Headlines and Hashtags

An insight into the evolving world of content marketing. Are the media that we consume viral, or do we just like to consume because it's a disease? -- Ryan Goncena (Cal. State Los Angeles - Student - Marketing Major)

[rgoncen11078]

JetBlue: The Value of Giving

JetBlue is considered a budget-friendly value brand when it comes to air travel.  Automatically we think of equating low-cost airfare with less creature comforts, the usual price of cost-savings.  Sometimes even the quality of customer service is sacrificed in order to provide cost-savings to customers.  JetBlue Airways is a brand that aims to buck the trend.  In my opinion, a company’s corporate culture has a lot of influence on the eventual end product, whether that be a product or a service.  With JetBlue being in the service industry, prioritizing customer relationships should be a main focus.  JetBlue is aiming an initiative not only at maintaining customer relationships, but building their value with general goodwill.  JetBlue has declared the month of November as their “Philanthropy Month”.  

JetBlue has a history of combining general goodwill along with creativity to present their brand value as something more than cost savings.  

“FlyBabies”

A thank you video to JetBlue crew members.

JetBlue in-short, aims to please, at least that’s the way they aim to present the brand.  Although the videos might only showcase one instance of giving or appreciating the service of others, the overall image of the JetBlue’s brand is that of a brand that caters to the actual realities that common folk’s face.  JetBlue is not about the first-class jet-setting lifestyle that most airline brands tend to cater to.  By dubbing November as a month of philanthropic activity JetBlue continues to cater to us common people.  

Exactly what is the initiative behind JetBlue’s “Philanthropy Month?”  JetBlue is encouraging both their employees and customers to upload photos and/or videos of their volunteer efforts to JetBlueForGood.com, and for each day of November an employee and a customer will be awarded by JetBlue a one thousand dollar donation on their behalf to a charity of their own choosing.  

From a marketer’s perspective it’s easy to see how acts of charitable giving can easily translate into social currency.  What better way for JetBlue to look good than by painting other individuals in a positive light, especially when negativity is everywhere.  It’s easy to talk about feel-good stories and to share them as they tend to affect everyone’s emotions.  Doing good for the sake of others seems boring, but it does have an impact both on the giving individual  and the beneficiary and simple acts of giving can hopefully trigger a domino effect of other acts of giving or philanthropic activity.  By making this initiative public, JetBlue is able to influence other’s outside of their inner-circle.  The impact of this campaign can be seen by others outside of their employees and dedicated customer base and the chances of what is hopefully a  large outpouring of philanthropic activity and charitable giving can trickle down from the general public as well.  This campaign couldn’t come at a much more appropriate and practical time.  The holiday season tend to show how much more people out there are in need of the most basic of things, while those who are privileged to have things tend to want even more frivolous things.  Most individuals have the ability to volunteer and contribute their time for the sake of others, no one has to be an expert, but maybe being the one person to have done something good other than buying things, might hold a special value.  A random act of kindness doesn’t have to cost anything, but certainly has credible value.  Hopefully from this campaign, JetBlue can can generate and highlight stories, that not only showcases their brand, but also the general goodness that hopefully lies within all of humanity.  

JetBlue JFK Airport Terminal 5 Roof-top Garden

JetBlue’s commitment to having philanthropic work as part of its corporate culture lies far beyond a campaign that only lasts for one month.  JetBlue has established and maintained a roof-top garden for over a year at JFK Airport Terminal Five.  Known as the T5 Farm, the goal of the garden is to continually produce fresh produce that will then be donated to various food banks in New York City.  JetBlue also understands that their everyday operations have long term negative impacts on the environment and as a result, they have made various donations to projects that aim to reduce CO2 emissions.  Regardless of an individual’s past experience with JetBlue’s customer service, one cannot ignore the efforts that JetBlue is making towards making a difference in everyday life.  JetBlue seems to have really staked their brand value towards efforts that lie far beyond their airport ticket counters and the confines of their airplane cabins.  

