Obamacare "Got Insurace?" Campaign

         The new insurance plan, Obamacare, affects millions of U.S. Citizens. There is an attempt to advertise the benefits of this new plan and to get people to enroll. The new campaign “Got Insurance?” was developed to support Obamacare. I think this campaign wasn’t executed very well. Using the repeated tag line “got insurance?” relays my thinking back to the famous “got milk?” ad campaign. Using a new tag line would have differentiated their campaign. The individual ad I thought was the worst one was the keg stand ad. An article on adweek.com pointed out the controversial nature of the ad, but also that one of their target market may pointless. Under Obama Care, people can stay on their parent’s insurance until the age of 26. By 26 most people have graduated from college, so targeting college students to enroll isn’t necessary. Not to mention the two ads targeting this target market, especially the keg stand ad, seems outrageous. This article also pointed out that this campaign is gaining media attention due to being “mildly controversial”. Due to the media attention, there is a better chance that they’re target market will hopefully at least think about healthcare.

When correlating this campaign to the Hierarchy of Effects, the ads do a good job providing knowledge to the participant of the value proposition. The ads show situations that could put a person at risk, in which they would want and need insurance. It is focused on the behavior of the consumer explaining the person in the ad is like you and has insurance, so “now you can too”. Also, this campaign is linked to the site thanksobamacare.org, which does a good job of explaining its value proposition. On “Thanks, Obamacare” home page it provides 10 short, easy to understand reasons of what Obama care does for U.S. Citizens. Keeping it simple and clear, the website effectively explain the benefits of their service.

 

http://doyougotinsurance.com/index.php?id=2

http://thanksobamacare.org/

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/colorados-keg-stand-ad-obamacare-probably-dumbest-nation-153329

Is Big Sugar the new Big Tobacco?

Before the government took preventive action, the tobacco industry was widely advertising smoking cigarettes, with one of their main target markets being kids. By getting kids hooked on their brand of cigarettes at a young age, the better chance they’d keep smoking that brand for the rest of their life. Finally some action was taken against big tobacco to heavily tax cigarettes and provide warnings on packages to give people an incentive to not smoke.

         In this day in age, highly processed foods that are high in sugar are sold cheaply and consumed by many Americans, especially kids. The consumption of these foods can cause many health problems. Obesity and diabetes are huge problems in the U.S. especially with children. In the last 30 years, the number of people who are obese have sky rocketed. With this epidemic there must be preventive steps taken to stop these continuously growing health problems.

These foods can become addicting, which has people choosing these unhealthy foods that are high in added sugar over healthier options. Educating people about the risks to their health from consuming foods that are high in sugar is a step that can be taken without action from the government. The government can take action like it did with the tobacco industry with the sugar industry to create incentives for people to make healthier choices.

Companies selling foods high in added sugar advertise straight to kids. Putting popular cartoon characters and bright colors on the packaging catering to children are meant to get kids to persuade their parents to buy it for them. I think that Big Sugar should be treated like Big Tobacco. Big sugar should be taxed and the effects of eating these foods should be advertised. The government must make it their responsibility to educate the public of the risks of consuming these foods. Big Sugar should be regulated because their products are fueling an epidemic that are going to continue to affect the health of children in America. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/rooney-big-sugar/5050114

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign

The Risks with Customer Data Collection

When checking out at a store, you usually give some sort of personal information about yourself. Whether it’s your phone number, email address, credit card number, or even your buying habits there is personal data being collected. There is the potential for this information being hacked and stolen, which calls into question the ethics and consequences if this were to happen.

I think that customer data is a good way to understand customer needs and something businesses should use. With the data collected, business are able to better cater to their customer’s needs. The detailed customer data can provide insight in what a customer buying. For example, if a woman was buying baby stuff from Target the data could be used in prompting the store to send her coupons for baby stuff. This gives her an incentive to keep coming back for her baby purchases. The danger with collecting and analysis of customer data can also lead to pushing customers away. Thinking a customer is more loyal than they are, and bombarding them with emails or calls can lead to a customer discontinuing their business with that company. If using customer data, it must be monitored to be beneficial for the company and in return the customer.

Although I believe that customer data is good for businesses and should be allowed, collecting that data also means the responsibility of protecting it. Consumer privacy must be a top priority of companies. There are laws and regulations protecting consumer’s privacy, but there have been instances where this isn’t enough to protect consumer’s personal information. Consumer’s privacy is a big topic in the news with the recent breach with Target’s databases, in which 70 million Target customers personal information was stolen. This major breach calls into question loyalty programs and data collection of businesses and whether that data is going to be protected. Target’s REDcard, the loyalty program card, has taken a big blow for many customers have become weary that their information would be safe. With this breach, customers are calling into question other businesses and loyalty programs whether there’s potential that these could also be hacked.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101334854

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adrianswinscoe/2013/12/30/a-short-cautionary-tale-about-the-misuse-of-customer-data/

Ambush Marketing in Olympics

Ambush marketing is strategic way advertisers associate their brand with a certain event without paying a sponsorship fee. The Olympics provide a perfect platform for ambush marketing. I think ambush marketing should be monitored, but not completely eliminated. Each sponsor is approved for the Olympics, and made sure that the brand image correlates with the Olympics. When it comes to ambush marketing, if a brand that associates itself with the Olympics receives negative publicity, it can reflect badly on the Olympics. This is a reason for an event to spend time monitoring ambush marketing campaigns for infringement violations.

         Despite these aspects, I think ambush marketing can provide an opportunity for companies to be creative. As long as no infringement laws have been violated, I think its ok for a company to participate in ambush marketing if the campaign is clever enough and done well. Nike’s “Find Your Greatness” campaign that aired during 2012 London Summer Olympics is a perfect example of great execution of ambush marketing. The ad showed other towns around the world also named London and portrayed the message that any athlete could be great. Nike wasn’t an official sponsor of the Olympics, but their ads were effectively associated with the event and what the event stands for. Nike has been effectively using ambush marketing for its advantage. Its been so successful that in the 1984 summer Olympics the amount of Nike ads shown made consumers think Nike was an official sponsor rather than the real sponsor Converse. If done well and clever enough, ambush marketing can be successful and could potentially work better than an actual sponsorship. Despite some negative connotations, I think there should be exceptions for ambush marketing as long as the company is cleaver and creative enough to achieve it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hEzW1WRFTg

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/08/07/ambush-marketing-an-olympic-competition-and-nike-goes-for-gold/