In Response to Chris Morin

Prices are Going UP!

It will be interesting to see what happens when gas gets to $5 a gallon... will we all be driving or walking?  

I agree with you completely. Prices for EVERYTHING are rising due to some seemingly ineffective price changes around the world for goods that are needed and used every day. Gas prices rise because of war or other types of country rivalry in countries that sell oil. It's a never ending circle of rising prices. When will enough be enough?! What's even more interesting is that this cycle of pricing increases not only effects oil and gas, but effects other aspects of every day life as well like food and grocery shopping. It's astonishing today how people report that they were eating better years ago because food prices weren't so high... And neither were other goods prices either.

When will enough be enough? How long can this happen before someone does something about it?

Tide aligned with NFL Teams

Tide is teaming up with 32 NFL teams this coming Football season for $100 million plus.Once the campaign season rolls around, watch out for advertisements and the new Tide bottle featuring the NFL logo. Surprised? Don't be, a lot of teams use Tide to conquer their weekly laundry and there are other brands which do this too such as Head and Shoulders, Old Spice and Frebreze. It is said in this article: Procter & Gamble's Tide Looks to Clean Up With the National Football League that though the company is keeping secret of its marketing mix, that televisions ads will probably be a huge aspect of the campaign.

What do you think about this matter? What are the benefits of companies teaming up with athletics teams? Are there any disadvantages? Why spend so much money on a marketing mix?

In Response to Daniel Oliveira

Advertisements in Schools
Was it acceptable for this school to accept the funding from these advertisements? Should advertisements that send children the wrong message even be allowed in schools in the first place?


Dan makes a really good point. Young children are VERY impressionable. Because of this I think that advertisements that could send children the wrong idea should not be present in schools. Schools are supposed to be a place that teach children, not advertise them unhealthy foods and drinks. These types of advertisements are teaching these children that those unhealthy items are perfectly okay to eat. Though they are in small amounts, but children would not know that unless they were told by someone they look up to and trust like a parent or teacher. But teacher's wouldn't necessarily tell their students this.
In the case of this particular school I think that the school should have looked for funding from other sources than they got their advertisements from. They could have gotten "Got Milk?" posters and other healthy food choices instead of junk foods. This way they would be getting their funding and also be teaching the children a valuable lesson.


What else could the school have done differently?

Insights to Social Media Marketing

An article on Alltop called 5 Insights From The Social Media Marketing Industry Report states that there are several conclusion that can be taken away from the Social Media Marketing Industry Report. I want to go more in depth into two of the conclusions:


1. Marketers are too focused on measurement and not focused enough on strategy. Marketers were asked which top 10 social media questions they wanted answered. The number 1 answer was about measurement, the number 6 answer was strategy. This hints toward the reason as to why so many businesses struggle with using social media. Essentially, if you focus on how to measure what you're doing without having a strategy as to why you are even doing it then you've just set yourself up to fail. Strategy should be behind all the hard work and effort put into social marketing, instead of in the hindsight of everything else.


2. The line between social and non-social marketing is misunderstood. Businesses should educate themselves on what exactly these two terms mean because something like a live question and answer webinar is more like social marketing than using twitter to send out blasts to people's news feeds. Social marketing is a systematic application of marketing along with other concept techniques used to achieve specific behavioral goals for a social good. Non-social marketing is used for goods other than social goods.


Why is it important that marketing strategies be utilized and the difference between marketing and social marketing be known?

In Response to Tyler Mcwhirk

The Hunger Games

Do you think social media will one day replace regular media?

 I do not think that social media will completely out-run and replace "regular" media but will rather become increasingly more popular until they come to a standstill where both types of media will exist together. I think that this will make both types of media stronger. Of course this all depends what you consider to be social media rather than regular media. In my opinion social media are websites like Facebook and Twitter and maybe even YouTube while "regular" media would be considered things like TV advertisements, newspapers, and maybe magazines, etc.

What would you consider to be social media/"regular" media?

10 Things You Can Learn From Apple Stores

The article featured here explains how Apple has unlocked the secrets to building great customer loyalty. On their list of the top 10 things your company should be doing are: Stop selling things, hire for smiles, celebrate diversity, empower employees, sell the benefit and last but not least appeal to the buying brain (along with some others). Some of these are self explanatory but others may leave you scratching your head a little. Let me break it down for you.

1. Stop Selling Things: Steve Jobs first started Apple with a vision not "just another way to increase market shares." Most companies tend to center their vision around "selling more stuff" but that isn't very inspiring to others, including customers, so Apple focuses on a different route.