[rgoncen11078]

New Balance Burning

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/new-balance-praises-trump-and-angry-consumers-are-burning-their-shoes-protest-174574

http://solecollector.com/news/2016/11/new-balance-donald-trump-statement-trade

New Balance, an athletic footwear and sportswear manufacturing company, is currently facing a social media backlash after a company executive made a statement via twitter giving support for President Elect Donald Trump.  However there seems to have been a bit of a misunderstanding.  The statement given was made within the context of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Exactly what is the Trans-Pacific Partnership? The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a potential multi-national trade agreement between twelve countries: Austria, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam.  Why would a company such as New Balance be opposed to such a trade agreement?  One of the provisions of the agreement is the lowering of tariffs on imports.  Such a provision would benefit companies that manufacture their goods overseas, and imports those finalized goods back to its company’s country of origin.  Nike is one such company.  Nike is one of New Balance’s chief competitors.  Why would a company like New Balance be so strongly opposed to a trade agreement that would surely benefit them since, they themselves manufacture goods overseas?  Unlike Nike, New Balance still manufactures twenty-five percent of its goods in the United States.  New Balance owns and operates five manufacturing facilities, two in Massachusetts, and three in Maine.  The New Balance products that are labeled “Made in the USA” generally commands a higher price point but are also highly praised by many for the quality of materials used. 

With the lowering of tariffs, the Trans-Pacific Partnership would result in a greater ability for a company such as Nike, to bring in a larger amount of goods to bring into market.  With Nike already considered a leading giant of the sportswear industry, a small company like New Balanced could potentially be priced out and the draw of the “Made in the USA” tag could be made inconsequential.  Donald Trump has made it known that he is opposed to the ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and so is New Balance. 

The context being given for New Balances supposed support of Trump can be found in this tweet:

New Balance: "The Obama admin turned a deaf ear to us & frankly w/ Pres-Elect Trump we feel things are going to move in the right direction"

— Sara Germano (@germanotes) November 9, 2016

Unfortunately, news travels in lightning quick speeds and this very twitter statement has resulted in “New Balance Burning.”  The most unlikely demographic, “sneakerheads,” responded with actions such as these:

@SoleCollector @newbalance pic.twitter.com/r3j6sXsdAP

@SoleCollector @newbalance Bet pic.twitter.com/EF7hAMqPix

.@SoleCollector @newbalance pic.twitter.com/9AFPnw6doF

Regardless of context it seems as if anything “Trump” related has incredible value as social currency right now.   Unfortunately, the value of anything “Trump” related is negative.  Nevertheless, people are talking about it.  The question that needs to be answered is whether or not this sort of association with Trump and the negative attention that comes with it will affect the sales for New Balance.  The fact that a community of sneaker collectors have been brought into a conversation concerning potential economic policy and trade is astounding.  Will the actions of these sneaker collectors become public enough to provoke a massive public boycott of New Balance sportswear? Probably not, however for the time being, this negative publicity will be hanging over New Balance.

Regardless of this negative association with Trump, New Balance insists that they are merely supporting the stance against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and went on to clarify their stance with this statement:

"New Balance publicly supported the trade positions of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump prior to election day that focused on American manufacturing job creation and we continue to support them today."

It’s pretty evident that New Balance is merely trying to protect a core value to their brand: “Made in the USA.”  As mentioned before  New Balance’s line of goods that have the “Made in the USA” tag commands a premium price.

“Made in the USA” does not come cheap.  Could the combination of negative publicity and a high price point have negative effect on New Balance sales?  Perhaps, if this association with Trump becomes public enough.  However, it’s also a question of which information becomes public first, the inadvertent misinterpretation of supporting trump and subsequent clarification that followed after, or will it be the reactions of a select number of the public?  Even after New Balance’s clarification, is there enough social currency for this topic to continue being shared not only in the collector forums but also on all the other social media platforms? Judging by the sudden down turn in the stock market after Trump’s election and the immediate recovery that followed it, there’s a very good chance that this situation is just a flash in the pan.  Sooner rather than later, people will get over it.  Regardless of how many people out there decide to burn their shoes, there’s plenty more that will be buying new pairs, if not multiple pairs;even if Jon Cryer is calling for a boycott. 

