Last summer when I vacationed in Europe, I was surprised to see personalized names on Coca Cola bottles everywhere.

I immediately though this was a fantastic idea because having your name on a bottle means the product is more scarce and unique. This adds value influencing you to buy it because what is limited is always better.

This campaign also spreads Coke’s brand with word of mouth, because people may buy a personalized coke for their friends, family members, and even significant others (romantic partners).

I was particularly impressed by how Coke utilised marketing beyond satisfying physiological needs (thirst) like how they usually do (and have consistently done so in the past) and targeted love/belonging, social, and esteem needs. Below is an effective example because I may think that buying a personalized Coke for someone may lead to me getting a boyfriend/girlfriend.

Travelling to multiple countries in Europe, I was further impressed by how Coca Cola adapted to country differences by adapting their bottle names to names that were more popular in the local area. They really had to understand each country’s cultural differences  to be able to pull off a successful campaign.

All of this ties in with value-based marketing which Coca Cola does very well.

Finally, seeing this campaign really made me wonder why Canada or at least specifically Vancouver doesn’t have this. If Coca Cola targeted highly individualistic “Western” countries, then why did they not target Canada and the US as well? Interestingly enough, Coke has launched a similar campaign in China.

Deep down, there may just not be enough demand for it in North America, or Coke may still be in the process of creating the plan. What do you think?

BC politics are not something that I follow often (and neither do most of my peers I would presume), but something that always intrigued me in politics in general were the “attack advertisements” or “political bullying”, especially during the recent election in May 2013.

Let’s take a look at just the NDP and Liberal parties. On one side,  Adrian Dix (NDP) said he was running a “positive campaign”, but from the ads targeted at the BC liberals on the NDP YouTube page that heavily criticize the Liberals, I feel like that wasn’t truly the case.  On the other side, the “Concerned Citizens for BC” (BC Liberal supporters) posted extremely negative and personal attack ads on Adrian Dix and the NDP.

I feel that attack ads break marketing ethics because of its damaging and slanderous attitudes presented, and the negative effects it has on both the people running, and the voters’ opinions.

Attack ads intentionally try to mislead voters by shaping negative images of the competition. In marketing terms, instead of creating value or benefits (which makes a successful platform in business), I feel like attack ads create the opposite – high cost. For example, personally I felt a sense of fear – “Will such terrible things really happen if he/she gets elected?” I also felt apathy – “Both candidates are so terrible. I really don’t care who wins.”

Instead of satisfying customers’ (voters’) needs, attack ads intend to force voters to form a pessimistic opinion about the competition. These kinds of advertisements might be allowed in politics, but if they were transferred to other markets, it would likely cause an outcry. For example, imagine if Tim Cook (Apple’s CEO) ran attack ads on Samsung and Kwon Oh Hyun (CEO).

To sum it up, I find attack ads in politics unethical because: it causes direct harm to competitors, negatively manipulates the feelings of viewers about someone/something, and the advertisements may not be telling the whole truth or over-exaggerates facts to misled people. Essentially, it’s like expensive bullying – on the grand stage of local BC politics.

Extra stuff

A video showing an example of unethical marketing: Christy Clark Deceives Public by Disguising Ad as a News Story

An article about Liberal attack ads: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/latest-liberal-attack-ad-targets-dix-s-memo-gate-defence-1.1273482