Advertising on NCAA Fields

This post is in response to an article I read the other day about the NCAA's decision to not allow hash tags on NCAA football fields. A hash tag is a part of the Twitter universe in which people use a # sign in front of a word or phrase in order for people to connect with each other over the same ideas. Many schools and teams were painting their own personal hash tag saying on their fields in order to spread it throughout their fan base. The NCAA banned this advertising in order to limit the amount of visuals on the field to a center decal, and two smaller decals that can only be the NCAA logo, the conference logo, or the school logo. There isn't really much up roar as to a fight back from teams or anything but it interested me that the NCAA came down so hard on such a small and low cost advertisement.

What do you think teams and the NCAA are missing out on by banning these hash tags from the fields?

Music Choice in Commercials

This post is in response to the recent commercials I've been seeing that are making a sincere effort to keep up with the ever evolving and new music that is coming out in today's youthful society. The one company and brand I'm going to focus on is Adidas who has really stepped their game up against Nike and Jordan. Their last two newest commercials take one of the hottest songs in its particular genre (Higher Ground by TNGHT) and the other takes one of the hottest rappers in today's music landscape (A$AP Rocky). Both commercials have had rave reviews from the customer base, especially about the music itself. I wonder if the companies have hired younger marketing teams in order to find these strategies and project them in the right way.

Do you enjoy a commercial with a better soundtrack than those that have simpler choices? Why?

Response to Cody Crawford's blog...

Although social media is a great way to promote a product, in what ways would it be unsuccessful?

I think there are a couple negatives that could come from social media marketing. First is the idea over over advertising. Sometimes when a product or service is advertised too much a consumer can start to block it out and ignore the advertisements. This can cause the company a lot of money depending on where the advertisement is. This problem can be solved by choosing cheaper social media platforms, like Twitter, in which only consumers who are interested in the advertisements would see the offers. But then again, this wouldn't be a way to gain new customers. 

Another negative would be advertising to the wrong people. I know companies can pay for their tweets to be "promoted" on twitter and no matter if you follow the company's account or not, it shows up on your feed. But in my own experience, it is very ineffective because I don't think I've ever read one once I noticed it was a promoted tweet. Therefore, these companies could be wasting money with each of these. 

How could you make the consumer benefit from social media marketing with certain offers or other strategies?

Illegal Foreign Sport Jerseys

One topic I want to talk about that I want to connect with our classroom discussions about profit is the controversy over the market of illegal pro sport jerseys. It is cutting deeply into the pockets of authentic jersey producers and the companies and their lawyers, as well as the government is trying to stop this. I have seen multiple specials, specifically on ESPN about the illegal market. These illegal jerseys are considered replicas and are shipped out of China to US customers. These jerseys are almost identical to the real things sold by licensed vendors. The most affected sport is the NFL. In the video below, the CEO of the main jersey producer, Fanatics, says that counterfeiters are the biggest competitor to the authentic ones. I cannot lie, I didn't know this was an illegal purchase but I do have at least 6 NBA jerseys that I bought from China. It cost me about 25$ per jersey compared to over 80$ for the real thing so it fits my budget a little better.

Would you pass over an "almost-the-same-thing" product if it were cheaper even if it were hurting our US companies?

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8900519/nfl-us-government-score-record-bust-fake-jerseys

Response to Seany Cowles' blog

Sean Cowles wrote a blog on the techniques of marketing and compared them to decide which one was best. Sean brought up many different strategies and I think they all work in their own way depending on the category of product/service. At the end of his blog he asked the question "Which option that I just brought up do you think marketing teams focus the most attention on, and why?"

I think Sean mentioned a lot of very effective techniques that can be used and I think all of them can work with just about any type of product. When it comes down to it, I think the best way to gain new buyers of your product is through word of mouth advertisement. It is especially efficient for smaller businesses that have smaller budgets. Some key words that I consistently notice are used when conversating about products include reliable, quality, and effective. I think these come up the most because they are the most important when deciding between different choices of the same product. Everyone wants a product that will always work and will last a long time. So I think the best marketing technique is one that provides credibility to a product and makes consumers trust the brand. 

