Fast Food Going Cage-Free?

Burger King announced today that they are beginning to make the transition to cage-free chicken and pork for their products. While they have been using some cage-free eggs since 2007, they vow to use only cage-free chicken and pork by 2017.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47172360/ns/business-us_business/

When I first read this article, I was a little bit disappointed that it was going to take them 5 years in order to make this transition; it kind of seemed like a marketing ploy for them to look better in the eyes of consumers, but to still continue skimping on food costs by using chicken and pork from caged animals. Although, I realize now--considering the volume of each product that they buy every year (hundreds of millions of eggs and tens of millions of pounds of pork)--that it's going to take a little bit of industry reformation to be able to supply the food chain with that much food.

This makes me like BK a lot more, because they are not only sacrificing profit to support cage-free animal farms, but are also forcing their suppliers to transition to being cage-free if they want to continue their contracts with Burger King. This press release will also influence their competitors (McDonald's and Wendy's) who will want to meet the raised expectations of the fast food industry and compete on an equal level. Therefore, this vow by BK will transform the food industry, and bring the problem of caged animals to the forefront of our culture by making that many more people (fast food customers) aware of it.

The only down-fall of this is the perception that the cost of BK's products will rise dramatically, making it unaffordable for those who normally eat at fast food restaurants. However, a study cited in the article says that it's only about 1 cent more per caged-free egg. The price change for pork is not yet known.

How much does a company's animal welfare policy influence your decision to eat there?

Will you be more likely to support Burger King now that they are making the effort to go cage-free?

Zumba Empire

I can't believe that it's taken me so long to mention the marketing strategies that Zumba Fitness employs--because I'm around it all the time. I think that fact that it has become so popular and become an international phenomenon in just 8 years indicates the sheer genius of their marketing techniques.

So first off, their product: A fun fitness class, which is just as challenging as others, that focuses on health, happiness, and feeling confident about yourself. It's all positive! How could people help flocking to it?

Price: The same cost as any other fitness class--for more fun!

Place: The classes are at the gym people go to anyway, and all classes are normally included in gym memberships. And now, it's everywhere.

Promotion: Word-of-mouth. People just love it so much, they can't help raving about it to their friends and encouraging them to go with them next time.

Packaging: The instructors are so charismatic and wear great clothing that the students want to buy Zumbawear to be more like them and feel like a part of the Zumba culture.

It just goes to show how having a positive product to offer can make marketers' lives easier; it promotes itself!

The real genius, however, is how they secretly focus on instructors as the target market. They get most of their enormous revenue from us instructors all around the world.

First we have to pay them to get certified, then we have to pay $30 a month to be in the Zumba Instructor Network (to get music material and stay certified), and we all drop lots of cash on Zumbawear, because we have internalized the wardrobe as part of the identity of an instructor and feel that we aren't a "real" one unless we look the part. In other words, we feel that we don't totally embody the brand unless we have the bright and crazy Zumba-look. And I won't even talk about the cost of the Zumba conventions...which we all feel the need to go to, because "everyone is doing it!"

And the best part is... we LOVE spending all this money on Zumba stuff, because it's such a positive influence on our lives. Incredible....

Do you know any products that promote themselves so effectively?

The Way of the Snail

I just picked up my mail and was extremely frustrated--as always--to see how many advertisement letters (i.e. "junk mail) I had received. I find this method of promotion irritating in two ways:

1. The same companies send me the same things over and over again--to no avail.
2. A tremendous amount of paper is wasted in the process, and they make me feel irresponsible for having to dispose of them (through recycling, of course).

This got me thinking... Is there still relevance in including snail mail in companies' promotional strategies? Does it have any benefit at all?

The obvious alternative to snail mail advertisements is promotional emails. The benefits of this medium is that paper can be taken out of the equation--there's no cost to the company for materials and paper is not wasted. This form is also instantaneous and can be sent to infinite amounts of people at the same time. However, the big shortfall of emails is that they are so easy to delete, especially when people receive so many of them in a day.