2. Hire for Smiles: Apples employees are simply hired, trained, motivated and taught to create memorable experiences for every customer that walks through their door. The store values a "magnetic" personality just as much as a person's technical proficiency.

3. Celebrate Diversity: Almost everything that's on the list of "not to hire" for another company are on the list of "TO hire" for Apple Stores. Tattoos, obscene hair, piercings, etc. are all acceptable for Apple employees in order to reflect the diversity of their customers within their workers. In short, the company doesn't look for people that fits a mold.

4. Empower Employees: Employees at Apple stores are encouraged to take their time with their customers. Talking about completely unrelated things like golfing or kids is totally acceptable because it promotes a great experience and essentially, that's all that matters.

5. Sell the Benefit: Employees at Apple are taught to sell the benefit of a product rather than just selling the product itself. They are encouraged to tailor to each separate customer. For instance, when someone with kids comes in asking about the iPad, make the kids love it by letting them play with an in-store model which will show the customer a benefit of the product.

6.Appeal to the Buying Brain: Essentially this just means that a store should be spacious, clean, organized, well-lit, etc. because the brain will consume more energy if the store environment is messy or cluttered.

Do you think Apple is on the right track? If other businesses were to follow suit do you think they would do better in sales? ...Would our expectations change?

In Response to Georgianne

Do Brazilian Blowout Products need to update their current product labeling and provide salons and product users with clearer, detailed and more truthful information about their products and how to use them safely than they are providing now?
I think that many of these products are using deceptive labeling, and their advertising could be misleading.  Do you agree?


I think that it's wrong for companies to hide ingredients on labels, especially when they could be really bad for our health like in foods, shampoos and beauty products. Things like this should be regulated. I think that because this scandal has hit the news, actions should be taken to prevent this from happening in the future and to reprimand the companies who are using Formaldehyde and other harmful chemicals in their products.


What would this type of interference from the government do to those companies that are using harmful ingredients? To their brand, reputation? What would they have to change in their marketing plan to adjust to the change?

April Fools

Some companies like Google, Skype and Axe (just to name a few) aired some April Fool's day ads for some pretty cool, but fake products. Axe came up with this ad for the Lynx Spray App. An app which you can scroll through colognes and instantly spray your choice scent directly from your phone. You can view the video below:

Ads like these are often funny and entertaining and they indirectly market a product with  a slightly different name (like Lynx instead of Axe) which is great for those who know the particular product is fake. This is because the company is making money off the ads from those consumers who know that the product being marketed is actually something different than what is being shown. But for those who have no idea that these products are fake, I don't think that they would be helping the company make any profits. Perhaps the companies could be focusing their marketing on something other than fake ads... Or maybe these companies have a lot of spare money floating around.

 

Can you see any issues for the companies which choose to air these April Fool's ads? Are there any benefits?

Facebook as a Marketing Tool

According to surverybuilder.com web users spend more time on Facebook than they do on other sites like Google and Facebook advertising has increased recently. The features that Facebook has such as a complete profile of information on its users, marketers can target specific ads to specific people. Using Facebook for advertising is also pretty cheap, cheaper than Google in fact. Facebook has become a great tool for not only networking but marketing for all sorts of businesses.


Do you think that Facebook will continue to grow as a marketing tool?

In Response to Kathleen Johnson

Kraft Attempting to Rebrand International Image
Can anyone think of any other re-branding fails? Does anyone think it is a good idea to change their international name?


I think that Kraft should keep their brand name because of how old it is. I think that with the change will come a lot of negativity for the company and confusion for its customers. There is nothing but positivity toward this very old brand, so why should they change the brand name? If there were negativity toward the brand I could understand wanting to wipe the slate clean and move on.. seeing as not everyone would get the memo that a new brand is actually an old brand with a new name. But with Kraft, I don't think this drastic of a change is worth it, especially with the scandal and criticism that resulted when they announced their plans to re-brand.
An example of a re-branding fail is Tropicana Orange Juice by Pepsi-Co. which resulted in 20% drop in sales. So as you can see, when criticism results from a re-branding change, there can be serious consequences.


Why not change the brand name in the United States but everywhere else in the world?

