In Response to Aubrey Menegus...

Aubrey talks about how VH1 is aiming at a new target of women, ages 25 to 35, because of it's recent lack in popularity. She gives examples as to why VH1 is choosing to do this, one being that men are viewed as the "funny people" on television and how women need to shed their funny light as well. In doing so, VH1 hopes to make women laugh along with the men who already are.

I think VH1 did a good job in recognizing that they do need to include more women in their audience. Having "funny women" come onto the network will hopefully allow the station to do so. VH1's shows don't interest me, as a women, right now because they are pretty masculine and I cannot relate to them.

Aubrey also brings up a good point about how women make up 80% of the consumer market so it would be beneficial for VH1 to have them on board. Advertisers realize these statistics and are more opt to want to market their product on a station where people will buy it. 

I hope VH1 markets these funny women well and puts them in the right light. Hopefully both male and female can enjoy it too!

Do you think VH1 should focus on becoming more feminine? Do women enjoy this station as much as men?

Another Drink like Four Loko?

The makers of Colt 45 malt liquor have stimulated a debate with their new beverage that some fear will encourage kids to drink.

In this new "alcopop" drink called Blast, there is 12% alcohol compared to the Colt 45 drink with 6% alcohol. This increase in alcohol content has people worried that this beverage is another Four Loko in disguise. This drink is colorful and is being endorsed by celebrities like Snoop Dogg and comes in lollipop flavors - yet they claim it isn't being directed to kids.

The company  claims they are not directing this drink towards children and that it says so on the label. Doesn't every alcoholic beverage have a warning on the label about being of legal age to drink? That doesn't mean that only people of legal age are going to drink it.

Coming from Colt 45's point of view, I think this is a risky yet genius idea. When Four Loko came out there was so much controversy surrounding it that everyone had to try it at least once, especially since many laws were going to passed about it soon after banning it. This may end up being a limited time drink but I believe Colt 45 will get a good chunk of sales out of it.

Do you think Colt 45 is marketing correctly? Do you think they should continue to stand by this drink?

Here is the link to the video in the article

Netflix Family Plan

 In this article, an investor is talking about how Netflix is soon to offer a "family plan" and more Facebook exposure.

This will "allow Netflix customers to add multiple users to a single account at a discounted price," while Gigaom speculates that the plan "could look like a cell phone family plan, with an option to add additional accounts at a lower price point."

I think this is a good idea for Netflix and I am surprised they haven't thought of this sooner if this is indeed going to be beneficial. I feel like every company has a "family plan" option, just like cell phone plans do.

I don't know much about how Netflix works now so the question that I have is.. if a family purchases Netflix, which is $7.99 a month for delivery of DVDs to your home, wouldn't it just be cheaper to have one person's name under the account and have that person order the DVD each person wants? Then they could all split the price? I am a little confused because couldn't everyone just pay that one person and it would be cheaper than having a whole family sign up for the account for more money just to have everyone be able to order what they want?

If I have this idea wrong let me know but I don't see what a family plan could bring that is more beneficial than what individual could bring anyways.

What do you think of this family plan idea? Will it be beneficial to Netflix?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/19/new-netflix-feature-family-plans-facebook_n_850978.html?icid=maing-grid7|aim|dl4|sec1_lnk2|57200 

In Response to Diana Schaller

Diana rebuttals against an article focusing on McDonald's way of marketing in Japan and their deals and lack of healthy choices on the menu. I agree with Diana when she talks about how this is the marketing ploy for Japan's Micky D's and because their culture is interested in fast greasy food, McDonald's is going to give them fast greasy food.

It may not be morally right but, hey, McDonald's doesn't see the harm in it if their going to boost their sales. When it comes to being morally correct, there must be an audience to view the marketing as corrupt but as far as Japan is concerned, this food is exactly what they want. So from a marketing perspective I think it is the right thing to do.

Would you market this way in Japan if you were McDonald's?

In Response to Abby Hajec…

I agree that websites sharing information without a person’s consent is wrong. Pandora is not only to blame for this too, the companies it shares with are also at fault. If I found out what websites have this shared information of mine I would immediately have less admiration for them. I could understand if Pandora shared a person’s information with their consent when they signed up for it but without doing so is an invasion of privacy. This makes me wonder about other companies as well and which ones to trust and not to trust. I now think differently about Pandora and I don’t know if I still want to have an account with them. If I got rid of it would they still have all my information though?

