Is Big Sugar the Culprit?

Is big sugar the culprit creating the larger pool of consumers who have experienced negative health outcomes from consuming products with added sugar? Yes. I believe they have.

Whether products are healthy or not such as alcohol and sugary products, the marketers shouldn't give consumers a misconception of a product. Marketers are trying to sell any product regardless its  effect on personal health and its damages, it is their job is to make the product attractive. Having said that, I feel that marketers should still provide consumers with accurate information about the products. Puffery, even though effective for food and beverage manufacturers, should be avoided. Ads on these types of products are unfair and deceptive to the consumers and is a misrepresentation the induces a consumer to make a purchase. The image of the muffin mix emphasizes that the product is made with whole grains. But how do we know how much whole grain is used and if the amount of whole grains is enough to make a difference? Is the amount of whole grain used to enough to be the reason why we choose this product over another without whole grain or is the amount in there undetectable?

The image of cocoa cola's zero soda is giving a misleading representation  as well. Even though there is zero calories in the soda how do we know the substitute ingredient used  to make it zero calories isn't any worse than having a soda with all the calories? Marketers should develop more informational nutritional facts or not say anything about it at all, I feel that they are ethically responsible for their consumers. If a product has no nutritional information I automatically assume that there are no benefits to eating the product and from there is my choice whether or not I choose to eat something unhealthy.To make in informed decision, people need accurate information. I would actually rather buy a product that has facts that have been substantiated than one that provides misleading facts. The misleading facts leave me questioning how it it a better product. And if there is no nutritional facts at all than I purchase it knowing the effect it will have on me in the long run.

Food and drink manufacturers should have ethical responsibility of what they are offering their consumers, with the added sugar products leading to increased chance of diabetes and obesity, how are they any different than tobacco companies causing lung cancer to their consumers? According to meccola, Big Sugar uses Big Tobacco style tactics manipulating the public and government agencies with "slick propaganda that has virtually no basis in real science, and carefully covering up the reality of harm". What makes Big Sugar worse is that they target even younger markets, young children who can't differentiate the products that are harmful.

I believe that companies should be taxed on the their sugary products. Even though it is a difficult move, I feel that it could potentially be more effective in the long as other states take the same step and approve taxes on certain companies and a product they are using. From what I found, taxes have had a negative effect on some places leading companies to use worse ingredients as a substitute for sugar. In The Guardian, after Mexico had approved a tax on every liter of sugar drinks sold, "Mexicoke" felt they wore forced to switch to much cheaper high-fructose corn syrup the cane sugar to compensate the tax effect on their company. In another article from The New York Times, businesses in Denmark have been negatively impacted by the so called "fat tax". As a result, Danes would go to Swedan and Germany where prices are lower to buy certain products. If all companies in every company was taxed for the added sugar than people wouldn't need to go to the neighboring countries to purchase products because they all would follow the same regulations.These results show that if companies in different countries were taxed the overall effect would be more effective.

Do You Got Insurance? Campaign

The “Got Insurance?” campaign aimed to encourage young adults to sign up for health insurance coverage through Obamacare, and for multiple reasons . This ad campaign was a collaboration between Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and Progress Now Colorado Education organizations, Colorado nonprofits, to make a spin off the famous “got milk” ad campaign as a way to promote Obamacare.

This campaign created questioned intentions about Obamacare and whether or not it was supported by the government. Instead this was promoted via social media to create awareness and traffic. Even though the intentions were to bring traffic, I feel that it was more damaging rather than helpful. It drives negative attentions using offensive and misleading communications. I understand how they were taking a humorous approach to it but the imagery is offensive. Business Insider supports this in that they don’t care whether the campaign creates positive or negative reactions, as long as people are noticing it and creating traffic. 

