Who knew Whole Foods had a younger, hipper cousin?

Posted on June 4, 2017 by Paula

Who knew Whole Foods had a younger, hipper cousin affectionately called 365 By Whole Foods?  When the new stores were launched just one year ago, they were lauded as the a new, cheaper, millennial-friendly supermarket (Tuttle, 2016).  Despite the fact that Whole Foods Market has been largely popular among an older, more health conscious demographic, sales have continued to decline and Whole Foods is hoping the new 365 stores will allow expansion and an uptick in revenue (Tuttle, 2016).

To boost sales and drive shoppers into the new 365 model stores, Whole Foods has lowered prices, remodeled existing stores, and launched a new national advertising campaign (Tuttle, 2016).  What’s funny is that most of us missed it!  Marketing communication fail?

I never knew the stores even existed until I learned a new 365 by Whole Foods Market will arrive in my own neighborhood in weeks.  I immediately began to do my own research to figure out why the marketing campaign for such a popular grocery chain never came up on my radar.  I am a fitness obsessed, organic food connoisseur who would have absolutely noticed …had the marketing campaign been amazing!

Whole Foods Markets co-founder and CEO John Mackey assures shareholders that the smaller-format 365 stores are doing well and expects the company will return to positive comps and earnings growth by fiscal-year end 2018 (Daniels, 2017).

 

References:

Daniels, J. (2017, May 10). Whole Foods bets on 365 format, cost cuts to revive growth. Retrieved June 04, 2017, from http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/10/whole-foods-bullish-on-365-format-sees-return-to-sales-growth-in-fiscal-2018.html

Tuttle, B. (2016, May 24). How Will 365 Store Prices Compare to Regular Whole Foods? | Money. Retrieved June 04, 2017, from http://time.com/money/4340938/365-by-whole-foods-prices-selection-how-different/

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Breastfeeding: When did it become such a big deal?

Posted on June 4, 2017 by Jeanette

It’s natural. We all need to eat, especially babies. At one point in our lives we were fed in public, whether it is by bottle or by breastfeeding, but it’s intriguing to know that breastfeeding in public is still a controversial subject. Breastfeeding is natural and is not done as a sexual intent, but it’s surprising to hear several people are disgusted by the fact, and women feel the need to hide out in bathrooms or in their cars to feed their child. It seems the action of something that was meant to be beautiful is somehow viewed as dirty or wrong, like smoking in public.

Not only has it been viewed as disturbing, but mothers are also being punished for it. Back in 2006, a woman was kicked off a Delta flight after she refused to cover up while nursing her daughter. Starbucks (2011) have asked women to do their nursing somewhere else, a manager at Applebees reportedly called police after a new mother refused to nurse her son in the bathroom (2012), and a manager at Hollister (2013) apparently screamed at a woman for breastfeeding her child outside of a the store and forced her to leave. All these events have sparked “nurse-ins” where numerous mothers would sit in front of the store and breastfeed their child. Even with this movement, some mothers were still harassed by security guards for exposing themselves and threatened to kick them out.

In 2016, there was a social experiment held to compare a woman with a tight shirt and a woman breastfeeding in public. The types of responses were horrendous. It is definitely upsetting to see that even this day in age, breastfeeding in public is still looked down upon.

I am personally not a mother, but many of my friends who are still experience this type of judgment from the public. They are still asked to cover up, to move to the bathroom, or even told to stay home to handle “your private business.” It’s interesting to know that these types of harassment that go on are states where breastfeeding are protected by law to breastfeed in a public space. Breastfeeding is a natural thing, whether it is done in private or public. Women shouldn’t feel ashamed or embarrassed to do so because it’s apart of what being a mother is all about.

But it begs to question:

  1. Why is breastfeeding in public still a continued controversial issue?
  2. What can we (or society) do to change the public’s view so women are able to feed their babies as nature intended without being looked down upon (e.g. more exposure to the public via TV or news, public service announcements)

If you’d like to read more about the stories in detail, here are a few links (References):

Parents. (2012). Dawn Holland, Breastfeeding Mom, Asked To Nurse In Applebee’s Bathroom. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/dawn-holland-breastfeeding_n_1893681.html.
Parents. (2013). Hollister Nurse-In: Breastfeeding Advocates Feud With Shopping Mall Following Protest. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/hollister-nurse-in_n_2425541.html.
Schrobsdorff, S. (2011). Woman Kicked Off a Plane for Breast Feeding. Time. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2053230_2053229_2053225,00.html.
Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

