1) How did Budweiser hijack the sponsorship of the Olympic games?
Budweiser hijacked the sponsorship of the Olympic games by creating a 70 foot blimp shaped like a goal light in hockey game. This goal light shape blimp would then light up every time team Canada scored.They hijacked the Olympic games because they were not the official sponsors of the National hockey team. Budweiser was outbid by Molsen. However the blimp made it seem as if Budweiser was still the official sponsor.
2) Do you think Budweiser was successful in drawing attention to their brand?
I think Budweiser was very successful in drawing attention to their brand because it is getting a lot of media buzz and it was a very creative way to advertiser their company. If a company gets this much attention then I would deem it successful to drawing (for the most part) positive attention to their company.
3) How did Budweiser use methods employed by culture-jammers to undermine their competition?
They made a bigger and bolder "ad" to overcome Molsen (who they lost the national hockey league sponsorship title to). The COC and Molsen both believe that Budweiser were playing foul, however Labatt (the owner of Labatt Breweries of Canada) thinks that Budweiser were just promoting their beer in a clever way. He believes "it kept promoting the blimp openly -- and stealing Olympic buzz". This displeased a lot of people because it made Molsen look less superior to Budweiser because Molsen didn't have a massive blimp flying around and lighting up whenever team Canada scored. These are the methods Budweiser used to become superior to their competition.
This is the link to the article the globe and mail wrote regarding the advertising in the olympics: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/olympics-advertising-who-won-who-lost/article17060580/
Friday, 28 February 2014
Thursday, 20 February 2014
Dumb Starbucks
1) Why would someone want to parody a major corporation like Starbucks?
I think somebody would want to make a a parody of a major corporation like Starbucks because it would draw a lot of attention to their selves. Starbucks also has a very high reputation and to dirty the image of Starbucks by using it as a joke would humiliate the company. These could be some of the reasons a person would want to humiliate Starbucks, also they could be trying to make a point to the public about consumerism and brand names.
2) What do you think is the message of Dumb Starbucks?
I think the message of Dumb Starbucks is about consumerism and how a lot of people do not buy for quality but for a brand name. This was evident in the mini-clip we watched on YouTube when people were paying $10 for a hat that was a normal baseball cap, but it had the Starbucks logo on it and said Dumb Starbucks. Also when there was no coffee or cups left in the shop people were still waiting in line so they could just enter the small coffee shop with the hopes of maybe finding a spare cup they could take home. This showed how people will do almost anything just to say they have a specific brand name of something. This was the message of dumb Starbucks and how many people will just buy companies objects for its brand name.
This is the link to a clip on YouTube about dumb Starbucks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo_deCOd1HU
I think somebody would want to make a a parody of a major corporation like Starbucks because it would draw a lot of attention to their selves. Starbucks also has a very high reputation and to dirty the image of Starbucks by using it as a joke would humiliate the company. These could be some of the reasons a person would want to humiliate Starbucks, also they could be trying to make a point to the public about consumerism and brand names.
2) What do you think is the message of Dumb Starbucks?
I think the message of Dumb Starbucks is about consumerism and how a lot of people do not buy for quality but for a brand name. This was evident in the mini-clip we watched on YouTube when people were paying $10 for a hat that was a normal baseball cap, but it had the Starbucks logo on it and said Dumb Starbucks. Also when there was no coffee or cups left in the shop people were still waiting in line so they could just enter the small coffee shop with the hopes of maybe finding a spare cup they could take home. This showed how people will do almost anything just to say they have a specific brand name of something. This was the message of dumb Starbucks and how many people will just buy companies objects for its brand name.
This is the link to a clip on YouTube about dumb Starbucks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo_deCOd1HU
This is a link to an article in the New Yorker about Dumb Starbucks: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/02/dumb-starbucks-and-the-art-of-the-hoax.html
Wednesday, 12 February 2014
Chobani Posts Ad Inspired By Gay-Pride Flag, Takes On Russia's Anti-Gay Laws
1) Do you think it is appropriate for a product or advertiser to use a social issue like gay rights to market a product?
I do not think an advertiser should use social issues to market their products because I think they could possibly offend a lot of people and I feel they are taking advantage of social issues. Firstly I believe it can offend a a lot of people if an advertiser uses social issues to bring awareness to firstly their product and secondly the social issue. The social issue the advertiser is using should come before the advertising of their product and I think most advertisers fail to do this. The right intention is behind their ideas, however it usually comes across as if the advertiser is taking advantage of these issues to come up with clever marketing ideas.
2) What communities might find the Chobani ad offensive?
The communities that might find this offensive are the gay and lesbian communities, the government and people who work to bring awareness to social issues in communities. I think these people might find this offensive because Chobani is using a important social issue to market his product, which will allow him to make large amounts of revenue, which isn't right. I am aware that he is trying to show that the American's are defying the anti-gay laws that were established in Russia, and I think he has good intentions, however he is going about it the wrong way.
3) Are the Olympics an appropriate venue to address human rights issues? Explain.
Since the Olympics are on such a large stage and so many people watch them, that addressing human rights can be considered to be both a positive and a negative thing. I think it can be a positive thing because so many people will be made aware of specific social issues. As well if they use the athletes to address these issues, people who idolize then are going to be more likely to help these social issues be eliminated around the world. However I also think this is a negative place to address human rights issues because the Olympics are focused on athletes trying to be the best in the world and to bring prestige and pride to their countries. Ultimately the Olympics are a sporting event that brings everyone in the world together to cheer on their country, therefore it isn't the best setting to be discussing social issues in the world.
This is the link to the article Emily Thomas wrote about this ad: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/08/chobani-gay-ad_n_4752509.html
I do not think an advertiser should use social issues to market their products because I think they could possibly offend a lot of people and I feel they are taking advantage of social issues. Firstly I believe it can offend a a lot of people if an advertiser uses social issues to bring awareness to firstly their product and secondly the social issue. The social issue the advertiser is using should come before the advertising of their product and I think most advertisers fail to do this. The right intention is behind their ideas, however it usually comes across as if the advertiser is taking advantage of these issues to come up with clever marketing ideas.
2) What communities might find the Chobani ad offensive?
The communities that might find this offensive are the gay and lesbian communities, the government and people who work to bring awareness to social issues in communities. I think these people might find this offensive because Chobani is using a important social issue to market his product, which will allow him to make large amounts of revenue, which isn't right. I am aware that he is trying to show that the American's are defying the anti-gay laws that were established in Russia, and I think he has good intentions, however he is going about it the wrong way.
3) Are the Olympics an appropriate venue to address human rights issues? Explain.
Since the Olympics are on such a large stage and so many people watch them, that addressing human rights can be considered to be both a positive and a negative thing. I think it can be a positive thing because so many people will be made aware of specific social issues. As well if they use the athletes to address these issues, people who idolize then are going to be more likely to help these social issues be eliminated around the world. However I also think this is a negative place to address human rights issues because the Olympics are focused on athletes trying to be the best in the world and to bring prestige and pride to their countries. Ultimately the Olympics are a sporting event that brings everyone in the world together to cheer on their country, therefore it isn't the best setting to be discussing social issues in the world.
This is the link to the article Emily Thomas wrote about this ad: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/08/chobani-gay-ad_n_4752509.html
Tuesday, 11 February 2014
Lets go team Canada!!!
Good luck to all the Canadian athletes that are participating in the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics!
This is the link to CBC's website to follow team Canada's progress in the Olympics: http://olympics.cbc.ca/
This is the link to CBC's website to follow team Canada's progress in the Olympics: http://olympics.cbc.ca/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)