Additions to the Marketing Concept Toolbox

One key concept that I think should be added to our Marketing Concept Toolbox is Word of Mouth, which is commonly referred to as W.O.M. Although this concept is a bit general, it comes up in every class discussion we have, many times more than once. Now that we're in the digital age, almost every textbook or article we read mentions how brands need to have a strong presence online more than ever. With that said, Word of Mouth is a vital concept in marketing.

Consumers talk- and they talk often. Whether they liked a brand, hated a brand, never want to hear about a brand again, they're talking about it. Word of mouth can be in person or online. In my opinion, word of mouth is a great way to generate brand awareness, and this is why marketers aim to get consumers talking about their brand. In class, we have discussed online review sites and how they can be make or break for some brands. Positive W.O.M. on a review site can give a company a good reputation and consumers will think favorably of their brand. On a different note, negative W.O.M. can be extremely damaging to a brand, so marketers have to try and manage this as best they can. In my opinion, people tend to share negative experiences more than they share positive ones, because like they say, "misery loves company". I can't even count the amount of times that my friends or family members have come up to me complaining about a negative shopping experience or issue they have with a brand. People are also able to spread W.O.M. to the public because of social media. Overall, generating brand awareness and having consumers spread positive W.O.M. about a brand is an instrumental part of marketing campaigns and an important concept we've covered in class regularly.

W.O.M. has a big influence on top of mind awareness, another concept we discuss in class quite a bit. Marketers aim to have consumers think of a product category, and then think of their brand as a result. For example, if someone were to ask me about athletic apparel. The first brand that comes to my mind is always Nike. Why is that? Because they've achieved top of mind awareness, or in other words, they're the brand on the "top" of my list. Top of mind awareness is another concept that is worth adding to our concept toolbox in my opinion. Many, if not all of the marketing strategies we discuss in class go back to companies wanting to achieve top of mind awareness.

I know that fear appeals are already on the marketing concept toolbox list, but I think emotional appeals overall (specifically humor appeals) are worth adding to the list as well. In class, we've discussed the importance of emotional appeals frequently, as they play a big role in creative copy within an ad. Ads that generate an emotional response have a big impact on consumers, and definitely help to generate personal connections with the brands. We've also talked quite a bit about the effects humor can have on advertising. I remember our professor saying that humor helps to lower barriers so consumers can accept the message easier.

In addition to these concepts, we've also referenced back to empirical generalizations quite a bit. One empirical generalization we seem to go back to frequently is EG #7: "brand advertising often has a short-term sales impact. This impact decays over time. The most dramatic influence on short-term effect is creative copy". Although this is a "generalization" and not so much a theory/concept, it's definitely a finding that we refer back to a lot in class and connects to most other concepts. I touched on this in one of my previous blogs as well. This empirical generalization has created a lot of conversation in our classes, and also ties back to W.O.M., top of mind awareness, and emotional appeals. Emotional appeals connect to creative copy (especially humor appeals), because they help ads stand out among all the others. Creative copy influences short-term sales impact (as the EG says), and this can have an impact on what consumers are saying about your brand via Word of Mouth, and that has an impact on whether or not your brand has achieved top of mind awareness. It's interesting to see how all of these concepts not only make great additions to our marketing concept toolbox, but they are all closely related to one another and create this "web" of connections.

Out of the box Billboards

Thursday's conversation about unique billboards was interesting to me. Stephanie told the class about how she drove by a billboard in Connecticut recently, and it appeared to be upside-down. When she knew she would be driving by the same billboard a few weeks later, she told her Mom to lookout for it. To her surprise, the billboard was no longer upside-down. Was this on purpose or to generate awareness? Personally, I think that marketers do things like that on purpose. Anything out of the box or "strange" will cause people to notice it, pay attention to it, or even (hopefully) talk about it. This goes back to the empirical generalization that states that creative copy has the greatest effect on short-term sales.

This conversation made me want to look up some more interesting, out of the box billboards. Here are some unique ones I found:









All photos were found on Google images.

Mere Exposure Effect: True or False?

In class on Thursday, the mere exposure effect was brought up as a result of our conversation about outdoor advertising. We discussed how the mere exposure effect says that we start to view things more favorably as a result of seeing it more often. However, our professor mentioned that in some cases, seeing something frequently can cause you to tune out and get sick of it. The question is, which one of these is true?

