Advertising Through My Eyes.

Well, I’m somehow at the end of my 4th week at Gyro, with only 2 weeks left. I feel like I have been here for months but at the same time am trying to figure out how it has gone so quick? When I first saw that my course featured a 6 week placement way back at the beginning of the first year, I’m not going to lie, I was slightly disappointed as all which was going through my mind at that time was “well there goes my summer 2011”. It turns out however that my time at Gyro has been a priceless experience as I’ve learnt things which I would’ve never learnt if I hadn’t had done a placement. Or done a much shittier placement somewhere shit (Trust me, I applied to a few desperately hoping they wouldn’t call me back). Here are just a few of the main things I have learnt:

Working in an advertising agency is much more relaxed than working in Tesco (talking from experience)

Don’t go rushing into execution. The idea will be shit.

Drawing shit scamps is ok. Making mock ups on the computer complicates things.

If your ideas aren’t expressed clear and easy to understand. Chances are they won’t be considered.

How to organize a portfolio.

Coming up with a decent idea gives you some sort of weird excitement feeling.

80% of the ideas you come up with will be pretty shite. But there is bound to be one good idea.

Traveling to Imperial Wharf from Braintree is the single most annoying thing in my life at this moment.

I prefer coffee to tea.

Air conditioning can make you feel really ill.

The fact that the “w” key on this keyboard doesn’t work everytime is annoying as fuck.

I suppose London can be a pretty interesting place to work though. Despite the mind numbingly boring train journeys. Encase you have been away in the middle of nowhere with no form of communication, just to let you know, riots kicked off in London. “Ooooo exciting” you’re thinking? No, it was fucking horrific. The thing which did however interest me was the role social media had to play in all of it. It was incredible; from the organization of the riots, to the clean up, to the arrests.

I haven’t had twitter all that long but I am slowly seeing how big of a role it plays in our society. I mean most of the arrests made were because of fucking idiots uploading photos and tweets about themselves being in the riots and showing the things they had stolen. It was amazing however to see people quite the opposite of complete twats organizing the #riotcleanup. This took all but 8 hours to organize showing the power of social media. It took 4 days for our prime minister to utter one word. I find it interesting to see how social media can be used for both complete carnage and at the same time amazing togetherness (the clean up).

https://thegoatfarm.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/on-the-radio-london-riots-adidas-jersey-clusterfuck-and-a-very-cool-mig-29-crash/

In this video, Vaughn Davis jokingly says “are they riots or are they the most cleverest, biggest ambient advertising stunt by blackberry?” This is a statement, which stood out at me as its true in a way. This could be used as an amazingly effective campaign if there were no morals in the world. But as there are good people in the world I can’t help but wonder how damaging this will be to the blackberry brand? For anyone who doesn’t know, the riots were apparently organized through BBM as messages cannot be traced. This will be something that we will have to wait to find out but I think it’s safe to say that judging by the popularity of the brand, it will not be harmed sales wise. Maybe the brand reputation might be slightly damaged I don’t know. If anything sales may increase now that criminals know that messages can’t be traced? There’s your gap in the market!

Another brand which I do feel bad for is Adidas. Half of the pictures we see in the media about the riots show rioters wearing some form of Adidas clothing. As if people wearing hoodies didn’t have a bad enough reputation already. Now whenever people see someone in a pair of Adidas trackies or hoody they are instantly going to be considered a thug, rioter, lowlife or quite simply. A twat. This is annoying as I like to wear Adidas trackies every now and then. We will again have to wait and see what happens. Maybe sales will decrease from people not wanting to be associated with this, or maybe they will increase from people wanting this image? Either way in my opinion they need a new campaign to remind people that Adidas is a brand which celebrates the love of sport. Not a brand which promotes crime.

The saving grace in all this however is that people still find the time to do things like this and share it via social media. http://photoshoplooter.tumblr.com/

But yeah, that’s all from me for now. I’m going to carry on enjoying my time at Gyro for the next 2 weeks. After that I’m going to take some time to travel around the UK for a week with a couple of mates. It will be good to see some of the UK as I still don’t really know what this country has to offer. I’m hoping it won’t be too disappointing. I will spend my time not being disappointed (hopefully) in Leeds, Coventry, Bristol, Cardiff, Newquay and Bournemouth where I ill be staying for my 3rd and final year of uni. I’m determined that it’s going to be a big one. Bigger than the riots. In a good way.

Follow me on twitter if you want @jstanner43.

Jack

It’s been a while since I’ve been on here. The blog was put on hold for a while for many reasons. For example finishing my second year but most of all its been because I’ve been working my arse off trying to find any kind of work placement within the industry. I remember back in October being told at uni to “apply early”. I chose to ignore this as at the time I had bigger problems such as uni work and wondering where I was going to get my drink from for that night out? Of course after months of concentrating on uni work the time came round where everyone seemed to be getting a placement except me. I then proceeded in applying to any advertising agency I could find in London expecting to get something. Long story short lets just say my inbox is pretty much full of rejection emails. I was pretty much ready to give up when I got a call from the lovely people at Gyro. For anyone who doesn’t know Gyro is an advertising agency in Chelsea Harbor who work for brands such as Virgin, Fedex and many more.

