Valentine's Day, Another of the Marketers' Favorite Holiday

With the most romantic day of the year creeping up next Thursday, I am sure that a lot of guys who have a significant other are feeling the pressure. As with all of the big holidays, we are seeing, and hearing, an increased amount of jewelry commercials both on TV and on the radio from Zales, Kay, Shane Co, etc. The companies deploy ingenious plans, which drop little hints through the commercials in order to plant ideas in men's heads.

However, it is our society that feeds the fire for all of the jewelry ads. Every holiday is now NOT about being with the loved ones and family, but about RECEIVING gifts. And the more expensive they are the better, even if the giver has to go in-debt with the credit card company or borrow money from friends in order to make a loved one happy.

When I see the jewelry commercials, they make me sick. Sure they are showing the most glamorous and flashy diamond pendants, rings, earrings, but unless you are willing to spend over $800, you won’t get the size and prestige that they advertise on TV.

Remember guys: ~ Diamonds are NOT necessarily a girl’s best friend~ Don’t fall for the marketing ploy and be a smart consumer, which includes price shopping if you do decide to get some “bling”.

*I am hoping that some of you will respond to this post and comment on whether or not the jewelry ads and marketing techniques have any effect on your purchasing behavior*

Unethical Marketing

There have been many movies coming out lately with comic book themes like Spiderman, Transformers, etc. that are being marketed to little kids, but the movies themselves are PG-13. My nephew is 6 years old and LOVES Spiderman but has never seen any of the movies. He is constantly being targeted with Spiderman marketing, toys, costumes, games, books, (yes he wears Spiderman pajamas) and wants to see the movies, but my sister knows that they are too violent for him.

It is very unethical for companies to market these movies to such a young audience. Here is an excerpt from the article from the link:


"Between May 2006 and June 2007, the Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) publicly cited seven instances of PG-13 movies being advertised during children’s television programming. In 2007, Spiderman 3, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, and The Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer featured licensed toys for children as young as four.

In 2005, the PG-13 blockbuster Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith featured toys for young children as well as a Burger King toy giveaway and several other food promotions that clearly appealed to preschool children, despite George Lucas’ public statements that the film’s violence and dark themes were inappropriate for children under six."

Marketing In Games and Social Networks

We are now in the next phase of marketing: the transition into the digital realm. Experimentations with ads in video games and social networking sites are being done. But with the ease made available by the very nature of the digital scene, ads run rampant and perhaps are creating an oversaturated environment.

"The [supposed] solution to everything at the moment in the digital space is adsupported," Sir Howard Stringer, chief executive of Sony, told the Financial Times. "While advertisers are happy to talk that up, there is a limit to the amount of money available."

They also suggest that people are more then willing to accept the intrusion caused by ads if the content they receive is free.

Advertisers cited research showing that consumers found mobile, video game and social network advertising intrusive, but many were willing to put up with it in exchange for free content.

I'm not all that sure about that. With websites and social networks that can work - to an extent - but with gaming? I know a lot of people who are rather frustrated with that. The presentation and form of their advertisement needs to readjust itself to better appeal to the new market that they are finding themselves in.

What do you think about ads in video games or on websites in general?

Source: Financial Times
Via: Kotaku

An amazing new projector!

This is a very interesting new product.



Another application for this product would be to use it to display advertisements in all sorts of areas that do not currently have them. Perhaps one of the most understated values of this device is that it requires no focus. This means that it can be displayed on items of unequal height or at uneven distances such as objects that are at an angle or moving objects.

Consequently this device could be used to display advertisements on the sides of passing cars in a tunnel, on the side of a bus, or might simply be used to create full 30 fps video advertisements on ordinary billboards.

The lower power requirements and likely reasonable cost of this device are additional factors that will likely contribute to creative adoption of it into non-traditional environments. Admittedly 10 ANSI lumens will be very limiting. The projector I am currently using to write this post is over 600 lumens and it is washed out easily with too much ambient light. However as an exciting new technology this is definitly something to keep an eye on.

What makes an Effective Ad?

