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 This is what happened with our quintessential jeans -- blue jeans were originally made for miners and cowboys but eventually got adopted by designers.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.

Are retailers the new Big Brother?

These days we rely heavily on our smartphone to get around. It is so easy to ask Siri where the nearest In-N-Out is and how to get there….but is this convenience at the cost of our privacy?

Google has started to expand its maps to include the inside of museums, airports and large stores in a number of countries. According to a recent article, stores have started to experiment with harnessing indoor positioning technology in order to track a customer’s movements within the store. The article says that some systems use video cameras, sound waves and magnetic fields. However, the most widely used technique is to intercept Wi-Fi signals emitted by shoppers’ smartphones, allowing their position within the store to be calculated. Stores also collect a unique identifier that allows them to build up behavioral information on return visitors. Ultimately, this technology will enable stores to push behavioral ads to shoppers’ smartphones.

Of course our movements as consumers are tracked online but indoor positioning is a new frontier of targeted advertising.  Is this an invasion of consumer privacy? Should stores be allowed to track and record movements of customers? How about using this data to push targeted ads? Could this new technology have an effect on the sales and marketing of brick and mortar stores? Comment with your opinion.

Online Reviews - True or False?

In today’s digital world, it is common for companies to be represented online. Social media and the like open the forum to consumers to start a conversation about businesses and products. Most of the time these discussion forums act as a consumer’s first impression on a company they may not be familiar with….but how much of this information is true?

A recent article discusses the increasing trend of companies writing or buying fake reviews to improve their online presence. Many popular sites such as Yelp have started policing such activities with algorithms aimed at targeting and removing fake reviews. As marketers we know how much misrepresentation can damage a product’s reputation…so why do it? Why is it attractive to companies to publish fake reviews? What are the risks companies take when publishing fake reviews? What are the potential impacts on the customer? Should the FTC ramp up regulation on online forums? Comment with your opinion.

Up in Smoke

New York’s city council voted this week to raise the legal age to buy tobacco products to 21. The reason for the change - NY Health Commissioner Thomas Farley says 80 percent of the city’s adult smokers start before age 21. Additionally, New York has set the minimum price of a pack of cigarettes at $10.50 and upped the fines for illegal and untaxed sales.  Mayor Michael Bloomberg argues that these measures will effectively decrease the use of cigarettes among 18-20 year olds.

We all know smoking causes cancer yet cigarettes are still a part of pop culture and are marketed to young people. Tobacco companies, although heavily regulated, look to appeal to a young, hip generation. Will these changes help to deter young people from smoking? What implications could this potentially cause for tobacco business? Do you think these new restrictions are fair for tobacco businesses? Will this new policy have an effect on tobacco advertising’s target market? Comment with your view on this ethical issue.

Will eating McDonald's make me able to dunk like LeBron James?

Athletes, being the epitome of health and fitness, create mixed messages when it comes to endorsing junk food. An article about athlete endorsements asks if athletes really eat the junk food they endorse. LeBron James and Serena Williams testify that they stick to a strict diet of healthy foods. They make no mention of eating the junk food they endorse. If they don’t eat it, why do they endorse it?

(http://www.entmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Lebron_James_McDonalds_All_American.gif) 

And this is not a new phenomenon. Athletes like Babe Ruth endorsed tobacco products back in the day….except at that time they probably used the products too....but does that make it right? Do you think there is a difference between athletes and other celebrities endorsing junk food? Should athletes endorse foods known to be bad for you especially when they don’t use the product themselves? What impact does this have on consumers? Are consumers being tricked? Weigh in on this issue in the comments.

Return Whatever, Whenever?

Should a customer be able to return any item that he or she has purchased? And should this "right" be a "forever" right?  This is a question posed in an article about LL Bean. The store famously allows returns from customers at any point....for any reason. In their words, they have " an astonishingly lenient return policy."

Take a moment and read the linked article and then give your input as to the impact (on the business) of this type of policy. Does it benefit the company more than it harms the company? Is it only appropriate for certain types of companies (consumer packaged goods? automobile companies? clothing companies? grocery stores?)? What do you see as the upside for the company that extends this benefit to customers? What are potential downsides? How do you weigh them against each other?

If 300 is Good, 1000 Must be Better. Right?

We discussed this in the first week of class....thread count on sheets. If you have bought sheets lately (or, honestly, at any point in your life) you probably have come across a characteristic of sheets that is known as "thread count." It refers to the number of threads per square inch of fabric. And higher is better....supposedly. Traditionally speaking, higher thread counts meant a more luxurious feel to the sheets.

According to a new study by Consumer Reports, there is not necessarily a link between high thread counts and more luxurious feel.

"Thread count is the number of vertical and horizontal threads per square inch. Not long ago, sheets typically had thread counts of 120 with 60 horizontal and 60 vertical threads. In the 1960’s, a sheet with a 180 thread count was considered a luxury.  “Now you see 1,000 thread count sheets but you just can’t get that many threads on a loom,” says Pat Slaven, a textile expert at Consumer Reports.

To get that higher number, manufacturers use thinner strands of fabric twisted together as if they were one. Then they double, triple or even quadruple the thread count to make the number more attractive to the consumer. “It ups the count but doesn’t give you a better sheet,” says Slaven. “The sweet spot is 400.”"

The problem is that consumers are generally willing to pay more for higher thread counts...believing that these will be softer, more luxurious and more durable. And, if they were all of those things...perhaps they would be worth more money. But they aren't.