So here I am! At the end of my first week at Gyro in the creative department. So far I’ve managed to work on briefs for Virgin, T mobile and Fosters. I’ve only been here a week but I think it’s safe to say this is what I want to do after uni (besides traveling). Until then I’m going to enjoy my last year of uni and well and truly make the most of it as well as enjoying the rest of my time here at Gyro.

Here is their website if you want to have a look.

www.gyro.com

Also I have recently joined the world of Twitter as I’ve come to realise how big it actually is within advertising and marketing. So follow me if you want @jstanner43.

Cheers

Desire is naturally within us all. Whether it be the desire for that dream car, that dream house or that piece of clothing you’ve always wanted. With help from the internet and the rapid development in technology it is now possible to purchase anything you want anonymously with the press of the button. But what is consumer desire? Knott (2010) describes it as being driven by internal, imaginative idealisations of objects. Is it the way we see ourselves using a particular product? For example if we imagine ourselves driving that car we have always wanted will we imagine that our lives will somehow become better and we will be much happier than we are now? A question which I wonder is is daydreaming about that car we have always wanted better than actually owning the car? Do we desire to desire?

Belk et al (2003) describes the act of desire as a cycle of desire, acquisition, use, disillusionment, renewed desire. In other words we see an object which we want, we then purchase the object. We then use the object only to discover that this object did not fulfil our expectations making room for another object to be desired. From personal experience I can agree with this cycle. A few Christmas’ ago I had the desire to get the latest iPod touch. I imagined myself listening to it, using all of the features I had read about. I imagined myself gaining a more creative image or being “cool” as I swiped my finger across the screen to pick a song. If I remember correctly it took 2 days for the novelty to wear off and a year later it broke leaving me extremely disappointed and desiring a new iPod.   

The internet has left open the door for consumers to purchase virtually anything they desire through websites such as Ebay. More often than not you will find what you are looking for (and what you’re not looking for) on Ebay allowing desires to be fulfilled easier and cheaper. With the development of mobile technology a consumer can now browse and buy anywhere, anytime, again allowing a desire to be fulfilled easier. My argument however would be that our ability to look for anything we want and browse at items we don’t need is increasing our desire. Are our desires becoming harder to fulfil? This is something which I believe advertisers have to take into consideration more in recent times as part of advertising is to create desire for your brand or product. If desires are becoming harder to fulfil then a brand surely must have to make more effort to differentiate itself from competitors to create and fulfil a desire. Percy and Elliot (2000) describe that people see advertising as creating the desire for unattainable goals. I however do not agree with this argument as it is not solely advertising which creates this. I believe that there is more of a social reason to desire. When we see a product in a shop we imagine ourselves using that product the same way as when we see it in an advertisement. It is this imagination which leads us onto websites such as Ebay trying to find that product at a reasonable price.

Knott (2010) speaks of 4 key themes when talking about desire within Ebay. These are:

·         Igniting desire – This is when the desire for a product is triggered. (Knott 2010) As mentioned the easiness to browse for whatever you want now creates more opportunities to ignite desire.

·         Accelerating desire - Ebay use accelerates the cycle of desire through three key practices. The quick purchase of desired items, the removal of moral consequences attached to purchases and the temporary ownership of digital virtual representations of desired goods. (Knott 2010) This appears to be what is creating the excitement.

·         Re-igniting desire - The revelation that there were new objects to desire often emerged from the search activity itself. (Knott 2010) Once a consumer began a collection it was now possible to search for and purchase the entire collection. This seems to add to the excitement not found within normal purchasing.

·         Exiting desire - Acceleration of consumer desire in some instances propelled a quick exit from a desiring mode. (Knott 2010)

It appears from Knott’s (2010) research the desiring process is speeding up possibly leaving consumers bored. It comes across as if we as consumers want to desire, we enjoy wanting things and that more often or not the actual owning of the product does not live up to the experience of desiring. As mentioned the purchasing process is becoming quicker, cheaper and easier through websites such as Ebay and the fact that it is anonymous leaves no room for embarrassment. It seems whilst the decision making process (Yeshin 2006) remains the same, the way we purchase is different which makes me wonder how damaging this is for some brands. Why purchase a Fred Perry polo shirt for example from a shop for £50 when you can buy it off of Ebay for £11.50? How much power do brands have over this? Even if through advertising and marketing they create the desire for their products instead of two people buying their product it is likely that one person will buy it, put it on Ebay if they do not want it for another consumer to buy. It appears a very important issue for brands to take into consideration however in my opinion seems to be something which is out of their control.

An article from The Independent online makes a very valid in saying “The vest we are planning to sell on Ebay for £1.50 could just as well go into the binbag and along to the charity shop.” This makes me question websites such as Ebay. I wonder if this is making us as consumers more materialistic and money orientated. Just one of the many changes resulting in the new wave of digital communications.

References:

Percy, L and Elliott, R., 2009. Strategic Advertising Management. 3^rd ed. New York. Oxford University Press, p.12.