BODY SHAMING IN MARKETING

Posted on June 3, 2017 by Jr

Recently at the Cannes film festival, film executives and star, Chloe Grace Moretz, were under fire for a trailer cut for her new films “Red Shoes & the 7 Dwarfs.”  The advertisement, executed by South-Korea based Locus Creative Studios shows a thin version of snow white being watched by two dwarfs as she undresses. The reveal is that once Snow White takes off her clothes, she becomes a heavier woman to the dwarfs surprise and dismay! Social media took offense to the ad accusing it for body shaming, prompting the Production Company, Lead Star and Creative team searching for apologies.  A clip of the trailer is below:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUFNpUHu5dc

 

The Oxford dictionary defines body shaming as: the action or practice of humiliating someone by making mocking or critical comments about their body shape or size.  Body shaming is nowhere near a new topic. Going back to 1978 does not mark the beginning, however the infamous 1978 Hustler magazine cover certainly started a louder conversation for those opposed to body shaming.

 

The National Eating Disorder Association leads the fight against body shaming. Additionally, several celebrities have used their time and influence for the cause as well: Selena Gomez, Tyra Banks, Kelly Clarkson & Emma Stone have all used their platforms to support the shaming of body shaming.

American Eagle launched a tongue and cheek campaign displaying “real life” men in their underwear sharing their life stories. The men are purposely of all different colors, sizes and shapes.  American Eagles narrative was that they are an inclusive brand and market to the humor aspect of their target market. American Eagle, realizing the humor and severity of the extreme situations of over eating, American Eagle doubled down on their investment in the campaign and ensured they will be viewed as responsible in their consumer relations, by donating $25k to the National Eating Disorder Association.

There is some research that suggests negative social effects from images of larger body types.  Lin and McFerran (2016) did research around the Dove effect and the use of acceptance to larger body types. Supporting their claims was evidence from 5 different studies that suggested the acceptance of larger body types reduces motivation and ultimately discourages a healthier lifestyle

 

However, progressive thinking links unhealthy body images to distorted mis perceptions of body images perpetuated by social media addiction. The Press association (2014) reported a increase in mental health issues for girls between the ages of 16-24. 40-60%  of elementary school girls reported concerns of weight (Smolak, 2011)Celebrity selfies, photo shopped or beautified photos, body augmentations (lips, breast and butt), enhanced facial features, coupled with the need for “likes”

What is clear, is the objectifying of women has existed in advertising since the beginning.  Body shaming in advertising is somewhat of a newer concept within the last 50 years. Today, we are dealing with a more socially conscious, internationally informed and media savvy generation.  Not only are the tools and mediums for change are at work, but the information and culture change is already happening.  This blogger hopes that if social media becomes the mechanism for growth of body shaming, it will also become the medium for its destruction.  As was the case with “Red Shoes & the 7 Dwarfs.”  social media became the illness and the cure!

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/05/31/us/ap-us-people-chloe-grace-moretz-.html

 

Lin, L., McFerran, B. (2016) The (Ironic) Dove Effect: Use of Acceptance Cues for Larger Body Types Increases Unhealthy Behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing: Spring 2016, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 76-90.

http://www.chainstoreage.com/article/american-eagle-debuts-tongue-cheek-campaign-mens-underwear

 

Sung, Y. , Lee, J. , Kim, E. , & Choi, S. (2016). Why we post selfies: Understanding motivations for posting pictures of oneself. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 260-265.

Boon, S. and Lomore, C. (2001), Admirer-celebrity relationships among young adults.. Human Communication Research, 27: 432–465.

https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/blog/body-shaming-cyberbullying

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 8 Comments

Do you sponsor a freedom fighter or terrorist?

Posted on May 29, 2017 by Tania

AT&T, Coca-Cola, Corona, JetBlue, the New York Yankees and Univision are among the corporate sponsors that have pulled their support from the 2017 National Puerto Rican Day Parade.  The parade, one of the largest Hispanic cultural events that takes place in New York City, announced several weeks ago that it would honor Oscar López Rivera, who by some is considered to be a freedom fighter – while others refer to him as a terrorist.

Earlier this month Oscar López Rivera was freed after serving 36 of a 70 year sentence for robbery, transporting firearms, and conspiracy to transport explosives while at the helm of the activist group  Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña (FALN).  The FALN, while fighting in support of Puerto Rican independence in the 70’s and 80’s, took to violent acts in the US – responsible for more than 120 bombings resulting in 5 deaths and many injuries.  The support of  López Rivera is not new for the parade, in 2014 a group payed tribute and marched in support of his release.  Allowing that freedom of speech is a far cry from declaring him a National Freedom Hero – a designation that has stirred controversy and left sponsors scrambling .

