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?