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
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
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?
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?
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?
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
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?
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
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
Sunday, February 17, 2013
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)