It seems that the market for healthy food expand everyday. Customers becoming more and more aware of want they eating and they don’t want to eat junk food anymore, especially women that is more careful what they eat then men. So the target is without doubt women, but I think that men might also consume the product. Flat Earth is trying to change that chips are unhealthy with their veggie flavored chips.
If you go the webpage you see green grass, blue heaven and it creates a great atmosphere like you where out in the nature. This raise the credibility for the brand, because when you think about healthy food, you think that it’s produced in a green, healthy environment. So I think Flat Earths positioning is clear.
In the Flat earth commercial you see a woman following a pig that runs around in her house. The woman ends up in her kitchen where she finds a bag of Flat Earth chips. In the end the male voice ask a question, which he answers by saying: sure, when pigs fly. And after that the pig fly’s away. The semiotic message for this commercial is that nothing is impossible anymore. You can still be successful, slim and eat chips that are healthy. The slogan “Impossibly good” might also draw attention, because how does an impossibly good crisp taste like? Flat earth is trying to add benefit to the ad by creating an experimental need for the consumer, with the impossibly good tasting and healthy chips.
I really didn’t like the commercial. When I think about pigs, I think about pork and unhealthy food. They should probablty change the pig but keep the name.
If the company was to positioning to a younger audience such as college going women, they should defiantly keep the nothing is impossible theme. They should also position the message: Flat Earth gives you that healthy boost you need during your studies. I think that it would attract the target.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Assignment 3: Ethics in Advertising
For my third assignment I’m going to discuss the ethics in advertising to for children.
Marketing an ad so it will be ethical correct is hard. It seems that no matter what somebody will always feel insulted. The line between good targeting and ethic targeting is very thin and so often crossed these days. Today see you more and more advertising to children and it are not just toys anymore. The whole children industry has expand from clothes to cell phones and iPods. And this is to children that don’t even know the real value of a dollar or any other currency. The children today watch more television that the children did 20 years ago, just as the children 20 years ago did something that their parents didn’t do. So marketing to a target like children couldn’t be easier these days with all of the commercials. The children themselves have become just another channel to get to the one with the money, the parents. By using children they have created a nag factor to get the parents to buy their products.
Some countries may have laws to prevent this sort of commercial. Like in Sweden you not allowed to advertise to children under 12 years old if it's broadcasted within the country. But there is always ways to get around laws like this. In Sweden’s case, most of the networks are not broadcast within the country. Instead it’s broadcast from the UK which doesn’t have that law.
The question is if children really need cell phones and iPods. In the end I think it’s up to the parents that decide what’s best for their children. But here is the difficult part, some parents will buy these things for their children while others won’t. That’s makes it a market for things like that and the companies will of course take advantage of the situation. But is it really ethical to try to make a child brand loyal in this early in life because that’s what they are going to be further in live? And if a child in the age of 9 can have a cell phone these days, how long is it going to take before they get a credit card? Sounds scary to me, but I think that’s the possible future we are heading towards.
In my opinion I think it’s unethical to advertising to children. They are too young to know what’s right and wrong. They are manipulating by the commercials and the ad agencies have not a hard time with their positioning. This is, of course, a shortcut for the companies instead of going to the parents right away. I think that would be a better way instead of turning to the kids. They way to prevent this kind of advertising to children would be if a global ethic advertising law was created. Only then the directives would be clearer for the seller and buyer.
Marketing an ad so it will be ethical correct is hard. It seems that no matter what somebody will always feel insulted. The line between good targeting and ethic targeting is very thin and so often crossed these days. Today see you more and more advertising to children and it are not just toys anymore. The whole children industry has expand from clothes to cell phones and iPods. And this is to children that don’t even know the real value of a dollar or any other currency. The children today watch more television that the children did 20 years ago, just as the children 20 years ago did something that their parents didn’t do. So marketing to a target like children couldn’t be easier these days with all of the commercials. The children themselves have become just another channel to get to the one with the money, the parents. By using children they have created a nag factor to get the parents to buy their products.
Some countries may have laws to prevent this sort of commercial. Like in Sweden you not allowed to advertise to children under 12 years old if it's broadcasted within the country. But there is always ways to get around laws like this. In Sweden’s case, most of the networks are not broadcast within the country. Instead it’s broadcast from the UK which doesn’t have that law.
The question is if children really need cell phones and iPods. In the end I think it’s up to the parents that decide what’s best for their children. But here is the difficult part, some parents will buy these things for their children while others won’t. That’s makes it a market for things like that and the companies will of course take advantage of the situation. But is it really ethical to try to make a child brand loyal in this early in life because that’s what they are going to be further in live? And if a child in the age of 9 can have a cell phone these days, how long is it going to take before they get a credit card? Sounds scary to me, but I think that’s the possible future we are heading towards.
