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?
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
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?
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?
Monday, March 19, 2012
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?
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?
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
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?
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?
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
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?
Should Google have made this switch or should Google have kept the Android Market as it was?
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
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?
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?
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)