"Buy the Way…" Insights on Integrated Marketing Communication

In the words of the late great Ned Stark, “Winter is Coming”.  Saturday, August 26^th brings the possibility of delivering a spectacle in the fighting world not often seen.  Two controversial figures, neither of which has any intention of losing to the other, an undefeated record, and enough hype to get people to stop fuming over Washington, if only for a minute. But at its core, particularly in today’s environment, what is it that “fans” are really hoping to see? Simple poll results are hardly difficult to imagine should black and white fans be asked to proclaim a future winner and that in itself is a true shame. This fight seemingly represents a boiling point in American society – or maybe I’m giving it too much credit, or just thinking to darkly.  I hope I’m wrong, I truly do.  But take a look at your newsfeed if you think so.

In the midst of that grim reality is the fact that regardless of the outcome, both Floyd Mayweather and Connor McGregor have already won. From a marketing standpoint, anyway. Or in the words of Wetpaint:

“The fight isn’t really what’s being sold..  What’s being sold here is the experience – the press conference face-offs, the back-and-forth arguments between boxing and MMA fans, the one-liners exchanged between McGregor and Mayweather.  All this and more.  What’s being sold is everything surrounding the product.  In this case, the product just serves as an excuse for its own marketing, because the marketing is where the real action is”, (Wetpaint, 2017).                                   

Mayweather’s previous fight with Manny Pacquiao grossed nearly $624 million dollars (USD), (Crosby, 2017) and current projections would suggest that the final numbers on this fight would “eclipse” that, (sorry, I couldn’t resist). Regardless of the outcome, not are only are both of these fighters going to be in for a major payday, but so too are the many sponsors.  Should the fight be a good one, it could even do much for moth boxing and the world of mixed martial arts, the latter badly needing some good news after Jon Jones once again wound up on the wrong side of a performance-enhancing drug test, today (Okamoto, 2017).

The racism discussion is one that has already even been called into question, (Marroco, 2017), after McGregor was heard making controversial remarks at one of the press conferences. Great.  As if the world was missing that.  But it’s the controversy that has also helped lend a hand in the marketing of this event.

Time will tell as to who will come out victorious in the ring on Saturday, but in the eyes of the world, the marketing of this event has built a monster.  Whoever wins, here’s to hoping the rest of us can channel are inner- Apollo Creed and Rocky Balboa to one day become trusted friends.

References

Mayweather vs McGregor: 4 Content Marketing Lessons “The Money Fight” can Teach You. (n.d.). Retrieved August 23, 2017, from http://www.wetpaint.co.za/mayweather-vs-mcgregor-4-content-marketing-lessons-the-money-fight-can-teach-you/

Crosby, C. (2017, June 15). The Fight Is On: Mayweather, McGregor And Sponsors Look To Cash In Big. Retrieved August 23, 2017, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasecrosby/2017/06/15/the-fight-is-on-mayweather-mcgregor-and-sponsors-looking-to-cash-in-big/#7bc3d1c379e7

Okamoto, B. (2017, August 22). Dana White: Jon Jones failed UFC 214 drug test; title not stripped. Retrieved August 23, 2017, from http://www.espn.com/mma/story/_/id/20422093/jon-jones-failed-drug-test-ufc-214-ufc-president-dana-white-says

Steven Marrocco July 13, 2017 10:40 pm, & By: Steven Marrocco | July 13, 2017 10:40 pm. (2017, July 14). Conor McGregor strikes different tone on racial remarks after bombing on stage in New York. Retrieved August 23, 2017, from http://mmajunkie.com/2017/07/conor-mcgregor-explanation-racial-remarks-floyd-mayweather-new-york-world-tour

At some point in time, every generation is the thorn in the side of the older stuffier folks who preceded them: the “I had to walk ten miles to school each way with no shoes on, over sidewalks strewn with shards of glass and hot coals” folks. The “get off my lawn ya crazy kids!!!” folks. You get the point. We’ve all been there and it is truly a rite of passage growing up in this society. In any event, now it is the Millennials’ turn as the proverbial punching bag for their older stodgier predecessors.

