What Should Be Done About "Big Sugar"?

How dangerous are added sugars? Well, there is no nutritional need for added sugars, and according to Kieron Rooney, “big sugar could be the next big public health campaign.” Rooney reports that there is not a single study that shows added sugar is good for you. If it is so unhealthy for us then why aren’t we doing anything to prevent consumption of it? That’s a question I don’t know the answer to, but I do believe that there should be some regulations for companies that use added sugar.

First I think the government should tax companies on the use of added sugar, and give tax breaks to those that use healthier sweeteners. This would discourage the use of added sugar, and hopefully encourage companies to use a healthier option. This will not however solve the problem; the richer companies will still probably use added sugar because they can afford to pay the tax.

Secondly, companies should not be allowed to market their products directly to children. Companies using animated characters like Toucan Sam or the Trix rabbit to influence kids to buy their products should be more regulated. It makes sense for companies to target children because they are easily influenced, but I don’t believe that is ethically right. Preventioninstitute.org says, nearly all (98 percent) of food advertisements viewed by children are for products that are high in fat, sugar or sodium. Most (79 percent) are low in fiber. As a marketer we should be morally obligated to not intentionally mislead consumers. I believe that’s what many of these companies targeting children are doing. They are taking advantage of children not understanding what they are putting into their bodies.

Finally companies should be required to be socially responsible. Companies that are selling products that are potentially unsafe should have to provide information on how it will affect you. Some government agencies are already doing this; one example of it is the New York City Health departments “Pour on the Pounds” campaign. The campaign shows you how much sugar you are actually consuming in drinks like soda, juice, and coffee. This shouldn’t have to be left to health departments to educate people on what they are consuming. Marketers should be informing us of what we are putting in our body; we should not have to search for the information ourselves.

Got Insurance?

The “Got Insurance” campaign is for residents of Colorado to compare prices on health insurance plans. The campaign itself is very clever. They pretty much stole the old “Got Milk” campaign that proved to be very effective for the dairy industry. It has a very good tag line, which makes it easy to remember. These ads also use fear appeals really well. Showing the consumer what the risk of not having health insurance is. Here is one of the many ads they have created; I think this one uses the fear appeal very well.

The campaign also uses some humor appeals to relate to its audience. Here is one that most college students can relate to.

All of their ads can be found at http://doyougotinsurance.com/. I think this campaign will be very effective at getting attention and getting people to think about their health insurance. A quote from the article, Meet The People Behind The 'Brosurance' Obamacare Ads ThatAre Making The Internet Cringe, says “"We've seen both positive and negative reactions, but if people are seeing the ads and purchasing health insurance, that's a good thing." I think that is the mark of a good advertising campaign. They were able to get people talking about their service. It may not all be good, but they are creating awareness for the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative.

Consumer Privacy

Consumers are losing their privacy more and more. Big companies are now using their loyalty memberships to get more information on the each individual customer. People may not know that when they enter into an agreement to become a member of a loyalty program, they are signing away their personal information and privacy. I believe that this is a breach of ethics. Companies should explicitly tell you when entering into an agreement, who can see your information and what it will be used for.

Companies are using our information to market on more of an personalized level instead of to the masses. Sears is using their customer data to do just that.  John Perrone of Sears said, “We [as people] want personalized experiences. They mean more to us and are more relevant. I hadn’t thought about it much until we were getting into that level of personalization because it wasn’t possible before these tools became available. Now you can get very personalized.” I think this is somewhat true, however I don’t think they should have access to all of our information to enable them to offer personalization.

In an article titled How Companies Learn Your Secrets, it explains how target collects data on almost every person that walks into their stores. It says that they assign each customer a “guest ID”, which is keeps track of all of your purchases, demographic information, and Internet history. This is a HUGE breach of ethics and privacy. No company should be allowed to buy that kind of information about a person unless they are given consent from the person.

We as consumers need to be more careful about how freely we give out our personal information. I’m sure that the ways that companies go about gathering this data is legal but that doesn’t necessarily make it ethical.

Ambush Marketing

Ambush marketing, is it unethical or is it just creativity?

I believe that ambush marketing uses some of the most creative tactics in marketing. This was shown with Nike at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, and the Budweiser Red Lights campaign. Isn’t the whole point of advertising to find creative ways to attract customers? That’s exactly what Nike and Budweiser did, they found creative ways to get their brand and message out there. I understand that when a company pays for the rights to exclusivity for an event there should be a certain amount of protection from other companies trying to benefit from the same event. There are certain things that cross the line when using ambush marketing. Nike’s presence at the 1996 Olympics had some great tactics that were very creative and some that crossed the line. An example of some of the creativity that I believe is ethical was the sponsorships of the athletes. Just because Reebok had exclusivity for the Olympics, doesn’t mean they should force all of the competitors to wear their products. An example of them crossing the line was that they paid people in the stadium to wear Nike products and wave Nike flags during the games. This showed purposeful intent to ambush the games, and use them for their own promotional benefit. My opinion on ambush marketing is close to that of Jim Andrews’ where he said:

“You throw a bash in your backyard and hire a popular band to play during the party. Your food and drink is average and you only have folding chairs for folks to sit on. Your neighbor, who has a backyard where the band can be seen and heard, puts out a high-class catered spread and has comfortable couches scattered around. Pretty soon your guests ignore your offerings and wander next door. Did he take advantage of something you paid for? Yes. Was he within his rights to do so? Yes. Did he trespass on your property? No. You’re just mad because he did a better job of entertaining the audience than you did.”