Time to #boycottNewBalance https://t.co/234J2TXmNV

— Jon Cryer (@MrJonCryer) November 10, 2016

[rgoncen11078]

Ubisoft: The Dangers of the Internet of Things

http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/ubisoft-wants-gamers-learn-what-data-hacker-can-steal-their-selfies-174417

Video game company Ubisoft is taking a very dark approach in promoting their video game, “Watch-Dogs 2.” The “Watch-Dogs” series of games the player is taken into an adventure through a wide open environment where the main character is a hacker.  However, in the “Watch-Dogs” universe, the hacker is referred to as a modern day magician, with the goal of gathering as much information as possible throughout the environment.  With current events pointing to several instances of data leaks, distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks, and data breaches, this content couldn’t be more time appropriate.  The social currency of this approach in ultimately trying to promote a video game, lies in its focus on data, more specifically the inadvertent sharing of data. 

The “selfie” loved by many, and engaged in by everyone, and with the advent of the smartphone, has become one of the easiest ways of communicating.  What Ubisoft is trying to make aware to the public, if not at least the community of gamers playing their game, is that there’s potentially far more information we are all sharing within a selfie.  A selfie’s metadata could in fact be sharing far more information than we think and/or intend to share.  With several instances of security breaches, especially within the video game community, nothing could be more relatable than the threat of the possibility of exposing personal data.  

It’s a fairly clever method of using the game’s methodology of using a hacker’s mentality to gather information and in turn using that methodology to educate the general public and game players, on the dangers that may possibly lie in a seemingly harmless selfie.  Ubisoft has turned a seemingly innocuous video game content into practical knowledge.  The amount of content that has been generated with the idea of the game’s hacker mentality is engaging and practical.  We celebrate how convenient everything is due to technology, and we all tend to forget to take heed of the hidden dangers that technology may bring.  Everything is now connected, the “Internet of Things,” is very much a reality, and Ubisoft is cleverly reminding us of the security flaws that might exist. The very idea of exposing personal data incites a certain level of emotion.  Although some may take more precautions and some may not care at all.  

Regardless of whether the intended audience are suppose to be just gamers who are dedicated to playing this series of games, or the general public, the content seemingly makes the consumers feel as if they are gaining some sort of insider knowledge.  It’s easy to think that this sort of knowledge could easily be shared with potentially compelling stories to go with it.  Between fitness trackers, smart televisions, wifi in automobiles, and smart homes, these are all items that many consumers either possess or interact with on a semi-regular basis.  Word of mouth could easily turn warnings into stories of how someone’s fitness tracker was able to activate a microwave, burn a pack of popcorn, and resulting in a house-fire.  It was just a small house-fire, but a fire none-the-less or maybe it was just a charred pack of microwave popcorn, but it was all because a fitness tracker was hacked.  As outrageous as this story might sound, this is not too far from various accounts of PC webcams being hacked and used to record the user. Ubisoft and it’s partner AKQA has accomplished a clever way of turning a video game’s content into promoting the game itself as well as turning the game into a form of a public service announcement.  It’s a direct way of reminding consumers that the very platform of media they’re consuming on a daily basis for hours on end could potentially be dangerous.  The online gaming community have already been exposed to various instances of data breaches and “Watch-dogs 2″ in-game methodology has essentially thrown back the basic tenet of the game to its players.  Playing hacker in a video game is fun, but there really are hackers in the real world who gather your information for their version of fun also.  