I'd say that in my personal life, I tend to agree that the mere exposure effect is accurate. I tend to think more favorably of things when I'm constantly exposed- I definitely "warm up" to topics and ideas when I become more familiar with them. I think I touched upon this in one of my previous blogs, but I tend to think positively of brands or fads when I see them being worn often. For instance, I used to think flannels were incredibly "tom-boyish" and weird. A few of my friends were always wearing them and I slowly started to warm up to them. Here I am now, wearing a flannel as I type this blog. Seeing flannels on models in advertisements has also made a positive impression on my opinion of them. I can connect this to celebrity endorsers. When people see a celebrity wearing a brand or certain type of clothing, they may think it's "cool" or "trendy". Celebrity endorsers and the mere exposure effect seem like they can both be powerful tools to persuade consumers from a marketer-standpoint.

All of this also caused me to make a connection back to selective exposure. Doesn't the mere exposure effect contradict the selective exposure effect? If I remember correctly, the selective exposure theory says that consumers tend to favor information if it goes along with their pre-existing views or ideas. The mere exposure effect seems to prove the selective exposure theory wrong. If a consumer sees a commercial for a brand repeatedly, and it goes against a pre-existing view they had, wouldn't this be saying that the mere exposure effect wouldn't hold true, and the selective exposure theory would?

Every time I look back at an old theory we learned about in Buyer Behavior and Promotional Strategy, it seems like I can contradict it with a different theory.

Is the Purchase Funnel Always Accurate?

Today in class, we analyzed the consumer Purchase Funnel. We made connections to where different social networks fall in the funnel as well as where promotional mix elements would go. This conversation about the funnel got me to start thinking about my personal experiences.

The articles we read for class suggest that Facebook and Twitter are at the top of the funnel and relate to your initial awareness. In my personal experience with Facebook, I do not think I've ever seen a Facebook post one of my friends wrote about a brand and have it spark my interest about something so much that it led me to search for information or pursue it. Yes, seeing brands on Facebook makes me knowledgeable and aware that they exist, but its a rarity that I'll see a post regarding a brand and then think about buying something from them. If I'm looking to buy a product, it's typically because I have a need for it. For instance, I need a new water bottle because my Camelback just broke (frown face). I didn't go on Facebook to browse or become aware of different water bottle brands- I went to Amazon immediately. This also goes against what we talked about in class, because Amazon is at the bottom of the funnel.

What I'm getting at, is that I'm starting to think that consumers' decision making and purchase funnel experiences are extremely subjective and different for every individual. My experiences with AIDA and purchasing things are always very different- especially depending on what kind of product I buy. I think that high involvement purchase decisions require much more thorough research and searching online than a low involvement purchase, like my water bottle for instance.

This makes me wonder- is looking at social media in relation to the purchase funnel only valid if it is a high involvement consumer situation? Are consumers more likely to seek information on social media platforms if they're highly involved, or will they just use the information presented to them as the starting point when buying things? Our class discussion has left me with a lot of questions about the model. Like I've found myself saying over and over again, I am questioning everything we've been discussing, because marketing seems so subjective. One of my professors instilled in my mind that "the only generalization you can make about advertising is that there are no generalizations to be made about advertising" (I think Stephanie touched upon this in her prep questions a few weeks back). This concept seems to hold true for marketing too, as all generalizations made about it can definitely be questioned/argued.

Peer Pressure for Consumers

Today in class, we talked about TV shows using Twitter hashtags to generate buzz on social media. We discussed how there have been cases where people will see others tweeting about a show (most likely because it is on live), and then they start tweeting about it even if they aren't watching it. My roommates are all serious One Tree Hill fans and talked about the show 24-7. Because they were always tweeting about it and talking about it in front of me, I started watching the show just so I could join in the conversation!

One of my classmates connected this to a concept she had learned in another course where people are on an elevator and are all facing the "wrong way". The study shows that people who entered the elevator went along with it and stood that way simply because everyone else was. I tried to research the technical name for this topic but was unable to find a technical term for it.

However, this idea, or phenomenon, can definitely work in a marketer's favor. If people are tweeting or even talking about a particular brand, others may start using it just to be like everyone else. This reminds me of peer pressure, but in a less serious sense. People give in to trends or fads simply because it is the "cool" or accepted thing to do in society. Think about it- did people really start buying UGG boots because they thought they looked stylish and cute? Probably not. I remember my sister came home wearing UGGs and I made fun of her for having them. The following winter, everyone was wearing them, so they started to grow on me. Soon enough, I had my own pair.