Yeshin, T., 2006. Advertising. London. Cengage Learning EMEA, p.170.

Denegri Knott, J., 2010. “Have it now!”: eBay and the acceleration of consumer desire. Available from: http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/detail?vid=3&hid=121&sid=d5874db8-1bcf-4e46-b439-71acba99076d%40sessionmgr114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=ir00020a&AN=bourne.15824 (Accessed 20^th April 2011)

Walker, H., 2011. Once we used to donate stuff. Now we just want to flog it. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/harriet-walker-once-we-used-to-donate-stuff-now-we-just-want-to-flog-it-2273775.html (Accessed 25th April 2011)

Pictures

Available from: http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://danieleparlante.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/i-want-you.jpg%3Fw%3D600&imgrefurl=http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/&usg=__k76kfYvshsSK-8EZ-sVHIXCSqIs=&h=282&w=253&sz=14&hl=en&start=27&sig2=_btDs6OjBexeEscdRmea6g&zoom=1&tbnid=-oM3WwBYxE0IzM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=110&ei=SIC0TdvFHYbo4wbykbXoCw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Di%2Bwant%2Byou%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1I7SUNC_en%26biw%3D1345%26bih%3D574%26site%3Dsearch%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=322&page=2&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:23,s:27&tx=79&ty=58 (Accessed 20^th April 2011)

Available from: http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mikehaywardcollection.com/files/images/Ebay-logo.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mikehaywardcollection.com/page/7/Ebay.htm&usg=__KIDN—dCDYPQW_SPJXEv6Sv2ekQ=&h=367&w=679&sz=52&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=A13qgurlt_i1wM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=217&ei=D5y0TYq_A4Ov8QP3zJHRAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3DEbay%2Blogo%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1I7SUNC_en%26biw%3D1345%26bih%3D574%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=351&vpy=104&dur=46&hovh=165&hovw=306&tx=173&ty=95&page=1&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0 (Accessed 20^th April 2011)

Available from: http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.companyexposed.com/images/brands-vs-ebay.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.companyexposed.com/category/ebay-lawsuits/&usg=__M7tyHwUMTzaZKPkxuKqOs8jmPp4=&h=159&w=310&sz=16&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=jBI0p5JKJusNFM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=183&ei=B6-1TZD5FsjM4gbRuLj1Cw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Debay%2Bvs%2Bbrands%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1I7SUNC_en%26biw%3D1345%26bih%3D574%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=329&vpy=110&dur=139&hovh=127&hovw=248&tx=178&ty=76&page=1&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0 (Accessed 25^th April 2011)

Word Count - 1000 (Excluding References)

In a growing digital environment it is becoming more and more apparent that what a company does and how a company behaves in regard to ethics is having a huge impact on their reputation. I recently done a survey for some uni work of Kitkat, Nestle’ and Fair Trade and one of the first questions I asked respondents on my questionnaires was “Do you consider yourself a fair person?” It was soon apparent to me that most of us consider ourselves a fair person as 49 out of the 50 respondents answered yes. A brand’s reputation is very important as we as consumers like to think we are fair and the more ethical a brand appears the better we feel about purchasing that brand. This was another key finding within my research. They majority of respondents agreed with what Fair Trade did as a brand and what it stood for and 100% of respondents agreed that Kitkat’s 4 finger bars becoming Fair Trade was a positive thing and it was safe to say that from my research a brand being ethical improved its brand image.

In recent years ethics in business practice has become much more of a talking point. Is this because we as people are becoming fairer? I doubt it. The more likely reason is down to our ability to share information easily worldwide. Through the likes of social networking a brand’s reputation can be damaged easily if an act of unethical conduct is made public. For example it can be an individual’s negative comments posted on their blogs or a public group on Facebook raising awareness and encouraging consumers to boycott a particular brand in an act of activism. Albrechtslund (2008) states that participating in online social networking is also about the act of sharing yourself, or your constructed identity, with others. The likes of social networking means you can construct a personality online through things such as your Facebook profile, Twitter profile, blog posts etc. Joining groups on Facebook for example boycotting certain brands or supporting causes all acts as this identity consumers want to portray and share online. It also allows them to be part of a tribe with other consumers who want to also express their identity. This all can be damaging for brands. Negative brand connotations are therefore formed and shared within the online community affecting the brand externally.   

Possibly one of the best examples of corporate social responsibility gone wrong was the BP oil spill. BP’s handling of the situation arguably could have been better and to make matters worse, in an article from Nation (2010) it states that Rand Paul the republican senate candidate said this:

“I think it’s part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen”

The whole situation obviously sparked outrage within America which therefore thanks to the digital age we live in and our ability to share information, made way for waves of user generated content to be spread across the Internet, each one damaging towards the BP brand.

