Have you lately read news about a woman who died because of drinking coke? According to Iltalehti she drunk Coca-cola something like 12 litres in one day, and got a heart attack.
I just can't keep thinking how that kind of publicity disturbs a brand image!
Like, if you think Coca-cola, a world wide known brand. Almost everyone drinks "Coke", and then you suddenly see that kind of news in the media? Does it affect you like "omg I can never drink coke anymore". Well at least I have to say that I still drink it.....
But I just wonder how strong brand image Coca-cola must have that it can take that kind of publicity. There isn't so many brands which have so deep reliability in customers' hearts' (yea funny...) so that kind of things doesn't harm the image.
It's well known that it usually takes tens, maybe hundreds of years to build a reliable, permanent brand image, but it needs only one scandal to break it up. So how can Coca-cola hold on its image a year after year, even if people die in a heart attacks and their teeth rot in a mouth because of drinking coke...? I have to say that's nothing but amazing.
And although Coca-cola has so many health harms, it is still probably the most known brand in the whole world. You hardly can find a place where people don't drink coke.
If I could, I would ask the creator of Coca-cola, how on earth he has succeeded making such a brand. (Well at least he isn''t alive anymore because Coca-cole was invented in 1886...)
But I think this gives some hope to this days' brands too. If a black liquid with various health harms can become a most known brand in a world, maybe others have also chances.
But if you think Pepsi for example, yeah everybody knows what it is, but most people still prefer Coca-cola. It's the law of the first; if you can innovate something first, it doesn't matter how much better the second is, because everyone remembers only the first one. And Coca-cola was the first.
See ya,
Heidi :)
Hi guys ~
Have you seen the newest Nike ads with Tiger Woods? What a huge "thing" the ads are in social media right now! And why? Because Tiger Woods has problems in his private life currently, so he isn´t a good figurehead for a sport brand. Or that´s what media thinks.
Here's a picture if you haven't seen any of the ads:
It´s true that Woods' personal life has received tremendous scrutiny since his extramarital affairs came to light in 2009, and a slogan "Winning takes care of everyhing" makes Tiger look like a heartless and selfish person when thinking those problems in his private life. However, the slogan is a direct quote from Woods who replied with the line during the Tour Championship last year when asked about whether he was focused on the rankings. "Just winning," Woods said. "Winning takes care of everything."
Nike said to ABC News in a statement: “Tiger has always said he competes to win. When asked about his goals such as getting back to number one, he has said consistently winning is the way to get there. The statement references that sentiment and is a salute to his athletic performance.”
After publishing those ads and that that slogan "Winning takes care of everyhing", Nike has faced a lot of criticism, like "Disappointing message by Nike" and "Tiger Woods ad raises eyebrows". You can see that the picture people have of Tiger Woods right now turns against Nike and the image the brand has already attained. It doesn't matter how good golfer Woods is, but if he has lost his face and reliability, it doesn't matter how hard he tries to be a good golfer, how hard he tries and wants to win. And in that case, his slogan "Winning takes care of everything" really sounds heartless and absurd. Why should a customer believe in his words if he acts himself in a different way?
The more Tiger Woods loses his own respect, the more also Nike loses its customers' trust in a brand, that once appreciated values like self-confidence and a pure joy to play. The company that once brought us Just Do It, a phrase that motivated a generation to get back in the game and play ball, is now selling "sleep with people not named your wife in church parking lots, destroy your family, do so while its back is turned and as long as you win then Just Screw It."
Because all companies, at least the good ones, are really just selling a feeling, it really matters which celebrity is used in ads. Personally I think Nike got a huge media boom because of using Tiger Woods, and usually an ad which awakes feelings, even if it's anger or hate, is better than an ad that doesn't make you feel anything at all.
But do you think this kind of publicity was a smart move for the brand? Will it move product, build share, or spawn more backlash? I don't know, but at least I know that I for sure remember Nike better than Adidas when going a sports store!
Sources:
http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story/new-tiger-woods-ad-shows-nike-has-lost-its-soul-032613
http://www.marketingmag.ca/news/marketer-news/poll-is-nike%e2%80%99s-new-tiger-woods-ad-the-right-move-75427
See ya,
Heidi :)
Hello hello againnn~
Valentine's day is coming so I decided to blog something about that!
Everyone knows that Valentine´s day has got its beginning in antique Rome and for christians the day was considered as a day of christian saint called Valentine. Valentine's day has a long history also in England and France and there are many myths and stories about the day. Nowadays it is a day which is celebrated all over the world, but of course every country and culture has its own way to spend it.
I found some interesting facts about celebrating Valentine's day in Japan. Actually I heard this first in the radio, and it made me so interested so I searched a little bit more information.
It is said that back in the 1950′s, a company advertised Valentine’s day chocolates to non-Japanese living in Japan at the time. Then, Japanese companies wanted to get on board too, and started advertising Valentine’s Day chocolates as well.
During this period there was quite a bit of “Westernization” where people wanted to adopt more Western amd American traditions. Because of this, Valentine’s Day in Japan did fairly well.
But well, everything didn't go quite right...
