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?