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.