Ambush Marketing in Sochi

At the Olympics this year in Sochi, I believe there will be many of the same tactics used that were used in the past. Just like in 1996 when Nike sponsored many athletes, there will be many athletes that are sponsored by numerous different companies trying to get their names out there. When the Olympic torch was being carried to the games it unexpectedly went out, and someone re-lit it with a Zippo lighter. Zippo Jumped on the chance to take advantage this and tweeted "Zippo saves the Olympics!” With the Olympics being so widely televised now there will be many opportunities for companies to jump on opportunities to ambush this years winter games.

Sources:

1. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/10/22/Opinion/Grady-McKelvey.aspx
2. http://www.sponsorship.com/About-IEG/Sponsorship-Blogs/Jim-Andrews/February-2014/The-Ambush-Marketing-vs--Sponsorship-Debate-Spring.aspx#.UvkPNdAOWhY.twitter
3. http://www.goodhonestdollar.com/ambush-marketing-smart-or-unethical
4. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sochi-olympics-on-lookout-for-ambush-marketing-1.2537613

Super Bowl Advertising

Advertising in the Super Bowl has become almost as big as the game itself. For some people it may be the main reason they watch the game, and for advertisers it is clearly a very good opportunity for them to reach a wide audience. Every year there always seems to be one commercial that stirs up some controversy. In the past there was the GoDaddy.com commercial, which showed race car driver Danica Patrick taking off her clothes and walking out with a GoDaddy Logo. This year was one that nobody expected. Coca-Cola’s America the Beautiful commercial had people in an uproar because it was sung in nine different languages. In my opinion it was a great commercial, showing the diversity of America and how we have changed. But then again it also showed that there are still some people who feel that America should be white English-speaking people. This excerpt from an article written by Gary Younge shows just how pigheaded some people can be:

"If we cannot be proud enough as a country to sing America the Beautiful in English," said former congressman Allen West, "by a company as American as they come – doggone we are on the road to perdition." Fox commentator Todd Starnes tweeted: "Coca-Cola is the official soft drink of illegals crossing the border." Another angry viewer tweeted: "Nice to see that Coke likes to sing an AMERICAN song in the terrorist's language."

I believe that we need to be more open minded and open to change in America, because we are no longer just white English-speaking people.

Another issue that always comes up with the Super Bowl is the cost of commercials. The cost of Super Bowl commercials has increased year after year, leading some people to wonder whether or not it is really worth the cost to advertise during the game. Ritchie King of Quartz says, “One thing is clear though: for the biggest advertisers, that $3.75 million is truly a pittance. In fact, some of them make almost as much in profits in an average 3.5 hours—roughly the time it takes to air the Super Bowl itself.” General Motors had two 60 second ads in the Super Bowl this year. The most memorable one is called Romance for the Chevy Silverado. It shows a Bull being sent to breed with a female cow. These two commercials combined probably cost somewhere around $15 million, but according to the diagram in Ritchie’s article, GM earns roughly $3.75 million in 3.5 hours. So for big companies it clearly makes sense to advertise in the Super Bowl seeing as this years game was the most watched television event in America’s History.

The Use of Appeals in Advertising

Emotional Appeal:

This ad uses emotional appeal very effectively. The mix of music and disturbing images creates a very strong emotional reaction for the viewer. It also calls for the viewer to take action and help the suffering animals. I believe that this ad could be too effective however. From my own experience I change the channel every time it comes on because it’s just too depressing to watch every time.

Musical Appeal:

Kit Kat, in my opinion, has one of the most recognizable jingles of any brand today. This ad uses the musical appeal extremely well. I  believe this commercial proves that. They don’t even have to use the words to the jingle for the viewer to recognize it. That itself shows the effectiveness of the jingle, to be able to create that kind of brand recognition with a simple song is pretty incredible.

Rational Appeal:

Durex uses rational appeal very effectively in this ad. It very plainly conveys to the viewer that it is much cheaper to buy condoms than to have to buy a baby carrier. The ad doesn’t make the viewer work to understand what the message is.  It gives the viewer a reason to purchase the product.

Introduction

My name is Kyle Shea I am taking a class at Oregon State University called Advertising Management, in which we will learn all about Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC). The purpose of my blog is to discuss and share with you my opinions on the new trends in IMC. This week we learned about a search engine simulation program called Stukent that we will be using throughout the term. Stukent is the first simulation program offered for search engine marketing. It's awesome that we are some of the first people to get to use it. The simulation itself seems very cool, it collects real data from google on different things such as, which keywords and pages get clicked on and visited the most. I'm really looking forward to using this and learning as much as I can about search engine marketing.