That said, mail ads could be beneficial in that people actually have to hold the ad in their hands before they discard it (whereas one doesn't even have to open/view emails). And because the mail ads are tangible objects and are mailed right to your door, it may feel more personal to the recipients and they may take a little more time looking it over.

What do you think? Do you think the way of the snail has passed, or is it still useful? Or another take on this: is it ethical for companies to unnecessarily waste paper now that email is so widely used?

I'll Drink To That

Reading Christine's blog last week about gendered commercials really made me aware of how marketers do or don't gear their ads toward a certain gender and the reasons they may have for doing so.

Last night I saw the new Miller 64 commercial while watching Myth Busters, and was extremely impressed by their use of gender to promote their product. The main market offering of Miller 64 is that it is low in calories and is "brewed for the better you"; this is keeping with the trend of offering healthy(- er) products to meet the increasing demands of health-conscious consumers.

Normally, when we think of a typical beer consumer, we envision a male. However, when we think of the typical low calorie beer drinker, we envision a female. Now, generally, both men and women drink all kinds of beer, and both men and women care about their health. So why would marketers limit themselves by appealing to one gender over the other when they could gear their commercial towards both? Seems silly, right? Many companies do, but not Miller!

Take a look at the commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ7EUKsgy1Q

After watching the commercial, in which both men and women are shown exercising and having fun drinking Miller 64 together, I now think that it is a good beer to buy for a social event that both men and women would appreciate.

Why discriminate and limit a product's potential when you could appeal to both genders and not participate in maintaining outdated gender stereotypes?

Personal Brands vs. Slander

There has been a lot of news coverage this week surrounding a New York Times article that was published on March 13th, which claims that celebrity chefs like Rachael Ray, Martha Stewart, Jamie Oliver and others don't do the majority of work for their cookbooks. The tone of the article definitely suggests that celebrity chefs are little more than a face for the recipes so that the cookbooks will sell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/dining/i-was-a-cookbook-ghostwriter.html?_r=1

The writer, Julia Moskin, claims, "Like many others in the nebulous profession called food writing, I was really a food ghost — one of the ink-stained (and grease-covered) wretches who actually produce most of the words that are attributed to chefs in cookbooks and food magazines and on Web sites." This assertion is extremely ambiguous and could either mean that they don't produce the recipes, or that they contribute nothing but the recipes. Aspiring to be in the publishing business myself, I know that there is only so much ownership an author (like a celebrity chef) has over their manuscript: they write the meat of the text; they hand the manuscript to the editor; the editor can change pretty much anything they want because their company is funding the production (which is usually style, organization, and grammar); and the production designers can format the pages any way they want (with some consultation with the author).

This morning, I saw chefs Bobby Flay and Anne Burrell on "The Today Show," and they were defending celebrity chefs' work. They said that they do create all of the recipes themselves, but then the publishing house changes and adds a lot of the other elements necessary to have a complete cookbook (as described above).

This whole uproar made me think about each of our personal brands, and how susceptible it is to misrepresentation or slander. While I think that these chefs handled it well (Rachael Ray and Gwyneth Paltrow also defended their cookbooks on Ray's talk show), it is hard to erase an idea that was spread to consumers on a mass scale. Perhaps those who read the article never saw the rebuttals on TV and, thus, will never buy one of their cookbooks again.

What else do you think that these chefs could do to restore their individual brands and credibility?

Is there anything we can all do to make sure that we are represented truthfully?

Marines Redefine "Towards the Sounds of Chaos"

In order to become more favorable and appealing to the Millennial generation, the U.S. Marine Corps has shifted its TV ad campaign to show a less violent side of the military branch.

Their former commercial, titled "Towards the Sounds of Chaos," vividly shows the soldiers engaged in battle and fighting as a united front against the enemy force. The video is accompanied by the sounds of battle, like the firing of guns, men yelling, and military vehicles, which creates a very realistic scenario for the viewer. The commercial ends with the challenge, "Which way would you run?" This serves to call viewers to be among the brave and rise to the challenge of defeating the enemy, while also appealing to those who crave an outlet for their aggression. Personally, I was turned off by this ad because it glorifies war and violence in a time when our society would not benefit from it and should be seeking more sophisticated ways to solve our problems with other countries. Perhaps others feel the same as I do, because The Marine Corps obviously isn't getting the desired response and has changed their approach.