Sterling Parfums

In March of 2011 Sterling Parfums officially launched three new fragrance brands, the Armaf collection, the Estiara collection and the Cosmo collection, all at the same time. Firstly the Armaf collection is a premium fragrance targeted toward mid to high level customers. Secondly the Estiara collection which is targeted to professionals and is chic and affordable. Thirdly the Cosmo collection which is an assortment of trendy and affordable fragrances designed for the mass market.
All of these new brands were developed with the companies target market in mind. They also closely collaborated with their clients to come up with the perfect fragrances. The company is ready to move into a global level so that they can cater to a more diverse group of customers.


The company is expanding and has obviously put a lot of thought into their expansion. Do you think that releasing all three fragrances at the same time was a smart move? ..Or do you think it would have been more beneficial for the fragrances to be released separately if even by only a couple of weeks?

In Response to Aislynn Sherry

Above the Influence Campaigns
Which campaign do you think is more successful? Or will be more successful? Do you think these ads are useful and preventative at all?


I agree that the Above the Influence commercials have changed, pretty drastically since they first started airing. I specifically remember the commercials with the dog talking to the human telling him he shouldn't do drugs and the person would always make some excuse like "I can stop whenever I want". Or that commercial that was this girl sunken into the couch. These commercials were so negative and even funny that they didn't sink in to the viewers.. I don't think their point was really getting across. I cannot recall seeing commercials about teens doing things in the community rather than doing drugs, but it definitely sounds like it will be more successful. Teens like to rebel, and if a commercial is showing them drugs and alcohol are bad, then they're going to want to do them. Overall, I think that both commercials used in unison would be preventative and helpful because both sides are being shown.


Do you think the new commercials will be more successful because they are positive rather than negative?

In Response to Ethan Gage

Pizza Hut vs. Dominos
Convenience and image are certainly on the side of Dominos, we shall see if this image can be held. I end this blog with the question, as a consumer, how often do you base your decision off of the image of the company rather than the quality of the product itself?


I feel as though Dominos ups their image by making their products look better than they are in their ads. Along with their new ad campaign they have recently changed a bunch of their recipes such as the cheesy bread, which now has cheese on the inside as well as the outside. I think that Dominos changes their recipes a lot and plays a role in their advertising strategy because it's something that gets people to come back and try the "new" products. Though I am usually satisfied with my order at Dominos, I feel as though their image out-does their product and makes their product look as though its going to be just perfect, when that isn't necessarily the case.
On the other hand, I think that Pizza Hut portrays their products as they are by not over-embellishing them. Because of this I think that Pizza Hut's image is pretty close to their actual product and this keeps their loyal customers coming back. But, because their image isn't over-embellished like Dominos is, the image does not play as huge of a role in Pizza Hut's advertising or whether customers choose Pizza Hut over something else.


Would you continue going to a place because you are a loyal customer if the image of the company changed? What if the product changed?

Hello Google Play

Over the last year or so the Google Android Market has seen some pretty intense changes. Originally the Android Market was meant just for smartphone apps, but now it includes e-books, music, videos and more. This development has lead Google to get rid of the Android Market name and rename it as Google Play aimed at tying together all the digital media in one place. The best part? You don't have to have an Android to access the digital media. It's accessible from web browsers.

Should Google have made this switch or should Google have kept the Android Market as it was?

The Apple iPhone Complete Ad Campaign

Believe it or not there have been a total of 84 ads for the Apple iPhone produce by TBWA a top ad agency since 2007. But let's backtrack a little...


We've all seen the "Get a Mac" campaign starring Justin Long and John Hodgeman. You can watch all of them in the following youtube video:  This campaign, which lasted four years and consisted of 66 videos, was "the best TV ad campaign of the last decade, and the best advertising comedy series ever," reports Tim Nudd in AdWeek in this article. Now there is a new TV ad extraordinaire coming to town, or rather hunkering down and setting up shop.


The iPhone ad campaign is entering its sixth year. The ads are cleverly designed to be mini product demonstrations of how new and upcoming features of the iPhone are going to work. Though the iPhone ad campaign may lack the charm that the "Get a Mac" campaign had, it is more varied and simply shows the audience what they're going to get from purchasing the phone.


Do you think that Apple's ad campaigns make their products sound better than they are? Or do you think that the iPhone is better than say the Droid and the Mac is better than a PC?

In Response to Aislynn Sherry

Look, no hands! The driverless future of driving is here
How do you feel about a driverless vehicle? Would you be an advocate for this type of technology?


I think that too much technology is bad because people become lazy and rely on technology to do everything for them. I don't think this technology would be beneficial to society. So going with that I think that a driverless vehicle is not necessarily a good thing. Yeah I think it would be pretty cool to basically sleep while I drive, but wouldn't that be a downfall? Personally, I love to drive, so I would never buy a car that drives me.


