- Ask one (1) question about the reading. It can be about something you may not have understood completely or about something you thought was interesting. Be thoughtful with your question, and try to make it a question that could start a conversation, not simply be answered with a ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ You are not allowed to post a question that someone has posted previously, so make sure to read through your classmates’ posts.
- Answer/respond to two (2) questions that others have posted by commenting on their posts. When you answer, read what others have said — do you agree with them? Do you feel there is more to the discussion? Do you think that someone is missing an important point? Be thoughtful and think about the question, responses and what your thoughts are.
- Finally, upload one multiple choice question for EACH CHAPTER to the Drop Box in Angel. KEEP IN MIND that the book is still a few weeks away from being finished, meaning that by the time we take the quiz, these earlier chapters will be very old. I strongly suggest making the questions about overarching topics and concepts rather than about minute details. I have made sure that the Drop Box is available.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Emotional Branding : Reading 06
For this assignment, you will need to read pages 223 - 272 in Emotional Branding (Section III, Chapters 15 - 16), then do the following:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When talking about the new media (internet), the author explains the concept of good girls, bad boys in social media. I personally am turned off by campaigns that are so stereotypical. When the"Share Your Secret" campaign was discussed, I was confused... what was the point of sharing this story at all and why on earth was it so successful? It seemed to me, like a knock-off of PostSecret (letters with sad, happy, etc. anonymous messages sent to this company to be published online & in books). But Post Secret is all about inspiration and getting through troubles in life by sharing, even if it is with strangers. Secret's campaign held no significance for me. It got even worse when I read about the brand identity Axe had become successful with. Does anyone feel the same/have a different opinion? I personally, was much more moved by the ads targeted at hot button issues.
ReplyDeleteI was confused about Share Your Secret's "Because you're hot" tagline. At first I thought this may have gone along with Axe's image, but I'm pretty sure this was paired with Secret. How does this make any sense? I'm "sharing my secret" (making me feel close to others within Secret community, possibly empowered, etc.), but I'm doing so "because I'm hot"? These don't even match up. Either I'm misreading something, or Secret didn't have a concrete goal at the beginning of their mission.
DeleteI can kind of get with the concept. Deodorant isn't something typically talked about in public, and this is a way to break a stigma and show that Secret is so relatable and used by so many women that it's easy to talk about and people want to talk about it. I would tell a secret so that I could become connected with other women who have secrets to share. PostSecret, to me, is an outlet more for personal use whereas this campaign seems like more of a group mentality, secrets shared to benefit others as much as, if not more than, oneself.
DeleteI think the main connection between the two that the book was the fact that they were deodorant, so they were using them to compare and contrast two advertising techniques. I think this campaign was more similar to what special k is doing now with their scale campaign. Where they are turning something typically off limits and embarrassing into something empowering. So by sharing a secret which might normally "make you sweat" you no longer have to worry about it.
DeleteI think it is a confidence thing as well. Having no secrets or sharing your secrets means you don't have anything to hide and are totally confident. I can kind of see why you would want to advertise this to women so they feel better about themselves. I agree with Arielle.
DeleteMajor interesting point: Burger King's "Whopper sacrifice." This sounds like Jimmy Kimmel's National Unfriend Day (NUD).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, this goes to show you that people will consider doing anything as long as there's an incentive. I would easily do this (so I know that the marketing strategy works), but where is the line drawn? Should companies be allowed to interact with consumers on this personal, in-your-face level?
Oh definitely. I think that companies are allowed to try and get as close and "in-your-face" to consumers as they would like. As the book points out, "people rule" and it is really the consumer that is the ultimate decision maker on how intimate the brand is able to get in one's life. People don't have to watch commercials, visit brand websites and blogsites, or enter contests, sweepstakes, points rewards programs, etc. if they don't want to. They're CHOOSING to do these things and closely interact with the brand. So however "in-your-face" the company gets is really for the consumer to decide - and thus you can't really complain too much about in-your-face advertising.
DeletePlus, I think companies should be allowed to interact with consumers on a personal, in-your-face level because it is the only way to be successful. The entire branding novel we're reading is a testament to this fact that brands and companies need to have an intimate and emotion-tapping personal relationship with their consumers if they want to be successful in today's world. The only way to do this is by interacting with customers in a very close and personal manner.
I like what your question of whether companies would be allowed to interact with consumers on such a personal level. I feel like we are constantly being bombarded with advertisements, be it from the pop-ups and ad bars on the internet, to television commercial ad placements, marketing stimuli seems to be everywhere you look. According to the book, the average American consumer sees 3 hours of advertisements over the course of ten hours. This is a lot of information for a consumer to come into contact with and process. This is why it is so important for brands to make strong, emotional connections with the consumers, using all of the means at their disposal- be it by packaging, pricing, placement, or other marketing strategies. A company needs to create a sense of brand recall, so that when the consumer needs to make a purchase, their emotional ties will dictate which is the 'best' brand for them to buy.