It seems that at some point someone messed up a translation and ended up telling the Japanese people that Valentine’s day was an opportunity for women to express their love to men. Because of this, even to this day it’s mostly women giving chocolates to men!
And because there are differents relationships between men and women, Japanese stores offer three kinds of chocolate: Giri, Honmei and Tomo-chocolates. Woman chooses the kind depending of the relation she has with the man she's giving the chocolate.
Giri-Chocolate means obligatory chocolate. This kind of chocolate refers to the chocolate you have to give to people. These could be people like bosses, coworkers, male friends, etc, who you aren't exactly in love with. Even sadder still, there’s also something called “Cho-Giri-Chocolate” (Ultra-obligatory-chocolate), which is given to unpopular people you really don’t want to give chocolates to. That's funny ehh??
Honmei-Chocolate means favorite chocolate. This kind of chocolate is the kind of chocolate you give to the one you want to express your love to. These chocolates tend to be more expensive or possibly even home made. Basically, it has to be obvious that these are honmei and not giri, so they have to be on a completely different level. Isn't that every chocolate maker's dream? To make fine chocolate no matter how much it costs because you just know people will buy it.
Tomo-choco just means friend chocolates, and refers to chocolates you give to your female friends as a female.
So well, don't you think that's quite simple? Just because you know you have to give chocolate, you don't need to spend time thinking about "What could I give to him or do I give anything?!" Like in Finland, there isn't presise rule that if you're woman, you give chocolate to men and that's it. We need to think that very much, and ohh how embarrassing it is if you don't get anything back!!! That if anything makes a girl cry haha.
Japanese people have solved this preciprocation problem too. Men just don't give anything back on Valentine's day. They have their own day to express their love, and its called White day. Traditionally, popular White day gifts are cookies, jewellery, white chocolate, white lingerie, and marshmallows.
But that's Japan. I have to say that I really like the idea of them spending Valentine's day and White day... It's an important part of their culture, and a good example of that how Valentine's day is spent differently in different cultures. If you compare it to Finnish Valentine's day, you notice that we don't have any rules or expectations for the day. Or if we expect something, we usually get disappointed. Finnish men seldom think that women would appreciate something special on that day. But thats our culture and we just have to live with it.
....At least my boyfriend said that he doesn't see any reason to celebrate Valentine's day. Well maybe I will eat the chocolate meant for him by myself and just go to dinner with my friends. :D And after that I will teach him some Japanese traditions haha.
Happy Valentine's to you all~ <3
Heidi
Yea, what is Super Bowl???
I have been wondering that for a few days by now, because everyone in social media (read: in Facebook) is talking about this event! And seriously I didn't have a foggiest idea what it could be until I made a little bit googling... i had to google because I just didn't dare to ask somebody like "Hey, what is Super Bowl?" Someone could have thought that I was just stupid.....
.....And I found out that it is the final championship of NFL-league of American footboll, which is played annually in the middle of January and February.
Super Bowl is known worldwide and in every country people is watching it. And I didn't know anything about it, how embarrassing...
Why I am talking about this is because the event is a huge opportunity for a marketer. Like, in every country there are plenty of people who are watching, and they will for sure see your brand.
And for sure, in this year's championship there was an insuperable winner in advertising.
You know that there was a half-hour power failure when the game was going on. It was really embarrassing and the game was forced to get a break. While the "Super Bowl blackout" didn't make those associated with the operation of the event look particularly great, Oreo take its change and made something unexpected. Within 11 minutes of the stadium blackout, Oreo had a new ad tailored to the moment spread among its social media channels.
The Oreo brand’s marketing company reveals on its company blog that in addition to its own staff, representatives of five separate departments of Oreo plus key brand executives were together managing the company’s social media presence during the game. At least some portion of the planning put into having such people present was very likely centered upon how the company would respond if all did not go well with their advertising campaign, but having decision makers in the room during a major event proved to be a genius move on their part.
It is clear that they were focused on positive communication to support their brand, but the structure was prepared equally for offense or defense. By being prepared, Oreo was able to take advantage of a unique moment in a creative way.
You can see that the more timely a message is, the more relevant it is. And no one proved that more than Oreo. With a blackout in the game, Oreo created and tweeted the ad featured above. With half the world sharing in the experience, this just-in-time execution may have immediately connected with more people than any other ad in history. Not all of us drink Bud. Not all of us use Samsung. But ALL of us watching the game experienced the blackout at the same time. And Oreo connected our dots immediately.
Is it possible that a free tweet was more powerful than all the million dollar spots? Unbelievable but true. While the other brands were using millions to get people's attention, Oreo owned the night and they didn’t have to pay almost anything in media costs to do it.
Sources:
http://www.marketingmag.ca/news/marketer-news/column-who-won-the-advertising-super-bowl-71234
http://agbeat.com/business-marketing/oreos-rapid-response-to-super-bowl-blackout-proves-how-to-be-nimble/
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl
See ya again,
Heidi :)
Here I am again...
I has been thinking of gender stereotypes this morning. And that's because I found this interesting column about the subject.