Putting the King Back in the Burger

An article called the Return of the King in Slate Otalked about how Burger King, being the number 2 burger joint in the nation, next to McDonalds, is advertising the “King” brand mark in hopes for more brand recognition and to boost breakfast sales. Burger King’s concern is that when people think of fast food breakfast they usually think McDonald’s Egg McMuffin. They want to change that. 

Their plan is to “Wake up with the King” which, in the ads, is the slogan linked with the giant creepy guy with the enormous crown on his head oddly sitting at your bedside when you wake up. It is so disturbing that the image and thought of waking up with him allows it to be more memorable. 

I agree with their idea to make something so strange that it will stick in your head (although it is eerie). The only thing I think they are doing wrong is not having a distinct enough food to link with the ad. The ads feature the new Double Croissan'wich a couple times but there isn’t enough exposure of it. Burger King needs to the food front and center and the King in the background just doing his weird thing. 

Here is the article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2107697/

Do you agree that Burger King is doing the right thing? Do you think their Double Croissan'wich is something that sticks in the mind enough to be popular?

In Response to Nikki Perry...

Nikki posted about how new research has come out about Facebook fan pages and how they aren’t very effective for marketing products or services and I agree with her opposition to it. People use Facebook more so to find other people than products but newer, especially smaller, companies really can benefit from it. I usually use restaurant fan pages to find out the latest deals and what’s new on menu and I feel that many others do too. Mike Vatone could really benefit from an organized fan page with information about how his laundry service works and the details behind it such as pricing. He could have short term deals on his service and put them in his status so people become more aware of it. Right now Facebook is one of the most popular websites that people look at daily and if college students become more aware of a product or service they are more likely to use than not. So why not market your product?

Blood Diamonds: Why aren't they branded?

Imagine growing up in an area where you and your entire family are kidnapped to become soldiers in a mine. In this mine you are treated extremely poorly and frequently loose your limbs, die or watch your family member die to prevent competition against other groups doing the same thing. That is exactly what is happening in Sierra Leone, Africa, even years after an apparent settlement was made to prevent this from happening anymore. There are rules set in place so this does not happen anymore but these rules are not enforced and blood diamonds, also known as conflict diamonds, are still being shipped to countries all around the world to sell to people like you and I. These diamonds generate about $7.5 billion dollars annually and have contributed to over 4 million deaths in the process.

After watching a presentation about blood diamonds in one of my classes, I wonder why jewelery companies aren't branding their diamonds as NON blood diamonds. I realize they are more expensive but where are our morals if we can't pay a little more for the rock on our finger in order to save a life?

There are papers you can ask to see at the jewelers to prove that a diamond isn't a blood diamond but a majority of diamonds are. So why not start a company called Conflict Free Diamonds? Or at least advertise more that all the diamonds purchased by the company are conflict-free? I know it's not the most romantic thing in the world but I bet that sort of branding would be popular. Brand to save a life.

To the right is a video and song by Kanye West promoting conflict-free diamonds.

In Response to Dale Aubin…

I agree that the internet is taking over our society and that it is the best way to use advertising because it is so cheap and popular. I don’t see this way of marketing stopping anytime soon unless it becomes more expensive or less popular. The internet is always evolving, like you said, and constantly becoming faster and more convenient. In the future I can see advertising possibly becoming more annoying, though; popping up when you’re trying to watch a video or not allowing you to sign onto a website without subscribing to something. I know I hate it when I am trying to watch a video online and there is a 20 second ad that I have to see beforehand. It seems minuscule but it lowers my desire to continue to watch more videos because, hey, I am an impatient American and I don’t want to sit through ads. 

Also, I wonder what will happen to advertisements on television because of the fact that we can tape all our favorite shows and fast forward through all of the annoying advertisements which is another reason online marketing is so popular.

So, yes, I agree that online marketing is the most popular way to go and I do not see it slowing down anytime soon.

The Overspent America

After watching The Overspent American by Juliet Schor in class this week, it has brought up some interesting topics about the America Society.

Americans are on a relenting cycle of attributing happiness with the next best thing on the market. Juliet Schor brings up the idea that we are no longer "keeping up with the Joneses" but with "the Gates". Schor explains that cultural influences are driving Americans to work longer hours and strive for higher pay. This, in turn, is causing us to become stressed and in dept.

In a media driven society we are being advertised luxurious goods that we cannot afford. Television shows are exhibiting so-called "normal" Americans as, in reality, upper-class individuals with above average clothes, cars and housing. In a society driven by media, television and electronics, this is leaving us to feel unfulfilled at the idea that we cannot have everything that is apparently "needed" and causing people to spend money that they don't have and becoming in dept.

Do you agree with Schor's idea of the Overspent American? Is there any light at the end of the tunnel? How do we stop this vicious cycle?