According to Business Insider the three main target groups are young adults, women, and minority groups. It appears that they believe this is a naïve target market, they’re young and poor and trying to convince the images in the ad are normal and that healthcare is needed at their age. Some of these images focuses on college students, in their 20-30s, this is the age range where people are typically healthy. Snopes says the representatives of the campaign felt that the ads images focus on women to help them connect with their new health insurance options. It’s true that some of these scenarious seem relatable but their use of visuals is  somewhat distracting from the real purpose of the healthcare. Consumer Health Initiative and Progress Now Colorado Education has done some image-destroying activities for ObamaCare, using offensive communication and misleading communications. ObamaCare purpose was to create opportunities for people to obtain affordable healthcare for more serious situations, not to misuse healthcare for silly reasons.  

When I saw these images, I felt that they were projecting these scenarios to be part of the norm and that it’s okay to do all of these things.It was if the campaign was promoting this type of behavior, it was okay because  Obamacare will pay for everything regardless of the reasons. This campaign doesn't do Obamacare any justice, the intention of the healthcare do not seem sincere here, instead it's displayed in a humorous and tacky manner. 

It’s interesting because some of visuals are more serious and  more realistic and others are just plain ridiculous. For example, I think Mamacare is a more typical concern situation that cames up,“When my baby  is sick, my first question is what’s my doctor’s number, not can I afford a doctor”.  Whether or not calling the doctor has always been a concern for those who are not insured. But then right next to it is “Let’s Get Physical” "OMG, he’s hot! Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control” and “Get Your Shots” 

Seriously?  think they should of drawn the line with this image here about birth control, its almost as if they are promoting this type of behavior. Like its okay to do these types of things because having Obamacare will take care of all of this for you. Overall the use of different images left me confused and flabbergasted, I don't know who to react because some of these images are relatable. Having healthcare for some of the reason displayed such as getting pregnant, and having your kids hurt are more practical reasons than getting birth control and getting a hot guy and being able to afford alcohol.

Is Consumer Privacy Ethical?

Whether or not it is ethical that companies are gathering detailed customer data through loyalty programs depends on how far the company goes to get information about their consumer. Loyalty programs are the marketing efforts that reward, and encourage loyal buying behavior, the behavior that is potentially beneficial to the firm.  For example, I believe loyalty programs are beneficial therefore, ethical. Consumers are able to receive points, coupons, deals, and have the advantage over the "non-loyal"customers as a reward for shopping with the retailer. This helps the consumer’s wallets and helps retailers’ consumer traffic.

The idea of companies gathering that much information  is somewhat intimidating, surreal, and off guarding. At first, with all the information the company may have about you is unbelievable; I was shocked at how much they knew about my personal shopping habits and history. I have to admit, it was also a bit disturbing .Then after a while I realized how beneficial loyalty programs can be; companies are trying to help their consumers with their shopping making it a more pleasing experience. I appreciate the retailer taking account of what is purchased and offers deals surrounding that product and products related to it. I think the intent is ethical but the first glance it appears the opposite.

 These loyalty programs and information they have about us benefits us in the long run. Why not let these companies draw these critical points on consumer behavior and reward us for shopping with them by  thanking us with the new deals and showering us with coupons? At the same time I feel that consumers should be aware of consumer privacy and if they believe it is unethical then should not participate in loyalty programs and minimize shopping online. Companies are doing what’s best for them and what they believe is best for the consumer. 

The internet and social networking companies thrive on data, for some companies, it’s a matter of trying to attract consumers’ interests and buying habits based on their searches, web visits and purchases. Forbes makes a good point, knowing what a consumer cares about gives companies the opportunity to target specific ads and offers for their customer. Ads and promotions customers see will have a higher chance of interesting the customer than random messages. Therefore, I believe the loyalty programs create more effective shopping for their business and the consumer.

Brands are increasingly monitoring and analyzing consumer behavior on social media to refine behavioral targeting. In the article from Business Weekly, some retailers are using mobile based technology to track shoppers in the malls and stores. This draws the line, leading to the unethical aspect of consumer privacy. How far will retailers go to get information about their consumer? I agree that consumers should have the option of whether they are being tracked or not. Their choice of privacy is important and if retailers retailers don't give them the option for their information to private, this will create distrust among the customer and retailer . For example, if I was shopping for personal reasons, I would not like technology know what I am buying or where I am buying if it is personal. Technology is becoming more advanced and I think the future use of technology retailers are using to receive information about their consumers is going in an unethical path.