The new campaign keeps the title, "Towards the Sounds of Chaos," but highlights a different type of chaos--that caused by natural disasters. This commercial features soldiers alleviating the devastation in Haiti and helping families regain safety and order in their lives. This commercial has inspiring music playing in the background and ends with, "Running towards the sounds of chaos, with the courage and compassion to silence it." I think this campaign will be much more effective because it appeals to an untapped market segment--those who just want to help others. And I think that our generation really wants to move away from violence and toward aiding the less fortunate to make the world a better place to live.

Here are the two commercials:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Huk6U0X8vUg#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G-2RQK4irU8

Do you think the new ad campaign will be more effective than the last? Vote for your opinion in the poll on the right side of my page! Then leave a comment explaining your stance.

I Like Me Some JCP

I am simply blown away by JCPenney's new marketing strategy that was revealed a little over a month ago: in order to change their brand position and identity, they redesigned their logo, hired the wonderful Ellen DeGeneres as their spokesperson, and changed their pricing strategy from coupons and sales to "everyday low prices."

I first noticed this change in their commercials that were launched in February, which were about how the brand identifies with all different types of Americans (notice how their new logo resembles the American flag... hmmmm). I really enjoyed the change because I found their old commercials for the "ONE DAY SALES!!!" to be especially annoying.

And everyone saw the amazing and funny commercials with Ellen that were aired during the Academy Awards this past Sunday. They were incredibly funny, visual, and had the entertainment factor of a movie. Their basic message was that the gimmicks that other department stores use to "trick" people are ridiculous, and that costumers won't have to deal with any of that crap at their store. If you missed them, check them out!

Western: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsFMMf_1VzU
Victorian England: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5F7NG8vBOQ&feature=relmfu
Ancient Rome:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlNAvRXfJIo&feature=relmfu
I Love Lucy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRwki8jOAB0&feature=relmfu



I find this new strategy accessible, engaging, and refreshing.

What do you think? And what do you think about their new logo resembling the American flag?

"The king-sized Snickers has been dethroned."

An article from NYDailyNews.com, posted last Friday, stated that Mars Inc. will stop producing their king-sized Snickers bar because of the hefty 510 calories it packs under its wrapper.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-02-17/news/31073346_1_chocolate-world-portion-sizes-calories

This is Mars Inc.'s first effort to shift their products--and thus, their company and brand image--to be more healthy and acceptable in our increasingly health-conscious society. By the end of next year, they will no longer produce any candy bar that exceeds 250 calories, keeping the sweet treats at a healthy portion size.

I think this is a wonderful--and SMART--shift in their marketing strategy: not only will it help people stick to smaller portions, cut back on calories, and possibly lose weight, but it will also be perceived as healthier and more acceptable by consumers, which will expand their target market to include health-conscious people. So while they are promoting a socially responsible product and health initiative to fight obesity rates, they will also hopefully see a jump in their profits. Not to mention, they will be cutting back on the variable costs needed to produce their "skinnier" bars.

Rant on Supplement Advertising

I apologize for always taking about supplements, but... I'm going to just a little bit.

Working at The Vitamin Shoppe, I am constantly learning about nutrition, supplements, supplement manufacturers, industry standards, and new products being introduced to the market. So by now I have a pretty good eye for the things that are worthwhile (i.e. do what they should for you) and those that are not (i.e. BS).

Every single commercial I see on television for vitamins or weight loss supplements make me really angry, because they are SO misleading. They basically just hype the product up, but don't inform consumers about why they need to take it and what the effective dose should be. For example, in order for your body to benefit from an antioxidant like CO-Q10, you should be taking 50-100 mg per day, not 5 mg. It's simply a waste of money--and the 2 seconds it takes you to swallow the pill every morning.