Also at issue is going by how sheets "feel" in the store. If you zip open the package of sheets and feel the sheets and they are soft, almost slippery to the touch....don't be fooled. Manufacturers apply "hand enhancers, silicone softeners" that wash out the first time that you do laundry.

Thoughts?

Wear and Return? Not so fast....

Have  you ever bought a piece of clothing only to get it home and find out that it *appears* to have been worn by someone already? You swear that you just paid retail price for it...in a retail store...thinking that you were walking home with a brand new item. And yet.....ick. It HAS been worn already.

It is a crime called "wardrobing" and Bloomingdale's is making an attempt to stop it from happening to you in the future.

It is more likely to happen with high price items like prom dresses and formal wear, but it also happens with lower priced clothing. People "buy" the clothing, wear it for whatever function they have coming up and then, once the "dinner with the new parents-in-law" is over....they return the item to the store and get their money back. ....And then you or I buy it, not knowing that it has already been worn (beyond the dressing room).

It is illegal. It is return fraud and it costs the industry an enormous amount of money each year ($8.8 billion. That is billion with a B in 2012).

Bloomingdale's new way to combat this retail crime is to attach a big black tag in a very obvious place on the clothing (in the front, near the hem, for example) which, once removed, makes the clothing ineligible to be returned.

Brilliant? Or not?  What are your thoughts on this new practice of reinforcing the return policy?

Beautiful, Haunting Infomercial...True?

Recently Chipotle released an infomercial  (Scarecrow) that has gained a lot of attention. It is said to be more beautiful than many Hollywood films. The message is (mainly) that the factory farms of America are destroying our society (overstatement? What do you think the message is?). There is very little branding in this message - just a brief shot at the very end of the video.

You can find copies of this in many places around the internet. On the page that I linked, there is a large section of comments at the bottom of the page. One of the comments reads as such, "This is great, but they're conveniently leaving out the part where they still slaughter a bunch of (happier?) cows, chicken and pigs for their burritos. It's not like Chipotle is vegetarian, which is what you'd think from this ad? The scarecrow is just chopping up veggies at the end."

Chipotle is hopeful that consumers will see their company as a fast food restaurant with a brain. What are your thoughts on the film?

Banning of E-Cigarette Advertising?

Within the US, the advertising of tobacco products (cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own-tobacco and smokeless tobacco) on television was banned in 1971 (in the UK, the ban has been in effect for over 20 years).

Within the past couple of years, however, advertising of electronic cigarettes has boomed. The advertising of so-called e-cigarettes is currently unregulated. Print ad spending on e-cigarettes has increased approximately 72% from 2011 to 2012, while TV ad spending on the same has increased approximately 18%.

The Food and Drug Administration is expected to give opinions regarding the safety of e-cigarettes in October, 2013 and to suggest a ban on TV advertising as well as a ban of online sales of these devices. Online sales are expected to reach between $500 to $625 million this year (2013) with overall sales of e-cigarette reaching $1.7 billion by the end of 2013.

What are your thoughts on the potential banning of TV advertising of these products? Should there be an outright ban (similar to other tobacco products)? Should it remain unregulated? Should there be some rules regarding where and when on TV these e-cigarettes can be advertised? Please weigh in with your opinions and give your reasoning.

Overly Caffeinated?

Caffeine is a drug that many of us consume on a daily basis....in our morning cups of coffee, in our afternoon sodas and perhaps in our late night study-help energy drinks. Most of us are aware of the amount of caffeine we're taking in and have made a conscious decision to consume it. The FDA considers less than 400mg/day of caffeine to be "safe" for adults. There is no established amount of caffeine that is safe for children, according to the FDA.

There is new concern over some recently released products that contain caffeine. The reason? Because these are products that wouldn't "normally" be associated with caffeine. Waffles, syrup, sunflower seeds....sound strange? Caffeinated jelly beans?  Hmmm....

What are your thoughts on these new products? Do you think that there is anything wrong with adding caffeine to "non-traditionally caffeinated" products? If not, should there be any regulations?  What should the FDA's role be?

The IKEA Effect

How many of you have been very proud of something that you have worked really hard on?  You should be, right? Of course it is right. But IKEA has made a great business of this knowledge. It is known that when we put effort into something, we are more likely to like it....more likely to feel pride and to feel competence.

Simply put (I'm not trying to imply that the underlying effects are truly simple), we fall in love with things that we help to create. Yes, we also fall in love with things that our children create (see poorly constructed ceramic vase/ashtray/cereal bowl/whatchamacallit on your parents' buffet).....

IKEA (among others) have it figured out. They save on labor, can ship things in a very compact way, allow the consumer to take pride in construction and to ultimately love the product more than if it had been bought ready-made. Bonus.

Truth in Advertising

Courtney shared a graphic with me the other day that spoke to our topic discussed earlier in the semester of being misled by marketing. It is, no doubt, irritating to consumers to be shown one thing and to receive something that looks (a bit?) different.

What are your thoughts on the differences between what is pictured (advertised) and what is ultimately given to the consumer? Isn't it the marketers' responsibility to make their product(s) look as attractive as possible when promoting? Discuss.

Social Seating?

Do you want to know who you're about to sit next to on the airplane?  Would you go so far as to sign up for a "Seat and Meet" social networking site in order to pick who you'll be sitting next to?  Business contacts?  Potential dates?

That is what two airlines are proposing.  KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Malaysia Airlines are allowing passengers to share their social profiles and photos prior to boarding, in order to have a greater probability of sitting next to someone that they share interests with/are attracted to.  At this point it is definitely an opt-in program and your profile gets deleted at the end of the flight.  Still....



What are your thoughts on this?