The parade, celebrating it’s 60th anniversary, has a long-standing tradition of celebrating the rich culture of the island and its people here in New York is no stranger to controversy.  The documented assault of women in 2000 forced sponsors to question their association with the event.  This was followed, in 2004, by the selection of a convicted domestic abuser which drew the ire of domestic violence organizations, politicians, and caused Verizon to withdraw support.  While the National Puerto Rican Day Parade has an active fundraising mission to support education,  supporting the event itself must be continuously evaluated to ensure sponsors are not only aligned with the larger mission, but also the values represented by  those being honored.

Today, having López Rivera in such a prominent position is a risky proposition.   This may have been seen differently in the context of the political movements of the time, but after 911 our collective views have changed when it comes to acts of violence, especially on US soil.  A sponsorship can be misconstrued as support for terrorist acts.  Locally, groups like the New York City Police Department’s Hispanic Society, the NYPD’s Gay Officer Action League, NYPD Police Commissioner James O’Neill, the New York Fire Department and the NYFD’s Hispanic Society, are all boycotting the event. Each day that passes brings more criticism and less support.

In addition to AT&T, Coca-Cola, Corona, JetBlue, the New York Yankees and Univision – Goya Foods, a 59 year sponsor has pulled their support. Goya Foods is now under pressure for their decision as parade sponsors claim the this will impact the 100 scholarships they provide latino scholars.  Goya has not issued a statement and I question this shift in accountability.

In their statement, Coca-Cola provides a balanced view that while the company “decided not to march in the parade” this year it will still provide financial support to the scholarship program.  In a similar statement, JetBlue said it would take their funds to support scholarships as, “it became clear that the debate about this year’s parade was dividing the community and overshadowing the celebration of Puerto Rican culture that we had set out to support.”

In their own statement, National Puerto Rican Day Parade, Inc claimed the honor is “not an endorsement of the history that led to his arrest, nor any form of violence. But rather a recognition of a man and a nation’s struggle for sovereignty.”  While they may wish to frame his participation this way, they can not disassociate López Rivera with his actions simply out of desire to maintain focus on “the grave colonial situation in Puerto Rico.”  Even if they were able to shift perception, sponsors would then need to evaluate their support of a political struggle versus a celebration of culture and heritage.

These brands have made the decision to pull support to avoid running the risk of being aligned with the political views and practices of the honoree – they would be wise to understand the political under current of the event as well.

References:

Alvarado, C. (2017). Many Puerto Ricans are skipping the Puerto Rican Day Parade. The New York Post.  Retrieved from: http://nypost.com/2017/05/27/many-puerto-ricans-are-skipping-the-puerto-rican-day-parade/

Bever, L. (2017).  Sponsors are dropping New York’s Puerto Rican Day parade after a controversial decision. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/05/25/coca-cola-new-york-daily-news-and-others-pull-support-for-new-yorks-puerto-rican-day-parade/?utm_term=.e30a5e1c2090

Campanile, C. (2017). Cuomo, more sponsors pull out of Puerto Rican Day Parade. The New York Post.  Retrieved from: http://nypost.com/2017/05/26/cuomo-pulls-out-of-puerto-rican-day-parade-amid-uproar/

National Puerto Rican Day Parade, Inc.website. https://www.nprdpinc.org/

National Puerto Rican Day Parade, Inc. (May 12, 2017). Statement by the National Puerto Rican Day Parade, Inc. about Oscar Lopez-Rivera.  Retrieved from: https://www.nprdpinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/STATEMENT-BY-THE-NATIONAL-PUERTO-RICAN-DAY-PARADE-ABOUT-OSCAR-LO%CC%81PEZ-RIVERA-.pdf

Toure, M. (2017). NYC Mayor defends Puerto Rican Day Parade honor for nationalist Oscar López Rivera. Observer. Retrieved from: http://observer.com/2017/05/de-blasio-puerto-rican-nationalist-parade-oscar-lopez-rivera-freedom-hero/

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Advertising Teen Suicide for Publicity

Posted on May 29, 2017 by Eren

Disclaimer: Triggering content below regarding suicide.

I’d read about it on CNN and again on People Magazine. At first, I had no interest in the new show about a young teenager who commits suicide and leaves behind 13-tapes to explain why. I will preface in saying that I am not accustomed to sweeping things under the rug, or avoiding taboo topics. I talk about things. I respectfully ask hard and probing questions to understand why people feel the way they do. I am in the growing margin of people that believe mental illness, feminism and PTSD – among other things – need to be talked about, explored and de-stigmatized. Nonetheless at this stage in my life, with nieces and nephews in junior high and high school, and two young daughters at home, I decided to see what this show was about – by exploring hashtags. At the end of a trailer is a hashtag, #13reasonswhy.