The damaging effects of not acting ethical as a brand are clear for all to see. According to www.ukmarketingnews.com BP recorded a loss of £3.1 billion as well as a nosedive in shares. Since the spill, BP has gone on to spend £8 billion on the clean up operation and committed a further £306 million on the funding of scientific studies to combat the impact of the spill. BP have spent millions in trying to repair its brand image and a year on from the oil spill have brought out this advert smartly focusing more on the product benefit. Acting as the helpful, friendly company who did destroy many lives within the wild and spark outrage, but will keep your car’s heart nice and healthy. Have a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XeujZ6cPGg

Acting ethically as a brand is obviously an important part within a brand’s business practice however brands must be aware that it can go wrong as the search engine Bing found out. Just after the Tsunami hit Japan Bing tweeted that for every retweet Bing would donate $1 towards the Tsunami victims up to $100,000. Consumers however saw this much differently than seeing Bing as a company generously donating to charity. It sparked outrage and made Bing seem as if they were using the tragedy as a branding opportunity. In my opinion as harsh as it may sound I see this as no other than smart marketing. Yes there are ethical issues within possibly taking advantage of a tragedy however it was for a good cause and to raise money. To me this is no different to Tesco sponsoring Race for Life. If the same argument is put across then technically Tesco are taking advantage of a tragedy, in this case being breast cancer to improve their brand image as helping charity. However the fact that this was done through social media may make for different rules.

Overall however it appears that ethics online and offline is something which brands must take considerable effort in maintaining as the damage a brand’s reputation can receive may make it hard to recover from such as in the case of BP. One interesting fact that was uncovered within my research mentioned at the start of this post was that although every one of my respondents within my research said that they agreed that Kitkat becoming Fair Trade was a positive move, the majority of them said that this wouldn’t encourage them to buy a Kitkat in result of this. Make of this what you will, but my argument after conducting my research would be that consumers like to think they are much fairer than what they are and although BP suffered a damaging setback, if it was the cheapest fuel we could get, would the oil spill play less of a part in their purchasing decision? I would argue so.

Have you ever wanted to change the world? Or change something which you don’t agree with? Thanks to the digital climate we live in these days it is becoming easier to create a big change through digital activism. Activism is not a new concept; it refers to a movement to bring about a desired change. These changes can be anything from political, social, economic or environmental. Websites such as www.petitiononline.com mean that anyone can create a petition for free and begin to create a movement within minutes. In a journal from Earl and Kimport (2009) they report a dramatic increase in fan activism in which they say is due to the rise in internet usage and consumers becoming more active than passive. Consumers now have more of a voice and this, as mentioned in previous posts, can be very damaging towards brands as word of mouth is thought to be the most powerful advertising tool.

Possibly the most well known example of digital activism was the success of Rage Against the Machine’s “Killing in the name of” beating the X Factor’s winner’s single to the Christmas number one. The previous 6 Christmas number one’s prior to this had been from the X Factor winner and as many of us probably sat there accepting and expecting’ the Christmas number one again being from the X Factor winner, 2 people began a Facebook campaign. The Facebook page quickly transformed itself into a major grassroots protest against the X-Factor attracting more than 980,000 followers. The campaign took on an increasingly anti-corporate and pro-social justice tone with followers encouraging each other to donate to the homeless charity Shelter which according to the Independent Online received £65,000 in public donations. The campaign resulted in over half a million downloads of the single all resulting from 2 individual’s act of digital activism.

Earl and Kimport (2009) suggest that consumers are learning how to influence media coverage through a more diverse variety of tactics. They argue that this ability to learn derives consumers having access to this information online. For example now you can even search up “How to organize a march” or “How to organize a boycott” on e-how.com. My argument is that with all of this information being at such easy access towards consumers how much power do brands and advertising really have over consumers. If a brand for example suffers an act of activism against it how much power and control do they have over the situation? We have already seen the support the Rage Against the Machine example received not just through consumers, but through influential organizations such as NME and the band themselves. A brand will surely have no choice but to listen to the consumers and make a change within their brand to satisfy the consumer’s wants and needs. For example McDonalds have in the past suffered numerous bad press and boycotts due to unhealthy foods and unethical practice. The release of Morgan Spurlock’s “Supersize Me” again adding to McDonald’s unhealthy situation. The result being a brand rejuvenation promoting a newer healthy menu and brand image. McDonalds had to do this and had to listen to the consumers in order to survive and compete within the fast food market.

From this numerous benefits can be seen from digital activism. The main benefit being that it is a fast of easy way to share information with similar people who share similar views therefore the change can be quicker. Also groups such as Facebook groups give a sense that the people involve belong to a tribe (mentioned in previous posts). It makes them feel as if they belong to something special giving a sense of individuality. For example if they don’t agree with Nestle’s business ethics then they can join the Facebook group to boycott Neslte products giving the impression that they are part of something which is making a change. The other largest benefit is the fact that online activity can promote an offline activity; the student protests being a good example of this. 

The most important thing to think about however I feel is what does this mean for brands? It seems that brands must constantly be researching these groups or media coverage of these issues in order to avoid negative brand associations giving the impression that the consumer is definitely more in control than what they used to be and as Earl and Kimport (2009) state is due to increased internet usage. This however could be seen as a positive thing as it allows a brand to build relationships with consumers and media alike through change and it allows brands to tackle clear problems ensuring a longer life cycle.