In my opinion I think it’s unethical to advertising to children. They are too young to know what’s right and wrong. They are manipulating by the commercials and the ad agencies have not a hard time with their positioning. This is, of course, a shortcut for the companies instead of going to the parents right away. I think that would be a better way instead of turning to the kids. They way to prevent this kind of advertising to children would be if a global ethic advertising law was created. Only then the directives would be clearer for the seller and buyer.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Assignment 2: Analyze a Brands Identity
For my second assignment I'm going to pick a brand and analyze its identity. The brand I've chosen to analyze is the swedish furniture company, IKEA.
IKEA was founded in 1943 by Ingvar Kamprad and over the years it has grown from a little company in Älmhult, Sweden to one of the biggest furniture company in the world. IKEA is an acronym for Ingmar Kamprad Elmtaryd Agunnaryd which is the founders first and last name and his hometown.
IKEAs business idea is: to offer a wide range of home furnishings with good design and function at prices so low that as many people as possible will be able to afford them. I think IKEA have managed to position that business idea in the mind of the consumer. IKEAs brand image is associated with its business idea. When I think of IKEA I mostly think about a place where you can find everything you need for your home to a low prices. Another thing you can associate with IEKA is the flat packages and its do-it yourself concept. So IKEA has really managed to combined its brand image, brand strategy and brand position to a great mix.
The reason people buy from IKEA is that they have something for everybody; it’s not just one style but several. So it doesn’t make a difference which culture you belong to. The price may have something to do with it as well. I think most people that got their first apartment or house go to an IKEA store to buy all the necessary stuff they need for their new homes. You can get quality furniture’s to a lower price because of the do-it yourself concept. This makes the value proposition to add functional benefits to the brand.
Brand awareness shows if the customers can recall or recognize a brand. This is showed in Askers model: The brand awareness pyramid that is divided into top of mind, brand recall, brand recognition and unaware of the brands. In IKEAs case I think that it depends on which country you’re in. For example, in this origin country, Sweden, everybody knows what IKEA is and the consumer has the brand as the top of mind. Another example would be the USA, where you can find just as big (if not bigger) furniture stores like Home Depot and Furniture Row. So I think that in the USA it will be one step lower in the brand awareness pyramid, in the Brand recall stage, because of the big selection of furniture stores. I also think people in Sweden buy from IKEA are not just because they have a small selection of furniture store but also because they want to support a national company.
IKEA works with some organizations like WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) and WRI (World Resources Institute) with forest project like: save natural intact forest form being logging and also to rehabilitate forests. This makes the brand credibility higher because many of IKEAs products are made from raw material like trees.
When it comes to the logo its blue and yellow which is the color of the Swedish flag, so it’s symbolize that it’s a Swedish company. Another thought is that it could be to promote Sweden to the rest of the world.
IKEA was founded in 1943 by Ingvar Kamprad and over the years it has grown from a little company in Älmhult, Sweden to one of the biggest furniture company in the world. IKEA is an acronym for Ingmar Kamprad Elmtaryd Agunnaryd which is the founders first and last name and his hometown.
IKEAs business idea is: to offer a wide range of home furnishings with good design and function at prices so low that as many people as possible will be able to afford them. I think IKEA have managed to position that business idea in the mind of the consumer. IKEAs brand image is associated with its business idea. When I think of IKEA I mostly think about a place where you can find everything you need for your home to a low prices. Another thing you can associate with IEKA is the flat packages and its do-it yourself concept. So IKEA has really managed to combined its brand image, brand strategy and brand position to a great mix.
The reason people buy from IKEA is that they have something for everybody; it’s not just one style but several. So it doesn’t make a difference which culture you belong to. The price may have something to do with it as well. I think most people that got their first apartment or house go to an IKEA store to buy all the necessary stuff they need for their new homes. You can get quality furniture’s to a lower price because of the do-it yourself concept. This makes the value proposition to add functional benefits to the brand.
Brand awareness shows if the customers can recall or recognize a brand. This is showed in Askers model: The brand awareness pyramid that is divided into top of mind, brand recall, brand recognition and unaware of the brands. In IKEAs case I think that it depends on which country you’re in. For example, in this origin country, Sweden, everybody knows what IKEA is and the consumer has the brand as the top of mind. Another example would be the USA, where you can find just as big (if not bigger) furniture stores like Home Depot and Furniture Row. So I think that in the USA it will be one step lower in the brand awareness pyramid, in the Brand recall stage, because of the big selection of furniture stores. I also think people in Sweden buy from IKEA are not just because they have a small selection of furniture store but also because they want to support a national company.
IKEA works with some organizations like WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) and WRI (World Resources Institute) with forest project like: save natural intact forest form being logging and also to rehabilitate forests. This makes the brand credibility higher because many of IKEAs products are made from raw material like trees.
When it comes to the logo its blue and yellow which is the color of the Swedish flag, so it’s symbolize that it’s a Swedish company. Another thought is that it could be to promote Sweden to the rest of the world.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)