I wanted to know what Netflix was marketing and how. Knowing that teens suffering from depression are 12 times more likely to attempt suicide (King & Vidourek, 2012) I was curious to see the types of ads produced for a show that covers a vulnerable demographic. I’ve read the op-ed of Writer Nic Sheff and his very personal reasons for why he fought to show the graphic way in which she took her life. I’ve also read why experts believe it is dangerous for young minds to watch. This week we covered Ethics and I am curious to know what you think about the ads – is this an Ethical gray area?

I am still undecided, and contending with the hashtag, #13reasonswhy. It’s the fastest way to spread information via social media, and with over 73% of teens actively using these mediums it seems like a brazen and irresponsible way to deliver the original series to an audience we already know is susceptible to influence (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith & Zickhur, 2010). I understand that it needed traction for the campaign. But, I am leaning towards the need to be more careful about the advertising and the channels used to market. What do you think? Could there have been another way to market this series without delivering it to the most vulnerable viewers?

References:

13 Reasons Why Writer: Why We Didn’t Shy Away from Hannah’s Suicide. (2017). VanityFair.com. Retrieved May 23, 2017 from http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/04/13-reasons-why-suicide-controversy-nic-sheff-writer

King, K., & Vidourek, R. (2012). Teen depression and suicide: effective prevention and intervention strategies. The Prevention Researcher, 15.

Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zichur, K. (2010). Social media and mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Millenials. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2-5.

Why ’13 Reasons Why’ is Dangerous. (2017). Cnn.com. Retrieved on May 4, 2017 from http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/opinions/13-reasons-why-gets-it-wrong-henick-opinion/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Feminism Sells: Helpful Or Harmful?

Posted on May 29, 2017 by Whitney

As brands are becoming more culturally aware, more empathetic advertisements have appeared in the media. Recently, there was a notable Dove campaign that received negative reviews, mostly in the form of tweets. This may surprise some of the advertising community, because Dove is known for its revolutionary body-positive content.

Source: Today

Dove’s “Real Beauty” Campaign featured its classic body wash in different shaped bottles representative of the variation of body sizes of women and men; mostly targeting women. The campaign is no longer available on Dove’s website, but screen captures of the two-week old spread still haunt the web.

Accompanying the diverse bottles were descriptions of each shape, complete with a name to identify with. It appears these personas were meant to appeal to those that are insecure about their body and empower them to embrace what they have.

Source: Viral Thread

The public was quick to comment on these bottles, poking fun at Dove’s attempt to connect with their feminine market. Parodies can still be viewed on Twitter and Youtube.

Source: Bladed Thesis

Source: Business Insider

Some speculate that Dove was using feminism to market their product, but it seems to be working for the skin care line. According to Morning Consult (2017) and Fortune (2017), only a minuscule amount of consumers polled were offended by ‘Real Beauty’ to the point that they no longer want to purchase Dove products. A majority of viewers still prefer the classic bottle shape over “Real Beauty” bottles. Whether this campaign was ultimately helpful or harmful for the brand is still up in the air. Polls seem to point to helpful as media outlets are still buzzing about its impact.

Source: Morning Consult

There is no doubt Dove leverages feminism to convey it’s product, similar to a clothing line’s Fall 2016 collection debut.

Source: Glamour

Does H&M’s “She’s a Lady Ad” Ad come across as offensive by playing the subtle feminism card? As Dove experienced minor controversy shortly after releasing its campaign, there were also mixed reviews of H&M. Many audiences believed it was more empowering than offensive. Ad Week (2016) praised “She’s A Lady” for being authentic with a nod to agency Forsman & Bodenfors and trans actress Hari Nef. The message conveyed by this brand was women from all walks of life redefine the modern diverse woman (Glamour, 2016). According to Babe (2016), this company was discontinuing its plus size clothing and continues to employ refugees. Their identity doesn’t seem to nod towards their diverse message. Do you recall any other ads that use feminism to promote a brand?