My biggest pet peeve right now are the commercials about krill oil, glorifying it as the best source of omega-3 fatty acid. Wrong WRONG. Your body needs about 20 times more omega-3's than this source offers, so you really need to take regular fish oil (or flax if you're a vegetarian). The only reason for taking krill oil is the antioxidant value, which you could just buy separately for half the price.

This bothers me so much, because marketers are misleading consumers into needlessly spending their money. And the worst part is, they aren't flouting the rules of DSHEA, the legislation that regulates the industry. I would really like to see an amendment to the rules of DSHEA requiring companies to at least mention the RDA for supplements so they know whether they are buying a good product or not. Especially now that people are beginning to really take an interest in their health, they deserve to be fully informed.

Thank You Saint Valentine

Valentine's Day takes a lot of heat for being merely a commercial holiday, bolstered by marketers to boost sales. But wait...don't marketers take advantage of every single holiday??? There are ads and specials deals for Labor Day, President's Day, you name it! And marketers are always trying to boost sales, so why not market something that brings a little fun and love into people's lives in the middle of the cold and dreary winter? I say, gung-ho!

For me, all holidays encourage us to take time out of our busy schedules to appreciate the people we love. These special days allow for a mini vacation away from the norm and keep us looking forward to something through our piles of work. Holidays add flavor to our lives and are an excuse (as if we needed one) to celebrate!

As a consumer, I love to see all of the hearts, pinks and reds, and romantic sayings that are found everywhere we look. It's nostalgic for me, and adds just enough spirit to warm me in the dead of winter. Knowing that people look forward to this day and are looking for ways to make it special, I would absolutely take advantage of this as a marketer! Give people what they want. And that is to take time to enjoy themselves and the company of those they love.

Fusion of Reality TV and the News...?

I never watch the news anymore, because let's face it, I don't have time to sit on the couch for a half hour and watch news reporters leisurely discuss a story (especially if it's something that I don't care about). I also find that half of all news stories are depressing, so I avoid watching on behalf of my sanity. Thus, I--like many other people these days--have MSNBC as my homepage, and if I see a story that interests me, I click on headline and skim through the article.


Going to the internet for news, rather than the television, is an increasing trend: according to the Pew Research Center, 68% of people got their news from TV in 1991, which decreased to 58% in 2010; meanwhile, 44% of people got their news from the web in 2010.


This week, while watching shows other than the news, I saw a couple commercials for the local Channel 5 news (WPTZ) which suggest that they are trying to combat this trend (as they should be if they have a decent marketing department). One commercial channeled reality TV format and was about two neighboring families in a trailor park who do nasty things to each other (like pour acid on the other's car?!). The other commercial promoted a special about different iPhone/iPad apps, called "App All Night," which they cleverly supplemented with seductive music. I laughed when I saw both of these commercials, because they were obviously trying to make the nightly news seem as appealing as popular TV shows--which, by nature, the news is not. 


Should the news try to win more viewers by changing the nature of their content? Or is it just weird that they should try to be something that they're not, i.e. scandalous and compelling?

Promoting the Writing Center

I had to put my marketing hat on today--outside of class (gasp!)--when I went to talk to a freshmen seminar class about the St. Mike's Writing Center. The Writing Center coaches visit these classes at the beginning of every semester, so that new students will be familiar with our AMAZING service.

We are given a script to read off of to make sure we don't forget to mention anything important (but also as a buffer if we aren't a fan of public speaking). While going over the script this morning, I thought of how terribly boring it would be for me to read from the script and how much the students weren't going to care what I was saying and, therefore, not listen. The memory of our class discussion about elevator pitches popped into my head, and I decided to utilize my knew knowledge of pitching an idea to get these students interested. So I rewrote the "pitch" in my own words, made it more concise, and (sort of) memorized it.

And...

It worked! I definitely had all of their attention and I even got a few laughs. Now that I look back at the nine C's, I think I used them all to my advantage. But to spare you all from having to read about each one of them, I'll just say what I think worked best: being conversational. I kept it very casual, used my real intonation (not just reading from a script), paused, related to them, and made a couple jokes. So I think I won them over--or at least gave them a good first impression of the Writing Center. Now I just have to wait and see if they actually go!