Marketers, advertisers, social scientists – everyone under the sun is trying to discover what makes Millennials tick, what they buy, political persuasions, social issues, you name it. After poking, prodding and dissecting, everyone seems to have the answer right? Maybe…maybe not.

That is why the 2016 article by the Economist and the subsequent reactions made for a bit of fun and entertaining reading. Millennials had plenty to say after the Economist posed the critical question “Why aren’t millennials buying diamonds?” back in June 2016. See original the Tweet here: https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/748670361840009216.

The post by the Economist stemmed from the failed auction of a $70M diamond, then it spun into an analysis of the decline of diamond sales and why millennials aren’t interested in diamonds, etc. (Bergstein, 2017; The Economist, 2016). However, nobody wants to talk about Gen Xers who actually are more established in their careers, who have more money, and why they aren’t buying diamonds.

According to Bergstein (2017) diamond sales for 2016 actually rose by 4.4% and she elaborates on how some of the negative sentiment surrounding Millennials and diamonds is overblown. Even though the Economist is a reputable publication, this entire scenario is precisely why advertisers must do thorough demographic research before making claims or drawing conclusions that ultimately prove to be unfounded. That is also why the snarky, biting and at times even-tempered responses from Millennials to the Economist’s tweet were thoroughly entertaining and hilarious. To read the reactions to the Economist’s tweet, please click on the following: https://twitter.com/i/moments/749764884984803328?lang=en

References

Bergstein, R. (2017, June 9). Millennials reject diamonds? Prepare to start hearing a new story. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachellebergstein/2017/06/09/millennials-reject-diamonds-prepare-to-start-hearing-a-new-story/#204cf8e96620

The Economist. (2016, June 30). A diamond is for ever. But its allure comes and goes. Retrived from https://www.economist.com/news/business/21701497-diamond-ever-its-allure-comes-and-goes-rough

Twitter.com. (2016, July 5). The best answers to why millennials don’t buy diamonds. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/i/moments/749764884984803328?lang=en

We all read about it on one platform or another. We’ve witnessed it during the course of the current Administration and with celebrity endorsement contracts. I’m talking about advertising and coverage in the media. How ethical is it for a publication to avoid covering certain people, institutions or brands all because the brand is a large supporter? While it seems like a straight forward answer – in theory – the reality is that it is not as straight forward in practice.

I recently came across an article that asked the same question in the context of government – which resonated with me because not only do we see it in action with certain publications, but I’ve been witness to it. Especially on a local level. Certain publications will not cover stories on controversial subjects to avoid the backlash it could have for the business. The article, linked above, covers a small Mexican publication that had funding pulled after a series of stories ran that were critical of the administration and pointed out many conflicts of interest within the administration. Which makes me wonder – how much should publications be allowed to take from public figures who want to advertise with them? Should there be a cap? While I understand that owning and running a newspaper publication is costly, I wonder if development can be done that separates funding from government figures and other sources of advertising dollars.

Having been in the industry in several capacities, it is common practice to make it clear that certain stories are advertorials, and not in any way a reflection or position of the publication. But when the advertiser is riddled with controversy and/or unethical practices – should publications put criteria in place to filter them out in order to avoid the risk of losing the funding they so deeply rely on to stay in business?

I’ve struggled with this notion throughout this administration’s term thus far and also in personal experiences. I still haven’t come to fully understand how to get around the conflicts of interest that exist in the media and how to filter out those that are genuine. But this doesn’t just go for advertising and government or public figures. This even goes with brands. Documentaries like Forks Over Knives uncover controversial connections that make one wonder if our American diet is actually making us sicker – and organizations that are tasked to combat diseases associated with poor diets are funded in large part by the suppliers of the very items that are making us sicker.

Maybe this is too much to think about at the end of the semester but as a student of USC, a critical thinker, and seeker of information I prefer transparency in everything I consume or do. It’s the worst feeling to find out I’ve been duped. I do my best to make informed choices and contribute to brands and causes and publications that are transparent and ethical – even if that means spending more. Does anyone else go through this and question everything we consume? Thanks for your time. Have a great break!

