To say that Youtube may be more watched than actual television may be a stretch, but probably not a far stretch. Any big event that happens on TV is almost instantly on Youtube, whether this is a wardrobe malfunction, Kanye interruption, or Snookie punch-out. With this being the case I don't think you can blame Method for choosing to advertise here. Although you can most definitely blame them for taking advantage of the more lenient or almost nonexistent censor ships it allows. I think Method knew this ran with it. There commercial was absolutely disturbing and almost uncomfortable to watch, not to mention incredibly awkward. I think Method pushed the limits for sure with this ad.
However, despite pushing the limits I think the idea of creating a viral video for advertisement purposes is pure genius. Viral videos are the latest craze and almost always the topic of conversation. When used properly the word of mouth they generate could prove to be more valuable than the actual ad its self. Hence why myself and others are blogging about it.
What do you think, are viral videos the new way to advertise? Do you think companies take advantage of the leniency allowed on the latest sources of media? Give some examples.
Friday, February 12, 2010
In Response to Chad Brown's "Best Superbowl Commercials"
Chad asked the question, If you were the CEO of a company that had the money for an ad spot for the Superbowl, would you do it? When I first read Chad's blog and considered his question I automatically thought to myself, sure why not? But then I considered some companies that chose not to advertise and considered there reasons for not participating. The first reason which is seems most obvious is the price you must pay for an ad spot. This price can be anywhere from 2.5 to 3 million for just 30 seconds. I then also considered some other reasons. When I did this I looked into Pepsi who for the first time in 23 consecutive Superbowls did not advertise during the Superbowl. Pepsi's reasoning for not participating is because they feel as if the mass market media is no longer the sole vehicle to reach an audience. Pepsi is instead saving this money and giving it away in forms of grants in six project categories. These categories include: health, arts and culture, food and shelter, the planet, neighborhoods and education. Pepsi is also allowing access to their website directly and through popular sites like Facebook and Twitter to allow fans to make recommendations on other projects they find fitting for grants.
After reading this article I changed my opinion as to if I would advertise during the Superbowl. I think Pepsi is a well known company and unless they are trying to advertise a new product, there is no need to market old products for such a large amount of money. Considering this if I were a CEO and had the money depending on my company I may choose to sit the Superbowl out. I think appearing more socially responsible and helping out the public will be for more beneficial to Pepsi than a 30 second Superbowl ad that markets products the public already is familiar with.
Do you think Pepsi's socially responsible approach will prove to hurt them? Or do you think Pepsi's approach will start a trend and companies will choose not to advertise but instead put their money to better use?
After reading this article I changed my opinion as to if I would advertise during the Superbowl. I think Pepsi is a well known company and unless they are trying to advertise a new product, there is no need to market old products for such a large amount of money. Considering this if I were a CEO and had the money depending on my company I may choose to sit the Superbowl out. I think appearing more socially responsible and helping out the public will be for more beneficial to Pepsi than a 30 second Superbowl ad that markets products the public already is familiar with.
Do you think Pepsi's socially responsible approach will prove to hurt them? Or do you think Pepsi's approach will start a trend and companies will choose not to advertise but instead put their money to better use?
Monday, February 8, 2010
Environmental Forces in International Markets
For many firms the question is not should we go overseas, but instead it is when should we go overseas. Examples of these firms include discount variety stores such as Wal-Mart or other firms like fast food restaurants such as McDonald's. The ability to spread their business to new places offers a whole new risk but with this risk comes the potential of great return. These firms however, must pay close attention to the environmental forces in internation markets. These forces include sociocultural, economic, and political, legal. and regulatory. Each of these forces has their own impact on how successful or how unsuccessful a firm can potentially become.
As we look at sociocultural forces firms need to keep in mind that not ever place in the world thinks that same way that they do, and in this event they need to carefully study the behaviors of the people they will be presenting their business to. In an effort to do this firms must carefully know the culture of the people that will be shopping at their stores and tailor their business to fit their lifestyles. Examples of this can be seen though McDonald's. Some countries are more health conscience than others and if McDonald's wants to be successful overseas it must change its menu accordingly.
Economic forces also have a large impact. Economic forces ultimately decide if a customer can shop at one place over another depending on the amount of money they have for specific product. This can be seen during times of economic struggles when people are no longer buying brand name products from mainstream stores but instead shop at discount stores. Businesses must be aware of this because this can ultimately decide if the products in their store will sell especially if there may be a competing store close by, or even if the brands they may offer are popular or will catch on in new environments overseas.
There are also political, legal, and regulatory forces. Companies that wish to move overseas must be aware of these regulations. These could potentially prevent one company from being able to sell its products in a new market. As you move overseas there are also import tariffs and quotas that could prove to be costly. These could potentially limit you from selling your main product that keeps your company afloat.
There are many factors to consider when thinking about going overseas. There is much time and research to be put into process of moving your company. Because of this many companies run into problems or conflicts they did not for see while others make the appropriate adjustments and go forth to have great success.
Although the two examples of firms I provided are both largely successful, are there any firms you can think of that suffered from their attempt to bring there business overseas? Which Environmental force do you think has the largest impact on a firm's success?
As we look at sociocultural forces firms need to keep in mind that not ever place in the world thinks that same way that they do, and in this event they need to carefully study the behaviors of the people they will be presenting their business to. In an effort to do this firms must carefully know the culture of the people that will be shopping at their stores and tailor their business to fit their lifestyles. Examples of this can be seen though McDonald's. Some countries are more health conscience than others and if McDonald's wants to be successful overseas it must change its menu accordingly.
Economic forces also have a large impact. Economic forces ultimately decide if a customer can shop at one place over another depending on the amount of money they have for specific product. This can be seen during times of economic struggles when people are no longer buying brand name products from mainstream stores but instead shop at discount stores. Businesses must be aware of this because this can ultimately decide if the products in their store will sell especially if there may be a competing store close by, or even if the brands they may offer are popular or will catch on in new environments overseas.
There are also political, legal, and regulatory forces. Companies that wish to move overseas must be aware of these regulations. These could potentially prevent one company from being able to sell its products in a new market. As you move overseas there are also import tariffs and quotas that could prove to be costly. These could potentially limit you from selling your main product that keeps your company afloat.
There are many factors to consider when thinking about going overseas. There is much time and research to be put into process of moving your company. Because of this many companies run into problems or conflicts they did not for see while others make the appropriate adjustments and go forth to have great success.
Although the two examples of firms I provided are both largely successful, are there any firms you can think of that suffered from their attempt to bring there business overseas? Which Environmental force do you think has the largest impact on a firm's success?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)