Also if all of this information on how to make a change is this easy to access, my personal opinion is that it should be used more to create a truly positive, influential change. For example to find organ donors, blood donors or to raise money for charity. So I encourage you to start a revolution and create a change today.

References:

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=31c36898-07fb-4f04-bc17-84d06e9178b3%40sessionmgr110&vid=4&hid=102

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/rage-against-the-machine-take-christmas-no1-slot-1846247.html

http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/08/07/is_cyxymu_the_first_digital_refugee 

Digital privacy is a big topic which I personally think many people overlook. Until last week I didn’t realise that every word and every picture you upload to Facebook will forever be in their records, even if you delete your profile! I was also told that they will not delete your profile even when you die?! Lipton, J (2010) states that often people are simply unaware that multi-media records have even been made. I am definitely one of these people as before last week I was under the impression that my profile being “private” really did mean it was private. Fried, C (1968) defines privacy as “control over knowledge about oneself” but the question being raised in an increasing digital environment is how much control do we really have? Or are we just being paranoid about our privacy?

Networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Ebay etc are considered by many as “free”. And financially yes they are, but judging by the risks that come with them, is there such a thing as free within digital communication? The day we put our details online we are at risk of identity theft, stalking, reputation damage etc. This personal information is an advantage for the advertising industry as it is leaving the opportunity for better targeted advertising. I have spoken about targeted advertising in previous blogs and didn’t really consider the privacy aspect of the concept. From the industry’s perspective I agree with targeted advertising as it leaves more opportunities to get your brand known in a cost efficient way. However how far is too far in knowing people’s details. For example the current advertisements on the side of my Facebook page at this moment in time is an advert for a local shopping centre in my area, a business in my area and an advert for a gig at my local O2 academy. This implies to me that they are targeting me through their knowledge of where I live and my age and maybe the fact that i’m a student. To be perfectly honest it is not the fact that they know my details which bothers me, it is more the fact that I have no control over this. I would have no problem giving O2 academy my details however the fact that they seem to already know my location and age makes me wonder what else they know? In the seminar we were talking about how far this could potentially go? How long will it be before companies start using this information against you? Although I agree that Facebook should be strictly used for a social use it doesn’t seem to stop companies these days hiring and firing employees. How long will it be before you are being refused loans and benefits based on a drunken picture on Facebook from 10 years ago?

I personally am becoming increasingly aware about the information I am putting online and although I was trying to be slightly private about my location within this blog I realised that if you go back to my first post it will tell you. Whatever I delete on Facebook now makes no difference as they already have it but I will definitely in the future be more aware of what I reveal online. In my honest opinion although it is quite a scary thought that people and companies I am unaware of have my information, I am not too bothered about it. What real harm can come out of it? If all companies are trying to do is to target me with their products then that makes no difference from if i’m watching TV and the adverts come on. There is still the same exposure to a product. I think that it is just the way the digital environment is going and I think I mentioned it before but is potentially the future of advertising. We are in a world where brands dominate and we live our lives around these brands. Every purchase decision is determined by our perceived brand values and attitudes. The way we naturally analyse a brand’s personality, for example high value, family, friendly, innovative etc. We are exposed to brands everyday and online targeted advertising is simply another way of doing this more efficiently.

Maybe I am trusting companies too much? Maybe I fit into Jarvenpaa et al’s (1999) definition of trust in the way that I believe that a seller will not take advantage of my vulnerability however at the same time maybe I am just too relaxed about it all. I accept that I may not have the privacy I desire but my point is who do we really have to blame? We can fight against it however my opinion is that we can only really blame ourselves. We join Facebook, we join Twitter, we sign up to Youtube, we sign up to Ebay, we buy online from Amazon, we sign up to blogs and then we complain that our information isn’t safe? Personally I think that the fact we expect our privacy to be private is wishful thinking. This is why I still agree with targeted advertising. I think it is a positive for the industry and when we think about certain people’s attachment with brands and products; for example consumers buy iMacs and iPods to establish their personality as being creative and innovative. People love the Apple brand so what harm is targeted advertising when it is a brand consumers have an emotional connection with? If Apple knows that you as a consumer love their product then surely they should contact you to tell you about what is happening with their brand? The same way in which a friend would contact you.

Again maybe I am bias and too laid back about the whole issue but I think it is something we as consumers should accept. I will leave you with a video which appears to sum up what Google are doing. However maybe in a more creepy way?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbg8IOfdbA0

Thanks for reading.

References:

Lipton, J. 2008. DIGITAL MULTI-MEDIA AND THE LIMITS OF PRIVACY LAW. Available at:http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?hid=109&sid=d0d670b9-4243-4b57-a6f6-57b183eb75b3%40sessionmgr110&vid=3

Cowley, E and Barron, C (2008) describes product placement as a combination of advertising and publicity designed to influence the audience by unobtrusively inserting branding products in entertainment programmes. In other words it refers to brands being placed in our everyday programmes. This means that we are being exposed to brands without really knowing. In its most exaggerated form this scene from Wayne’s World probably explains it the best.

