Quality for yourself-- or aesthetics for others?

Have you heard about the new Balenciaga bag? Would you buy it?
(Or just grab one from Ikea for 99c)

This Balenciaga bag is a prime example of how society and fashion functions: high-end designers get their inspiration from the middle class, using quality materials and selling them at a hefty price tag. This is what happened with our quintessential jeans -- blue jeans were originally made for miners and cowboys but eventually got adopted by designers. The question here is, though, how do they appeal to consumers? Why would they buy them?
To further analyse this, we need to understand why people buy luxury goods in the first place-- for quality? For self-esteem? It seems simple to understand, everyone wants to own something they can feel good about owning, yet allowing them to earn some sort of acceptance from others. This may just explain it succinctly-- maybe in our nature, we feel the need to get acceptance from society and these bags with its (almost ripoff) design fulfills this need perfectly: consumers know they are owning a piece of quality, and so do others. Yet, the design looks almost painfully normal, Could this almost.. help consumers gain the respect they want from those around them without being outwardly obvious about it?

Or could it be another way to be even more flashy?

Advertisements: yay or nay?

Do you hate ads?

How many of us have ad-blockers installed on our browsers, in hopes that the annoying advertisements don't pop up when we want to watch a video or YouTube, or scroll through a page in peace? As it turns out, so many consumers dislike these advertisements that industry players are trying to get rid of them altogether-- at least the worst ones. Many industry players, such as Google, are also working to allow advertisements that are less intrusive to the users; this means that the future for autoplay video ads and pop-up ads are bleak.

Some firms have definitely found a fine balance: PageFair sells technology that serves consumers advertisements even with Adblock (sounds like an annoying technology already, but wait!) but these advertisements would have to be non-intrusive and not disrupt a user's surfing experience. The creator of ad blockers are also embracing this to allow the advertising industry to go on; the famous Adblock now has a feature of Acceptable Ads on Adblock Plus, which allows advertisements to run if they hit certain standards.

From an advertisers' point of view, they have to alter their marketing strategy today to adapt to the world of adblocks and if the marketplace only accepts advertisements that are not disruptive, then the way of advertising will definitely change in form. How will advertisers react to this? How much will advertisements change to be deemed acceptable to society? We will have to wait, watch and see. Oh, and turn on the adblocks-- they push for the changing form of advertisements.

The start of the end to sexualised commercials?

Many commercials in our everyday lives include sexualizing products and services as well as utilizing women to portray certain images of the product. One prime example would be Carls Jr, whose racy commercials often feature scantily-clad women eating the burgers in a sexualized way. One may argue that this is definitely a prime way to get attention of its targeted audience and for Carls Jr, that would be young adult males and in addition, such controversial advertisement is bound to rile up the audience. However, companies often do not consider the consequences of these advertisements-- what are the long term effects of painting this picture of a certain gender? The APA Task Force has found that such sexualisation could lead to negative self-esteem, bad body image; many impressionable young girls would also start to view themselves more of a sexual object than anything else. Thankfully, over the years, this negative phenomenon has garnered enough attention to push advertisers away from this trend. Case in point, Carls Jr has revamped their advertising campaign by explicitly explaining the bold makeover of their advertisements in their publicity efforts. It is not just the effort of one firm though; GoDaddy, who has been known for their racy commercials for the longest time are also stepping away from this trend after public outcry. However, how far is this industry willing to step away from sexualisation of women? After all, it has been proven to grab the attention of the viewers-- which, in spite of many things, is often the ultimate goal of advertisers. Are gender roles really going to be (finally) diversified?

https://www.fastcompany.com/3041434/why-godaddy-is-finally-trying-to-repairing-its-sexist-reputation

http://www.adweek.com/creativity/carls-jrs-super-bowl-ad-here-and-what-surprise-it-stars-almost-naked-woman-162452/

http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/burgers-not-boobs-carls-jr-brilliantly-flips-the-script-by-tearing-down-its-own-smutty-ads/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD0OowNXWTQ&feature=youtu.be

Will new nutrition labels lead to healthier consumers?

The FDA is set to impose major changes to nutrition labels on food packages for the first time in over 20 years. The organization sites the need to bring labels up to speed with the contemporary American diet as a catalyst for the change. New labels are meant to be easier to understand and will be based on expanded portion sizes. Added sugars are in the center of the change with new labels making the distinction between natural and manufactured sugar additives. Many in the FDA and other nutritionists explain that the expensive change is necessary in the fight against obesity in the US. Even First Lady Michelle Obama praised the initiative and promoted the changes at the anniversary celebration for her “Let’s Move” campaign aimed at reducing obesity.

Consumers have a right to know what they are putting into their body. However, some new label requirements could force food and beverage companies to put nutritional information both good and bad on the front of their packaging. Could this potentially impact the branding and packaging of these products? What about products high in added sugar? Does this change damage their brand? What impact will these changes have on the way consumers view food and beverage products? 

CVS snuffs tobacco companies

Earlier this month, CVS announced they will no longer carry tobacco products in their stores. This decision comes at a great cost for the company. Accounting for 3% of the company’s total profit, CVS brings in $2 billion annually from the sale of tobacco products. According to CVS CEO Larry J. Merlo, eliminating tobacco from their stores is in line with the company’s purpose of helping customers on their path to better health. But is this move to better brand image worth the cost? Sure CVS is a pioneer and is demonstrating that the company is on a righteous mission to promote the fact that they care about their customers’ health but they are doing this at the expense of 3% of their annual revenue. Do you think this move will help to strengthen the brand and ultimately increase sales enough to cover the lost revenue?  Do you think this strategy is sustainable? What other benefits or costs do you see could come out of this move? Do you think other companies will follow suit? What does this mean for tobacco sales? Is it ethical to cut out a certain product completely or could this be seen as discrimination?

Part of a nutritious breakfast?

A few years ago I posted about Nutella’s deceptive ads claiming the spread was a healthy addition to a nutritious breakfast. After a class action settlement, Ferrero, the makers of Nutella, agreed to change their messaging in advertisements, on the label and on their website. However, it seems that Nutella is still trying to promote a healthy image for the brand. A food blogger has examined what is in Nutella and has discovered that the spread is far from healthy....but Nutella's website and other brand messaging still implies that it is healthy. Did Nutella change their advertising message enough? Should there be a warning on the label saying that it contains a high amount of sugar? How do you feel about marketing foods that are known to be unhealthy? Do you think there should be more or less regulation?

No smoking.....anywhere!

Many cities and states have smoking rules for public places. Bars, parks and restaurants are among the most commonly regulated establishments. However, according to a recent article, the city of San Rafael has rolled out a more aggressive ban on smoking. In an effort to cut down on second hand smoke, city officials have enacted the nation's strictest smoking ban prohibiting residents from smoking cigarettes in their own homes.

The ordinance applies only to multiple family housing units – ones that share a wall including apartments, duplexes and condos. While many would find this to be beneficial to the community, others may feel as though their freedom has taken a shot. Some argue that the ban is too harsh, forcing people to quit cold turkey or leave their home. Is a smoking ban in private residences justified? Does this ban on smoking infringe on the freedom of residents in San Rafael? Comment with your thoughts on the issue.