With the Superbowl just coming around the corner, not only are people excited about the Giants vs. The Patriots, but also what are going to be the big commercials of 2008? The commercials of the Superbowl have become almost as popular as the game itself. With adds costing millions of dollars the question is what makes an effective add. This is an older Superbowl add (WAZZUP) by Budweiser that was so popular it became an integrated part of our society. The question is why? Is it because of the humor, is it because Budweiser is so delicious, or is it brilliant targeting and segmenting on the behalf of the marketing team at Budweiser?

Super Bowl Ads

Companies are posting their ads before the Super Bowl this Sunday to get their money's worth. Here's an excerpt from this article from The Seattle Times:

Advertisers are jostling for attention for their spots like never before, posting them online in advance of Sunday's kickoff, unveiling them at news conferences, screening them at cocktail parties and releasing behind-the-scenes videos about the ads' production.

"For that amount of money, they want to get more bang out of it," said Neil Burns, professor of advertising at the University of Texas in Austin

Click here to read the whole article.

UK Seatbelt Commercials.

These are really graphic ads that are currently being used in the UK to promote the use of seatbelts.

Here are some specific links to videos- 1, 2.

Warning- the first ad is especially graphic.

Why Microsoft Yahoo is not a Good Idea.

Some of you may have noticed the big news that Microsoft is trying to acquire Yahoo. Here is the Seattle Times story on this. I recently posted a comment on a NYTimes blog on this-

Microsoft has truly made an audacious bid in the online advertising space by approaching Yahoo. However, it is not clear if such a merger is a good idea.

Consider the following.

Google has a tremendous headstart in the online search and advertising business. Microsoft’s performance has been mediocre from the beginning. At this point, they are stuck in a no-win brand fight between MSN and Live. The best case scenario that they currently face is the success of Live.com and the demise of MSN.

Even while admitting that Yahoo has had problems in the last few months, the company has been ahead of Microsoft. By accepting Microsoft’s bid, Yahoo threatens to undermine everything that it has ever built. Moreover, the organizational cultures are so dramatically different, the resulting giant will spend months before it can truly compete.

Microsoft has forgotten how to innovate. That is the bigger issue. They cannot always buy their way out of problems. If they really want to fight in the online advertising space, they need to create a better search engine and advertising solution.

Microsoft-Yahoo will be a marriage of a mediocre search engine with a decent one. That is no way to beat a great search engine!

The argument that scale can drive down advertising prices is not a good one as well. Why? Advertising prices are determined by a bidding process among advertisers and by keyword demand. Simply having more media does not solve anything.

Steve Ballmer is clearly trying to save his legacy with this move. In the process, he might sink the company by creating an extraordinary large organization with few synergies. Paradoxically, in the end, the winner might be Google!

Affordable Healthcare in Rhode Island

A group of Rhode Island doctors have decided to combat the rising costs of primary healthcare with their HealthAccessRI plan. HealthAccessRI is a monthly subscription service to a primary care physician for “‘less than the cost of a cell phone, less than the cost of cable TV, less than the cost of high-speed Internet,’” according to founding doctor Michael Fine. Fine and a group of likeminded doctors have setup a system that allows for affordable doctor visits without insurance or government involvement.

HealthAccessRI solely covers access to primary care physicians and does not cover other things such as hospital stays, x-rays, or other more serious procedures. Arguing that these are the things that should be covered by the insurance companies Dr. James M. Schwartz contends:

Today’s health-care financing perverts the original concept of insurance, which was supposed to pay for catastrophes, he says. “No auto insurance sells you a plan that covers oil changes and tune-ups,” he says. The current system has also harmed primary care, Schwartz argues, by paying doctors per visit, making it financially difficult to give patients the attention they need. HealthAccessRI gives doctors a steady, predictable income to cover predictable costs.

I think that HealthAccessRI is an interesting experiment that requires further investigation. I would love to have the option to pay for such a service while holding a significantly cheaper health insurance policy which would be reserved primarily for catastrophes and things other than primary care.
You can read the full article here.
Also posted on Ethereal Madness.
& Living Large on Less

Dove beauty campaign

In the past months Dove has created a campaign for "real beauty" portraying women of all sizes, not the typical size 0 model. I think that Dove has a great marketing stratgey on their hands. Their products are targeted at the majority rather than the minority of the population. Every women wants to feel beautiful and Dove is sending out a great message that beauty just isn't obtainbable in a size 0 body. I especially like this commercial in particular because it shows that models aren't perfect either. The perfect women isn't obtainable, they are actually created through photoshop where the models are enhanced. In actuality, to be supermodel pretty is unrealistic, models are not even perfect by any means.