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

On February 28th2011 began the start of a new commercial era as product placement is now allowed in some UK TV programmes. According the The Independent Online, it has been reported that Nescafe have already paid around £100,000 to havetheir coffee machine as part of the background of This Morning’s set for the next 3 months. In my opinion, I am for product placement as I think it can be a great opportunity for brands and business in general. For example if a watcher of this morning sees the certain brand of coffee machine in the background then the question is are they more likely to go out and buy it? I would argue so as consumers are easily persuaded by what they see on TV. My strongest argument for this would be the case with Cheryl Cole and her red hair. When Cheryl Cole revealed her red hair on last year’s X Factor it didn’t take long before I saw red hair more or less everywhere I went. What I wonder is that if a red hair dye from Loreal for example was placed somewhere within the X Factor show around this time would sales for Loreal red hair dye have rocketed? I know that there is no way of finding the answer to this however my educated guess would be that of course sales would’ve increased as:

1. It is the first brand they see when thinking of dying their hair.

2. The associations and connotations - “If the product is associated with Cheryl Cole then maybe I will be like her, maybe all the boys will want me?” Also if the brand is associated with a programme as high profile as The X Factor then people are likely to be under the assumption that this is one of the best products you can get.

Of course this is just my untested theory however I am fairly confident about how this would work. This leads me onto Cowley and Barron’s (2008) paper on product placement and the alteration of brand attitudes.

Cowley, E and Barron, C (2008) suggests that the main advantage over traditional advertising. The first one being that viewers cannot avoid exposures to placements. If viewers are watching a programme which they want to watch then they are not going to switch it off if they see a brand which they don’t like. This then allows the brand to be exposed into our memories therefore having an effect on us as consumers next time we go shopping. The question Cowley and Barron (2008) put across however is “would forcing a consumer to view a brand cause a negative shift in brand attitude?” If we realise the intention of product placements, will this ruin the viewing experience therefore causing a negative brand attitude to the product being exposed?

The main factors featured within their research were product placement (present, absent), placement prominence (prominent, subtle) and programme liking (high,low) Their results proved that more prominent placements are more likely to be remembered than subtle ones and that a higher programme liking makes you more likely to remember the placement than a lower programme liking. It was also discovered that a negative brand attitude was formed when a prominent placement was shown in a higher programme liking. In other words the product placement appeared to ruin the programme for the viewer. The results were however quite the opposite for a lower programme liking as brand attitudes were positive. One variable which I think was overlooked within this study is the element of frequency. Would the amount of times a product placement is shown effect memory or attitudes for a brand. If it wasn’t as intrusive to viewers with a higher programme liking would their attitudes be more positive. This is something to consider for future studies.

Although these finding do make me slightly question product placement and whether or not it is a positive thing for brands I am still however for product placement. I feel although it maybe seen as intrusive in some cases there is no denying that it helps with brand recognition. Although in some cases there is potential for a negativeve brand association I believethat there are ways to get around this, for example showing placements of a brand less often. Again this is something which is an area for further research and something I would quite like to know the answer to. An example which comes to my head however is Coca Cola and American Idol. As far as I know American Idol in its prime was one of the most watched shows in America suggesting a high programme liking. Realistically from my point of view are the famous red Coca Cola glasses on the judges tables going to trigger a negativeve brand association with Coke as it might be seen as intrusive? My guess would be no but this could be because of Coke’s brand power and huge following already. Either way I think that this is a very exciting time in the world of advertising and I look forward into seeing the publicity around product placements and hearing people’s opinions of it as it seems through this research that it could go either way. So look out for the product placement logo coming to a programme near you.

Thanks for reading.

References:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee-ndash-product-placement-is-here-2228533.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/20/ofcom-product-placement-uk-tv

Cowley, E and Barron, C; 2008. When Product Placement Goes Wrong. The Effect of Programme Liking and Placement Prominence. Journal of Advertising. 

It appears that in recent times brands are increasingly having to do more and more to engage with consumers. Verganti, R (2009) states that radical innovation is one of the major sources of a long term advantage. This is often in the form of technology. I came across this very innovative campaign from Prefero for Mini earlier when looking for a work placement.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ProferoGlobal#p/c/A2F5746AE9119CEE

A prime example of a brand expressing innovation is Apple. They consistently push the boundaries through their brand and their products to state their position as one of the worlds top brands. Another finding by Verganti, R (2009) is that people don’t buy products, they buy meanings. Through these strong technological innovations strong meanings can be raised. Verganti, R (2009) uses the Nintendo Wii as an example. Although when Sony brought out the Playstation 3 and Microsoft brought out the Xbox 360, despite the developments in graphics and performance both reinforced the meaning that gaming is a passive activity to exercise the thumbs. The Wii however overturned this meaning. It stimulated active physical entertainment. The meaning had been changed due to the radical change in technology and although consumers did not ask for this meaning, they loved it and within six months of its release, the Wii’s sales were double that of the Xbox 360 and quadruple that of the Playstation 3! This is a good example of how development in technology can effect and help a brands meaning and identity as well as how creating an experience can also help the brand. 

