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?

What do your products say about you?

When marketing a product, companies choose which demographics of people they would like to market to. Factors for demographics can include age, gender, race, education, income, family size, region, climate, lifestyle, and motives, to name a few. This made me wonder about the products I consume, and what target demographic they were originally intended for. Am I inside that target?

I looked at the larger products that I use very frequently: my computer, car, and phone.

Apple MacBook Pro:
According to this study, Apple Computers consumers are people between 18-34. Over half of the consumers say they are liberal, and most live in the city. Many want to be "perceived as unique and different to make my own mark", and consider themselves "late adopters". Lastly, many of these people are in creative professions.

I fit this target pretty well. I'm within the age group, would consider myself liberal, and I am in a creative profession (film and event production). I don't consider Keene a city, as it isn't very big. I also don't believe I'm a late adopter.

'00 Jeep Cherokee:
Currently Jeep is very popular with Gen Y age group, which is 18-27. The original marketing push was for upper middle class adults, age 44. While I can't find anything to support this, I believe that the targeted group is males, age 18-35, who like the outdoors, as well as families with 1-3 kids, with parent(s) over 40.

According to my own estimation of Jeep Owners, I really don't fit the target demographic at all. I would fit in the age groups however.

Droid X:
I found two very different accounts of what the target for Droid is, so I will talk about both. Droid users are predominately male, with over 73% being male according to one source, and over 54% in another. Users are between 25-34, and half of all users are under 35. Compared to its iPhone counterparts, the Droid appeals to those who have slightly less education, and those who are less wealthy.

I am also not a part of the gender demographic that Droid seeks. I do fit in to the age and income group. Since I'm currently attending college, I don't believe I fit into that group.

It seems that I would be a marketer's least favorite kind of person: the person that doesn't buy the products targets for me. I personally buy based on consumer reviews, and personal preference.

What do the products you use say about you? Do you fit into the demographics for those products?

In response to Tanya's post...

Tanya talked about the Playstation Vita, the latest portable gaming device released from the company. She asks,

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.

Since Playstation has released portable gaming systems in the past, I'm going to base some of my answer on the previous handheld device, which is the Playstation Portable, or PSP. The latest PSP to be released was the PSP2 in 2011. The device is both 3G and Wi-fi capable, has GPS, Bluetooth, built in speakers and mics, two touch pads, and both front and rear facing cameras. It seems like it can do a lot of the same things that an iPhone or other smart phone can do, but with a better processor, graphics and memory, as it needs those to run games.

right: PSP2; left: Playstation Vita

When the PSP was released in 2005/2006, it sold 9.6 million units. Granted, that's not as impressive as selling more units a day than there are people born that same day (like the iPhone), but that's still pretty good. The sales figures for the next years are as follows: 13.8 million in 2007, 14.1 in 2008, 9.9 in 2009, and 8.0 in 2010. While that's declining, that's still not bad.

In my opinion, because the company knows the market they are advertising to, it's not risky at all to have such a high budget. These people are advertising directly to gamers where they are most likely to see it. The people who will want this don't care if it can text or call. In fact, I bet they don't even want it to. They want better screens, more memory (and different kinds), and support from the Playstation network. If someone wants an iPhone, they'll get an iPhone. If they want a gaming device, then that's what they'll get. By understanding their target demographic, Playstaion is making all the right choices.

My concern is that this has been done before. The Vita doesn't offer much that the PSP2 doesn't already have. There aren't many new features. But I'm sure as Apple can attest to, people will buy the new version of the same phone if you change the number, upgrade a few minimal things, fix a few bugs, and tell them that they need to have it.

Do consumers fall for marketing ploys when it comes to "new and improved" versions of technology? Are marketers and companies just trying to make money by constantly releasing products (like the iPhone, iPad ect), or is there real value to the new versions?

Measuring Success

According to Direct Marketing News, 20% of business to business marketers don't measure the effectiveness of their campaigns. Business to business marketing centers around selling a service or product to another company. For example, Xerox would sell its copiers to other businesses. It would make sure to highlight how having their copier would be a better choice than a competitor's copier.

Not for Xerox, but still B2B

I found this especially surprising, as I would have thought that everyone measures campaign effectiveness to some extent. While b-2-b marketing is much different than standard b-2-c (business to customer) marketing, it is still important to know if your advertising is working.

