In app purchases

   Last week my blog post hosted concerns on the changing society of America and how these changes reflect a company's marketing strategies.  This week we'll look at the a trend I've noticed in apps stores in recent years.  Everybody knows some apps are free and some you have to pay for.  The latter has actually come as a more preferred option now a days because an app you pay for up front is less likely to include in app purchases.  In app purchases are extremely inconvenient for users.  Imagine downloading an app that in some cases literally boasts the word FREE on its front, and finding out that about 60% of the content is Locked away and needs paying for.  This border line leans on false advertising in my opinion, as ALL "free", apps literally say the word free where the price is normally listed.  Imagine getting a jacket for free and wearing it for a while only to have a sales rep magically appear out of thin air when you try and use one of the pockets, and saying " that'll be 99 cents".  Even worse are addictive App Store games that are literally rigged and unplayable unless the player spends money at some point.  It's a very cheap and low marketing technique to ambush your customer base with charges and fees they are lead to believe they won't experience.  Finally we have the paid apps that still have in app purchases.  These can be the worst of all, as the customer is essentially paying a fee so that they can be charged again at a later date.  I don't know of anyone who wouldn't want to pay everything up front, even if it meant the app would be more expensive.  The worst example of this sales technique however is in the console gaming industry, where relatively the same practice has been dubbed "micro transactions".  Console games are not like iPhone or android games.  They are much more expensive and have a much more serious customer base.  The customers however are still treated the same way as the customers of the simple phone games.  Now, games that cost 60$ up front are littered with 99 cent charges to complete the game faster and gain progress over in gain opponents.  Doesn't sound very fun does it? Play a game you paid 60$ for only to have someone your playing against in the game spend REAL money in order to get ahead.  Everything mentioned earlier can theoretically be written off as lousy marketing but a 60$ game that you have to spend MORE money on? Nope, not for me, I'll take my 20 year old Super Nintendo over that any day

Week 14 Blog Post

Week 14 blog post 

 

This week my post will go into the influences of demographics on a business's marketing campaign and how our quickly changing society has and will effect marketing in the future.  This past week has been a rough one for the rational human being.  Attacks in Paris and abroad have rocked most of the world and protest and division loom on some of our university campuses.  What does this all mean for marketing? The college protests stem from fear of racial injustice and inequality.  As a result of this fear some people are calling for more control over the free speech of individuals and this call for censorship is rightly returned with outrage by most others.  This country is more divided and confused than it has been in years.  Who a person is and what they say is under much more scrutiny than ever before.  This means the messages of a business, just like the messages of a person, must be carefully decided and evaluated.  We have presidential candidates who won't even utter much less entertain the term "radical Islam", for fear of backlash.  The type of society we're living in can take something that isn't even meant offensive and claim it is offensive (if the  person in question is part of the right interest group).  This amount of distrust and division can really affect how a company markets it's products.  Maybe a company ceases to market diet drinks to women simply because it fears accusations of sexism.  Maybe a company wastes money marketing muscle building protein shakes to women for the same fears.  Maybe a company ceases to provide its products for a church because it doesn't want to been seen or accused biased to any religion.  In other words, companies are entering a time where the demographic of their product matters less, and the "equality" of their marketing matters more.  They will eventually be forced to market products to virtually any type of person, in order to keep people from feeling "left out".  The real question stands, is it real "equality" when you go out of your way to achieve it? Or is the fabrication of forced equality making things even worse.  

