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discriminate and limit a product's potential when you could appeal to both genders and not participate in maintaining outdated gender stereotypes?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