Marketers can definitely take advantage of the concept of "peer pressure" if they are targeting middle school students or teenagers. I can vividly remember these years being full of trying to "fit in" or go along with what everyone else was doing to feel "cool". Companies geared at this age group can generate a lot of hype and buzz about their brand. Once one kid starts wearing that cool brand of shoes they saw on a TV commercial, many others will soon follow.

All of these ideas and examples relate to marketing because they show how easily people can be persuaded! Consumers may end up buying something simply because they'll feel more accepted. This can relate to the attitude theory- but in a different way. If people think that others have positive attitudes about a product/brand, they may think favorably about them, and result in making a purchase. I would call this the peer pressure attitude theory.

                       

More Concepts, More Questions

Today in class, we continued to discuss empirical generalizations. We got to talking about brand advertising and how it connects to hype and buzz, as I wrote about in my last blog post. Our professor talked about how social psychology says that over time, "annoying" characteristics of an advertisement will decrease over time. He brought up the example of Jordan's Furniture and how their commercials are considered rather annoying by consumers. Despite the "annoyance" of it, people still find themselves buying furniture from them.

This goes back to the idea that creative copy will influence short-term effect of an advertisement. The creative copy, or in this case, the humor/annoyance, is generating an emotional response from the consumers. We also connected this concept to fear appeals, where marketers are also stimulating negative responses to generate a purchase. I can connect both of these ideas to the concept of mere exposure, which states that the more exposure you have to a brand's message, the more likely you are to make a purchase and generate WOM.

All of these topics make me think of the Elaboration Likelihood Model. In class, our professor posed the question, "how do you change people's attitudes?". I know that there is both a central and peripheral route to persuasion. How do the appeals mentioned above "work" on someone who is cognitively drive that would need more of a central route to persuasion? I can understand this concept for consumers, like myself, who are more emotionally driven and takes the peripheral route. With that said, do fear and humor appeals only work if a consumer is highly involved?

A lot of these questions begin to run through my mind as we talk about different concepts in class. I am starting to question what I've learned in previous marketing courses, which I'm not sure is a good or bad thing. Like our professor says, we have a "tool box" full of concepts and theories that we know about marketing thus far. The more concepts I am adding to my toolbox, the more questions I have!

Empirical Generalizations

On Thursday in class, we discussed empirical generalizations. This is a very new concept to me and I was extremely confused by them at first. The articles we read are a little wordy/confusing to me at times, so it took me a little bit of re-reading and discussing to get a grasp on what empirical generalizations are all about.

The empirical generalization I chose to "investigate" further is EG #7. This empirical generalization states that, "brand advertising often has a short-term sales impact. This impact decays over time. The most dramatic influence on short-term effect is creative copy". The beginning of this generalization is pretty self-explanatory to me and I feel like I was aware of this already. Like we discussed in class, the impact that advertising has on consumers sort-of "fades" as time goes on. 

The second part of this generalization, however, is what made me want to look further into it. Creative copy is the key to a successful advertisement. Simply putting your brand's message or purpose into words in some sort of advertisement will not create a long-term effect by any means. With the large amount of clutter out there, especially on the internet, it is really hard for brands to stand out. People are bombarded with advertisements and marketing messages that marketers must wonder, how can I create an advertising message people will remember? How can I create an advertising message that will have an effect on consumers, not just for a short-term period? 

I made a connection to hype and buzz marketing while analyzing this empirical generalization. Buzz marketing is essential in today's day and age. Social media allows for so many people to say whatever they want online for millions of other people to see. Marketers need to create buzz with everything they do- the best way to get your message across is to get people talking about it. Having that creative copy, perhaps saying something ridiculous or out of the ordinary, will definitely influence the short-term effects of an advertisement.  

This also has me thinking about commercials. I know commercials don't necessarily have "copy", but they definitely have room for creativity. For instance, the Hump Day commercials from Geico had people talking for weeks. Yes, the impact it had on me was relatively short-term, but I still remember it today. 

Buzz and hype are two huge parts of marketing that we talked a lot about in Buyer Behavior and Promotional Strategy. Because hype is marketer-generated, it isn't nearly as valuable as people genuinely talking about your brand. Creating buzz should be one of the top priorities of a brand when they are advertising. Standing out in today's day and age is tough for businesses to do- so doing something out of the ordinary and creative is a must. If people aren't talking about your brand, maybe they aren't noticing it!