My last blog post focused on nostalgic type marketing with the actual brand of the product in question.  Such as a clothing company that makes modern clothes having a vintage style logo to capitalize on the trends that make the "vintage style" popular.  This week, I'll write on two types of marketing strategies and branding techniques that dominate most industries. Simple products meant to sell quickly, and complicated products meant to be high in revenue return.  Remember the cellphone for elderly people, the "Jitterbug".  It was marketed as a simple product targeted to people who might be intimidated by the complicated features of a modern phone.  The jitterbug done well in sales due to this simple approach.  Sometimes a product can be marketed with simplicity and functionality in mind and sold for a lot less money.  The product is still profitable despite its low sales price due to the increased volume of sales.  This is a valuable marketing strategy as because the customer expects less of the product than they would of a more expensive one.  "I dropped and broke my flip phone yesterday", sounds better than " I think dropped and broke my iPhone yesterday".  Sometimes, people don't want to over buy.  They feel they only need a product that has a limited amount of features and gimmicks. The flip phone can also be easily replaced by the company without damaging the company's image because the customer didn't expect perfect quality when they bought such a cheap phone.  The company can make up for loss revenue on returned items by selling more items as a whole.  The other marketing strategy revolves around opposite goals.  This strategy focuses on selling less products for more of a markup and strictly avoiding product failure and dealing with returns.  This strategy relies on statements like "oh these pictures I took with my iPhone camera look so great!!!" And " this flip phone camera sucks!!!!!!"  Lots of customers DO want the features and gimmicks, and will pay much more for them.  Companies following this strategy will have to be more careful about what they sell to their customer, as the customer will be more picky. And if the products being sold are not working as described, then customers will quickly stop paying the high price. Non the less it's a valuable marketing strategy used by lots of companies every day.  Both of these strategies are valuable routes for businesses in today's market as there are many different types of customers and target markets.  However in my opinion, a good strategy will implement a combination of both.  

Blog post 12

Nostalgic style logos seem to have become the norm within our current trends.  Earlier today, I noticed some jeans for sale at an apartment store that had been "aged".  They had also been given a period correct logo to go with the aging process.  Despite the worn look, these were definatly not inexpensive items of clothing.   People are really paying now a days for the "worn in" look.  The logic behind this is that people feel a sense of pride and accomplishment  when they completely exhaust an item of it's usefulness.  By purchasing something that already looks worn out, they get to have that type of satisfaction right away.  It is also easier for the customer to get an emotional attachment to an aged item.  It's uniqueness and custom look sets the item apart for the customer and gives them a sense of individuality.  This is more how the trend starts.  People are wearing the clothing whether they like it or not because it's trendy.  This is a perfect opportunity for business owners to capitalize on.  Vintage themed merchandise is more form than function.  At times it can be easier to produce, cheaper and sold for more money because of the high demand.  My point however doesn't lie in the product, but in the logo.  Coke Cola has had the same logo for almost it's entirety of existence.  Knowing this I think it's safe to say that coke has a "vintage" logo.  The coke you drink however is new.  It is not an old product.  The coke formula had been tweaked slightly over the years and many ingredients have been substituted for more modern ones.  So if the formula is modern, and the logo is nostalgic, then from cokes example we can deduce that the customer likes the combination.  The old logo gives a perception that the customer is receiving a time tested and classic product, but the modern formula makes sure that the customer has an up to date product.  This model can be applied to a number of different industries. Just like the clothing example I sited at the beginning.  It's imperative for business owners that they are always looking at these trends and keeping up with the times. And as of right now, people love the classic look.  

My last post concerned the versatility of a logo and its ability to apply to different forms of marketing.  However a logo can't be too flexible. For it might not represent it's product well enough to create a recognizable image.  Unilever is a huge company making many different types of toiletry products, but their company is known more so by its underlings like Dove and Axe.  These smaller brand names make up different variations of the same thing.  The shampoo formula in a Dove product might be nearly identical to the formula in the Axe product.  However the actual company. Unilever, could charge more or less for each version, and have completely different target markets.  This brings to my point. Sometimes it's better to have a parent company controlling your brand and create a whole other name to go for another market. In the case of "Salt Life", It might have been better to create whole new line dubbed "Snow Life", and trademark both under a semi unknown new name.  This way the same company can hit two markets with less risk of disgracing the the whole company's name, if one of the brands fails the original can stay intact.  This is a much better business model than keeping the whole of all products under one brand, and trying to create a versatile logo that applies to all products.  