Is Ambush Marketing Good or Bad?

Ambush marketing is when a company takes advantage of when one competing company pays to become the official sponsor of an event. They do so by cleverly connecting itself with the event without having to pay a single penny for the sponsorship fee. Now is this ethical?  

For those on the working end of an ambush marketing campaign, an ongoing question is one of ethics. I feel torn about whether or not ambush marketing is ethical for multiple reasons. Ambush marketing, is undeniably effective as it is harmful, attracting consumers at the expense of competitors. Brand Channel implied that ambush marketing is diminishing the attraction of sponsoring an event for future brands. If other companies are benefiting from one company that pays for the sponsorship fees to market their brand, why should another company in the future want to pay for those fees? What is it that drives that company to decide to be a sponsor if they know ambush marketing is inevitable? They could wait for another company to sponsor the event and do the exact same thing; market their brand during the Olympics without paying for the sponsorship fees.

In Brand Channel, they iterate that in most cases, ambush marketing attracts the most attention for “heavyweight brands with massive resources”, such as Nike, Adidas and Reebok or Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Nike is notoriously known to embracing ambush marketing. For example, Nike has used ambush marketing multiple times in various cases. One instance invlved footwear; according to Business Insider and Brand Channel; they have ambushed “Converse in Los Angeles in 1984; Reebok in Atlanta in 1996; Adidas on just about every continent in every two or four year competition”. Back in 1996, Nike ambushed Atlanta Olympics saving $ 50 million that would have cost an official sponsorship.  Nike’s billboards covered the city, and they handed out banners with their logos at competitions. Nike’s marketing did well and for most times, outshines the official sponsors.

 I feel that it is more unethical for larger companies to use this type of marketing than smaller businesses.  In Sports Daily Business, small businesses are getting punished for showing their support and celebration for their country hosting the game.  Even if they are showing their crafted displays supporting the Olympics, Olympic officers view it as ambush marketing even if it is unintentional. These small businesses have no real commercial threat to Olympic sponsors, especially to larger companies like Adidas for Cocoa-Cola. Instead, they are only presenting their local pride and excitement about hosting the Games.

Even though there are different sides to ambush marketing, I feel that overall it is ethical. It’s a clever way for companies to promote their brands during such a highly appraised event, such as the Olympics.These companies should focus on making good advertising instead of focusing on spending the most money. Nike was clever to save money by not spending a lot and creating well liked advertising. Also, because the Olympics comes every 4 years a so, I feel that any company or business should have the right to use the Olympics to promote themselves. There is so much pride; enthusiasm and respect for the Olympics that I feel everyone should have the equal right to share their excitement. By cracking down on strict rules on marketing campaigns and displays during the Olympics only tarnishes the Olympic Brand. Also the companies that are paying to become sponsors,  they should feel pride in what they are doing and should not be intimidated by competing brands if they are putting their best foot forward.  Like said in the Sponsorship; if a company is expecting a competitor to ambush an event, they should be prepared to put in the same type of creative thinking and exert more effort to outshine their potential competitor. 

Watching the Super Bowl or Watching their Ads?

Once a year millions of people wait once a year for the largest sporting event of the year in the US, the Super Bowl. It is considered one of the three most watched TV broadcasts in the US and known as one of the largest television events Sporting Charts. During this beloved event marketers work hard; developing ads that are distinct and more enjoyable than the everyday ads viewers usually turn away from. Some people anxiously wait for the game to come around as they do for the commercials. As time goes by, expectations for ads escalate, becoming  more personal to viewers and have become a display for the American culture. As a result, companies developing ads for the Super Bowl go above and beyond making sure their messages stand out. 