DeleteOn page 250 at the bottom when discussing Mark Zuckerberg's Oprah interview, the author describes Zuckerberg as "a member of a generation (Generation Y) for which the status is about having less." On pg 266 the author reiterates this idea saying that "people today feel that personal time or time spent with family and friends is more important than money." These statements shocked me, as I feel like out of the Baby Boomer, Generation X, and Generation Y generations, Generation Y is the generation that has the most reason to be materialistic given the vast amount of technologies and innovative products that have been developed during Gen Y's lifetime. Yet the author seems to think just the opposite, that Gen Y is the least materialistic generation compared to Generations X and the Baby Boomers. Do you agree with the author? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, I think that our generation is the most consumeristic. Everyone I know today is about brands--look at how many people on campus have Sperry's, NorthFace, Uggs, when there are knock-offs that are exactly the same, and I'm included in this. I do agree that we appreciate time with friends and families, but I think that every generation does--it isn't Us exclusive. I think the drive for money is still here, and it is as strong as ever.
DeleteWhat is your opinion on the controversial Benetton and Kenneth Cole ads on pages 237-238? The author states that the Kenneth Cole ads are less controversial and work better, but I personally think both ad campaigns fail. I cannot see a connection between these ads that feature death row inmates and clothing. Do you agree, or do you think the ads are edgy and working? Why?
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Kelsey said. Just the fact that a clothing brand is touching on such a personal and touchy subject to sell its product is kind of a turn off for me. Especially on such a controversial issue such as the death penalty, I can't really see an ad working to increase sales with it. Though, I wouldn't go as far as saying the Kenneth Cole ad worked, I can certainly see it as the lesser of two evils. It gave facts and appealed to the side of humanity, but it did still kind of side against the death penalty. Overall, I think companies should steer clear of controversial topics unless it is in direct contact with them, such as contraceptives and abortion.
DeleteI see that these companies are trying to be edgy to attract a younger audience, but I feel it is more important to sell the product. These ads do not really fit with any of the philosophies that this book has developed so far. The book has stated that a company should share the same values as the consumer. It seems to me that Kenneth Cole is skirting the issue and being non-committal while Bennett is being too up front. These issues should be something a consumer seeks out of their own accord.
DeleteI agreed, to take any side on such a big issue is cutting available consumers in half. This has been seen in Chick-fil-a and the homosexual issue, or Starbucks supporting abortion. I think its important for people to take sides on big issues, but when I'm going to buy a shirt I want to base my decision off of the clothing, not the companies political views.
DeleteI agree with the author when he states, "Provocation is not a brand strategy just a short term tactic to claim the spotlight." The brands are definitely turning heads which may be attracting some customers to take a look at the products, but I feel these ads are more harmful than helpful. These ads, while they can attract new customers, will ultimately alienate some customers. Losing customers is not a winning strategy for a business.
DeleteI agree with the book in that Bennetton's strategies do not work and Kenneth Cole's do work. Bennetton's ads have no connection to the issue or their brand, it's just kind of thrown together. Kenneth Cole shows a young person who appears to be wearing the clothing, which does link the brand to the issue, although not much. Even with that said, I'm not going to buy a brand's product because they've gone and created an ad like this, but that's just me.
DeleteIn chapter 15, the author again mentions visual pollution and how some cities have made steps to remove advertising in the form of billboards and the likes from the city completely. I agree that to an extent advertising is visual pollution, but I feel that it has also become part of our society. For instance, look at Time Square in New York City. It is plastered with advertisements, but all of those ads and lights add to the experience that is Time Square. What is your opinion on advertisements in our society? Are they just visual pollution, or have they become more than that?
ReplyDeleteI believe that advertisements have certainly become a part of our society today. They aren't only a method for companies to broadcast their products, but have become models of the traits and characteristics that people today have. Ads determine who we are and help people realize the path and mindset that they have taken. Sure they can get annoying sometimes and are a nuisance occasionally, but overall they are beneficial not only to the companies but to us a population. Could you imagine Time Square without ads, it would be boring and not have nearly the atmosphere that it maintains today. I definitely believe that they have become more than visual pollution.
DeleteI like your picture of Time Square. I think that in this 21st century there needs to be a balance - you need the cities that have the flashy advertisements but you also need the natural, rural places as well or places like Times Square wouldn't be an experience, but everyday life.