It’s then probably no surprise that Xbox 360 have proceeded in bringing out the Xbox 360 connect Kinect and Playstation 3 have brought out the Playstation Move.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OMLjXRfaDQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ybHddDMgM

I suppose the question arising from this is that although this is an example of creating a brand experience and meaning through design driven innovation, does this make Nintendo a seamless brand? I would argue not. The example we were given within our lecture of a seamless brand was Virgin. Virgin throughout their brand have the ability to pretty much promote anything. From flights to music festivals to trains to broadband. The list goes on. Each different experience within the brand promotes innovation and an experience unlike other brands. It is the power of this experience which leads people into using the post effective form of advertising. Word of mouth. It is this word of mouth which made me look up Virgin Atlantic’s upper class flights online as I’ve heard it is an experience like no other. Features include a bar and seats/beds offering comfort I wonder if I will ever experience on a plane?

Everything from the festivals to the salt and pepper shakers (given away free from Virgin Atlantic) express a reputation few brands have. Few brands manage to learn, grow and innovate as much as Virgin and with plans of offering space travel within the next 80 years, the sky really does seem the limit for Virgin. It is hard to determine if other brands can progress to this level however I wouldn’t doubt the ability of brands such as Apple. Already dominant within music players, laptops and TV, how long will it be before we see Apple travel?

As we are on the theme of Virgin I will leave you with a video from my first V festival in 2008. I’m somewhere in the crowd. Possibly one of the best moments of my life to date. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSgt6w8E2VI

During the past decade, the preferred medium for advertising has seen a dramatic shift away from print media and other traditional means of distribution. In 2009 alone, it is estimated that advertising spending dropped by between 10 and 20 percent for newspapers, consumer magazines, radio, and television while increasing an estimated 9.2 and 18.1 percent in Internet and mobile advertising respectively. (Wray, J and Plante, D. 2011)

In the current climate everywhere you look someone has a smartphone so it is no wonder why companies and brands are increasingly using mobile marketing. There are numerous technologies within mobile’s which arguably is the future of advertising. One feature which I found very interesting, and until my recent lecture didn’t know anything about, is QR codes. A QR code for anyone who doesn’t know is a two dimensional bar code which can be scanned at high speed. Every smartphone has a QR code reader built within the phone. The way it works is that if a print advert for example has a QR code on you can take a picture of it on your smartphone and it will scan and take you to their webpage offering you coupons, discounts, competitions etc to promote their brand. Unfortunately I don’t own a smartphone and cannot try this out for myself however I have been looking out for these codes on advertisements and so far in five days I have only seen two. One on a newspaper print advert for Domino’s Pizza and one on the back of my cheese packaging which I am very curious what will happen if I will scan that?

The biggest advantage within QR codes for advertisers is that it is completely measurable. You are able to gather data from how effective an advertisement is by seeing how many people scan you QR code. This is something which UK consumers still seem very unaware of however in my opinion once the UK population gradually become more aware of this, QR codes will be the next “big thing” within advertising  and marketing as Wray and Plante (2011) state that users are becoming increasingly comfortable with accessing information and making purchases on their smartphones. If you are still confused about how QR codes work then watch this brief demonstration on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a33uCPOywA

A recent campaign which saw the use of QR codes last year was Calvin Klein’s “Get It Uncensored” campaign. Calvin Klein Jeans replaced three of its billboards, two in downtown New York and one on Sunset Boulevard in LA, not with another racy montage of scantily clad models, but with a bright red QR code under the words “Get It Uncensored.” Passersby could use their smartphones to snap a picture, which would pull up an exclusive, 40-second commercial featuring models Lara Stone, “A.J.,” Sid Ellisdon, Grayson Vaughan and Eric Anderson. After the spot plays, viewers could then share the code with their Facebook and Twitter networks. This is a highly innovative campaign and possibly shows the future of advertising.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_N559yMLZc&NR=1&feature=fvwp (In this video notice how much this billboard stands out from the clutter, again very effective and very hard to ignore)

As mentioned a positive to mobile marketing is that it is measurable. Other pros include the fact that mobile marketing is very targeted, you can target the consumers you want to target which again saves money as you are not wasting advertising on consumers who you know won’t be interested in your product. The concept of “always on” media is a another enormous positive as consumers have access to your information anytime, anywhere leaving more opportunities to get your brand known. The fact that mobile marketing is personal is another positive and is argued that a personal targeted message will gain the consumer’s trust towards your brand. (Ma, J, Suntornpithug, N and Karaatli, G. 2009) however it can also be seen as a negative as it raises the issue of invasion of privacy. Another negative is that as developed as it seems, mobile marketing is still in its early stages and appears to be a form of marketing which will be changing and developing and a high rate along side the technology using it.

An important topic to consider however is whether or not the use of mobile technology is accelerating or decreasing the digital divide? With countries such as Japan progressing at such a fast pace some argue that mobile use is failing to lessen the digital whilst others argue that mobile technology has the potential to increase economic activity and standard of living. A study by Stump, R and Gong, W and Li, Z (2008) suggest that factors influencing mobile adoption include wealth and income however age and education did not play a major role, this contradicts previous studies.