By using the selfie as the trigger for inciting emotion amongst its audience, Ubisoft is not only able to direct its intended campaign to gamers, but to the general public as well.  The internet of things goes beyond the world of just gamers, and knowledge the campaign is sharing is practical for everyone to use.  Because the dangers of exposing personal data is relevant to everyone, it is knowledge that is easy to share and the public is well aware of.  Ubisoft and AKQA have done well in covering all their STEPPS in this campaign.

[rgoncen11078]

Unilever Subverting Stereotypes

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/qa-unilevers-global-marketing-chief-busting-gender-stereotypes-advertising-174242

Unilever is a multinational corporation responsible for housing some of the world’s most recognizable brands.  Most of the brands they own are firmly segmented in either consumer or household goods.  As of June 2016 Unilever has committed to busting gender stereotypes with their #Unstereotype initiative.  With a long list of household goods under their name, Unilever has also has a long history of promoting gender stereotypes.

-AXE body spray (also known as LYNX)

-Magnum Ice Cream

-Dove: Find Your Beauty Campaign

-AXE shower gel

As can be seen through various examples, Unilever is very much guilty of promoting gender stereotypes.  At least they admit to it.  In an article from adweek.com, Aline Santos, Unilever’s evp of global marketing, admits that the real world has evolved in its views concerning gender and that the advertising industry still continues to view gender in a stereotyped way.  It is this point of view, she believes, is responsible for creating a gap between consumers and advertising.  Consumers are not relating to the ads. In an effort to be much closer to the reality of gender and of people to day, Unilever has committed to #unstereotyping its ad campaigns.  Aline Santos and Unilever, want to focus on creating much more progressive and inspiring advertising content. 

Social Currency:  By stating that consumers have evolved and changed their views on gender while the advertising industry is essentially playing catchup to the consumers’ viewpoint, is there any social currency that can be mined from Unilever’s #Unstereotype campaign?  Instead of making consumer’s feel like they’re insiders, it seems as if the consumer’s are already ahead of the curve and are in the know.  Unilever vows to focus on creating female characters in leadership roles.  In my opinion, that is a very broad statement Leadership roles can still play to stereotypes.  Is not the stereotypical image of a house-wife technically in a leadership role at least when it comes to household affairs? Haven’t we as consumers already been bombarded by images of women in passive aggressive leadership roles?

Where does the consumer feel like they’re onto something new or different in this #Unstereotype campaign?  It seems as if old habits are hard to break, since the response of focusing on portraying female characters assuming leadership roles seems like a stereotypical one.

AXE - Find your Magic

I’m not trying to discredit Unilever’s efforts so far, there’s plenty left to be seen as to what this campaign can do.  There’s some inkling that they’re headed in the right direction to a certain extent. For example, Dove’s find your beauty campaign focuses female expectations of beauty versus reality.  The ad does well to uplift women’s views on beauty, but at the same time plays to the stereotype of women focusing only on beauty.  Doesn’t this perspective pretty much insinuate that women are superficial? 

At least in the AXE - “Find your Magic” campaign, Unilever’s efforts under the #Unstereotype campaign is much more evident.  The ad calls into question gender expectations of male masculinity.  Instead of reverting to the over-sexualized hyper-macho campaigns that is often associated with the AXE brand of products, the ad focuses mainly on the individuality of masculinity.  There’s no overt push to buy into the typical testosterone fueled portrayal of masculinity.  

The consumers are very much aware that gender stereotypes perhaps no longer apply in the same way that they used to.  Beauty may be stereotypical when applied to women, but can be taken as something completely different when applied to men.  Once again, if the consumers are already aware of the reality of gender, then how can the advertising industry play the role of the informant to the already informed?  How can we the consumers become excited by something we’re already aware off? What’s there to share, if everyone seems to already be aware of it?  So what if Unilever focuses on associating household products with stay-at home dads? For some of us that’s already a reality, there’s nothing new there.  In my opinion, Unilever’s #Unstereotype campaign opens up many doors, but the point of entry has to be carefully calculated.  