In Response to Lia Moreggi...

I, too, enjoy a good documentary - especially on something so well-known like Starbucks – or should I say so well-kept secret?

 I find it interesting that Starbucks does not use television in their marketing strategy. Then again, I really have never seen them advertise on television, so why didn’t I know that? I guess it’s something that is not thought about because we never see it – we just know about it. This does make it seem like a “secret” as the company is trying to convey because it’s almost like it’s only heard of but not seen and who doesn’t want to be on inside of such a thing? Therefore people go on and try out the popular coffee and some love it and get hooked; so the word passes around.  

I have never thought about this way of marketing as a possible advantageous one - and yet – Starbucks is one of the most popular quick-stop coffee chains in the U.S.

I wonder how many other companies are trying this sort of marketing strategy. The one thing on mind is, though; how did Starbucks get on their feet if they didn’t advertise on television? That is the best means of publicity right? Did they get this far just by word of mouth that the coffee is so good?

MyBestSegments: Goffstown

Looking up my hometown, on the MyBestSegments website, I find certain aspects to be true, some false, and some surprisingly true that had never crossed my mind before. The website says that the demographic traits of my hometown of Goffstown, New Hampshire 03045 (right outside of Manchester, NH) are:

Demographics Traits:

Urbanicity: Town/Rural

Income: Upscale

Income Producing Assets: High

 Age Ranges: 45-64

Presence of Kids: HH w/o Kids

Homeownership: Mostly Owners

 Employment Levels: Management

Education Levels: College Grad

Ethnic Diversity: White

I find all of these traits to be true except the Income is “Upscale”. I love my town and I think it can have come cute parts, some not so attractive areas and some very nice “upscale” neighborhoods but to label the whole town’s income as “upscale” is a bit much. I consider upscale income towns to be places that are known for their high class, attractive neighborhoods because they have an above average income but I don’t see that specifically in my town. Everything else sounds about right.

Have you ever been to Goffstown, NH and thought differently? What does MyBestSegments have to say about your town? 

In Response to Kristen Begin…

JCPenny has made a risky decision in deciding to cancel their catalogue distribution. I don’t know whether it will hurt or help the company but I do think customers will be impressed with the company’s effort to be more environmentally friendly.  If JCPenny’s regular customers are “green” and don’t need the catalogue to find what they are looking for from JCPenny then I think this will be a great marketing strategy.

It makes sense that JCPenny’s net sales have increased because of their “digital interactions”; many consumers are shopping and buying online rather than looking through catalogues or going to the store. Online shopping is a convenient way to check out a product, specifically clothing, and see what it would look like on a person and the other colors it comes in. Going to the store and shopping can be hectic; depending on the shopping traffic, frustrating; trying to find the right size and color and inconvenient; depending on the amount of time one has.

Right off the bat, I would think that getting rid of the JCPenny’s catalogues would hurt the business but thinking further into the idea and taking into account online shopping, I don’t believe it will hurt the business significantly.

Celebrity Ads: Successful?

An article in BrandWeek claims that advertisements that feature celebrities promoting their product prove to be no more effective than anyone else doing so.

“This research proves unequivocally that, contrary to popular belief, the investment in a celebrity in TV advertising is very rarely worthwhile,” said Peter Daboll, CEO of Ace Metrix. “It is the advertising message that creates the connection with the viewer in areas such as relevance, information and attention, and this remains the most important driver of ad effectiveness.”

I agree with Daboll, to an extent; the key words being “rarely worthwhile”. It depends on the target audience and the amount of their discretionary income.

When it comes to household products such as air fresheners and cleaners, I do not believe this marketing strategy to be effective but when it comes to celebrity perfumes/colognes, fitness products, apparel and other attractive wanted products, I find it to be much more effective. The reason for this being that people admire celebrities, whether it’s a person who never goes to a movie or watches television, he or she has at least one celebrity that they hold a higher regard for and would choose that product over another if they had seen that person endorse it-given that the sponsored product is of equal price and quality as other similar products on the market and that the consumer has the money and desire for it.

This also takes into account whether to product is a need or want; this determines who buys it and who doesn’t see the need to. Someone with a higher discretionary income may be more opt to purchase a wanted product, such as Miss Dior perfume sponsored by Natalie Portman, than someone with a lesser amount of money.

All in all, I believe Peter Daboll’s claim that celebrities make no difference in promoting a product than any other ordinary ad to be true in certain markets but effective for discretionary products with a high class target market.

Do you find celebrity ads to be appealing? Do you think they are as ineffective as Peter Daboll says?