-Eren Cello

Integrated marketing is a constant battle for finding ways to connect with audiences and learn how to connect and drive engagement and eventually sales.

Connecting with family or emotions is often the touchstone brands use to build an association with a brand, but that’s not the only way to connect with an audience. Sometimes cultural events are a prime opportunity for a brand to help bring enhanced meaning to people and create a connection to a meaningful and memorable event that will build the brand’s relevance.

The 2017 solar eclipse was a special moment that connected people across the United States as the Moon blocked the Sun’s rays from Oregon to South Carolina on August 21, 2017. Thousands, and perhaps millions of people traveled to see the eclipse and be a part of this shared event.

Many brands used this opportunity to be a part of the event and help build brand awareness and boost sales. Chattanooga, Tennessee, based MoonPie cookie company was able to boost sales and consumer engagement in the days leading up to the eclipse because of its lunar connection, and the company took advantage of the notice by creating eclipse survival kits (featuring two MoonPies and two pairs of eclipse glasses) and hosting special events associated with the eclipse.

MoonPie even wound up getting into a bit of a social media battle with a competing brand looking to claim the title as the official snack cake of the eclipse.

The snack-cake showdown generated buzz for both brands online throughout Eclipse Day. Perhaps MoonPie’s social media managers put it best the morning after the eclipse when they posted:

So 2017 is pretty weird https://t.co/52cJDSrCe1

— MoonPie (@MoonPie) August 22, 2017

Snack cakes weren’t the only brands looking to get into the eclipse excitement. Denny’s restaurants — a company familiar to USC graduate students studying integrated marketing — also got into the eclipse action with a special on pancakes (aka mooncakes) on the day of the eclipse at select locations.

https://youtu.be/QI2xVOhqXB4

These two examples are some of many attempts by consumer brands trying to take advantage of the 2017 eclipse to build brand awareness and cultural connection with consumers. Some of these concepts were better than others, and certainly care should be taken by brands considering these gimmicks.

However, when successful, using meaningful cultural moments can help brands build awareness and goodwill with audiences looking for enjoy and share these historic events.

Fifteen years ago, nobody could have ever predicted that “Tweeting” would become a verb used by brands and politicians for that matter all over the world. Brands have found ways to create direct conversations with customers around the globe. Twitter has also transformed customer service and the expectations of customers (Macmillan, 2016).  There is one “Mean Girl” on Twitter that is flat out “Savage” (Hicks, 2017).  Wendy’s has developed a following not necessarily for their products rather their approach to Twitter. Here are a few great examples:

Wendy’s as a brand has taken pride in its Twitter wars and seems to dominate each exchange. Two twitter users were debating the best “4 for $4” deals when one said Hardee’s was better, Hardee’s chimed in with an “Amen”. Another user then tagged Wendy’s to join the conversation and that’s when it got really beefy!:

As we continue to discuss big ideas and what truly cuts through the noise, Wendy’s has established its brand as one that does not hold back on Social Media. They say what many of us probably would like to say to customers if our organization adopted that type of personality. Social media has been able to bring together people that were once isolated by geography and increase collaboration (Holt, 2016).

When McDonalds announced that they will use real beef in “some” of their burgers, Wendy’s didn’t hesitate to reach out.

Social media overall has revolutionized how brands approach consumers and helps identify what types of the personalities of each brand as they continue to focus on social media and overall engagement.

(2016, March 21). Retrieved August 10, 2017, from https://blog.twitter.com/marketing/en_gb/a/en-gb/2016/how-brands-have-changed-marketing-through-twitter.htmlHicks, S. (2017, February 21).

Wendy’s Twitter Page Is Savage. Retrieved August 10, 2017, from http://www.craveonline.com/mandatory/1217929-wendys-twitter-savage

Holt, D. (2016, June 09). Branding in the Age of Social Media. Retrieved August 10, 2017, from https://hbr.org/2016/03/branding-in-the-age-of-social-media

Domestic consumption of sparkling water has more than doubled in the past five years. Based on 2011 consumer report, Americans drank 232 million gallons of sparkling water. A recent report from Technavio predicts that global sparkling water market will post an average annual growth rate of 3% from 2016 to 2020.  SodaStream International LTD.,  which makes machines to carbonate tap water at home, is looking to acquire companies and increase marketing in key countries. Chief Executive Officer Daniel Birnbaum said in an interview that with about $100 million of cash and no debt, SodaStream has strong standing and, with aggressive marketing, can successfully target even the most completive markets.