Qualitative research should be employed by Unilever to a greater extent.  With the power of advertising to shape consumer opinion and expectation, brands must consider qualitative measures in order to better understand their consumers.  Unilever’s #Unstereotype campaign is commendable but their efforts, in my opinion, seem to simply buy into the notion of trying to do what’s stereotypically not stereotypical.  Unilever has yet to break new ground, and hopefully they will.  I understand that changing dominant and generally accepted perspectives is a difficult task, but Unilever’s has made a commitment to do the seemingly impossible. Gender encompasses far more than just the portrayal of women and men. Only time will tell how significant the #Unstereotype campaign will be. 

[rgoncen11078]

PSA or Art?

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/most-horrifying-psa-portrays-addiction-one-worlds-deadliest-drugs-174138

In my previous post, it was mentioned that advertising is a new powerhouse industry that instead of harvesting crops, it harvests attention.   With the idea of harvesting attention in mind, where does advertising, regardless of medium, lose its intention?  Can something too pretty or too ugly, become a distraction?  With content being driven towards inciting emotions or driving triggers, is there  a risk for things being lost in translation or transmission?  

A film titled “Krokodil Requiem” is making its rounds in Europe as an anti-drug PSA.  The lengthy six minute video places the viewer inside the mind of a drug addict.  Most are familiar with the endless loop that an addict faces, but the video directed by Romain Demongeot  and Sonia Presne, places the audience in a surrealist landscape fueled by a drug known for its ill effects: rotting flesh and heavy psychosis.  

This ad is being circulated as a PSA overall of Europe.  This is suppose to be an anti-drug message against a cheap heroin alternative that is a derivative of codeine.  However, in my opinion, I find myself questioning the value of this ad as a true representative of an anti-drug campaign.  Just like the author of the article from adweek.com, Gabriel Beltrone, I too find the video to be more like a promotional work showcasing the skills of the two directors.  It’s a music video.  I understand the intention of highlighting the ill effects of the drug, both through the animation and the narration.  However, are these not the similar concepts found on some of the most popular music videos?  For example...

A$AP Rocky - L$D (LOVE x $EX x DREAMS)

Even the length of the PSA video is similar to the length of a music video.  The artistic value of both videos is similar, combining live action and animation.  Aesthetic qualities aside, how much value did “Krokodil Requiem” actually place on its anti-drug message?  Is “Krokodil Requiem” treading on the same thin line that Nancy Reagan’s “Say No” campaign once walked on?  The thin line being the campaign’s intended anti-drug message versus its inadvertent intention of making the public more aware of this cheap alternative to heroin.  The article mentions that Krokodil use is heavily confined to Russia, but could this campaign that is being broadcasted all over Europe, miss its intended anti-drug purpose with its artistic presentation and create Krokodil markets in other parts of the world?  

[rgoncen11078]

Advertising Destroys?

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/tim-wu/504623/

Is advertising ruining everything, asks Columbia University Professor Tim Wu. In an edited transcript of an interview conducted by Derek Thompson of the Atlantic, Tim Wu presents his thoughts on the history of advertising.  Referring to his new book The Attention Merchants, Tim Wu compares the advertising industry to a classic industrial activity. Whereas classically the harvesting of crops was once the top economic industrial activity of the United States, Wu claims Facebook and Google are the modern day equivalent of that agricultural industry.  “In this new industry the fields are media and entertainment, the harvesters are advertisers, and the crop is attention.”

As the infographic shows, advertising has long been in existence.  Advertising has gone through many transformations and the article boils it down to a very unique comparison.  If peanut butter and jelly are two unlikely combinations, Tim Wu compares modern day advertising to religious evangelism.  What an unlikely pair, but according to Tim Wu, both advertising and religious evangelism do the same thing, they tell us what to do.  Not necessarily a revelation, but it is true. Both advertising and religious evangelism have been directly guiding or misguiding our behavior.  One tells us to buy, the other might tell us to condemn, both tell us to give money, and we come back and give praise.  

