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.