Today my blog post will touch on the versatility of a company's logo.  There have been many successful brand logos through out history.  However all but a few can fall under the category of versital.  By versital, I mean a logos abilities to be placed in positions the product it represents would never be.  These days, clothing is an incredible resource of marketing for a company to utilize.  For clothing company's it's amazing, for every product you sell, you also create a walking advertisment.  Take "Salt Life", this company has been wildly successful in selling the salt life brand to beach goers every summer.  This is unfortunately a very seasonal venture for the company in some areas.  To combat this, salt life has been releasing winter clothing for people to use in a more seasonal manner, even introducing some camouflage wear targeting hunters.  This branch of the salt life line has been profitable but not at the level of their beach wear.  The logo "salt life" is just not versital enough to be used in another setting and in reality the logo doesn't even make sense.  I cannot blame the company for trying, but why not just use the marketing power of the brand thar already exists to push a new brand owned by the same company that's just developed for the rest of the seasons.  When designing a company logo, I feel this problem can be completely diverted by making the logo distinctive and representative of the product, but loose and versatile enough to market the product in other applications.  Let's take three successful logo examples and compare.  We'll start with facebook.  Probably as simple of a logo as any, it doesn't look quite right anywhere but the Facebook website.  Would anyone want to wear a tee shirt with the facebook logo on it? How about a hat.....on second thought it probably wouldn't fit, or look appealing to any Facebook user.  This doesn't mean Facebook has a bad logo, it just means that Facebook is limited in its ability to market it's name in comparison to other companys.  For instance, Coke Cola. Coke is the 4th most valuable brand in the world and has a slightly more versatile logo than facebook.  Though still not incredibly appealing, Coke is to this day placed on tee shirts and hats, and in the past it was used on coolers and lunchboxes because the logo was designed in a way that made it appealing in other areas besides coke bottles.  This type of marketing has led to Coke being one of the most widely consumed drinks in the world.  Success like Cokes can only be compared to Forbes number one most valuable brand, Apple.  Apple has a logo that is recognizable almost anywhere.  Its a simple chrome apple with a single bite taken out of it. Every apple device ships with a sticker of this apple for the consumer to place wherever they wish.  Lots of people place it on their car, bycycle or backpack, giving apple marketing from the people using its product just like Salt Life.  Now, not many people will be willing to walk around with a hat or tee shirt that has a big chrome apple on it.  However the company's slogan," think differently" is just as easily placed on a tee shirt as coke cola is. The apple brand is flexible enough to be put on something other than a computer, think about other computer companies.  Would you wear a shirt with windows 10 written on it?  Probably not.  How about a hat that said IBM?  Apple and Coke do something that is very important for a company to do in regards to marketing.  They create an attitude and environment for their products that causes their customers to be drawn in with an undying sence of brand loyalty.

Blog post 8

My first blog post spoke of Apple's marketing campaign that uses product disposability in order to generate sales.  This business model spews over into many other markets.  One market being automotive manufacturing.  Volkswagen for example, has a car with a turbocharger and a supercharger installed on the same engine.  Volkswagen touts this as a selling point. An extremely efficient and modern engine that's ahead of its class.  This might be ok if the customer has deep pockets.  However the average person buying a new car probably wants it to be very reliable and cheap to fix when it breaks down.  An engine with two forced induction methods is an extremely delicate setup.  The car might get 40mpg right off the lot, but after hard use, its complicated parts can come out of adjustment and destroy the engines efficiency, requiring precise mechanical adjustment. Often only available at a dealer.  It's no coincidence that the same type of people willing to shell out big bucks at the Apple Store every year will do the same when their Volkswagen hits above 50,000 miles on the odometer.  It's a marketing strategy both companies and many more share.  Trick your customer into buying a complicated and expensive product with the false insight that the product is better because of its complexity.  The product shows its age quicker and the customer buys a new one quicker.  An added bonus is the companies ability to charge a high amount to service the product with the products complexity preventing third party servicing.  With Apple, your buying the logo, with Volkswagen, it's the same story.  