References

Bamber, S. (2016). H&M’s ‘Lady’ campaign is hypocritical, not empowering. Babe. Retrieved from https://babe.net/2016/09/22/hms-lady-campaign-991

Farber, M. (2017, May 17). People still love Dove despite body-shaped bottle controversy, poll shows. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2017/05/17/dove-body-shaped-bottles-poll/

Logan, E. (2016, Sep. 16). Watch H&M’s stunning, relatable, subtly feminist new “she’s a lady” ad. Glamour. Retrieved from http://www.glamour.com/story/h-and-m-shes-a-lady-fall-2016-campaign

Monllos, K. (2016, Sep. 16). H&M’s stunning new ad subverts what you think a lady should look or act like. Adweek. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/creativity/hms-stunning-new-ad-subverts-what-you-think-lady-should-look-or-act-173487/

Nichols, L. (2017, May 17). Many still love Dove despite mixed reaction to body-shaped bottles. Morning Consult. Retrieved from https://morningconsult.com/2017/05/17/many-still-love-dove-brand-despite-mixed-reaction-body-shaped-bottles/

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

He Was Only Smoking Pot…

Posted on May 29, 2017 by Rachel

There you are, sitting at the café around the corner from work on your lunch break with your coworkers when “that topic” comes up. You can insert your own “that topic”, but we all know those conversations that may start innocent enough, but turn into something bigger, maybe even an argument which leaves you less than hungry for your lunch.

These arguments stem from beliefs we all have, what is right and what isn’t. What’s “acceptable” varies by person. So how do you market to consumers whose beliefs range from one end of the ethical spectrum to the other and who sets the standard of what’s considered ethical?

The American Marketing Association lays ground work for the norms of ethical standards in advertising. The three main points they focus on are:

1. Do no harm

2. Foster trust in the marketing system

3. Embrace ethical values

It’s the third that creates a gray area that marketers are forced to operate in. Spelled out verbatim from the site, embracing ethical values “means building relationships and enhancing consumer confidence in the integrity of marketing by affirming these core values: honesty, responsibility, fairness, respect, transparency and citizenship.” But don’t core values differ from consumer to consumer?

One example that comes to mind when thinking about this marketing challenge (and actually inspired this blog) is Subway’s choice of spokespeople. The catastrophe involving Jared Fogle is an unarguable fracture in ethical values and his actions were inexcusable. Subway made the obvious decision to cut ties immediately. However, the company took a stance on the ethical position of Micheal Phelps’ controversial photo with him smoking marijuana from a device was not enough to end his relationship with the sandwich chain. Their statement? “…like most Americans, we accept his apology. Moving forward, he remains in our plans.”

While the popularity of the legalization of marijuana was recorded by a Gallup poll in 2015, 58% of those surveyed were in favor, that same poll listed 44% thought it should be legal in 2009 when the incident occurred. But at the end of the day, marijuana wasn’t legal, so didn’t he commit an illegal act and present a tarnished image most parents wouldn’t want their children to look up to? What laws become acceptable to break by apologizing and what illegal actions are considered unethical? His actions created dialog from those who thought his actions were acceptable and punishments were too harsh to those who felt his role model status shouldn’t be taken so lightly. By continuing to use Micheal Phelps as a spokesperson, Subway made a statement to consumers that they didn’t think his actions were improper enough to cause them to cut ties therefore continuing to use him and condoning his behavior.  

This example leads us to understand the decisions marketers face…how far should we go and what will be acceptable to consumers? Some company’s products, such as condoms, and specific target audience may set the parameters for the level of riskiness to which marketers need to stretch. However, there’s a thin line between edgy and ethical which moves according to the message’s acceptance among the majority of the audience. In a world where advertising hits an average consumer over 5000 times daily, getting those consumers’ attention may require towing this line.

Going down this edgy path leads companies to an obvious risk: offending the consumer. But, if in the example previously mentioned, American’s were offended by Phelps’ actions, it didn’t seem to slow down Subway sales enough to make headlines other than to call it a “snag”. Everyone seemed to have moved on and began cheering him on as he returned to his Olympic swimming and Subway eating. In fact, there isn’t even a mention of the incident on his Wikipedia page.

Marketers just need to follow one rule when it comes to ethics. Offend the least amount of people and you’ll be fine.

 

References:

Brandau, M. (2103). Study: Subway ads succeed by relating to consumers. Nation’s Restaurant News. Retrieved from: http://www.nrn.com/advertising/study-subway-ads-succeed-relating-consumers

Hague, S. & Bradford, H. (2009). Michael Phelps Controversy. The Observer. Retrieved from: http://www.fordhamobserver.com/michael-phelps-controversy/

Johnson, S. (2014). New Research Sheds Light on Daily Ad Exposures. SJ Insights. Retrieved from:  https://sjinsights.net/2014/09/29/new-research-sheds-light-on-daily-ad-exposures/

Jones, J. (2015). In U.S., 58% Back Legal Marijuana Use. Gallup. Retrieved from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/186260/back-legal-marijuana.aspx

Retrieved from: https://archive.ama.org/Archive/AboutAMA/Pages/Statement%20of%20Ethics.aspx

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Creating Digital Realities: The Difference Between VR, AR & MR

Posted on May 29, 2017 by Krystina

source: blog.intrepid.io

Last week I attended a community meeting for the Creating Reality AR/VR Hackathon being sponsored in part by USC, taking place in November, for anyone interested in participating in or helping to organize the event. As I listened to each speaker detail categories the event may consist of in the areas of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) and merged or mixed reality (MR), it occurred to me that I could only vaguely differentiate between these technolgies. After some much needed research on the subjects, this piece aims to serve as a review of the key differences in VR, AR and MR to better understand the various realities being presented.