Advertisement for the Super Bowl have become a representation of the American culture, and as a result have been taken more seriously, maybe a little too seriously.  There are such high expectations for the commercials, since the Super Bowl is "a cultural event that is distinctly American" says  Fox News, so are the commercials that are aired during it. I personally do not keep track with the Super Bowl nor the commercials but I do see the impact is has on the people. The Super Bowl is considered an All-American event, but is it a precise representation of America? Sports are big for the majority of the people but not for everyone. America represents an accumulated of cultures and backgrounds I find it unnecessary  that people can take the commercials so seriously when the commercials are not "American" enough. What is American? There are so many representations and interpretations of American.The Cocoa Cola commercial, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=443Vy3I0gJs had many viewers with negative reactions and commentary to it. “WTF?” asked one post on Twitter. “@CocaCola has America the Beautiful being sung in different languages in a #SuperBowl commercial? We speak ENGLISH here, IDIOTS." I think it's almost offensive that OTHER people are offended by the commercial and think so negatively about it. Time Entertainment had a great point that I agree with about the various languages used in the commercials. The blogger had said, "we come to America, in other words, and we become American–but we don’t erase everything else that we were before", we don’t forget our cultures and languages as if they never existed. Bringing them out makes this country better and strong, it’s strong because it can absorb the peoples of the rest of the world without erasing their cultures. I think it was ridiculous have this type of commercial could be taken so seriously, I did not see anything wrong about multiple languages and appreciated their inclusion of various cultures. 

I believe that the companies should focus on these commercials to portray their brand and image since millions of viewers are watching it. These commercials should be effective with memorable footage that excites the viewers. To a blogger on Entertainment Weekly, the Super Bowl commercials mean everything. Whenever asked whether or not they mattered he responded “Do Super Bowl commercials really matter? Yes. Shut up".  His belief was that the commercials represent an attempt by major companies to reach out to the most amount of people because they are watched more than anything else is watched and are "embedded with some deeper notions about Where We’re At Now". He goes on with "this is not a process you can stop, nor should you want to, Super Bowl commercials are our last best chance at a common societal language, the monoculture’s last gasp." Even saying so, I still do not believe commercials should be taken too seriously. Yes they are seen by millions of people, that is why they should be memorable and entertaining. When I watch commercials I either like it or not. I don't think too much of it and the brand. For me, if the commercial is entertaining enough I'll remember it and if the product is something that applies to me and my needs I'll consider purchasing it. But if not, I'll simply forget the commercial and think nothing else. 

Maybe I think different than most, but I think commercials have to have a certain balance

of entertainment and getting to the point of the product. In some commercials that are very entertaining I will remember what goes on during the clip but will forget all about what the product was. During Budweiser "Puppy Love" commercial I loved the feel of the commercial, there's a sense of kindness and friendship between the puppy and horse. The company did a good job relating the feel of the brand with the story, but at the same time I didn't associate that story to be with a beer commercial. The Budweiser beer was not shown until the very end and was only shown for a brief moment. I think this would be an example of a commercial where I would remember the story but not the product. 

Overall the commercials during the Super Bowl have an impact on the brands that are displaying during it. Millions of people wait for these commercials because they know they will be bigger, better and more entertaining than the ordinary ones. Even though I personally do not take these commercials seriously I know for the vast majority they do, these are the commercials they have been waiting for. 

Advertisements and Their Appeals

Advertising presents itself with various types of appeals, either with fear, humor, sex, music, rational, emotion, or scarcity. The effectiveness of these appeals depends on each individual viewer; one might find one ad to be more effective than someone else might. I think this depends on the viewer’s state of mind and how close to home the ad is to their personal life. 

Fred Meyer has a jingle that goes like “what’s on your list today, you will it at Fred Meyer”. Here Fred Meyer’s advertising uses a musical appeal to connect with its viewers. The jingle gains attention and retains information about their store. I remember this jingle since I was in Elementary school. To me, it’s effective; it has a nostalgic feel to it. Fred Meyer was a common store my family and I would shop at during my childhood, it was the neighborhood superstore. Now if I go to any other Fred Meyer in Oregon; I automatically feel a connection with home. I think what makes the jingle so effective is because one, it’s catchy and two, their saying is somewhat true. Anyone could find all of their basic needs at Fred Meyer, from groceries to clothing. The superstore also promotes local products grown or made in the Northwest; I think this creates a bond with all northwest shoppers. Overall the musical appeal is memorable and stays true to what Fred Meyer is about, offering a variety of products to its consumers.

