Monthly Archives: February 2016

Hell hath no fury like a consumer scorned…

dark side social media

Via your classmate Eric, an (elaborate!) YouTube video created by a consumer who, according to the title of the video, “Made a Mistake and Bought a Jeep.”

If the power of the brand is in the mind of the consumer, and if that consumer is FURIOUS, videos like this one are just the beginning.

What should Jeep do, if anything? What shouldn’t the brand do?

 

Advertisements

Papa John, er, Peyton, celebrates the Super Bowl by kissing his Budweiser, uh, wife

Peyton Manning SBowlVia your classmate Erin, an article in MarketWatch about Peyton Manning’s apparently unsponsored (but repeated) plug for Budweiser and Papa Johns.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/peyton-manning-handed-budweiser-32-million-in-free-ads-after-the-super-bowl-2016-02-08?siteid=yhoof2

According to the article, he’s done something similar before, and has a financial interest in two Louisiana Anheuser-Busch distributors and bought 21 Papa Johns franchises in the Denver area in 2012.

So, is it a brand plug? If so, does it matter if he has financial interests in the brands he talks about? Is this an ethical concern, a brand equity concern, or both?

How meta is this?

shocktop extended cutJust when you thought the Superbowl ads were analyzed to death, here’s a new spin: an “extended cut” posted by Shock Top brand beer, in which the characters from of its Superbowl ad, comic T.J. Miller and the punk-citrus brand character “Shock Top,” watch and comment upon other Superbowl ads, including other beers.

What do you think: is this a cheeky take on Superbowl advertising, a desperate bid for more attention, a new advertising genre, or … ?

(it helps if you’ve watched the original Shock Top ad as well as some of the commercial highlights before watching the extended cut – or else their comments aren’t funny and don’t make sense).

(p.s. Shock Top is owned by Anheuser-Busch, which is helpful to know when the two characters are mocking Budweiser ads.)

Attention shoppers: disintermediation in the cosmetics aisle.

stow-away-lipstick-hed-2016

Speaking of disintermediation as a marketing communications challenge (as we were, just a couple of weeks ago in class)….here’s a great example. AdWeek has an article about a new breed of cosmetics companies that market directly consumers. As Julie Fredrickson, the co-founder of the new Stowaway brand explains in the article, the sizes of product currently on the market make them hard to afford and hard to use up before their expiration date.

“Our attitude was we don’t need to leave room for Sephora’s margin; we can just sell it to you directly so that it can be half the size and half the price.”

This entrepreneurial move not only affects traditional retail channels, but spending on advertising as well:  “Rather than spending big dollars on traditional advertising, Fredrickson and Crowley have focused on earned media and building relationships with mom and professional blogs.”

What are the benefits of disintermediation? Does it also present new risks? For whom?

Full article here:

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/these-direct-consumer-brands-are-disrupting-beauty-industry-169435

Puppy Monkey HUH??

Now that the big brands have given us their (cough) best, it’s time to review the ads that were broadcast for Super Bowl  50 and think about what worked…and what didn’t.

One of the most polarizing ads of the night was for Mountain Dew’s line extension, Kickstart.  So I ask you: did it work? If so, at what, and why/how?