There are several different ways to measure the effectiveness of an ad campaign. Something as simple as tracking sales before, during and after a campaign can help you better spend your advertising budget. Most websites now can track from where and how many visitors come to the site. Offering media-specific incentives can also track where customers are coming from. There is a more complete list of measuring ad effectiveness here.

Many of the options on that list apply more to b-2-c advertising than anything else. When advertising specifically to customers and end users, it is much easier to track sales. Asking customers when they visit the store, using specific phone lines for orders and print coupons can all measure the amount of new sales generated by an ad campaign.

What is the importance of tracking these sales statistics? What other ways can companies measure the effectiveness of an ad campaign, especially for b-2-b companies?

In Response to Tim's post...

Tim posted about the current Rush Limbaugh vs Snadra Fluke scandal. For those that are unaware of the situation, Tim summarizes the situation very succinctly:

Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who was invited to speak to Congress by House Minority Leader Nanci Pelosi (D). Sandra had previously been denied the opportunity to speak at a committee hearing by Rep. Darrell Issa (R), who had invited all male religious figures to discuss President Obama's current push to require reproductive health needs to be covered by all employers. Rush called Sandra a "slut," a "prostitute," and a "feminazi," and suggested that she should make sex tapes "so we can all watch."

Since then, Rush has apologized for the way in which he said those things, but not actually for the things he said. Because of all this, sponsors have been running in the opposite direction. With that in mind, he asks:

What responsibility do sponsors have when choosing programming? 

This is an issue that I have been following very carefully, along with the entire birth control debate. In terms of advertisers, I believe they have a huge responsibility to choose to support programs that align with views as a company. That does mean that certain organization, like religious ones, will choose to support things that I may not agree with. However, I don't believe anyone should support any individual or group that actively promotes hatred, bigotry, or insulting people/ideas/groups/ect that are different or not fully understood.

This all honestly reminds me of the JC Penny vs One Million Moms debacle. JCP decided to have Ellen DeGeneres as their new spokesperson. The group One Million Moms (consisting of only 40,000 members) demanded that JCP drop her as their spokesperson or risk being boycott for abandoning traditional family values.

It really sickens me, personally, to see groups that are promoting a lifestyle that purposely seeks to undermine the rights of those. But those are my feelings.

What do you think about companies or groups that get involved with politics, especially unpopular opinions or hot topics? What about companies that lobby in Congress? 

Marketing to College Students

No one wants to be duped by marketers, taken in by promises of great things. Students especially pride themselves on being media savvy.  We are quick to make judgements on what marketing campaigns are cool or not, particularly in a time when when advertisers are trying to capitalize on the ever-changing internet trends.

Student Ambassadors helping move in freshman

So how can marketers target college-age students who don't want to be advertised to? By going the non-traditional route and incorporating students on campus as brand ambassadors. Students are far more likely to take product recommendations from their peers as opposed to older, out of touch executives who they believe have no interest in them aside from their money.

At the University of North Carolina, American Eagle hired students to help freshman move in. As the brand ambassadors carried bags and other things, they handed out coupons, water bottles, and pens, all emblazoned with the AE logo. They wear matching shirts and are generally helpful, nice, and welcoming. This marketing "For students, by students" has lead other companies to try to capitalize on student workers.

Target sponsored a late-night shopping trip at the same university. They bused students to the store, and gave away snacks, and provided the students with an opportunity to purchase those last minute items that you didn't bring. A student won a fridge and a year's supply of Coke. One student, who declared himself loyal to Wal-Mart, was less sure of where his loyalties were after the Target shopping night.

Marketers are eager to tap into the college age group, as they see them as a bridge. With strong connections to home and their family, they are more likely to take what brands they love at college back home. Even more important is the need to establish brand recognition and loyalty that will carry on past the college years.

With their budgets being slashed, colleges are looking for ways to provide the same student activities that they have in the past. Some are seeking sponsors, as with this Target shopping night.

The greatest issue is how colleges control this. UNC officials knew nothing of the American Eagle ambassadors.What do you think of brands advertising on campus, through student ambassadors or sponsored activities? Should colleges allow this sort of thing, or should campuses be kept as ad-free as possible?