Have you seen the rise of any products through word of mouth marketing based on their reliability, did it overtake another product?

In response to Prof Johnson's blog

This post is in response to Prof Johnson's blog about facial recognition software and its use as a marketing tool and its privacy concerns. She asks multiple questions about our own experiences and its privacy concerns.

I can't say I've had any personal experience with it that I know of but I'm sure it has been and will be used. I'm very sure it is used for security purposes in certain situations or at least has been attempted. But when it comes to marketing and the argument of privacy, I'm not sure as to its application at the moment. I think that some sort of facial recognition programs can be installed over certain advertisements in situations like the mall. The recognition can be used to read reactions to certain ads. Then data can be compiled and analyzed to determine effectiveness and be able to make adjustments.

When it comes to privacy, I think many consumers may be uncomfortable with them being watched and studied in certain uncontrollable situations. But I don't think there's anything a consumer can do to avoid it. I know the technology is going to come soon and will be very common.

What ethical arguments could be brought up with this kind of technology is public settings?

In response to Parker Hayes blog...

Parker Hayes posted a blog about the new series on Netflix called "House of Cards" in which the characters are constantly smoking cigarettes and he questions the reason for a new series feeling the need to have characters consistently do this action. Parker mentions the very true statement that smoking cigarettes is now not an iconic habit to have in any way like it was in the past. And I also do agree that TV shows can get around showing this action. Parker questions who is behind the idea to have the cigarettes be such a constant presences.

I agree with Parker's questions. I don't understand why the society is portrayed in a way that is similar to the 70s and 80s when cigarettes were actually that prevalent. This show is on Netflix which is known as a common TV and movie provider for the younger ages. There are many shows and movies that are only for kids and families. Therefore, I think it is very bad the way the cigarettes are everywhere in this show. A younger, more impressionable audience could easily pick up on this and start this extremely bad habit. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of cigarette business lobbyist in the background supporting the usage. 

Extreme Advertising

In the past couple of years, I have noticed a trend across advertising, maybe more specifically in sports advertising. This trend I've seen is using very extreme tactics for visuals. The video I will provide at the bottom of this post is the main example I've noticed. The commercial is for a brand of shoes by Jordan with famous athletes that includes Blake Griffin and Russel Westbrook who are superstars in the league at the moment. The commercial deploys tactics of what I call "visual overload." Everything you see is so extreme and over the top. From the color schemes of the clothing products to the lighting and sound track used. Everything is extremely in your face. The main examples I see are the rainbow colored uniform, the lit up basketball and the 20 or so band members carrying boom boxes that enter at the end. I've seen this in technology and other types of products but more commonly in sports commercials these days.

Are there any new trends that you have noticed in today's commercials that you hadn't seen in times past?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3j989Px9ow

Gamification

The other day, I read an article on the idea of gamification and its affect on the business and marketing world. Gamification is defined as "the process of applying the psychological and sociological factors that drive intense game play to consumer measurement, enables us to understand the thought process behind consumers' willingness to participate in and comply with consumer behavior and attitude measurement tasks." Basically this means that they have figured out some way of a measurement of consumer behavior and their willingness to fall in line with general customer behavior. I have seen other publications in the same category of consumer behavior. The overall topic is rather hard for me to understand based on the definition but I think I understand it and can connect it to other things I've seen.

The main connection that I made was of a video I saw in which a normal person, as a test subject, was put in a room full of actors. Then a question was asked with a very easy, obvious answer. All of the actors would answer a single but wrong answer and the normal person would eventually fall into line with the rest of the actors and also answer the wrong answer even if it was obviously wrong. I connect this because I think this article is talking about consumers behavior of complying with the common action even if their opinion is more correct.

How does someone in the marketing department become individual in their own style and ideas, rather than complying and taking the easy way out of doing what everyone else does?