On the right is an image of what some people remember as the succulent, barbecue boneless pork sandwich, also known as the McRib. McDonald offers this product sporadically and regionally in the US. They are using an ad with a scarcity appeal to attract viewers to the limited timed product. There have been various versions of the ad for the McRib when it comes back, each being effective and attracting viewers. Even is no one has heard of it or tried it, the first time watching the commercial or seeing the ad, that viewer will instantly associate the McRib as a limited product and my start feeling curious of what it is. Catchy phrases such as “The Legend Returns”, and “McRib is Back! For a limited Time, only 1.99” are used attract people to the product and have old time fans revive their crave for it. Using the word “legend” in one of the ads brings a curiosity to the people who haven’t tried it, they might be thinking: what makes it a legend?! The people who are aware of it are awaiting anxiously.  In Fast Food Reviews, a customer reports his longing wait for the McRib and how is has been waiting for its "taste of nostalgia". Also the other ad was clever giving the price; viewers are now aware of the low price and won’t question it. Many fans of the McRib know there is no specific time of the year it comes, in fact sometimes it doesn't show up for a couple years. The scarcity makes the product that more special. I think the ad with scarcity appeal works, I remember the first time I became aware of this product, my uncle had talked about it and how it had really enjoyed it. He said the last time he had the McRib had been 5 years.  I think this ad is effective because the loyal fans know how rare they are and when they do see the ads are reminded that their once satisfaction for it the first time; has returned. The people who aren't aware or familiar with the product already can tell it’s limited and can be drawn in to at least try it before it disappears.

The image of the mutated fish head is an ad using fear appeal to get through to its viewers. Its effective use of imagery is what draws the viewers in and make them subconsciously want to analyze it. The mutated fish head is the first thing that gets noticed and after that; the wording. The image is so interesting and shocking; it makes the viewer wonder what the context is. The context and image are paired together perfectly, its use of words are short, real and right to the point. I believe this image is the raw truth, and encompasses what the message the ad is trying to get across. The issue of climate change is usually avoided but here its front and center; addressing the problem. It’s clearing showing that if we the people do not take actions to prevent climate change, it will eventually affect us and we will be the ones coping with the consequences. I think using the fear appeal for this ad was done thoughtfully, and was executed well. It has the shocking visual appeal with the right amount of effective wording and also has the logo of the organization on the bottom of the page. The ad brings fear to the viewers but that the same time, is comforting them with the logo by guiding them to the solution to fixing climate change. 

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, comes out with a Boom

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, who has not heard of the movie? Whether people have seen the first sequel or not, its’ release spread fast; bringing excitement to those who are huge fans. Even though I've only watched part of the first sequel years ago, regardless a fan or not, I remember hearing about the release constantly the instant it come out. Word of mouth had spread fast and people were posting on Facebook, while commercials were all over the TV. The film really advocates itself for being a great comedy film. Even if people have not seen Anchorman, social media brought awareness, making the film return back with a big boom.

From what I can see, Anchorman is memorable, endlessly quotable and just plain hilarious. Social media had made that clear. Clips from the movie demonstrates how ridiculous the film is; bringing in the “don’t go there” type of situations and scenes. Since I have not seen the sequel, I decided to look up trailers and clips getting a better grasp of what all the rumor and word was all about. Every clip and trailer I watched showed humor being stretched, with scenarios that probably would not happen in real life. Despite that, it was the type of humor that draws viewers in and keeps them hooked. Some of these hilarious clips can be seen in one of its trailer; Funny Moments.

According to a High Score Reviews, Anchorman achieved practically everything a comedy file should set out to achieve. Social media has really escalated the criteria for the film by entitling it as a great comedy. The trailers and clips had helped that by highlighted every funny scene; drawing out the awkward and ever-increasing the humor. 