Also think of what would happen if the technology crashed. Say if there were too many cars that your car was trying to interact with at the same time, like on the highway or in a big city, and your car's system crashes... This means that you are going to crash and if that's the case and we've moved away from the safety protocols and features of cars, then you're in more danger if you crash than you would be today.


Do you agree or disagree?

In Response to M-Blog

John Smith
Should John Smith sell the names? (Be sure to answer the poll to the left of this post.) Also, Does the AMA Statement of Ethics address this issue? Go to the AMA website (American Marketing Association) and look at their Statement of Ethics. What in the Statement relates to John Smith's dilemma?


John Smith should NOT sell the names because there are other options besides laying off employees to cut costs. Also, the poll did not necessarily ask if the poll takers were interested in buying the cars, only if they would want the car. Just because a person wants a new car doesn't mean that they are going to buy a new car or even if they plan to buy a new car it can still fall through and not happen.


I think that the America Marketing Association's Statement of Ethics does address this situation because it includes core values of honesty, responsibility, fairness, respect, transparency and citizenship. There could be many reasons why John Smith's business is not doing well, but selling people out is not the way to go about fixing his problems. Plus the $8000 will run out but if he ups his marketing or some other part of his business, then the money could start coming in more and will continue to rather than running out.


Are there any other factors which should play into Smith's decision to sell the names or not? ...Ethical or otherwise?

Groupon Controversy - Is it a Spoof?

Groupon is a company which has special deals every day with businesses so that if a set number of people buy the product or service they all get a discount. You can learn more about it in this video.  During this past Superbowl, Groupon aired a very controversial ad that cost 3 million dollars: Save the Money - Tibet: 
This ad starts out by showing scenery in Tibet, saying that the country is in trouble. Then it shifts to a man in a restaurant saying that they make good food and that he got a discount because he and a whole lot of other people all bought on Groupon.com.


Not only did Groupon air this ad, but the company also aired two other controversial ads: one which makes fun of saving whales and the devastation of the Brazil rainforest. But the CEO of Groupon, Andrew Mason, explained to The Wall Street Journal that the ads were only intended to be a spoof and that, in regards to the Tibetans, that the company takes the suffering of these people seriously and intends to raise money for them. More on this controversy can be read here on ABC News.com


After watching the advertisement, reading this post and the linked article, do you think that Groupon is unethical in their advertisement? Are they taking comedic advertisement too far?

In Response to Tanya Doran

PlayStation Vita
Do you think it is risky to have such a high budget for a device that may not have all the features someone is looking for these days. Example - the Iphone can play video, talk, text, and play games.


In my opinion, the PS Vita isn't that much different from the other hand held gaming consoles out there today. Yes, it does have Wi-Fi and cameras on both sides, a touch screen, duel analog sticks, etc. but these aren't necessarily things that would sell the device. I can agree that it makes the device pretty cool, but the sole purpose of the device is really to be an on the go type of gaming console. So why the huge marketing budget? I think that either Sony either thinks this device NEEDS the extra advertising and marketing or Sony thinks the device will market itself and wants to reap the profits from advertising it to more people. It seems to be an extreme marketing budget, regardless especially because the target market is males in their 20's who are already going to be all over this type of product as it is. I don't think it's necessarily a risky move, I just think that the budget is way out of proportion to how much the device is literally going to market itself.


Why is Sony spending so much money on something that practically markets itself to the target market?

Product Placement in Movies

We've all seen advertising in movies, but I was thinking about it the other day and started wondering when it all started. Turns out, according to this youtube video, that it started back in 1919 in a silent film called The Garage, starring Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle. No, I am not kidding you. It first started with Red Crown Gasoline company paying to place their sign on the wall indicated in the video above (toward the beginning of the video).


Product placement or embedded marketing is where goods or services are placed into a context where ads do not usually exist like movies. The trends in advertisement are shifting more toward product placement in place of ads and commercials. Let's be honest... we're all sick of seeing a billion commercials during our favorite shows, often times the same commercials over and over again. So, now instead of commercials, companies are gearing toward product placement within the shows themselves where the product or service even are being used in the content of the video. But product placement doesn't stop there. It's even being used in video games and books! It's all explained here: on HowStuffWorks.com


Do you think that the shift in advertisements from actual ads and commercials to movies, TV shows, and even video games and books is a good change or a bad change? Why or why not?