The main point that Tim Wu is trying to drive at is that at one point, advertising was not an all encompassing and intrusive aspect to our daily life.  Advertising was relegated to specific areas, like in newspaper as print ads.  However, this no longer applies.  Advertising has taken up real state everywhere, phones, television, billboards, and radio.  More importantly advertising is directed specifically to get our attention and driving us towards a thing, a product, a service, etc.  As evil as advertising is made out to be, Tim Wu also mentions that advertising was necessary to make information available to everyone.  The idea of selling ad space is what made newspapers affordable for all, meaning easy and wide access to information and establishing the public as the audience.  Wu mentions that the challenge of first, gaining an audience and secondly, keeping the audience is where advertising faces and ethical challenge.  Advertising relies on attention, where does it draw the line on sensationalism and fabrication?  We’re seeing it now. Advertising is pushing the boundaries on content, imagery, and presentation.  

-Krokodil PSA-

Content, imagery, and presentation, these elements of advertising will change and are relatively easy to deal with, but intrusion is the main problem.  Tim Wu mentions that there has been a visible revolt against advertising.  More and more viewers are turning to subscription based television like Netflix, where there’s no advertising.  He also cites the decline in the Superbowl viewership rating as a sign that many people, especially younger people are running away from advertising.  However, this same demographic are running directly towards advertising via phones and other mobile devices.  Social media platforms such as Facebook and Google are the most prevalent ad based companies, and probably the two most heavily used media platforms.  According to Tim Wu, unfortunately the aspects our daily lives that have still remained relatively untouched by advertising will be the prime real estate for advertisers.  He mentions Youtube as an example.  Youtube was popular long before it allowed advertising, but now think of  how many thirty second ads do you have to see in a span of one hour viewing content?  If advertising is going to continue to be seen as an unwanted intrusion, there’s a potential for the ad-sponsored business model to continue to decline and eventually fail.  

-Netflix Subscription Ad-

The notion that ad-sponsored businesses will fail due to the increasing trend of the audience running way from heavy advertising content can only be considered a hypothesis.  However, if this trend proves itself to be true think how many businesses that rely on advertising will disappear.  Print based media has already taken a hit, it’s only inevitable that digital media will also suffer.  Tim Wu is also quick to point out that subscription services like Netflix might provide a solution.  Since more than enough people are willing to pay a premium in order to watch ad-free television, the same concept might be applied to other forms of media.  Have people pay a premium for ad-free content, such as an ad-free digital subscription to a newspaper.  However, Tim Wu mentions that if this should happen, it should happen sooner rather than later, before Facebook does it for them.  Why Facebook?  Think of what users share on Facebook.  Facebook essentially runs on user generated content and the news that people will share will be the ones that are considered relevant to them and their social network.  Tim Wu boils it down to the notion that ad-sponsored businesses allows everyone to have access to information, media, etc.  If people are really sick and tired of advertising, clickbait, etc, then they should pay a premium.  Free and good don’t necessarily go hand in hand. So if you really think advertising is ruining everything then pay up.  

[rgoncen11078]

Reality Check in La La Land

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/these-new-outdoor-ads-la-capture-insidious-nature-domestic-violence-174018

https://www.instagram.com/ericgarcetti/?hl=en

[rgoncen11078]

Paranormal Home Security

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/adt-reassures-boy-whos-terrified-ghosts-his-home-safe-cute-ad-173976

With Halloween right around the corner, it’s not surprising that many people are feeling easily spooked.  This phenomenon was brought even closer to reality to 9 year old Benjamin Carruba.  Benjamin developed an intense fear of ghosts, what else can a mother do but do the most practical thing in order to calm her fearful son, she calls her home security service provider, ADT.  Katie, Benjamin’s mother and an ADT customer, called the security company and convince the service rep to tell Benjamin, that ADT’s security system and service includes protection against ghosts.  The audio conversation has now been turned into an an animated ad by SapientNitro.