There's No Utopia in Marketing

In class today, we did another interesting exercise where we had to explain and connect concepts through visuals. I found this to be tough at times, because I'm not extremely artistic! However, we were able to make connections from a poem read in class to the concept of IMC in marketing, which was really cool. One of the articles we referenced throughout the class period is "Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC): Why Does it Fail?". We discussed how as students formerly in Buyer Behavior and Promotional Strategy, we typically think of IMC in an extremely positive light. Our professor referred to it as a "Marketing Utopia", where all IMC strategies go smoothly in the best scenarios possible. After reading this article, however, we gained a much more realistic and harsh idea about IMC.

I can definitely agree that my thoughts about IMC seem a little naive and non-realistic. It's easy to say that a company can effectively demonstrate IMC practices and strategies in order to meet consumer needs. But, when determining the accuracy of different mental models that connect to IMC, this suddenly becomes a confusing and questionable topic.

The four mental models are the efficiency model, effectiveness model, quality model, and impact model. The article mentioned discrepancies among the articles and the implementation failures that resulted. One particular discrepancy we talked about was abstractness. The mental models are considered abstract because they are each based on a specific view/theory about the world. I find this to be an extremely large issue, because people have extremely conflicting views and perspectives about the world. The main example of abstractness in the mental models is in the efficiency model. Because it is so focused on work processes and computer programs, there is not a lot of room for people to reflect or improvise.

The article also connected the abstractness of the mental models to decontextualization, which means that there are preconceived ideas and routines that take over when there might be a need for adjustment. This is another big issue, because the reality is, problems and change will arise. If there is no room for adjustments depending on issues or problems that may arise, this mental model seems like it shouldn't be applied to marketing. Marketing is a constantly changing field. The "norms" seem to change on a frequent basis, making these mental model theories difficult to follow or agree with.

Reading this article has been eye-opening and is starting to make me look at IMC in a different light. The more new material I learn, the easier it gets to question previous material. It makes me wonder, are the other theories I have learned in marketing even true? As we try to apply marketing theories to realistic scenarios, they seem to not be as accurate. I guess the perfect "Utopian" world of IMC really doesn't exist.



*Image found on Google Images.

Retail Therapy & Marketing

In class this week, we talked a lot about emotion and how it tends to be a primary decision "driver". According to the attitude theory, consumers behave based on their attitudes. In a marketing sense, this would mean that consumers make purchase decisions based on their attitude toward a product or brand. As a consumer who tends to shop frequently, I find this theory to hold true for many of my purchase decisions. But, the more I think about it, I think that my mood while making purchase decisions plays an even bigger factor than simply just my attitude towards the brand/product.

Have you ever heard of retail therapy? They call it that for a reason. As a female who gets excited and giddy over new purchases I make at the mall, I'd be lying if I said I've never gone shopping simply to better my mood. There have been multiple occasions, even in the last few months where I've gone shopping while in a horrible mood, and ended up extremely satisfied with my purchases. Doesn't this go against the attitude theory we discussed in class? Simply saying that favorable attitudes lead to purchases seems pretty accurate to me, but I think there are numerous other external factors that affect a consumers purchase decision besides just their attitude. 

With all of this said, a major question comes to my mind: if there are so many factors that play a role in a consumer's shopping experience and decision-making process, how can marketers possibly keep track of it all? How can marketers successfully find ways to reach their target market and influence their attitudes, if there are a number of other factors that play a huge role in a person's attitudes. Every consumer has their own set of perceptions and attitudes based on personal experiences. So, how can marketers fully understand what makes us think the way we do? 

With all of this said, I don't think marketers can 100% get inside a consumer's mind and understand how it works. Yes, I think theories, like the attitude theory generally hold true. It is easy for a marketer to predict that if a person has a positive attitude toward Nike, and needs new sneakers they'll buy some from Nike. But, how can they grasp the idea that I went out and bought a pair of Nike sneakers one day simply because I was in a bad mood and needed some retail therapy?  I don't think they can. 

       

**Photo was found on google images. 

And the Journey Begins!

Hello!

My name is Katie Farrell and I am a senior at Western New England University. I am studying Marketing Communications/Advertising and absolutely love my major! This fall, I am doing an internship at Envision Marketing Group. I hope to gain real knowledge and experience about the marketing field through working with the team at EMG.

I have some experience with blogging from a course I took last fall called Social Media Marketing. I hope to strengthen my blogging skills through my experience in Campaign Planning & Management as well. This semester, I hope to gain an even more extensive and thorough understanding in marketing communication. I am eager to learn more about how companies effectively utilize marketing media vehicles like television, radio, print, etc.

I am looking forward to seeing what this semester has in store!