Ronald Teaches DDR

Again and again I'm reminded how different the culture between nations can be. Here in the States, you probably wouldn't see Ronald McDonald leading a DDR example but in other countries he's (or at least McDonald's) is view in a much better light.

This video shows an interesting form of marketing. Having Ronald lead the tutorial of a very popular game type further cements people's appreciation of McDonald's as a company as it appeals to a large segment of the population.

The future of Marketing

Mobile Marketing Revenue to Hit $24 Billion in 2013, says ABI Research

Although mobile marketing revenue is at a mere $1.8 billion last year (2007), ABI projects a gigantic shift in marketing strategies in the next five years.

"The clear difference in this market over the past twelve months has been the embrace of mobile marketing as an integral part of cross-media brand campaigns," says ABI Research director Michael Wolf. "Mobile is no longer off-limits in the minds of advertisers, but is instead seen as a very personal way to reach consumers who can be incentivized through information services and compelling content, as well as through more directly relevant and targeted messaging."

While they point out that this is a largely unexplored idea to date ("Wild West" is their term), more and more people are switching to flat rate data plans with unlimited text and multimedia messaging, and spending more and more time on their phones conducting business.

What I wonder about, and find slightly scary, is will they will able to track individuals' online phone browsing history and market products specifically to their interests? A notion that is slightly hinted at but not really talked about in depth.

With Tivo fastforwarding through TV commercials, Satellite Radio having no commercials, Spam controls filtering our emails, it appears our cell phones are the next marketing and advertising target. What's next?

Super Bowl Advertising

With the Super Bowl coming up next weekend many are starting to think about what companies will do next with their 30 second ad spots.  The article titled "Companies Banking on Super Bowl Ads", that I found in the Seattle Times outlines the reasons why companies invest so much in these ads.  

Http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/entertainment/D8UEDSK80.html

A 30 second spot this year will cost $2.7 million dollars, and is expected to reach over 90 million viewers.  The high price is not a concern for many companies who relish the opportunity to reach that many viewers with one ad.  Some like Coke think it is "critical" to get their message out, but to me it seems like a very steep price to pay with so many other mediums out there today to advertise. 

YouTube opens door to its video library

This article is for all the YouTube fans. According to YouTube most people equipped with the latest generation of mobile phones will be able to peruse tens of millions of YouTube videos. So now you can easily see all videos by a click on your cellphone. What do you all think, will this idea work?

Superbowl advertisement targeted to hearing impared

The original article I read was:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22824530/

This article is about the following advertisement scheduled to play at the super bowl:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ffrq6cUoE5A


I found this idea behind this article to be fascinating. I think the idea of cross over appeal between an niche segment of the market and the majority in addition to the entertainment potential of this idea really show creativity and will yield great results.

Obviously Pepsi is also trying to push its enabled platform through this advertising. The following article is about Pepsi and why they made it and about the making of it:

http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1850527 and http://youtube.com/watch?v=ffrq6cUoE5A

I think the weakest part of it is actually tying Pepsi into the add. Sure the driver of the car takes a swig but I missed that until I specifically went looking for it.

It is an interseting to consider how effective that will be compared to their last superbowl add:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7EEZLYKN8Fo&feature=related

I think that advertisement definitly had more of an ability to showcase their brand and product.

It is also interesting to note both of the adds play heavily into humor, with the poor awakened people in the first video and the burned burgers and distracted Coca-cola employees in the second.

The Britney add seems more more consistent with Pepsi's advertising history such as the Cindy C add here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=AcroQsUN60s.

Whole Foods will stop using plastic bags

Whole Foods will stop using plastic bags, instead giving customers a choice between reusable bags or recycled paper. Here is an excerpt from the article:

The Whole Foods Market chain said Tuesday that it would stop offering plastic grocery bags, giving customers instead a choice between recycled paper or reusable bags.

A rising number of governments and retailers, including PCC Natural Markets in the Seattle area, are banning plastic bags, or discouraging their use, because of concerns about their environmental effect.