In Response to Matt Tolen's Blog

Matt Tolen's blog is about branding in America. He talks about how brands have a certain power over how consumers act. Consumer's are willing to spend more for brands that they recognize and have been loyal to for some time. Matt goes into the way in which politics have also used this idea to brand their candidates in order to gain support from certain demographics. My favorite quote from his post is when he says "The Obama brand will most likely carry far past his presidency and be remembered more of as an idea then an individual." I think this statement is very true and will be a very common occurrence in the coming years.

I think that more and more advertising and branding companies will recognize this opportunity to brand their products and individuals in order to gain a larger customer base. Matt asks "Do you think that brand recognition comes from only advertising?"  My personal opinion is that this branding comes from a mixture of variables but mostly from advertising. The way a person or product is portrayed in the public is the way in which the customer will view it. I'm sure there are also other variables that affects the consumers view as well.

Is there an opposite side to the positive affects of branding in that may or may not be created through advertising, or maybe even propaganda?

In Response to Matt Dacosta

Matt Dacosta's blog post was about cause related marketing. Cause related marketing is defined as joint funding and promotional strategy in which a firm's sales are linked (and a percentage of the sales revenue is donated) to a charity or other public cause. However, unlike philanthropy, money spent in cause related marketing is considered an expense and is expected to show a return. To put it simply, companies are doing certain things that are considered philanthropic, but have ulterior motives that usually come down to making more money in the long run. Matt talks about how the relationship between professional athletes and not-for-profit organizations can be positive for both parties. Professional athletes are improving their public image which can increase their marketability for their teams and brands, and the not-for-profit organizations are getting players that are idols for many of their members. This can grow their brand and donations due to the name of the professional attending the event.

Matt questions if there are instances in which cause related marketing could be bad. Personally, I don't think there are any negative possibilities for these situations. As long as the professionals stay true to the values of their charitable organizations' values and don't do anything that goes against these, the relationship can only be positive. 

Can you think of an example in which the relationship went sour? What were the consequences?

Women in Under Armour's Consumer Market

Today, I read an article about how many brands, specifically Under Armour in this article, have moved from only focusing on the male consumer market, to a shift towards the female consumer market. Under Armour has been a brand that has made its name in football equipment. It talks about how for a very long time, the market was very male-dominated, but the shift is due to the changing role for females in the average family. Women make up 45% of the NFL's fan base and women tend to do the shopping for their less inclined male partner. Therefore this is a very large customer base for the category of brand.

I think this can be a huge opportunity that hasn't necessarily been tapped yet. With many women's rights movements picking up even more power in today's society, they are gaining even more power and control in the household. Therefore, they have more opportunities than ever to get into the market, a market that is bigger than ever and still growing.

http://www.marketingpower.com/ResourceLibrary/MarketingNews/Pages/2013/2-13/gender-bran-identities-under-armour-female-consumer-demographic-adrienne-lofton-shaw.aspx

This blog is in response to Ashley Borjeson's blog Self Regulation vs Government Regulation.

I also blogged about this topic but not the same part of the topic. I just talked about how they need to work together to be effective and efficient. Ashley took it another step further to say that self regulation allows for companies to be different by modifying their own morals and rules to the company's environment. These rules and regulations can be determined by upper management like CEO's or from lower management like branch managers who can make the rules specific to the work force in the branch. 

Self Regulation vs Government Regulation

In order for businesses to be regulated effectively and efficiency, I feel that both these need to work together types of regulation must work together. Self regulation is defined as control by oneself or itself, as in an economy, business organization. This means that businesses must have their own sets of moral and rules to follow that keep them within their ethics. Government regulation exists in order to level the playing field as much as possible. This includes avoiding negative practices that may promote monopoly. When both of these regulation ways are working together at its best, the business environment is very positive and prosperous. When there is a lack of self regulation or an overlook by government regulation is when you have companies making bad decisions and going under, destroying business and jobs.

Are there any other organizations that help to regulate businesses besides itself and the government?