Article source
Photo source

In response to Jaycelyn's article...

In her article, Jaycelyn talks about the Apple ad campaign, specifically about the "Get a Mac" campaign, starring the personifications of the Mac and PC. She asks:

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?

Personally, I'm quite biased when it comes to computers. I have a Macbook Pro, and couldn't imagine having anything else. I deal with PCs regularly, but do not like it as much. When it comes to mp3 players/music players, once again I pick Apple. Windows introduced the Zune, but there was little success there. However, when it comes to smart phones, I own a Droid X. I bought it off my mother's coworker who was going to be getting a new phone and wanted to sell his old one. Given the choice, I might have chosen an iPhone, but now that I've used a Droid, I wouldn't switch back.

In reference to the Apple ads, Jaycelyn also mentioned how the company uses the ads to showcase the new features that their products have. That's a really smart use of their advertising budget. Not only are they putting their product out there, but they are giving you the selling points in a fun, comedic way, and also putting down their rival in a non-insulting way. I say non-insulting because they aren't directly calling PCs names or anything like that.

On to Jaycelyn's first question: I do believe that Apple's commercials do make the products seem better than they are. No where in those commercials do they mention the high initial cost and repair cost or how easily materials like aluminum and glass scratch, dent, or shatter. I don't believe that Apple is being dishonest in their ads, but I do believe that they show their products as a virus-proof, life changing piece of technology. Many Mac users boast about how their computer, and Macs in general are virus proof and can never get viruses, and that the solution to your slow, apparently virus-ridden PC is to "get a Mac". The reason that there aren't many Mac viruses is because people who make viruses are going to target the operating system that the majority of people have. There is no point in only targeting a small fraction of the population. Mac viruses are more and more common these days because more people have Macs.

What do you think about the Mac vs PC argument? Are the Apple ads really sugar coating the products?

Good vs Bad attention in Marketing

Two weeks ago, I talked about Facebook marketing and its effectiveness. This week, I came across an article talking about good vs. bad attention.

In the article, author Christopher Carfi defines the two types of attention generated by marketing. Like good and bad profits, there are two opposite types of attention. Good attention is gained through "going above and beyond" and "delighting someone, surprising them, amusing them, or triggering an empathetic emotion". This positive response can also lead to good profits, which stem from the same place. Bad attention is "interruptive... bad and inefficient". The author uses pop up ads as an example.

Ads like this are used all the time. The only time anyone ever clicks on them is by accident. So how much are companies spending to place these ads on the side of webpages, in the hopes that someone will click them? When an pops up saying, "Congratulations, you've won!" or "You're the 1,000,000th visitor!" everyone knows not to click those. In reality, we've all developed blinders to that type of ad. People find those ads annoying, and we make sure not to click them at all. This type of ad gains bad attention.

Getting back to the Facebook ads, I believe they fall under the same category. People are frustrated by the stupid attempts at targeted ads that Facebook employs, or at least I am. So why do companies bother with these ads at all? Do the Facebook ads garter negative attention for the advertisers? Are they worth the money?

In response to Prof. Johnson's post...

In her blog, Prof. Johnson talked about a small, struggling company who was offered $8,000 to sell information they had gathered about clients. She asks:

Should John smith sell the names? Also, Does the AMA Statement of Ethics address this issue? What in the AMA's Statement of Ethics relates to John Smith's dilemma?

I believe that John should not sell the names. While the money that John would receive is certainly a very good incentive, John would be violating the trust of his customers. A section in the Statement of Ethics, under the ethical norms, states that marketers must 'Foster Trust in the marketing system'. If John does sell the names, he is infringing on that trust.

More specifically, under the Fairness section of the Statement of Ethics, it states marketers will "Seek to protect the private information of customers, employees and partners." John Smith would be directly disregarding that statement.

While John Smith is just trying to prevent laying off more of his employees, he still must adhere to the criteria that are expressed in the Statement of Ethics.

Children and Advertising

Recently, I came across an article in which CARU (Children's Advertising Review Board) had asked Disney to stop marketing the new "Pirates of the Caribbean" film to kids. The ads had been running on Nickelodeon. At first, I thought, why?? Kids LOVE pirates and swashbuckling heroes, and they love Johnny Depp. Why not get kids to see the films? Then I thought about what is really in those movies. They have a PG-13 rating, and channels like Nickelodeon and Disney cater to children under 12. So it does make sense for the ads to be marketed to a more suitable audience.

But just because the ads are gone does not mean this film is still being solely marketed to older audiences. When you visit the Disney Store online, the second item under the "Pirates of the Carribean" section are the toys pictured right. Clearly those are not meant for most 13 year olds. While there are shot glasses and adult clothing, there is also plenty of clothing for kids as well.

Disney is out to make a profit, above all else. If that means advertising a movie with more mature themes to children, then apparently that is necessary. As a kid, I can certainly say I was watching things that we're not deemed by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) to be age-appropriate. While I won't get into the whole plethora of problems that is the MPAA, I can safely say that, in my opinion, decisions like this should be left up to the parents. By marketing these movies, games, toys or food to kids, parents get pressured by the advertisers to get these things for their kids. The best example I can think of is cell phones. I got my first phone right before I started high school. I played a lot of sports, and my parents needed to be able to contact me and find out my schedule. Now, 6 and 7 year olds have iPhones.

Back to the issue at hand, marketers know that children are the best market to advertise to. If you mange to imprint your brand on them, you have a customer for life. That's why cigarette companies used to show their commercials to kids. Like I've said in another post, branding is everything. Make your brand recognizable and memorable, and you've already won half the battle. When it comes to kids, they are only more receptive to branding.

How do you think marketing and advertising effects kids, especially in terms of what is, and what isn't age appropriate?

In response to Brooke's post

Brooke talks about Tide's new product and the accompanying marketing campaign. These new 'Tide Pods' have detergent, softener and stain remover all in an easy to use, single use pod. She asks:

Do you think this campaign is going to be successful in targeting the younger audience by using these phrases and colors in the ads? Will people be open to trying something new or just stick to their usual detergent?

My first thought is that this is defiantly something that is targeted to young adults, especially those who do not like to do laundry. I can see parents sending their kids to college with these, just as I was given detergent/dryer sheet combos (despite an extensive knowledge of how to laundry). People like convenience, and I can see how this will cater to that.

I don't see people making the switch however. Products like these have, in the past, been more expensive than regular detergent, and get used up more quickly. Since you are being given pods, and not liquid, you get less detergent really. While the idea of a premeasured amount of detergent is great, I can't see people on a budget making a switch. There's also no generic for this. Many brand name companies make generic store brands that cost less. A product like this will have no generic supplement.

I do think it is possible that there will be an initial rise in these pods. College kids will enjoy them for the ease. Working parents may also want them. However, I don't see people making a permanent switch. In the NY Times article Brooke cited, it talked about bringing innovation to the industry and "Apple Envy".

Giants like Procter, Clorox, Reckitt Benckiser and Unilever are seeking to continually deliver distinctive new products that pique the curiosity of consumers who dote on high-technology items like smartphones and tablets.

However, if all that's happening as piqued curiosity, one has to wonder what the staying power of the product will be. And honestly, I don't think of my laundry when I think of technological innovations. I believe trying to draw parallels between high-tech items and laundry isn't the smartest idea.

People stick to what they know. People like routine, and dislike change. That's my opinion. What do you think of the ads? Can a product like this have any real staying power? Is it a good idea to cash in on people's love for the high tech, or will this just fall flat? 

How effective is marketing on Facebook?

Like many other people my age, I spend a decent amount of time on the internet on Facebook. It's on my laptop and my phone, saved into my bookmark bar with my login information already saved so I can log on at a moments notice. Just like everyone else, my news feed has ads on the side of it. Right now, there's ads for Wendy's, engagement rings, a closed-captioning service, Cheez-Its, shoes and a targeted ad for Kohl's employees. 

I just ignore all these, as I'm sure most people do. However, plenty of companies advertise on Facebook. Many have fan pages, groups or just regular accounts. While these sidebar ads might be easily ignored, how effective are these regular pages? Does thousands of fans equal any measurable sales or increase in services?

According to a study done by Rice University, yes, it does. Facebook marketing is very effective. They "surveyed customers of Dessert Gallery, a popular Houston based cafe chain". Over a 3 month period, 1,700 fans were compared to the typical customer, and the following was deduced.

The Facebook fans:

• Made 36 percent more visits to DG's stores each month.
• Spent 45 percent more of their eating-out dollars at DG.
• Spent 33 percent more at DG's stores.
• Had 14 percent higher emotional attachment to the DG brand.
• Had 41 percent greater psychological loyalty toward DG.

Those statistics translate into dollar signs for the company. Considering Facebook is a free service, this is a low cost way to increase knowledge of your company, as well as increase profits.

While social media marketing is not as effective with the older generation, it certainly is popular with the tech-savvy generations. Coupons and other bargains, offered exclusively through Facebook, often keep customers coming back.

Do you follow any particular companies on Facebook? If so, do you feel more connected or more likely to interact with that company because of their Facebook page? Do you think Facebook marketing is an effective strategy for companies?

In Response to Todd's post...

Todd talked about the following GM add that aired during the Super Bowl this year.

His question in regards to the commercial is whether the add goes too far, and if the statements made by GM about their trucks are false advertising.

First, I think the commercial is very well done, and quite clever. They covered just about every apocalypse theory out there.

I do think GM crossed a line though. If they had stopped the dialogue at "most dependable, longest lasting full-size truck on the market", and left out that Dave drove a Ford, there would have been no issue with the commercial. As soon as GM decided to name what truck Dave drove, they were targeting someone, clearly with the intent to place themselves above Ford.

Whether or not GM's trucks are better than Ford's also comes into debate. I don't know the statistics, but both trucks have followings, and neither has been in the news for recalls, so I can only assume they are both decent trucks. The commercial is really just a fun poke at Ford, but certainly should not be something companies should do on a regular basis.

What do you think about the ad? Have there been any other commercial-based 'scandals' like this?

Dr. Pepper 10 Commercial

When you think about diet soda and who drinks it, the first group of people that comes to mind is middle aged women. That's what soda companies have found is their main customer base too. According to the 2010 US Census, there are 122.5 million people between the ages of 35 and 65. 49% of those people are male, and 51% are female. Even though an even smaller portion of those groups drink diet soda, that still means that soft drinks like Diet Dr. Pepper are missing out on half the target population.


It makes sense to any company that missing half of the population is not a good thing. It makes sense to target that group of people to expand your market. What doesn't make sense to me is to isolate and insult the half of the market you do have with the previously mentioned new add campaign.

Personally I don't drink soda anyway, but I can't help but feel, if I did like Diet Dr. Pepper, I wouldn't after seeing this. The Vice President of marketing at Dr. Pepper says, "Women get the joke." Well, I'm a woman, and I don't get it. To me, all I see when I watch the commercial is antiquated gender roles, both male and female. I like action movies. There's men that like "romantic comedies and girlie drinks".

Looking at this commercial, there's the obvious stereotyping of women, but there's also male stereotypes. Not all guys, straight, gay or anywhere else on the spectrum, like the 'manly' things that this commercial is showing, so not only is the female demographic now turned off by this product, but a good portion of the male population as well. I think this was a terrible choice for a marketing campaign.

Some people are saying that the controversy generated is enough to cope with the backlash, but news and buzz don't equal sales. Their attempt to make their commercial go 'viral' on the internet doesn't necessarily mean they'll sell more soda. What will affect there sales is the way consumers feel about this commercial and its blatant stereotypes, both male and female.

What do you think about this commercial and the direction Dr. Pepper choose for its marketing? Is any press good press?

Source
Source

In Response to Nichole's post...

Nichole talked about the phrase "People don't know what they want, they only know what they know." She asked if any other examples of where marketers have shaped consumer wants and needs.

The first thing that came to mind is infomercials. Ads for things like Sham-Wow, Oxyclean and all those other products. They go as far as to demonstrate their product to prove it's worthiness and usefulness to you and your family. After seeing the infomercial, you'll wonder how you ever lived without this glorious product in your life.

Once you get it home, it's a whole other story. You've already shelled out at least one payment of $19.95, plus shipping and handling. Maybe you even got your order doubled because you called in the next 10 minutes. So now you have not one, but two, terrible products in your possession.

The best way to prevent this scenario from happening is to check out consumer reports or reviews. Marketers have the job of making us want something and want it enough to buy it. You can't sell a product if you say that it's only effective for a few uses, or it chews through batteries or whatever other downfall it may have. That being said, it doesn't make it right to sell a shoddily made product, under the guise that it is well made. Since that's more of a moral obligation than anything else, there most likely won't be a movement in honesty and product integrity.

What are some of your experiences with products vs. the advertised product? Ever bought something that was nothing like what you were lead to believe?

Brand Recognition

I saw an interesting video today, and it got me thinking. We see tons of logos everyday. The ones we're familiar with we immediately pair with the corresponding company. We don't think about the design of the logo; instead we see the company.

Since we see so many logos and brands every day, have you ever wondered how early we begin to associate logos and companies together?

The little girl speaking in that video is 5 years old. I'm sure you noticed that she was able to name quite a few of the brands, most on purpose. She did accidentally identify the Chili's logo, but still, she was able to piece it together. Besides being able to match up what company goes with what logo, the girl in the video also made a few points that I'm sure would make graphic designers and company executives very happy: she associated the logos with other relevant, cultural icons and feelings. 

When she saw the Bank of America logo, she said it looked like an American flag. That, of course, was not on accident. When she saw the McDonald's logo, she said it looked like french fries. Each of these logos is supposed to remind us of something else, or give us a feeling about the company. When you see the silver, shiny Apple logo, it looks like something from the future. When you see the GE logo, it looks like something from the past, and you might be reminded of stability and longevity, even if that's not the case. 

Being able to brand a company with a single symbol means increased marketability. Instead of text and lots of pictures, all you need is that logo. That makes it easier for companies to advertise and market their product. It's a way for the company to make connections to other icons in society.

Taking a look at some of the logos in your life, what do you see besides the company? What is it that the company wants you to associate with their brand?   

In response to Rachel's post

Rachel talked about the 5 Things Every Entrepreneur Should Know about Marketing, and posed the question, "Can you think of a company that didn't follow these guidelines, and failed because of it?"


After reading the post, I couldn't help but be struck, once again, by how important branding is to a company. I remember last year, or possibly the year before, when Gap attempted to change their logo that they have had for year and years. 

Old logo on the left, new on the right.

The response to the new logo was terrible! They immediately changed back to their old logo. It just goes to show that a group of customers can be fiercely loyal to something as a logo.


The same can be said of Facebook users. How often does the layout change, and all us users complain about the new layout? How many petitions get started to change things back to the way they were? It only takes a few weeks before we've all adjusted and forgotten about our hatred for this new layout. 


Getting back to what you asked, the biggest failure that I can think of is the Netflix/Qwikster ordeal that happened last year. Netflix, in an attempt to create separate companies for their streaming and rental services, decided to split the company into two separate ones. This was a terrible, terrible idea. The reasoning behind the split made sense on a business level, but not on any other. In order to cope with the rising cost of licensing online material and focusing efforts on acquiring said content licenses, Netflix would become a online streaming only service, while Qwikster would be for mail-in DVD rentals.

Bad idea on top, good idea on bottom.

As a Netflix user, I was not looking forward to that split. I didn't like the idea of having to menage two queues full of DVDs. Since I still like the mail in DVD service, I didn't want to have to pay two separate companies for those services, and that's what Netflix was basically forcing all it's users to do.


With a lot of customers already upset over the price hike from the summer (a $7 [50%] increase for the 1 DVD at a time, unlimited streaming service), the remaining customers were infuriated. Because of the announced split, Netflix reported a loss of 800,000 members that quarter. That's a lot of money, and a lot of unhappy customers! 


My point with this whole long explanation is that Netflix didn't understand their brand, their customers, or their market. What their customers want is a cheap, easy way to watch and rent movies. What those customers don't want is two separate services. Fortunately, CEO Reed Hastings realized his mistake and announced that Netflix won't splint into two companies. Unfortunately, he didn't all his customers back.


What's your opinion on Netflix and their mistake? Have their been any other companies who made near fatal mistakes?


Source: Netflix blog
Source: NY Times
Source: Huffington Post

Why marketing?

Why would a course in marketing be helpful even if you don't pursue marketing as a career?

A lot of my professors assume that whoever is in their class is going to go into that field after graduation. I had a professor who taught a business statistics class, and every day, would say "Good morning, fellow statisticians!" Needless to say, I'm not going to be doing business statistics later in life. 

I'm a Film Production major and, last year, I took on a Management minor. My thinking behind this was to broaden my future employment possibilities and give the ability to open my own company one day, if I choose to. I had plenty of family members who, upon hearing my major, would get a puzzled look on their face, and ask what I planned to do with that. While I already have future employment prospects, telling them I'm minoring in management has seemed to assuage their worst thoughts and fears. 

As to why marketing is important, you would only need to look to my last post. Understanding how to brand yourself and market your positive attributes can secure future jobs. That is especially important in an industry where networking and word of mouth are the main ways to gain clients. Understanding what your target market needs from you and your business can help ensure future gigs, as you would say.

I work for a company that has a special department just for handing their brand. Any post to their Facebook, Twitter or website must go through these people to assure that the right message is being put out. Even emails to potential clients or suppliers goes through the same process. Anything that will reach the public is screened and edited to make sure they are presenting themselves the way that will most benefit them. Understanding how to do this for myself can only effect me positively. 

On a more more cynical note, by taking marketing, it gives me an insight as to how companies are marketing themselves to me. I can understand the tricks of the trade, and possibly not be duped into becoming a blind consumer. 

Do you think it's important to take a marketing/management class? How do you think understanding marketing can benefit you in your career or every day life?

Marketing Myself

Think of yourself as a product. How would you market yourself to a future employer using the other "3 P's"?

The P's are a part of the marketing mix. They consist of product, place, promotion and price, each of which is divided up to give a better idea of what can be done to market something. Since I am the product in this scenario, I will focus on the other 3 P's.


Place- Location and transportation are two subcategories that would apply to me. One of the biggest selling points that I have is that I own a reliable 4-wheel drive vehicle. I would be able to assure a prospective employer that I could get to work, despite numerous road conditions. Being able to arrive on time is obviously very important to an employer. I am also willing to travel to take a lucrative job. My current location is not indicative of where I will live, nor does it limit me from job opportunities. 


Promotion- The best way to advertise myself, aside from an interview, is through my resume. It provides the employer with all the information about me to help them make an informed decision. It would also highlight my best qualities and achievements, as any good advertisement should do. During an interview, I would give the best impression possible. Just as you package a product in an appealing way, it's important to dress nicely and maintain your hygiene. I could also promote myself though positive recommendations from previous employers. Good publicity of any product will persuade the intended buyers, or in this case, hiring managers. With that, I've covered the advertising and publicity/PR subcategories.


Price- Every person has a 'list price', or a pay rate that they hope they will be hired at. As a college student, I will most likely ask for lower that what I should, albeit unknowingly. This is a plus for companies, as they will be able to pay me less. 


What do you think is the most important feature, skill or way to market yourself to a possible employer?

Marketing vs. Advertising vs. Propaganda

What is the difference between marketing, advertising and propaganda?

When I first thought about this question, I thought the answer was easy. Propaganda is something that tries to influence you, usually politically, while marketing and advertising seek to sell you things. 

However, modern marketing and advertising have started to sell less tangible things, such as experiences and feelings. Instead of just purchasing an item, you are purchasing the social acceptance that comes with it. Today, marketing and advertising are just as, if not more, persuasive than propaganda. While propaganda has a political and negative connotation, marketing and advertising do not; therefore, they are more abundant in every day life. 

Without noticing it, we see hundreds of different brands everyday. Each one is associated with a group of people, a feeling or an experience. No longer are companies showcasing what their product can physically do; instead, they are showcasing what you can do in your life with the product. After all, if you brush your teeth with this whitening toothpaste, then your radiant smile will attract a random man/woman on the street, and cause them to instantly be drawn to you. We are being taught by that ad to believe that toothpaste leads to love, not just clean, cavity free teeth. 

If you brush like this...

you'll end your night like this.

This is just a more subtle form of propaganda. Instead of believing that you should grow a Victory Garden or buy bonds to support the troops, you are being told you believe that a product will change your life style. 

Has marketing and advertising just become a more socially acceptable form of propaganda? Or are they completely different?

Source: Crest 2011 Toothpast commercial 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3-rINpiza4&feature=related