Well it made me think so much that I tried to find something else related to the same subject. I searched in Finnish and in English, and I found many texts written by European parliament.
Parliament criticise gender stereotypes in marketing, because they are often very extravagant. In advertising can stereoptypes easily turn racist and discriminative even if they are meant to be funny. That's because you usually have to overdone the wanted situation in advertisement so the watcher understands what it is all about.
...And too often you have to notice, that these gender stereotypes are all wrong.
Susan Dobscha writes in her column in Advertising Age that marketers are constantly conflating the separate constructs of sex, gender and sexuality. They assume female means feminine means heterosexual or male means masculine means heterosexual. They assume all women are feminine and would like a pink car. They assume women’s hands are daintier and would need an anatomically correct pen, and they assume women want to dress up as slutty versions of virtually anything for Halloween.
Marketers continue to drop gender stereotypes into ads because they fail to see that these stereotypes are, by and large, outdated and untrue, if they ever were true! While there are women who prefer pink, and it has become the official color of breast cancer, the NFL has since created more realistic jerseys for its female clientele.
Marketers ignore the diversity of preferences among women because they have long used male and female as catchall categories for segmentation. While fashion marketers have further segmented the consumer using additional demographic categories, such as age and income, other industries have not followed suit. The automobile industry habitually misfires when it tries to use sex as a demographic category, but does much better when it uses lifestyle and social-class classifications.
In the picture on the left you can see these stereotypes so well. The colour of woman is pink, and the color of man is blue. Marketers use this kind of lists when they are thinking what kind of tools or cars or clothes etc women and man are willing to buy. Or as well, what kind of ads will have the best affection to each gender.
I guess it's more about having the guts than thoughtlessness. It's the easiest way to segment to think like "well there are men and there are women". Maybe someday marketing will focus on more in the buying behaviour than in self-evidence demographic categories. Maybe.... or maybe we will always have the pink version of everything, because, hey, all women like PINK.
Sources:
http://www.marketingmag.ca/news/marketer-news/column-why-do-marketers-keep-getting-women-so-wrong-68304
http://mymemory.translated.net/t/Finnish/English/sukupuolistereotypioihin
See ya again,
Heidi :)
Hello again, it has been a busy week so I had time to blog just once... Sorry for that, I'm trying to be more active this week hehe.
Well this time I have some more interesting info about Cosmo, but now we are not talking about the magazine anymore. We are talking about yogurt. Yeah, you read right, yogurt.
But let's think this first, before I tell what this is all about. If you think Apple, Samsung, Nokia and Philips – all of these brands have built an image of being reputable manufacturers of electrics. This brand image is attached to the company and affects their future operations as well.
If one of these manufacturers decide to enter a totally diverse field, let’s say, perfumes, would it be appropriate? Most certainly not! That's why we are talking about yogurt, because in 1999 Cosmopolitan introduced its own line of low-fat yogurt. The brand failed badly since the customers were reluctant to accept a yogurt linked to a female magazine.
Source: https://www.brandillymc.com/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/7cead_5-cosmopolitan.jpg
To wrap up, brands must not be treated as mere products or items of physical value. They have an intrinsic value that completes the whole brand personality. Companies must align their branding efforts according to the expectations of their customers.
According to marketing myth, as many as 80% of new products introduced each year fail. That's quite sad, because many of these products can't make themself known abroad before the lifespan is already about to end. Most of these products stay in their home coutry because there isn't resources and courage to test, how the product would make it in a different culture. Maybe in Asia those Cosmopolitan yogurts could have been a huge success? Who knows.
But just thinking, what would Apple perfume smell like? Maybe like..... apple? Haha. :D
We'll see again! :)
Heidi
So let's start this blog now.
This is my first time blogging ever, so let see how this is going to work. :D
We are having this course, international marketing, at school, and im goin to share here my thoughts and ideas about things that are related in marketing and things that interest me.
Well... I have been spending like two hours by now searching articles... and yeah finally i found something that really interests me!
This article i just read was about Cosmopolitan magazine, and it says that "Cosmopolitan magazine has reached what appears to be a milestone: 100,000 paid digital subscriptions. The Hearst Magazines title seems to have beaten other brands to the mark, reinforcing the idea that digital will be a big platform for Cosmopolitan. But it's also a good sign for magazines' digital ambitions in general."
According to the article Cosmopolitan is also getting more money for digital subscriptions than it gets in print. Cosmo's website offers print-only subscriptions for $15 per year, or $12 a year for a three-year commitment. Its digital-only subscriptions for the iPad and Zinio, by comparison, command $19.99 per year. IPad subscriptions are also available monthly for $1.99 -- equivalent to $23.88 annually. Fire and Nook subscriptions are available monthly only, at $1.99 a month.
(Source: http://adage.com/article/media/cosmopolitan-100-000-paid-digital-subscriptions/233142/ )
I think this is really good thing for Cosmo and for other magazines that people have find them virtually too. It's quite a big amount to have 100 000 readers, and the best thing in my opinion is that people all over the world can read what is said in Cosmo. It's quite an inportant "rule book" for women, u know. ;)