DeleteI agree with Robert that advertisements have become more than just a form of visual pollution. In some cases I do believe that some ads are over done, but in other cases I think that ads become landmarks to the places they inhabit and can become a part of the community. For example, in Rhode Island, New England Pest Control advertises their company with a billboard accompanied by a giant blue bug. Every Rhode Islander knows the big blue bug and it is just a part of the state and has even been featured on Family Guy. During the winter they put lights on it and in the summer they have him drinking from a Del's lemonade cup, a local RI drink. I think that making ads personal to the area can definitely help in making an advertisement more than just visual pollution but a beloved part of a community.
DeleteChapter 16 is focused on the impact of social media and networking on sales of products and the ability for consumers to really "connect" with brands. Putting the book to the side, how do web habits affect your buying of goods and the relationships you build with brands? Does it really have as large an impact as the author talks about or does most of your interaction come with real life situations that are focused away from the cyber sphere?
ReplyDeleteThis was a interesting topic for me as well, as the author elaborated on the effects that the expanding size and impact of the internet has upon the consumer company relationship. It has become a near necessity for most businesses to have an online presence, in order to successfully compete with other companies in their industry. However, the traditional brick-and-mortar store is probably more so important for a more thorough, emotional connection to consumers. This idea can be seen in IKEA'a business strategy, as they make a visit to their stores a full, sensory experience for the consumer. So, although I think that companies need to have a presence on the internet, it is real-life experiences that I believe are key in making a strong, lasting connection with consumers.
DeleteOn pg 253, the author discusses generation Y's typically passive attitude toward politics. I have a strong aversion to all things politics. I was wondering what event or culturally developments you think led to this passive attitude.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the author here. I feel like Generation Y is just as political as any other. I think that sometimes college aged kids are less inclined to vote out of the inconvenience of an absentee ballot, and some people are A political so as not to be offensive, but I think you find that in every generation. In fact, I would say that Gen Y is more involved in political activism than a lot of older people.
DeletePerhaps the reason young people don't seem to turn up at the polls during voting season is due to the fact that they don't feel like their one single vote can make a difference in the election outcome. America's voting system isn't really a democracy as popular vote doesn't necessarily win the election due to the electoral college. Also, the only votes that truly matter are in the few key swing states such as Ohio, Florida, etc, so why bother wasting time standing in line at the polls?
DeleteI also think politics are hard for young people to relate to. Politics are too Democratic v. Republican party-oriented which is a turn off for many voters. Politicians are usually old, rich, elitist white men that are not very easy to relate with for middle class folks and poor college students. Thus, people just choose to connect with other more exciting and useful things.
Targeting these attitudes that usually keep young people out of the polls was how Obama was so successful in his presidential campaign. He connected with young people and made them feel like their vote actually did make a difference in the outcome of the election - with their desired candidate Obama as the victor. Obama and his emotional branding campaign which altered these above attitudes young people have about politics is definitely a start in the right direction for allowing young people to relate to politics more and become involved in voting.
I took an interest in the extent to which the author spoke about the President Obama's use of social media and the internet and the part that it played in his election. The turnout of the highest record of young voters ever was recorded, and many political analysts will attribute this to his connection with the media, his strong, emotionally charged 'Change' campaign, and his expert use of social media outlets. With the pervasiveness of information these days, it is crucial for both political figures as well as businesses to maintain a level of ethics and transparency. Should businesses look to the government's policies and strategies and try to implement them in their own economic way? What should they be careful to avoid?
ReplyDeleteChapter 15 states that "emotions can be exposed in cyberspace in a personal way with people." Do you think this is true? Is the internet really as personable as one on one contact? Is it as personal as an add in a magazine?
ReplyDeleteThe internet is definitely the most personable form of media available. It is not as personable as actual live contact because smell and touch are removed from the picture, but because there is video chat, blogs, and the like where people can express their opinions and thoughts it is the next best thing. If your reading a magazine, you can't post your opinion on an article or an ad for others to see and debate upon. You're simply just absorbing information with no interaction with other people. The internet provides opportunity for personable interaction with others after reading articles.
DeleteOn page 243 the author states that people are spending less time in front of their tv sets and more time using their cell phones and computers as their source of media and entertainment. Do you think this will effect the television programming and networks available or do you think that they will adapt and feature more online content while reducing what they air on tv? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteI had a question about what a statement meant in the early part of chapter 15. It says, "We are not far off from a time much like at the dawn of television, when, say, Procter and Gamble may lease a night on a major network and be free to do whatever it wants with it." Does this just mean no one would notice because people don't watch TV? Not sure how I think about that one....
ReplyDeleteI think what the statement meant was that brands in the past would purchase television airtime and then fill the broadcasting with their own shows that they produced and their own commercials. This meant they had free reign over the channel and could reduce the number of competitor's commercials. I don't think it was a statement about how often people watch TV, but more about having full creative control over the programming.
Delete