Virtual reality (VR), the most well known of the three categories, is essentially immersion into a digital environment altogether with no interaction with the physical world (Wojciechowski & Cellary, 2013). In Virtual Reality Top Five Insights for Communicating Professionals, on whether or not VR is going through another fad phase since it’s inception in the 1980’s, James Berg, Senior Digital Planner and Insight Executive at PR agency Ketchum stated “the novelty of it will pass. And that’s a good thing. Currently brands can connect with consumers using VR as a novelty.”

Once the novelty has worn off, he continues, “another, perhaps more plausible example of a business application would be a broker enabling a real estate buyer to walk-through a virtual London town house or New York City penthouse from anywhere in the world. Or how about a clothing retailer that allows users to browse the racks and, by tapping the headset, add items to their cart.” I experienced a virtual reality home tour at Posible LA’s Entrepreneur Summit through Century 21’s virtual tour of homes all over the United States.

Augmented reality (AR), often used in confusion with virtual reality, builds on the same concept of using digital content as virtual reality, but this content is then overlaid onto a physical environment such as a kitchen, grocery store or a game overlaid on a map. In augmented reality, a real-time interplay between physical environments and digital information occurs (Wojciechowski et. al, 2012). The key difference between augmented and virtual reality is that AR overlays digital information in a real environment (Liberati, 2016), unlike virtual reality which requires complete immersion of the senses with digital content (Bower, et. al, 2013).

Merged or mixed reality (MR) is seen by some as just another incarnation of augmented reality, however where augmented reality consists of any information overlaid onto a physical surface, merged or mixed reality offers integration between the two by allowing interaction with the digital content. According to Wired Magazine’s AR, VR, MR: Making Sense of Magic Leap and the Future of Reality, Peter Rubin states “in augmented reality, there are virtual objects overlaid on top of real objects, but they’re just little suspended movies—you can’t interact. Once you can interact with those not-really-there objects, that’s the realm of mixed reality.” Online education company Pluralsight notes this shift means that “users use natural interactions to manipulate the digital world and they can be in any room, using any surface,” through technology such as Microsoft’s Hololens.

Source: Nanylyze.com

Interplay between and immersion in digital environments can create innovative experiences through meaningful interactions versus reading about or watching someone else’s experience (Kesim & Ozarslan, 2012; Liberati, 2016). Such applications have been tested in various industries such as medicine, robotics and entertainment since the 1990’s and has more recently been tested in education to explore learning through augmented reality applications and their effects on engaging students (Bower, et. al, 2013).

The various realities offer ways to connect with digital content, each with its own unique way to relay the user experience. Some applications use interactive objects which contain programmed information while others require users to complete tasks in various environments (Carmigniani, et. al, 2011). Virtual reality replaces the real world with a virtual world and augmented reality overlays content onto the real world. Mixed reality can transport users to a virtual world with overlaid content, but also allows for interaction with this content, such as manipulating holograms. The combination of these factors and many others prove the multifaceted digital reality experiences are here to stay.

Here are some examples of current applications of the technologies:

Virtual Reality

Björk Digital: Sonic dreams become virtual reality in downtown L.A.
“The exhibit has three distinct components. The first features six virtual reality experiences made for her most recent album, “Vulnicura,” which transport viewers in custom headsets to far-flung and unexpected places including a windswept beach in Iceland and the interior of the singer’s mouth.”
– L.A. Times

Google AR and VR efforts in the retail sector with virtual shopping tech
“Daydream, Google’s VR platform, will allow users to try out clothes and furniture virtually. On Wednesday, the company announced that Daydream will incorporate Google’s augmented reality platform Tango. The company showed examples of a partnership with San Francisco-based clothing company Gap Inc. for an AR app that lets users visualize themselves in outfits.”
– Biz Journals

Augmented Reality

Lowe’s unveils AR app for in-home projects
“Lowe’s has been aggressively developing new technologies, in fact, just a few months ago Lowe’s announced a Vision app leveraging Tango, but that app was targeted more at in-store navigation and needs.This app is targeted for use outside of the physical Lowe’s store. It’s about as close as you can get to buying the thing, having it delivered, installing it and seen it in the space — except the app takes all the nervousness, risk and mystery out of the equation.”
– Retail Dive

Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

What’s in a Word?

