun. Are April Fool’s jokes a method to somehow humanize companies, or to convince people that a company is more than a series of business transactions with consumers? To be honest, I am excited to see what companies like Google come up with every April Fool’s. I don’t know if I would use their products more because of it, but it definitely does not hurt my perception of their brand. What about companies that produce less-than-stellar April Fool’s jokes – jokes that are poorly executed, unoriginal, or in bad taste? Does it have a negative impact on that company’s image, or do people place little emphasis on April Fool’s and simply move on? It seems that for larger companies, especially ones that focus on innovation, like Google, a clever April Fool’s joke is not only expected, but can go a long way toward increasing their brand equity.

Crystal Wong wrote an interesting post on BBM being made available for other platforms. Being an avid Blackberry user, my first reaction to this news was confusion. I am addicted to my BBM app. The only downside to BBM is that not everyone has it. Other instant messaging apps like WhatsApp, PingChat, or GoogleTalk don’t compare at all. The only advantage these apps have is that they are available cross-platform. As Crystal mentioned, she, and many others, view BBM as a defining feature of the Blackberry and a reason to purchase one over an iPhone, for example. It seemed that by making BBM non-exclusive, RIM would be giving up a primary differentiation point, and potentially lose customers who chose a Blackberry solely for BBM.

Upon further reflection, RIM’s move seems less of an unfortunate lapse in judgment and more of a brilliant marketing move. For one, it adds value to the BBM app. The value of any instant messaging app depends on its user base. An app could have the greatest features, but if few people are using it, it is of little value. Thus, by allowing non-Blackberry users to use BBM, RIM is promoting the app and adding value. I would not be surprised if RIM offers non-Blackberry users a free limited version of BBM only, with ad space or limited contacts, and charges a fee for the full version. In this way, RIM would able to add value to its brand, maintain a key differentiating point, and generate additional revenue from an already existing product. Sounds like a brilliant move to me.

Recently, with the growth of the internet and youtube, companies have had a new medium to promote their products. Youtube offers an outlet where companies can manage videos on new products, exciting news, or exclusive online giveaways. This is one way for companies to build their online following. A more significant medium to tap into, I think, is the Youtube beauty guru community. This community has grown enormously in the past few years; more and more young people are choosing to share their insights on fashion and beauty in a public space.

I have a number of beauty/fashion gurus that I follow, to name a few, xteeener, bubzbeauty, and MszJackieChu. The reason that I follow these gurus is that I feel that we share similar styles in fashion, hair, makeup, or all three. If they give a particular product a good review, I am much more likely to buy it. The thinking is, if it worked for them, it’ll probably work for me! This isn’t always the case, of course, but I value their opinion highly, more so than any “leading expert” that I don’t know. I guess it is the perception of familiarity, or trust. I also feel that their opinions are somehow more valid because they are not biased towards any specific company.

To relate this back to marketing, if many young people feel the same way that I do, then the Youtube beauty guru community is a fantastic place for companies to promote their products. Sending sample products to gurus is an inexpensive way to raise brand awareness and, hopefully, promote the product. It is also a great way to get feedback from customers who have most likely tried many other products from different brands.

Thanks Beverly Chung for the interesting post on bad publicity!

Question: Is bad publicity better than no publicity?

Answer: It depends.

I think that in “A Serbian Movie”, as mentioned in Beverly’s blog, the bad publicity it received may have been beneficial to the movie’s promotion. The fact that it gets people talking is already a plus. Had the movie not played to such extremes, people may not have known about it at all. That being said, I would not watch the movie, but some people might. Perhaps stepping outside of the box and pushing boundaries are methods for media to cut through all the noise, to get people to notice. Perhaps that is the primary goal for many organizations: simply to be noticed. In that case, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

From a PR standpoint, bad publicity seems to be less of a plus. I’m talking about cases where an organization did not deliberately “create” bad publicity. Take, for example, BP. The devastating oil spill got people’s attention, it got them talking, and it increased the brand’s awareness. However, I would argue that the public view of BP plummeted drastically, and that can’t be a good thing. Where a company differentiate itself in the light of bad publicity is in its response. Organizations that own up to their mistakes and are proactive in fixing the problem(s) and preventing future ones are able to better mitigate the negative effects of bad PR. Companies that already have high brand equity also have an easier time bouncing back; they can remind their customers of what they have done right. Disasters like the oil spill also serve as a reminder to other companies in the industry to avoid making the same mistake, which is never a bad thing.

In the past, Google has been viewed primarily as a search engine. Its most popular apps, like Google Calendar, Google Reader, and Google Docs, have been focused on improving productivity. With its new +1 button, the company seems to be shifting its focus to include social media. The +1 button is essentially a way for people to make recommendations to their friends, based on personal experiences with specific organizations. Web pages with higher ratings will also appear higher on search results. Google has recognized that consumers value their friends’ opinions when it comes to, choosing a new restaurant to try, for example. Facebook has something similar where people can declare themselves to be a fan of certain organizations, or “like” sponsored ads directly.

From a marketing perspective, Google +1s and Facebook “likes” are significant for attracting new customers. I know that I am more likely to try a new restaurant or check out a new shoe store if I have heard positive reviews online, especially from my personal network. Appearing higher in my Google search results is also significant. I think that a large portion of people do not look past the first page of search results, or even past the first few links that Google brings up. Being higher in search results increases consumer awareness of organizations, which is the first step for gaining new customers.

For those eager to try out +1, Google is currently experimenting with a small number of users in the US and has not fully released the feature.

An interesting note: Currently, Facebook does not have a “dislike” button and Google does not have a “-1” button. Could it be something to expect in the future? Youtube does have a “thumbs down” option.

I came across the Levi’s Curve ID campaign several days ago and was intrigued by the innovative idea. Levi’s Curve ID moves away from the traditional sizing system for jeans, and focuses instead on shape. For many women, myself included, trying to find the perfect pair of jeans is a long and strenuous process. Levi’s strives to make this process easier by inviting customers to discover their Curve ID, and the perfect pair of jeans.

I find this campaign quite clever, in that it acknowledges that two women can be the same size, but a particular pair of jeans may look different on each of them. Levi separates its jeans into four Curve IDs:  Slight Curve, Demi Curve, and Bold Curve (In USA, Levi also offers Supreme Curve). Find out your Curve ID here!  This campaign embraces the notion of individuality: every woman is different, and thus, every woman needs her own pair of “custom fit” jeans to suit her specific shape, not just another generic “size 25”.

Levi’s Curve ID differentiates Levi from its competitors.  Although I have already found my go-to denim brands, I am definitely excited to check out Levi’s jeans now.