Movie ads

Working at the movies,  I see a lot of different types of marketing.  Probably the biggest place to see marketing at the theater is on the big screen itself.  If a movie is scheduled to start at 7:00, then this really means that the movie starts at 7:20, because we put 20 minuets of previews after the scheduled time in order to attract more customers for our ads.  Not so long ago, these 20 minuets were filled with 90% movie previews and maybe one or two ads for local businesses.  This has greatly changed, now on average, the customer will see no local ads and about ten minuets of previews.  The rest is what you would equate to television commercials.  Now, you can see an ad for anything from toothpaste to Fedex.  Bigger companies have realized the opportunity that sits on the screen of every hometown theater, and boy are they cashing in.  It's actually given customers a little more to watch.  Theater commercials are often more humorous than ones shown on tv.  They can also be longer and can correspond directly with the type of audience that's viewing the movie.  If it's an R rated movie, then theoretically, you can show R rated commercials.  It's also more efficient for the company being advertised.  People tend to pay attention to the theater ads more than the ones on television.  Society can literally fast forward through ads with a DVR.  Movie ads however work out for everyone, the theatre makes money, the company gets advertisement, and the customer enjoys it. Everybody wins!

 No one likes ads.  Or well, I thought I didn't.  I actually considered myself  at one time to be an individual that was immune to commercial offers and recommendations.  This however has changed with the crafty advent of Youtube ads.  I don't know what it is, but I can watch TV all day and won't notice a single ad that plays, much less be interested.  YouTube however shows me multiple ads worth watching every time I go on.  After giving it some thought, I see some differences that explain YouTube's effectiveness.  With YouTube, you get an ad of some sort every time you click on a video, this leads to more frequent ads and thus there is more likely one that I will want to watch, the ads are also controlled by what you have been searching with Google.  This is probably the most prominate reason for my interest.  If I've been looking up woodworking all day, then YouTube is going to show me an ad for Delta power saws.  Cable TV can't do that.  There is also the aspect to YouTube knowing your age.  If I have a Youtube account, then YouTube knows if I'm old enough or not for some more mature, comedic ads that would never make it to television.  I've seen some ads that made me literally laugh out loud, but then again I would sit and think wow, they're pushing it with that one. It's interesting as well, that when watching a movie trailer with YouTube, your prompted and often successfully lured into watching a full second one before you watch the one you wanted.  You get twice the trailer for just the one click.  Seeing all this it's got me thinking, does YouTube exist for the videos or for the ads.  Yep, that ones a no brainer.  Looking at YouTube from a marketing standpoint and its a gold mine. No wonder Google's so rich.  

Blog Post 3

Keeping with the subject of my last post, internet marketing, this post discusses the actual terminology associated with this kind of advertising.  One word for it is "click bait".  Scroll through Facebook for fifteen seconds and you'll see three or four different articles with "click bait" titles.  The title will read something like this, "Most people would throw these old tires away, but what this farmer does with them is amazing!!!".  This article begs you to tap or click on it, promising a wealth of information about repurposing old tires.  However, why didn't the title state just that? "How to repurpose old tires", it's more direct and less dramatic.  The reason for this dramatic title goes back to the term mentioned at the beginning of this post, "click bait".  The author of this article probably doesn't care what the article actually says, because the article doesn't exist for you to read. It exists for the ad that will be displayed below it.  This example I'm using isn't made up either, I've actually seen a very similar post about repurposing old tires, the actual content of the article however was very thrown together and un useful.  One of the "repurposing ideas" suggested making a sort of chair to have in your living room.  Making a chair out of tires is not a very researched endeavor.  Tires smell, and they will give off a black stain if brushed against clothing. Imagine inviting a girl into your home and prompting her to sit on a throne of goodyears.  Have fun buying her new pants and never seeing her again.  If the author of the article knows this, he probably doesn't care.  You clicked on the ad, and his job is done.  Who cares if the article even loads as long as the ad loads and you see it first.  You will get this experience with nearly everything you use on the Internet.  Even articles that are legitimate will carry multiple ads at every possible place on the page. This is the way the Internet works, and in reality, the way any media platform works, ads pay the bills, and the product is what ever gets the customer to see it.  