SodaStream appeared on American retail shelves overnight. It is a freshly reinvigorated brand with a 100-year history. SodaStream’s lineage can be traced back to Edwardian Era England, when London distiller Guy Hugh Gilbey invented a device for aerating liquids that his upper-class customers used to carbonate their gin cocktails. The original 1914 patent describes a large device, complete with valves, pistons, and nozzles. Two decades later, the earliest flavored concentrates were introduced, which could be mixed with carbonated water to create instant soda. It wasn’t until 1955 that the home version of the SodaStream became available for the masses.

SodaStream’s willingness to spend reflects how far the company has come since changing strategies in 2014. With weakening sales and income, the company moved away from at-home cola machines that competed in a $260 billion market against giants like Coca Cola and Pepsi. Investors were skeptical to invest in SodaStream’s stocks when they drastically fell in February last year. With the shift to sparkling water, SodaStream’s profits almost quadrupled in 2016. Its U.S.-traded shares increased about 342 % since the recent low. However, the demand for sparkling water is being matched by widespread availability of new channels and delivery systems. Twenty years later, the brand reached its first golden age when it became a familiar fixture in European kitchens with a catchy tagline to match.

References

Benmeleh, Y. (2017). SodaStream on the Hunt for Acquisitions to Keep 340% Rally Going. Retrieved from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-29/sodastream-on-the-hunt-for-acquisitions-to-keep-340-rally-going.

Brooke, Z. (2017). Water Wars: SodaStream’s Offensive into the American Beverage Market. Retrieved from: https://www.ama.org/publications/MarketingNews/Pages/sodastream-ecoshaming-water-wars.aspx.

Bowman, J. (2017). Why SodaStream International Ltd. Stock Gained 12% in April. Retrieved from: https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/05/05/why-sodastream-international-ltd-stock-gained-12-i.aspx.

Working on our final project, “Big Ideas” are on the forefront of our perspective. While trying to find that “something spectacular” to win the battle of the brand for our section, I’ve had a tendency to look at the world around us for inspiration. One such example that I came across is Dunkin’ Donuts attempt to compete with the coffee mega-giant Starbucks by recently contemplating changing their name to simply Dunkin’ by testing the new name in certain markets. The test that will run throughout the year will start at a Pasadena location and is meant to showcase the company’s beverage services rather than its round pastries they are infamous for. But will this “Big Idea” be enough to save the company’s struggles?

Dunkin’ Donuts has seen a 1.5% sales growth since 2014 compared to Starbucks’ 5-7%. While it tried to get on the coffee bandwagon with its slogan “America runs on Dunkin” in 2006, that was years earlier from Starbucks dropping the “Coffee” from its name in 2011, showing that Starbucks encompassed more than just coffee. Would this “Big Idea” have worked better by dropping the doughnuts a decade ago? We may never know. However, there have been many cases where businesses have changed their name and have generated more success. Some of these may surprise you:

Research In Motion to Blackberry – 2013
Apple Computer to Apple – 2007
Backrub to Google – 1997
Datsun to Nissan – 1981

Will changing the name of your company bring you more success? There may be more than a name change that provides the consumer a reason to buy your product and revitalize your brand. Time will tell if this strategy will result in higher profits for Dunkin’ Donuts. Maybe they should bring back the slogan, slightly adjusted…”Time to make the coffee.”

Fairchild, C. 2013. The worst (and best) company name changes. Retrieved from: http://fortune.com/2013/12/06/the-worst-and-best-company-name-changes/

Malone, C. 2017. Dunkin’ Donuts’s Name Change Is a Good Idea—If It Were 2006. Retrieved from: http://fortune.com/2017/08/07/dunkin-donuts-name-change-new-changing-rebrand-coffee/