The humor was really brought out by the one-of-a-kind characters. Producers have developed these characters exceptionally well and have used social media to display that. Anyone can see that these newsmen are ridiculous. The images below proves this and yet, this is what makes them oh so engaging. Each person has a unique character that is emphasized which is why I think viewers really enjoyed the movie, creating a connection with at least one of the characters that appeal to them. I think the big fans of the movie feel a bond and connection with a character. 

At the same time, I think another factor that has drawn viewers in is the focus on Will Ferrel.  He is one funny man. Some of the first images that pop while searching the film, beside group images, are of Will Ferrel in his funny and ridiculous poses.  According to What is Will Ferrel's Funniest Movie? the blogger felt he himself and other Will Ferrel Fans had not seen a funny Will Ferrel film that had come close to matching the original Anchorman back in 2004. As the blogger referred to Anchorman 2, he said, “We might just have a new funniest Will Ferrel movie of all time”. I think the crew in charge of promoting and launching the movie focused on just this to do so. Since the first was such a hit with Will Ferrel starring in it, his character was used to their advantage to publicize Anchorman 2.

In addition to escalating the launch of the film, is its timing. I think timing was done strategically well.  Since the first movie way back in 2004, it was time for the long awaited fans to watch this movie, 7 years after the first. The article from Entertainment Weekly catches the excitement of the launch. They tie in together Christmas and the launch referring to it as an early Christmas present for the obsessive fans. Overall, I think holidays bring in good spirits and that film producers can use it to their advantage to advertise the film coming during the holidays drawing in viewers fast. By watching the film during the holidays can lead to fans subconsciously tying in the Anchorman sequels to being a holiday film. As a result, the launch of Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues was done exceptionally well. Social media was used to focus on its quality humor with unforgettable characters and show off the well timed out release date.

Social Media

Social media has been increasingly becoming a part of the average American’s life. Just like anything, there is good and bad. I think when social media comes first to mind there’s a negative preconception of it, it may draw too much attention to technology where people are becoming desperately dependent on it. Even some of the social media networks such as Twitter, Facebook and others can draw negative attention depending on the situation and content. Like mentioned earlier, everything has pros and cons and in my opinion; social media pros can outweigh the cons when it’s used in the most proper and effective way. As a result, I think companies are doing the right thing using social media to keep customers informed leading to their happiness.

Social media is becoming the future of communication whether we like it or not. I personally think by using it, companies are creating a more reliable and personal connection between them and their customer. This is an effective way for companies to reach out to their customers and vice versa, and be attentive to their needs and requests. I feel that everything is becoming more competitive in a technological way. The more technology you use, the more advance it is and its effectiveness; the more customers are drawn in. In the article, Business Insider  having the social media being a click away can bring a sort of sense comfort and reliability for the customers. I believe this is exceptionally true for those are flying home and tweeting the airlines. In the article http://skift.com/2014/01/07/how-airlines-are-using-social-media-to-deal-with-this-weeks-weather/#1, the instant feedback when any issues occur makes the experience more comforting and in hence creates a more happy customer. Before reading this article I had no recognition that it was even possible to tweet an airline. This is such a clever way to make flying a much more comforting experience.

 In the article,
How Companies Are Using Social Media to Become More Customer-Centric, the article believes that in today’s reality, customers are expecting brands and businesses to be there for them everywhere across mobile and social media. They feel that its more flexible, fast paced and interested in customer opinion. I do not have twitter but if I was had to fly weekly, I would get twitter in a heartbeat. From my experience, flying can be stressful and terrifying especially alone. Having a reliable source that I know will give me an accurate feedback reassures me that I will be taken care at being at which airline I choose. The more I think about it, the more I feel that I should be involved pace technology is evolving to be. There are so many questions I have with products I use, if a simple text on my phone to the company would give an answer to my questions I would be one happy customer. For example, if I was able to send a quick text/tweet to Apple to ask about my iPhone, I would. There’s always questions I have about my phone and when I asked other iPhone users answers always vary. By directly asking someone from the company and hearing a response in a timely manner, that would be the determining factor if I would choose that company over another.