Marketing Entry

Marketing is everywhere.  Want to have an atmosphere free of advertisements? Go to sleep. Companies have to get their name out and promote their products whilst also having to generate a positive and inviting ad that isn't too pushy with the patron.  Most businesses in this day and age are going into developed markets where brand and company perception is everything. Take the soft drink industry.  Coke and Pepsi are both strong leaders and any company wishing to enter their market must do so by creating an extremely positive perception of their company and product.  There isn't much physical innovation to be made in the soft drink industry, so any company wishing to compete with Coke and Pepsi must do so with innovations in brand advertising and customer perception. Both tasks would be extremely daunting considering both Coke and Pepsi have high brand loyalty.  Thus, a company entering this market or similar markets would need to create brand loyalty without over advertising to the customer.  This brings me to the point of this blog.  Remember the IOS/Droid game "Candy Crush"? Very popular game with lots of people playing.  I can remember seeing random ads for this game on my phone and the whole internet in general.  This subtle advertising,(and clever coding of an addicting game) propelled this game past the thousands of other games on the app stores and made the developers tons of money through in app purchases and advertising in the game itself.  However with the success of the game, came more marketing. The developers wanted this game on every mobile device eligible to download it.  The game became aggressively marketed at every available outlet.  Soon every app that displayed third party advertisements had a candy crush ad.  It got to the point where the ads were so well known that they didn't even say "candy crush", they just had the same background with the word "click here" on the ad.  This pushy and in your face advertising turned a lot of people away from the game and, for the people who had already downloaded it, gave them an offer for a product they already had at every corner of the Internet.  For me personally, it turned an indifferent product for me into a product I despised seeing because I seen it every time I got on Facebook, ifunny, or used any internet connected app.  I became sick of the game without even playing it.  Fast forward to now, it's still a relevant game, but it's not what it used to be and for the most part it's because of the aggressive advertising.  How does this relate to someone in the soda industry as mentioned before? The lesson learned with this game actually applies to anyone entering an industry with a lot of competitors.  It's essential  to differentiate your product from other competitors, especially at start up.  But taking it too far kills brand loyalty and stops the creation of new customers.  If you see an ad for "Wonder Cola" around every corner you will eventually try it.  However after you do and everyone else does, they're gonna have an impression of your product and whether it's a good impression or not, perception will decline if advertising is taken to the level seen with "Candy Crush". 