Posted on May 28, 2017 by lbmurphy

From rattlers to disrupters, and synergy to ideate, how do you keep up with the latest buzzwords? I have a hard enough time tracking the newest fashions, let alone knowing whether or not the professional terms I hear are more tired and overused than relevant, applicable, or on trend. Where do these words come from, and do they even matter?

In “The Origins of Business Speak” Green (2014) explains how the history of business terminology was driven by the need to increase efficiency and maximize profits by emotionally engaging workers. As the focus shifted from maximizing production to understanding worker motivations, different movements in the professional world launched buzzwords that conveyed the business environment. Academics and business consultants were hired to develop corporate cultures, and they created expressions such as paradigm shift, sync up, synergy, and low-hanging fruit to better communicate and differentiate company attributes. When greed ruled the financial industry in the 1980’s, terms like bottom line, value-add, and leverage promoted the mindset of Wall Street. Human resource departments also started to use words such as streamline and operational efficiencies to soften their plans of cutting jobs and laying off employees.

The internet age has been a game changer with respect to the proliferation and expansion of innovative buzzwords. Thought leaders in various industries have established new words or fresh ways in which they are used. Where was the chad before the 2000 election? In 2004, blog was selected as the word of the year by Merriam-Webster (Kiger, 2015). For several decades, military sayings including marketing campaigns, business tactics, and executional plans for target audiences ruled the boardrooms (Storlie, 2015). In recent years, storytelling has been a emphasized as a more experiential way of communicating corporate branding, creativity, and strategies. As companies seek to think outside the box and make more of an impact, office speak has responded by adapting language to highlight more positive, even musically inspired words. Companies amplify their messages to have a cadence of promotional beats with consumers.

So what are your favorites buzzwords? Are there any terms you use despite your best intentions? Interestingly, online searches provide lists of which buzzwords you should use or not abuse every year; but while one list advises against using an overused word like synergy, another article validates its importance (Boitnott, 2016; Lazauskas, 2015). When it comes to office speak, “everyone makes fun of it, but managers love it, companies depend on it, and regular people willingly absorb it” (Green, 2015). Love them or hate them, I believe that buzzwords provide an effective way to communicate and identify with your company’s unique positioning along with your own personal brand.

References:

Boitnott, J. (2016). You still need to use these 20 smart business buzzwords. Inc. Retrieved from  https://www.inc.com/john-boitnott/you-still-need-to-use-these-20-smart-business-buzzwords.html

Green, E. (2014). The origins of business speak. The Atlantic. Retrieved from  https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/04/business-speak/361135/

Half, R.(2015).  IT humor: no buzzword left behind. Robert Hal Technology.  Retrieved from https://www.roberthalf.com/technology/blog/it-humor-no-buzzword-left-behind

Kiger, P. (2015). The 2000s: 10 words that define a decade. National Geographic. Retrieved from http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/the-2000s-a-new-reality/articles/2000s-10-words-that-define-a-decade/

Lazauskas, P. (2015). 10 marketing terms you’re going to hear way too much of this year. The Content Strategist. Retrieved from https://contently.com/strategist/2015/01/14/10-content-marketing-buzzwords-youre-going-to-hear-way-too-much-this-year/

Pilon, A. (2015). 30 business buzzwords you should stop using. Small Business Trends. Retrieved from https://smallbiztrends.com/2015/02/business-buzzwords-to-avoid.html

Storlie, C. (2015). Military tactics that matter in marketing. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2015/01/26/military-tactics-that-matter-to-marketing/#7f5f464f3bce

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

The Hard Choice: Ethical Marketing Can Cause a PR Nightmare

Posted on May 27, 2017 by Dulcey

In the last week of November 2016, breakfast food company Kellogg Co. decided to pull its ads from Breitbart.com after receiving complaints from customers about seeing Kellogg’s ads there (Hensch, 2016). Kellogg Co. spokeswoman Kris Charles said, “We regularly work with our media-buying partners to ensure our ads do not appear on sites that aren’t aligned with our company values” (Hensch, 2016).

It is not uncommon for companies that use programmatic advertising to buy large scale media placement packages and not necessarily know where all ads are placed (Giammona & Smith, 2016), but it is easy to filter certain websites, like porn sites, if they want to (Birkner, 2016). For Kellogg, Breitbart was an undesirable match for its line of breakfast cereals and other food products.

