“Green” attitudes change consumer behavior—the “5 Rs” (#M4BW)

by Leave a Comment

The following is a direct quote from the forthcoming 17th edition of Essentials of Marketing.

Many consumers are showing increasingly positive attitudes toward sustainability—and these attitudes are changing some people’s behavior. While some are choosing brands they view as more sustainable, others are changing their behavior more radically. Some advocates of sustainability encourage people to practice the “5 Rs of sustainability”: (1) refuse—stop buying stuff; (2) reduce overall consumption; (3) reuse—choose reusable, not disposable, products; (4) repurpose—use product packaging, for example, for some other purpose; and (5) recycle. While most of us are familiar with the last R, the other 4 Rs are moving from fringe behaviors to being increasingly common. This may have implications for marketing managers: greater practicing of the 5 Rs may lead consumers to buy less stuff and to be more selective in what they buy.

This might be another way to foster debate around marketing for a better world (#M4BW). While a brand like Patagonia, which positions itself as extremely environmentally-friendly, might be able to get away with an advertising campaign like its “Don’t Buy This Jacket” from a few years ago, can other brands promote reduced consumption? This certainly puts #M4BW to the test and may be worth a classroom debate.

“Buy one give one” business models — marketing for a better world (#M4BW) or not?

by Leave a Comment

The buy one give one business model has been around for many years. One of the early advocates was Tom’s Shoes which donates a pair of shoes for someone in need for each pair it sells. Warby Parker does the same for eyeglasses and Bombas for socks. In fact, you can find 16 examples in this article and slideshow at Refinery 29. This sounds like a great example of Marketing for a Better World (#M4BW).

I thought so, and then I read “Beware companies that promote ‘buy one, give one’ charity,” Vox, October 31, 2019). After thinking about this counterpoint, I wondered if the author had perhaps overstated her case — and I will still feel good that my purchase of Bombas helped put socks on a homeless person’s feet, my All Birds helped someone get shoes, and I still think Cotopaxi is a cool company with a powerful mission. But the Vox article does raise an important question and useful point of debate for the idea of marketing for a better world. It isn’t always clear when a company makes the world a better place. And if they make some people better off at the expense of others, how do we evaluate those tradeoffs? These examples and the article might prepare you for a class debate on this topic.

China Airlines creates some funny advertising…

by Leave a Comment

It is always fun to bring students some clever, funny advertising. They enjoy the laugh. But you can also ask them who they think is being targeted. I enjoyed two recent ads from China Airlines that are conveniently discussed and shown with English subtitles in this article in AdWeek.

Video Game Influencers

by Leave a Comment

Video games, once considered the domain of young kids and self-proclaimed geeks, are growing at an astounding rate.  According to NewZoo’s Global Games Market Report, the industry was expected to reach $138B in 2018.  With that growth and the emergence of esports we’re now seeing gamers stepping into the influencer role alongside traditional athletes.  One of those gamers, Ninja, has teamed up with energy drink producer Red Bull.

Red Bull wants to boost brand awareness in the gamer segment who frequently rely on energy drinks to power through long gaming sessions.  Red Bull’s campaign includes a contest that gives fans a chance to meet Ninja and have a gaming session with the superstar.  You can read more about the campaign in this Marketing Dive article.  The topic could apply to a discussion about segmentation, brand building, influencers and advertising/sales promotion.

MillerCoors sues AB InBev over Super Bowl Ad

by Leave a Comment

Budweiser has a history of creative and amusing Super Bowl ads but this year’s ad which centered on their competitor’s use of corn syrup has definitely been the most controversial ad of the year and one that continues to garner headlines.  By the way, the ad is a great example of the comparative class of competitive advertisements.  The ad sparked a Twitter war between MillerCoors and AB InBev and the latest development is a lawsuit filed by MillerCoors against AB InBev.

You might ask how MillerCoors can sue if they do in fact use corn syrup in their brewing process (which they do).  MillerCoors conducted focus groups and through those groups they determined that most consumers don’t know the difference between corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup which are two different products.  They claim the Bud Light ad deliberately confuses and frightens consumers into thinking the unhealthy high fructose corn syrup is an ingredient in Miller and Coors products.  In reality the corn syrup is used in the brewing process but during fermentation it is broken down by yeast and leaves no corn syrup in the final product.  It’s also worth noting that Anheuser-Busch uses corn syrup themselves in some of their other products but they don’t use it when brewing Bud Light (which uses rice instead).  You can read more about the lawsuit and MillerCoors’ claims in this NY times article.

The lawsuit and continued objections from MillerCoors suggests Bud Light’s campaign was (and is) effective but it also brings up an interesting marketing ethics question.  Is Bud Light’s commercial ethical?  If their statement is factual should they be allowed to advertise that point of differentiation?  Should they consider the fact that consumers would likely misinterpret the message or is that not their problem?