This blog is in response to Sean Cowles's post about Product (RED).

Sean talks about how customers will buy the product just because it has the GAP name on it. I also wanted to say that many people in today's society would buy the Product (RED) shirt just because it is giving to the charity. People value a company's dedication to social responsibility much more these days than in past times. But, as I mentioned before, not much of the profits actually went to The Global Fund. In order for people to really support this cause, I think that the proportion of profits that would go to the cause would have to increase. In today's society with more technology and increasing calls for responsibility for false advertising, I think this campaign would have trouble starting up if it were to try today. But if it did have the right proportions, it could really take off with the amount of people who really value helping those in need.

Do you know of any companies who put social responsibility ahead of their own organizational prosperity?

Product (RED)

After reading the article about Product (RED), I must say I am rather confused on how this is considered a charity. In the first month's of its launch, the company made $71 million but only donated about $2.5 million to the charity it was promoting. I understand that it was trying to create a 10 year future for itself and make itself sustainable but at a certain point, you shouldn't be able to say it is a charity. Less than 4% of its initial revenues were given to the charity. This should have been labeled a business that gives to charity, not a charity that must withhold some of its revenues from charity in order to sustain itself. It gave people almost an untrue sense of giving. There should be a certain bar set that a self declared charity must give in order to hold the title and I don't think this percentage of giving is sufficient. Shriver said that it wants the companies a part of Project (RED) to make money of the campaign, and I agree. But I think the money should come from other sources. A much higher proportion of the money coming in for the Project (RED) products should have gone directly to The Global Fund. Then, due to the increased positive marketing, I'd assume higher customer volumes. This should be where companies should take advantage and make more money by being a part of the campaign.

Why do you think Bono and Shriver wouldn't accept the 100% of profits from the campaign to go directly to the cause? Or even anything more than 50%?

This blog is in response to Matt Dacosta's post Satisfaction vs Value.

Specifically, I am responding to his example and idea from the statement "A person could buy a ticket to a sports game at a very high-price deemed to be a high value but go to the game and see an unentertaining match."

I didn't think of this aspect of the topic. It was interesting to think about the relationship between these two aspects of marketing and customers. Matt talked about the idea that it depends on how much a customer sacrificed in order to get the product or service. A customer could have certain expectations for a product or service going into the situation. But if they settle for a cheaper alternative to a guaranteed superior product or service that costs more, then they're expectations of value must be lower in order to ever really feel satisfied. This all depends on price.

Are there any other ways in which price can affect your expectations for the product or service?

Are customer satisfaction and customer value interrelated?

In class we went over the definitions of customer value and customer satisfaction. They seem to be very similar ideas and I would have to say I agree myself. Some of the requirements we went over that define a customer value are that products can perform, avoiding unrealistic pricing, after sale support, and give buyer facts about the product. In my opinion, customer satisfaction is the fulfilling of these requirements. The more of these requirements that are fulfilled, the more the customer feels satisfied. Customer satisfaction is defined as the number of customers, or percentage of total customers, whose reported experience with a firm, its products, or its services (ratings) exceeds specified satisfaction goals. These goals can be specific to the product itself such as how well it cleans for a cleaning product, how good the sound is in headphones and so on. The overall interrelation between these two ideas focuses more on the organization as a whole and how they handle their products and their customers. Two of the main problems that I see are the most common are customer service and providing customers with legitimate facts about the product. I know in many of the industries that I have experienced or seen, they stress customer service. But this can be the quickest mistake an organization can make to lose customers. And now today with all the technology at everyone's finger tips, providing customers with the correct facts about product is always in question. Many food products claim certain qualities, but after further investigation, they are proven untrue. One example of this is when certain foods say "no trans fats" or other things like that. Many people for a while though that that literally meant none at all. But after a while, consumers found out that this just meant that they met the minimum amount to be able to put that statement on the product. This caused a customer backlash and decreased customer satisfaction in many industries.

Do you have any other examples of times in which customer service ruined your own experience with a company and you said you'd never go back to them?