What better way to brighten up the spirit of Halloween, for a fearful child, than to give him reassurance about being protected against ghosts.  Real or not Benjamin can now enjoy Halloween without worrying about ghosts, and his mother is probably even more appreciative of the sales rep’s effort to go the extra mile and play along with her request.  Halloween should be for children to enjoy, it should only about trick or treating and candy.  But just like everything else adult elements are thrown into the mix, costumes become sexualized as do the characters they represent. Is this really how Walt Disney envisioned Snow White to be?

I don’t think so... 

Even our political heroes are not safe...

Ever since the Walking Dead premiered, everything has been zombified.  Remember this headline...

VIDEO: EBOLA VICTIM THOUGHT DEAD COMES BACK TO LIFE MINUTES BEFORE CREMATION

http://www.newsweek.com/ebola-zombie-comes-back-life-minues-cremation-275149

Even credible news sources have fallen victim to the hype of zombies, and the undead.  For once, an ad company has brought back the true spirit of Halloween, Fun.  Halloween should be about fun and nothing more, the idea of a little scare should be no different than a roller coaster ride, the slight possibility of danger, but maximum enjoyment at the end. Kudos to SapientNitro for giving Halloween back to the children.  Moms and Dads Rejoice and Ghouls and Ghost beware, ADT is here to stop the scare.  

[rgoncen11078]

Breakout the Small Victories

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/pepsi-compares-everyday-victories-thrill-touchdown-ad-starring-odell-beckham-jr-173862

[rgoncen11078]

Delete Hunger

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/land-olakes-donating-11-meals-people-need-every-food-photo-you-delete-instagram-173618

https://deletetofeed.com/

[rgoncen11078]

Eating Your Media

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/foodies-rejoice-wk-back-its-latest-mind-blowing-lurpak-ad-173563

[rgoncen11078]

Minimal Logo = Less Evil?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/the-age-of-the-wordless-logo/499166/

Ron English - Mcdonald’s

[rgoncen11078]

Advertising and Stereotypes

Hello blogosphere!  The subject of advertising and stereotypes are constantly put under close scrutiny.  I assume that many of us, at least I believe that I am, immune to most of the underhanded and sneaky ways that ads or commercials refer stereotypes. 

The typical “housewife ad”.

Men are stubborn even when it comes to their health.

    For the most part, I think we’ve become a society that thrives on sarcasm and cynicism, and It would take something quite blatant to ruffle our feathers. When our feathers do get ruffled the reactions will come from far and wide because we’ve organized ourselves into a society full of activists, and were involved and in tune with our society, right? 

The exposure is unreal in this Burger King ad.

   thedrum.com:

 http://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/09/06/advertising-stereotypes-which-would-you-choose-eradicate-planet

The article essentially states that persisting stereotypes are still alive and well in 2016, and asks the reader to choose one, from a list of several stereotypes that should be eradicated.  In my opinion, the article reflects our general attitude towards stereotypes: They exist but whether or not you accept them as “truths” it’s up to you.

    I think what’s more interesting is what stereotypes are doing to us as individuals and as a society.  Stereotypes have a tendency to create and instill expectations.  Expectations often fall short of reality.

In an article in the dailymail.com and originally from slate.com; Danish photographer Joakim Eskildsen explores american poverty through a series of photographs.  As a foreigner, Joakim Eskildsen’s mythical expectations of the “American Dream” were quickly dispelled and he realized that the “American Dream” was persistent within the country as well, working as a dangerous set of ideals that did not account for the realities of more than 45million people.”

