In the ongoing saga of Coca cola saving us all from obesity and making us all extremely happy, there’s a new twist. The culprit to the developed world’s woes are chairs it seems and like the war on terror and in true American get up and go fashion, Coca cola will take on the enemy and get everyone to stand up.
This is a video that imagines a couple of American housewives and their (shopping) lives with Google Glasses. This is a rather unreal and bizarre scenario for us in Europe or Asia, and probably not a desirable one. Sergey Brin looks strange enough wearing one of these devices and I certainly can’t imagine that I would enjoy anyone I’m talking to to be wearing one.
This is not an article about Shopper marketing directly but I wanted to raise something that seems to be creeping more and more into our daily lives. Coca cola has just launched this TV ad (http://youtu.be/zybnaPqzJ6s). It’s a sort of learn to live healthily corporate CSR and Coca cola saves the planet approach sort of thing. Well it was not to be outdone by P&G with their ‘Mums’ campaign at the Olympics.
The same day I saw an article about the scale of the damage caused to young children’s teeth by our obsessive consumption of fizzy or sugary drinks (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/stop-the-rot-why-thousands-of-british-children-are-having-their-teeth-taken-out-in-hospital-8527836.html )
This seems to be the way these days with corporations and part of their ‘look at me I’m a corporate giant’ approach. Sorry but am I the only one to find this ‘we care for you’ approach lacking credibility? Now in order to avoid being misunderstood, I am all for sponsorship as well as the support of beneficial causes, but when the company tries to convince us that having smaller servings is somehow a plan for us consumers to be given the choice of reducing our calorie intake, that’s a little too much. Unilever has taken a similar approach in wanting to create emotional engagement, by their people first approach (http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2013/02/12/Unilever-India-021213.aspx).
To be honest I get a little uncomfortable when corporations decide to take over the area of social responsibility that should be the domain of governments and local councils. After all their main objective is to create profit for their shareholders. Let’s not forget that.
So I wouldn’t mind if there was some kind of legislation limiting what corporations say about themselves to us. Tobacco companies have standards about what they can and what they can’t say from an ethical and self regulatory sort of way – for the likes of Unilever, Coca cola and P&G it should probably be the same.
This is not an article about Shopper marketing directly but I wanted to raise something that seems to be creeping more and more into our daily lives. Coca cola has just launched this TV ad. It’s a sort of learn to live healthily corporate CSR and Coca cola saves the planet approach sort of thing. Well it was not to be outdone by P&G with their ‘Mums’ campaign at the Olympics.
Just a wonderful piece of Marketing history. Superbly presented by Stuart Smith.
The death late last month of Roy Brown Jr, aged 96, is a timely reminder of that old adage: success has many authors; failure but one scapegoat. The reality, as we shall see, is not uncommonly the inverse.
Brown was Ford’s top designer during the Fifties and it was his misfortune to be saddled with historical responsibility for one of the greatest marketing disasters of all time. The Ford Edsel was conceived in 1955, born in the 1958 model year and unceremoniously euthanised in late November 1959. In that time it had cost Ford a record $350m, the equivalent in today’s money of about $2.8tr.
Critics rounded on the controversial “horse collar” or “toilet-seat” chrome grille, in which some amateur psychologists even descried a vulva, as the car’s killer feature. Admittedly, over 50 years later, it’s hard to regard that grille as an aesthetic triumph – but, with hindsight, it’s…
View original post 735 more words
I think this is the first time that a major manufacturer has made such a bold statement in the last years. Unilever doesn’t say social media is ineffective but clearly it’s not as effective in getting results as much as in-store promotions. There have been countless times when defending in-store promotions was seen as old fashioned and the client was more interested in doing something ‘viral’. If the penny drops and other manufacturers start looking at their social media ROI then I think we may see the bubble start to deflate.
I really like this milk example. I think it demonstrates real out of the box thinking, but it would take someone with some backbone to execute. After all, no money is being spent and solutions to problems should be harder to achieve (and if it’s so easy why should I pay a consultant:-). This example also suggests that we look at the validity of the rules of category management. Do they have the same relevance in today’s world?
I read a neat article from the HBR recently – which argued the point that great marketing works when brands start helping them make purchase decisions. The article uses Amazon and its reviews approach to make the point, but it got me thinking about shopper marketing and whether this was a relevant point beyond environments such as Amazon.
The stores most consumer brands inhabit are, unfortunately, often far from helpful. Overcrowded shelves, packed with too many products: deals and promotions on up to 40% of the merchandise which makes it harder for the shopper to see everything and harder to decide: products out of stock, merchandised incorrectly: signage banished by clean store policies or simply out of date (can you see the beer in the image below? No, nor me). The average supermarket seems to do very little to help shoppers make a purchase decision.
The much lauded concept…
View original post 733 more words