My question I put to you however is how far is too far within mobile technology. It appears that the main argument Wray and Plante (2011) are putting across is that advertising budgets are shrinking and advertising effectiveness through traditional media continue to wane however the use of smartphones and 3G is becoming increasingly attractive to consumers. Although I agree with mobile marketing, to me it seems wrong to allow our lives to revolve around our mobile phones. The fact that in a smartphone dominated society it is possible to get a coupon and even pay for your product through your mobile phone (thanks to near field communication) to me seems wrong.

References:

• http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?hid=115&sid=836aaab6-9a80-4eb1-8d8a-c56f88b5bdde%40sessionmgr115&vid=4Wray, J and Plante, D,. 2011.
• http://mashable.com/2010/07/13/calvin-klein-qr-code-billboard
• Exploring the Digital Divide in Mobile-phone Adoption Levels across Countries. Rodney L. Stump, Wen Gong and Zhan Li (2008)
• http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?hid=120&sid=fadf81ee-028f-4433-b48c-f67cd5108fb3%40sessionmgr14&vid=3 Stump, R and Gong, W and Li, Z (2008)

Interactivity is an interesting but ambiguous term and refers to the two way communication of new media. It is this interactivity which is seen day in day out on Facebook, Twitter and blogs etc. Peer to peer interactivity is dominating the web so much to an extent that, as mentioned in earlier blogs, the opportunities for brands and branding is priceless.

Whilst looking at an article from John Deighton and Leora Kornfeld (2007) named ”Digital Interactivity: Unanticipated consequences for markets, marketing and consumers.” the topic of the 5 paradigms was raised and was something which I found very interesting. These paradigms acknowledge that people use media in ways that are more purposeful and more assertive than the ways that they used mass media. (Deighton and Kornfeld, 2007) The 5 paradigms are:

• Thought tracing
• Ubiquitous connectivity
• Property exchanges
• Social exchanges
• Cultural exchanges

Thought tracing refers to the way consumers search the web for information and entertainment and it is this which allows advertisers to be selective to who they advertise to online. (Deighton and Kornfeld, 2007) This is a subject which I touched on a previous post and I suppose the biggest positive out of this is that you know that the advert you make is being seen by who it wants to be seen by. For example if I look at the side of my Facebook page now I can see advertisements promoting local businesses in my area, student discount offers as well as the Karl Pilkington audiobook. Similar to if I search Thomas Cook on google I get advertisements at the side promoting holidays through other companies. The downside to this is however is the question of how much attention do consumers really pay to these ads?

Ubiquitous connectivity refers to the way consumers integrate always on computing into everyday life. With new technologies such as smart phones it is possible to connect to anyone across the world and get your opinion heard by millions or simply update your status anytime, anywhere (if you read my previous post you will know my hate for this). Firms exploit this and intrude with their information. Again due to technologies such as 3G and smart phones the person is by default always in the market, always available to be communicated with, and always an audience. (Deighton and Kornfeld, 2007) This again leaves massive opportunities to get a brand recognized.

The next 3 paradigms refer to peer to peer interactivity motivated by the desire to exchange, share information or to express one’s self. (Deighton and Kornfeld, 2007) Property exchange refers to the exchanging of goods and services in which firms compete against. It is this sharing and exchanging through websites such as Ebay, Youtube and Flickr which allows us to see things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko

For anyone who hasn’t seen this the basic concept of “Will it blend?” is taking objects and putting them in a blender to see if infact, it does or does not blend (obviously). As stupid and as strangely popular as this is, this gives enormous free exposure to brands. The video to see if an iPad would blend (it did) currently has 10,371,631 views. Not that apple need it but this gives a huge amount of brand exposure to the company which can only be seen as a positive. Other blended products include Bic lighters, Guitar Hero 3 and a Wii remote.

Social exchange refers to how people build identities within virtual communities. Firms sponsor or co operate with these communities. Deighton and Kornfeld (2007) state that “A person’s Facebook site presents a face to the world.” It is these faces which brands and companies can use to create brand awareness and understanding. For example on Facebook I like Heineken and Coca Cola for some reason. I’m not too sure what I gain from this but I suppose it is just part of the identity I have built.

Finally cultural exchanges refers to the way in which consumers observe and participate in cultural production and exchange. In this paradigm marketing is the cultural producer. Buzz marketing plays a big role in this paradigm as it is the spreading of a message (in this case the marketer’s message). For example it could be the release of the latest Apple product creating a buzz worldwide and as the news about the product spreads from person to person so too does the message. A good example to use as it has recently happened is the buzz created around the advertisements within the Superbowl. The adverts are such a big part of the event that word and adverts spread worldwide. Here’s one of my favourites from 2010 (it has Megan Fox in so you may want to watch it).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D2VLmCPTbQ

To conclude I think that these 5 paradigms help us to understand the ways in which consumers are using new media and they show the true impact in which new media can have on advertising and marketing. The sharing of information and access to information are two things which if a brand can use and achieve, can have great rewards fro brand recognition, brand recall etc.

• Deighton, J and Kornfeld, L., 2007. Digital Interactivity: Unanticipated consequences for markets, marketing and consumers. p.2-23.