 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3783055/One-photographer-takes-unflinching-look-poverty-US.html#ixzz4JsasspJAFollow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Marla and Darren Sumner (pictured) worked as an architect and an interior designer until they were laid off in 2008. Marla was rejected for a job as a cashier because she was 'over-qualified'. But she maintained a positive outlook, saying: 'In a way, the recession can have positive effects on the environment as people are forced to do more with less'

Felicia Ogbodo (left) lost her job as a social worker and said: 'It’s shocking and embarrassing, because I never thought that with a master’s degree, I would be unemployed.' Her daughter Ermaline (right) was accepted to college on a scholarship Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3783055/One-photographer-takes-unflinching-look-poverty-US.html#ixzz4JsbejSAb Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

   What is your “American Dream” and does that translate into your reality? Is the “American Dream” real?  Is the “American Dream” attainable?  For most of us, the idea of setting goals and hard-work, lays the foundation for attaining the so called “American Dream,” but even that does no seem to be enough.  The security of higher education seems to no longer apply.

-Until next time -0-0-

[rgoncen11078]

The Invisible Hand that guides the “Swipes” and “Likes“

Hello blogosphere!!!  I know I’m not the only one out here wondering how and why all of these companies seem to target us as individuals, or as a community with common interests, with just the right photo, video ad, or even just a hash-tag.  Well this is the seemingly quick and stealthy work of Content Marketing.  This is by no means a method with no design.  Content Marketing is the main method used by various brands and corporations to interact with consumers.  How brands create an image of themselves is very much reflected in the way they present particular content.  Sudden changes in content presentation may in fact represent changes in the business pursuits of the brand, and sustaining similar content might suggest that is comfortable with brand identity they have created. Content marketing is the reason why we swipe to approve and click like buttons endlessly throughout our day.

Social Media Marketing or Content Marketing?

Social Media Marketing

Social Media Marketing, although it may have given birth to elements of Content Marketing, is actually a very different entity when compared to Content Marketing.  Social Media Marketing, is much more heavily focused and dependent on the social network itself, the number of connections within that social network, and the parameters set forth by the particular social network platform.  For example if I were to sell my autobiography on twitter, my brief description, summary, and pricing info will be bound to the 140 character structure of twitter.  The end result will be a post that can be seen by my followers alone, and hoping that a hash-tag or two will generate enough interest. The outward reach of Social Media Marketing is limited but the practice of using the various social media platforms to reach an external audience has now been packaged into the monster that is Content Marketing.

Content Marketing

Where as Social Media Marketing is heavily dependent on the individual social network connections and its external reach, Content Marketing is only limited by the amount of effort that is deemed necessary in order to promote a brand or a product.  The “Content” is key in Content Marketing.  The “Content” can then be tailored to the various social media platforms in order to create a focused campaign aimed at promoting a particular brand or product.  Although the content can be considered a form of advertisement it does not have to announce that it is actually advertising anything.  For example:

In this ad by NIKE there’s no explanation or context given as to why this kid is running, but by the end of the video the general message is clear, memorable, and some how in a little more than a minute, the story is complete.  It is easy for us to understand the message of “effort” and “perseverance” without these words being uttered, but more important of all we remember “NIKE” as the brand that stands for this ethos and makes products that allow all of us to exert “effort” and “persevere” all in the pursuit of greatness.

Content Marketing is a very commanding force that drive all of us into particular ways of behaving mostly as consumers, but in many ways Content Markteting is also pulling at our heartstrings by making us aware of various causes such as this ASPCA campaign. 

Content Marketing is a powerful tool used by various companies, but since we as individuals are very much in the mix with our presence on the same social media platforms being used by these corporations shouldn’t or could we not use the same methods for our own benefit and what would those benefits entail?  How much effort would it take to sustain a presence within several social media platforms and would it be worth it? I would like to post this question to all of you in the blogosphere: “Can we as individuals use Content Marketing as a way of packaging ourselves in a particular way?” Perhaps to get that job or that promotion, or to get just the right attention.  Please comment, like, and follow.

-0-0-