First Blog Post

Hello,
       
I would like to write today concerning the marketing strategy of Apple corp.  People love Apple.  Anywhere you go you will see iPhones, iPods, and iMacs (iffy on this last one). Apple's marketing strategy revolves around their status as a fashion product.  People want to be seen with an Apple product whatever it may be.  The problem however with being any company in the electronics market is the odd reality that at some point you need your product to fail so that the consumer can then be sold a replacement.  With Microsoft's computer market share of around 90%,  the whole world practically uses their product, and is accustomed to their product, so Microsoft doesn't share this problem with Apple.  Apple is in a unique situation.  They want to build brand loyalty, but computers have a very small number of moving parts and we've reached a point in the industry where there aren't enough advancements to make computers obsolete.  I'm actually typing this blog on a 2009 model Dell computer.  Up until recently, I had used a laptop from 2003 that worked fine and is still working, but decided to upgrade.  Think about how things like this affect Apple.  With such a low market share, they cant afford to sell they're customers a computer once every 10 years.  Apple overcame this with the iPod.  Since the computer industry isn't really developing, they found an industry that was, the mobile music market.  Since 2001, Apple has released an annual version of their music device and raked in the sales and the market share.  How does Apple keep you coming back every year? At the start, it was with new features, maybe a new look, more storage capacity or a smaller design.  All of this changed however with the release of the iPhone.  The release of the iPhone gave the consumers a completely new device in the iPod touch, which was released with the phone.  It also gave Apple more control.  Now, enough with the history, lets get into Apples marketing.  See, Apple kinda, "dupes", its customers.  I'm not trying to offend anyone, but lets look at a scenario. (as of 2015 this analogy can be applied to most all apple products Mac/iphone/itouch/iwatch etc.)  You go to the Apple store after seeing all of the ads about the superiority of Macintosh computers, you've seen the sleek aluminum design, heard of the extremely clear HD display.  You go to see one for yourself.  This is the first piece of Apples marketing machine, the product has to look amazing.  You go into the store, (actually, your probably already sold by this point, everything here on after is just icing on the cake), and see all of the products lined on tables that actually match the product.  The entire store matches the product as well if you care to notice.  Anyway, you play with some of the computers, you enjoy the new look and feel of Mac OS, maybe you've had a bad experience with windows? Maybe you like the "different look of he computer?, or maybe you look at the price tag and assume that a higher price will ultimately return higher quality and reliability. Whatever the reason may be, you just have to have that computer and you leave the store that day with one in tow.  The first part of Apples brilliant marketing strategy has done its job, they have your money and you have your computer.  Now back to what was written earlier, How can Apple retain you?  To answer this we must look at the perception that computers depreciate physically over time.  This is a well founded viewpoint for the most part.  Most people have tried to use a slow computer and we can all agree that it is not fun.  These experiences cause people to believe that computer components have around a 5 year useful life at the most. Bought a computer in 2010? Time to upgrade? Not necessarily.  See, as written above, computers have few moving parts. A machine with fewer moving parts has less parts that can wear out.  A computer processor produced in 1995 should theoretically work just as well today as it did  20 years ago.  However, around the year 2005, something happened in the computer industry.  Computers became smart enough, smart enough for what you ask? Well smart enough to browse the web, process word documents, transfer and edit files, do pretty much the same stuff we do now 10 years later.  This is a challenge for computer companies, because now, hardware and software have both reached a sort of peak.  The only thing computer companies can do is update their operating systems to handle larger files and programs more efficiently, and watch the hardware industry do the same.  Where does this leave a company like Apple? Here we see the second stage of Apple's marketing come into play.  They have sold you a new computer, now they want you to buy a new one and the sooner the better.  Apples first move is the operating system.  To stop the spread of viruses, both Apple and Microsoft update their operating systems as a free service.  However Apple does a complete replacement of the operating system every year, this means that they have full control of the performance of your computer and they get to tweak that performance every time you update.  They claim this complete replacement is for the betterment of the customer, "more features", "faster boot/loading times", this couldn't be more false.  Apple wants your computer to slow down, not fast enough for you to notice of course, but fast enough so you think its just part of the natural process of hardware deterioration.  Apples target timeline is 4 years (2 for iphone).  Thats right!! After only 4 years of use Apple is hoping they've bloated your machine with "security and performance updates",  so that its slow and you can then be sold a new one.  This of coarse, doesn't happen with everyone, but it is Apples goal and their customers perception of computer use life is VITAL to their marketing strategy and sales.  Lets look at a best case scenario.  Going back to the analogy above, lets say that the OS updates didn't slow down the computer you purchased and it is still working perfectly 7 years later.  Here is the final part that makes apples marketing strategy possible.  Actual hardware failure.  Your using your Mac one day and all of a sudden it frezzes and turns off.  you panic and rush your machine with important data to the apple store to be repaired.  Only to find that the machine falls under Apples "vintage" hardware catagory and the Mac doctors wont touch it.  Even if they would they probably couldn't fix it.  Remember the sleek, thin, light aluminium design that sold you on day one? That design is so complicated and delicate that it is prone to breakage, this is Apples last ditch effort to get your money again.  If you had a 7 year old PC, it would've been serviceable. And you could've probably repaired it with readily available parts cheaply bought on ebay.  Or found atleast someone to do the repair. It would certainly be cheaper than buying a new computer.  Planned hardware obsolescence, this is the end result of Apples marketing strategy, bring the customer in with a different and fashionable design, slowly degrade the product internally thereby steering the customer tword a new one, and finally, as a last resort, use the very design they fell in love with to kill their machine.  By the end of this process, Apple has already released a new product that you want, with just enough new features for you to take the whole ride again and shell out the cash.  Maybe you'll gat lucky and get 7 more years of use. Or maybe, they 7mm thick casing of your new laptop doesn't provide adequate airflow and causes your computer to run hot, damaging the components only 2 years into use, or maybe, the cooling ducts clog with dust and the machine fails because you cant clean them and Apple never let you know to come by and let them clean it.  Who knows, with annual design changes, everybody has a different product so the end result is different for everyone.  As far as I'm concerned, Apple has some of the best marketing in the world.  Imagine if car companies all sold cars with the same engine, same specifications, but one company just produced a great body style, charged a lot more for it, and made it break quicker and still raked in 42.1 Billion dollars revenue. Now that would be quite a feat.