Unilever creates contradicting marketing campaigns

I was reading on one of my favorite sites
http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org//
about Unilever, which we all know makes several products including Dove soaps and Axe products. Although they are both bath and body products, they have completely opposite ad campaigns, which possibly contradict one another. Dove's "campaign for real beauty" is all about making women feel comfortable with their skin and bodies. The commercials feature regular looking women of all body shapes and ages, wearing little to no make-up and conveying the message that you are beautiful no matter what.

(I wanted to post a youtube here but for some reason, can't do it. It is called "Dove Evolution" and is a great commercial for the dove campaign. Check it out!)

The Axe campaign is just the opposite, and some would even say degrading to women, making girls look cheap and easy. The women in these commercials wear very little clothing and will do anything for a guy that uses Axe products.

Just a note on the website above, Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood is a great organization with the purpose of calling businesses out on the unfair targeting of children. I have a daughter, so I am very sensitive to these issues and this organization is successful in stopping harmful (sexist, unhealthy, etc.) campaigns. Everyone should check it out, especially those with kids!

Wal-Mart: the jolly 'green' giant?

After talking about organic/fair trade and other "green"  attributes today in class, it seemed only fitting to share this info I found from an article pertaining to Wal-Mart's new campaign for sustainability in its building design and product supply. The following video provides a few examples of what the company is pursuing. (Click on the title above to link to the original msn article.)

----------------------------

Question: Do you think it is ethical for Wal-Mart to market itself as eco-friendly sustainable when the majority of its green efforts have come from simply adding organic foods to their supply? Things to consider:

--  Are they REPLACING conventional (non-organic) products with organic alternatives or just ADDING organics on top of the goods they already purchase?  

--  If Wal-Mart is purchasing its organic products from the same national brands from which it gets its conventional products, does that really make a commendable difference? (ex: Smuckers peanut butter vs. Smuckers "organic" peanut butter...... comes from the same company, likely travels the same distance worldwide to get to the multitude of Wal-Marts...carbon footprint issues?)

Here's a more radical opinion of what might *really* be happening, just to play devil's advocate!

  Where do you stand on this issue in terms of Wal-Mart's use of green marketing?? What effect will this have on consumers - will it be successful for Wal-Mart in the short/long run?

Funny yet somewhat provacative Citibank commercial

I really like this commercial, because it is really funny and gets stuck in your head. When they were playing it frequently, I had the whole commercial memorized because I thought it was so great. Also the fact that they had a lot of different commercials like these, it made it even better. In posting this commercial, I would also like to address the discussion we had in class last week about sexuality on TV. I felt this commercial was a little provocative in the sense that it talks about women's sexy lingerie, but the fact that the voice is coming out of an older man, takes away that whole sexy message. I think that this commercial gives Citibank a lot of attention, it is memorable, but without subjecting us all to a sexy model in the commercial. Just something to think about.

When marketing a good idea goes too far

http://www.slashfood.com/2008/01/16/starbucks-new-skinny-platform-ruffles-feathers/

I don't drink a lot of coffee, and the other day at the bank the teller gave me a coupon for Starbucks' new "skinny" latte, implying a low calorie, healthier alternative to coffee. It got me thinking when I saw the coupon, that there must be some people that are slightly upset with the word choice Starbucks decided to use. I know that if it occured to me, it had to have occured to someone else as well, especially individuals larger than myself. I got online and found a couple of articles regarding this issue, confirming that I wasn't the only one who thought this was slightly upsetting. I am, in all honesty, not bothered by this, but I think that they have taken a good concept, and poorly marketed it, causing somewhat of a disturbance in the coffee world. This article talks about the word choice with their marketing campaign and worth the read. Especially with today's world very concerned with healthier choices, and (as we are talking about right now in class) organic alternatives. Inside of this article is also a link to a letter from a Starbucks barista who was the original person to speak up about their word choice for this new product. In her letter she states that she refuses to use this new marketing campaign and won't promote this product. Interesting that the first to speak up about being upset about this was from within.

Nike: Leave Nothing

This is my favorite commercial. I just wanted to share it with you guys. Nike's Leave Nothing commercial.

Truth in Advertising? Starbucks' "short" $1 coffee

NPR and the Wall Street Journal report that Starbucks is testing a $1.00 cup of coffee in certain Seattle stores. The cup is being labeled as "short." The bargain does not seem quite as extreme when one considers that a cup like this would normally sell for $1.50--still over-priced for a cup of coffee, but not a price we would normally consider Starbucks league.

This move is reportedly motivated by declining sales. An interesting question, however, is what types of people this cup will attract. Will sales of this item come at the expense of the more expensive concoctions, or will this (1) motivate more people not in the habit of going out for coffee to go for the prestige and mystique of Starbucks, (2) come at the expense of other establishments, or (3) encourage current Starbucks customers to "trade down," or (4) replace current higher end items at Starbucks that would have "drifted" to lower priced establishments in the near future?

One interesting issue is the effect on capacity. In addition to the cost of the coffee at Starbucks, those who show up at peak hours also frequently end up in long lines. Will these low margin sales contribute to longer lines? It may be that one benefit of these lower priced items is that they will be quick to serve. The WSJ reports that Starbucks is also experimenting with free refills at some locations. It is not clear if the $1.00 beverages are included in this. If so, this may cause a lot of people to "hang around" at Starbucks to get the refill, taking up tables. In some areas, this could be a problem at some times. At peak hours, however, much of the business seems to be to go orders, so the "low enders" may not end up crowding out the higher end patrons.

An interesting issue is "margin arithmetic," the question of how many "short" sales are needed to make up for the loss of one "tall," "grande," or "venti" sale. The margin on a $1.00 drink is limited, unless it spurs the buying of some over-priced muffin or bagel. This leaves the question of costs--or, more precisely, marginal costs--of serving this beverage. With economies of scale and limited pressures on capacity, the margins may be decent. There is also the possibility that the new offering will make Starbucks affordable to certain teenagers and other groups who may later, with increasing affluence, "graduate" to the more expensive items.

McDonald's Happy Meal Ad

I really like this commercial. It's something new and it's pretty funny.

Starbucks vs. McDonalds

Many of you have heard by now about the 'brewing battle' between Starbucks and McDonald's for the gourmet coffee market. McDonald's will hire baristas and begin serving lattes, mochas, espressos and cappuccinos in some of its locations (how does a McMocha sound?). This Time.com article touches on the difference between the McDonald's and Starbucks customer base and whether McDonald's can attract some of Starbucks' customers to its restaurants. This reminds me of a statement our classmate shared, about the difficulty of a brand to change people's minds once it is deemed as inferior (i.e., Kia). Since this is a blog for a college class, most of the readers will fall closer to the Starbucks customer base than McDonald's. Will any of you now visit Mickey D's for a cup of coffee and a Big Mac (it was evident that 99% of you were not big fans of the place)? Or will you stick to Starbucks and pay for its 'gourmet' sandwiches?

FDA Clears "Intelence" for treatment of HIV

The potential for these drugs is amazing. The primary purpose of this drug is an additional medication for those who have developed resistance.

According to this article, (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22737295/) "Tens of thousands of patients worldwide have resistance to NNRTIs and could be candidates for Intelence" Using their data that "The drug's wholesale cost will be $5.45 per tablet" and the information that "The approved dosing is two tablets twice per day, or a total of four tablets daily." this works out to $21.8 per day or $7957 dollars a year per person! If there are tens of thousands (so at least 20 thousand) people who are resistant that is $159.14 million dollars a year for this drug alone which they can expect to receive for the rest of the patients life. Considering this over the 20 year patent life of their drug and we determine that this single drug could net over 3.2 billion dollars even if the resistance rate does not increase. Considering every year there are more new infections than the previous year and further considering that according to the article "Close to 40 million people are infected with HIV" the market potential for these drugs is mind boggling.

None the less according to the article "Experts Rethinking Billions Spent on Aids" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22726852/) there is great public controversy over the money being spent on fighting AIDS and there is an increasing push to spend money wisely because "Problems like malnutrition, pneumonia and malaria kill more children in Africa than AIDS.

I would like to ask the simple question, "If one single drug nets 3.2 billion dollars in revenue can't we look at Aids spending (at least is it pertains to research and development) as an "Investment" rather than an "Expense?"