In response to Jaycelyn's post...

Jaycelyn talked about an article called, "5 Insights From The 2012 Social Media Marketing Industry Report". She asked,

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

One of the key aspects that I took away from the article is that 1) companies are slow to react to beneficial new opportunities, 2) companies believe just having a social media page is effective and 3) marketers are more out of touch with their audiences than I had thought.

The article talks about companies not utilizing or offering daily deals on sites like Social Living or Groupon. Sites like that target large audiences and offer deals to customers that might not otherwise know or use your company.

Many times, a company has a Facebook, Twitter or blog. There is a major difference between having and using these sites effectively. For example, the article mentions social and non-social marketing. If you are not engaging the customers in your business, you are not partaking in social marketing. Consumers don't want to just be blasted with company updates. All too frequent Facebook or Twitter updates act the same as spam emails; we ignore them, or even get frustrated with the company. Just having a social media presence does not mean it will help your company.

One of the insights from the article that really struck a cord with me was #3: "Great writing and video productions skills are still undervalued". As a film major, I see people who have created their own small videos about their company or even made small commercials. Most of the time, the quality, writing and productions is atrocious. It makes me cringe to watch it. Regular consumers will also surely notice. Just because you believe you know your company best does not mean you have the talents to create a video. This is especially important to me because I work in video advertising, and I know how important a good video is to a company.

So back to Jacelyn's question. Companies really need to understand how to engage their audiences. No one wants to be spammed with updates. Consumers want to see videos and pictures, and get deals for being a part of what might be considered the inner circle of consumers.

Do companies you know use their social media effectively? Do you sometimes feel overwhelmed by their posts?

Advertising through games

Marketers are looking for new ways to engage customers through online mediums. Aside from social media and ads, what options do they really have? Many companies are turning to sponsored games.

Companies like Mentos have created small online games or game apps that can casually played. As opposed to a standard game, casual games are games that typically won't be played for more than a few weeks, and don't require much time. Games created by Zynga for Facebook fall under this category. The game developed by Mentos is inspired by one of their commercials that was particularly popular. Since making the game app, it has been downloaded 1.7 million times. Source

Overall, these games not only increase brand awareness, but also engage customers in the company. One of the largest demographics for these games are women. Not only has the amount of female video game players increased by 55% last year, but 43% more women ages 55-65 would describe themselves as game players Source. In families where women either have the majority of buying power or split it with their partner, this kind of brand involvement really pays off. 70% of game players say they are more likely to buy from companies that sponsor free games. 67% of game players say they'll pass the game along to their friends, providing a wider audience as their game spreads.

What do you think about company sponsored games or mobile apps? Do you have any? Are you more likely to buy from the companies that have these games?

In response to Rebecca's post...

Rebecca talked about car dealerships, and their use of promotions to sell cars. She asks:

Do you think that this is the best way for a car manufacturer to sell their products? Would you be willing to purchase one of these cars for this sale? What do you think the car companies could do to get more customers to purchase their cars?

There are not many people who can purchase a new car with cash outright. It is typically something that is paid for over an extended period of time.

I believe, that with a product that is a long term investment, and expensive, the only way to get the average, middle class citizen to purchase it is to offer discounts and financing. Car loans are also one of the ways that students can set up their credit score. Without promotional deals like this, it is almost impossible for people to buy a car.

Aside from offering cars for free, I don't think there are better ways to get people interested in new cars. Financing options and monthly payment plans are the best ways to get cars off the lot.

When bad things happen to good brands

There's a lot of media coverage in relation to the shooting of 17-year-old Treyvon Martin down in Florida. For those that haven't heard about it, a young black male was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch member who had called 911 and alerted them about the suspicious character in a hoodie. The shooter, George Zimmerman, has been convicted of assault, and to my knowledge, was not supposed to have a gun. He has a history of calling 911 over other instances of suspicious behavior. When Trayvon was killed, he had Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea in his possession, leading to the belief that there was a racial component to the killing.

A protestor at a rally for Trayvon Martin.

The point of telling you this is to talk about brands that have become associated to, been damaged by, or benefited from, a tragedy. It might seem odd that a company could benefit from something like the death of a 17-year-old boy, but that is exactly what has happened to Skittles. Schools, t-shirt companies, and protestors are all buying the candy. "The candy has been transformed into a cultural icon, a symbol of racial injustice that underscores Trayvon’s youth and the circumstances surrounding his death," says the NY Times.