In her November 2016 “Buy the Way” blog post, “Kristin” explained how programmatic advertising works and the dilemma brands face in using them. I would like to continue the conversation she started by delving into the complicated challenges for brands when they do take an ethical stance regarding programmatic advertising, and are then vulnerable to calculated revenge.

Not long after its announcement, Kellogg Co.’s decision to ban ads from Breitbart was bolstered by the creation of an activist twitter and Facebook account called Sleeping Giants. The Sleeping Giants Facebook account says it is “dedicated to stopping racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and homophobic news sites by stopping their ad dollars. Because of ‘programmatic’ ad buying, many companies don’t even know they are appearing on these sites. We inform them and help them with advice on taking their ads down” (Sleeping Giants, 2017).

Sleeping Giants does this by posting and sharing screen shots of corporation ads on the Breitbart site to let the company and their customers know of the placement, and to broadcast social pressure so that companies are encouraged to make an ethical choice. Whether or not it was because of Sleeping Giants, by late year 2016 many other companies had also banned ads from Breitbart, including 3M, Patagonia, Zappos (Kennedy, 2017), Allstate, Nest, EarthLink, Warby Parker and SoFi (Giammona &Smith, 2016; Hensch, 2016). Above is a screen shot photo of an Amazon ad on Breitbart that was shared on Sleeping Giants’ Facebook page March 29, 2017.

Because Breitbart.com does not rely on subscriptions for revenue (Giammona & Smith, 2016), the news site recognized the very real damage this type of social activism, paired with corporate response, could have on its business model. The editors came out swinging.

Within days of Kellogg’s decision, Breitbart created the campaign #dumpkellogg, asking readers to boycott the brand (Walker, 2016) and stating the decision by Kellogg “represent[s] an escalation in the war by leftist companies like Target and Allstate against conservative customers whose values propelled Donald Trump into the White House” (Breitbart, 2016). Breitbart also characterized Kellogg’s decision as “bigoted and anti-American” (Breitbart, 2016) and published critical stories about the brand, such as “SHOCK: Amnesty International Blasts Kellogg’s for Using Child Labor-Produced Ingredients” (Kennedy, 2016). Breitbart readers could also sign a boycott-Kellogg petition, which had 400,000 signatures by December 9 (Walker, 2016).

In the ensuing weeks, Kellogg endured a social media outcry from Breitbart readers, and the boycott caused Kellogg’s social media sentiment to plummet 75 percent, according to audience data company Taykey (Birkner, 2016). But Kellogg also received accolades in the news media and some consumers vowed to make all-Kellogg donations to soup kitchens (Kennedy, 2017).

The question this story illuminates is whether or not Kellogg Co. would or should make the same decision again, if given a do-over. Does the resulting social media crisis matter, if the company is well aligned with brand identity? To what extent do ethical choices need to also serve the insatiable drive for profit and shareholder value? What do you think?

I believe it is crucial for companies to be loyal to the brand identity, even if it means sustaining a negative backlash. Doing the right thing for the brand is paramount. The Kellogg Co. example illustrates that even when companies make the right ethical choice for the brand, they must also brace for the fierce backlash of opponents.

References

Birkner, C. (2016, Dec. 12). How New Balance, Pepsi and Kellogg’s were impacted by Trump controversies. Adweek. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/how-new-balance-pepsi-and-kelloggs-were-impacted-trump-controversies-175072/

Breitbart News. (2016, Nov. 30). #DumpKelloggs: Breakfast brand blacklists Breitbart, declares hate for 45,000,000 readers. Breitbart. Retreived from http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/30/dumpkelloggs-kelloggs-declares-hate-45-million-americans-blacklisting-breitbart/

Giammona, C., & Smith, G. (2016, Nov. 29). Kellogg pulls ads from Breitbart amid hate-speech concerns. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-29/kellogg-pulls-ads-from-breitbart-amid-concerns-about-hate-speech

Hensch, M. (2016, Nov. 29). Kellogg yanks ads from Breitbart. The Hill. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/homenews/news/307970-kellogg-yanks-ads-from-breitbart

Kennedy, P. (2017, Jan. 7). How to destroy the business model of Breitbart and fake news. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/opinion/sunday/how-to-destroy-the-business-model-of-breitbart-and-fake-news.html?_r=0&referer=http://m.facebook.com

Sleeping Giants. (n.d.). About Us [Facebook page]. Retrieved May 27, 2017, from https://www.facebook.com/pg/slpnggiants/about/?ref=page_internal

Walker, R. (2016, Dec. 9). Breitbart treats Kellogg to its smash-mouth style. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/breitbart-treats-kellogg-to-its-smash-mouth-style

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments