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?