When the tragedy happened, people all over wanted Wrigley's (the company who owns Skittles) to make a statement. Now that their sales are up, people want Skittles to donate money from their increased sales to the Martin family or to anti-racism efforts, even going as so far as to boycott the candy until Wrigley's does something.

I've talked about good press vs bad press before, but this falls into a grey area. I believe that Skittles has done the right thing thus far. In an issue so politically charged, regardless of their stance they will alienate people. By taking a more quiet stance, they are allowing the controversy to unfold. Skittles is also an innocent victim, thrust into the spotlight without their knowledge or consent. What I mean by this is that Skittles is not a racially tied food. It is not marketed to one race, or even one age group. They do not have political affiliations or agendas. They are just colored sugar.

I do believe that Skittles should donate some money to an anti-racism group, but I also understand if they don't. Like I said, they are not a political candy. It is not in their business strategy to donate to this cause. However, it may help to save face, so to speak.

What do you think Skittles should do? What kind of effect will this event have on the company a year or two down the line?

In response to Dan's post...

Dan talked about schools facing budgets cuts that have decided to allow companies to sponsor them. The companies are allowed to place ads in exchange for funds for the schools. He asks,

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?

I believe, like with any advertising campaign, there is a fine line between acceptable and unacceptable. If companies can put their ads on the sides of buses or on outdoor scoreboards, I don't see that as a problem. As soon as the ads invade the learning environment, they have gone too far. As Dan said, kids are impressionable. Why do you think there are laws against advertising cigarettes and alcohol to kids? 

That being said, schools need funds to operate. I know my high school had a lot of budget problems. It was practically impossible to get a new budget passed, and we were behind in terms of supplies and technology. We certainly would have benefited from newer equipment. That being said, I wouldn't have liked it if my school had to run advertisements with the morning announcements, hand out product flyers, or add product plugs to the teaching lessons. Those are over exaggerations of course, but companies have been known to go above and beyond what is considered ok. As the phrase goes, 'give them an inch, and they'll take a mile."

Do you think companies should be allowed to advertise in schools, or that schools should be allowed to take outside sponsorship? Where do you think the line gets drawn?

Genericization

When you cut yourself, what do you do? You reach for a Band-Aid, not a bandage. This is called 'genericization', and it is something that Apple is dealing with now. Making a company's product synonymous with the actual product poses both benefits and hazards.

Can you name all these tablets? Probably not.

On one side, the product becomes a household name. Asprin, Band-Aid, and Kleenex are all examples of this. Their products have come to define entire market for pain killers, bandages, and tissues, respectively. The same is happening to Apple's iPad. When people think of tablets, the first one they think of is the iPad. This gives Apple an instant advantage over competitors.

The downfall comes when a product becomes too generic, and competitors can use the product name to their benefit; zipper, yo-yo, and escalator are all examples of this.

The biggest issues that companies like Apple face is in the balance. They must get their brand to become a household name, while at the same time distinguishing it from competitors and generic knockoffs. What other products have fallen prey to this generification? How can companies increase brand awareness while not becoming overexposed or generic?

Source

In response to Matt's post...

Matt posted about advertising ethics, and how both Pepsi and Coke are removing a possible carcinogen from their sodas to avoid marketing problems. He asks

Is it the companies responsibility to be proactive and change their product before there is a huge issue?  What would the damage be financially and psychologically to the companies if their products were proven to help cause cancer?  If it isn’t just an ethical responsibility to change, maybe it is in their best interest financially to try to make their product healthy for the consumers, to avoid issues in the long run.

There would be major problems if either company had to label their soda as containing something that possibly causes cancer. I don't know how that would effect sales, but it certainly would not be positive. People don't want to be drinking something that could give you cancer. The biggest problem the companies would have would be in trying to rebrand after the ordeal. How do you go about convincing people that your product doesn't cause cancer? It's not as simple as making a commercial that states that. The psychological damage will have already been done. 

I do believe that it is a company's ethical decision to change their product so it is not harmful to its consumers. That being said, not all companies do that (I'm looking at you cigarette companies). Regardless of whether a company changes its product for the better to avoid consumer backlash, marketing problems or just because its ethical, I believe it is a good decision. In the long run, it is helping the consumer. I would be more likely to buy from a company I knew was actively not trying to give me cancer.

On a side note, I find it interesting that only California has decided that the caramel coloring could be a carcinogen. What about all the other states? I would assume that, even if it's a possibility, other states would also want to ban that chemical. Why do you think some states don't ban chemicals that are possibly harmful? Why is it that California is the only state that seems concerned with carcinogens?