This is a basic outline for my paper. I haven’t done all my research yet, so some of the bullet points seem a little empty and the paper looks like it will be really short, but I think once I’ve gotten all my information, everything will fill out a lot more. Also, the formatting is really weird because I typed it all out in Word first, and then everything moved around once I copy and pasted it into here...
Nike Swim VS. Speedo
A. Introduction
1. Background info on why I chose this topic, personal experiences, why it’s interesting to me, etc.
B. History
1. Speedo company history – how it got started & how it got so successful
2. Other swim apparel companies – TYR & Adidas
3. Nike company history in general, then more specifically its history in the competitive swimwear market – how & why the company started this branch
C. Why Nike
1. Why Nike in particular is a threat to Speedo as opposed to the other brands
2. Nike gets big name swimmers to sponsor, as opposed to TYR & Adidas (with the exception of Ian Thorpe)
3. Nike’s company history of good marketing – “just do it”, inspirational commercials, etc.
D. Swimming Community Opinion
1. Speedo sponsored athletes & teams: Kirsty Coventry, Ian Crocker, Eddie Reese/Kris Kubik, Jill Sterkel, Tanica Jamison
2. Why are so many teams switching from Speedo to Nike: ask Kim, ratio of Speedo sponsored DI top 25 college teams vs. Nike sponsored teams
3. Nike athletes: Brendan Hansen, Aaron Peirsol
4. Nike VS. Speedo: believe in product or just like the brand? Do users of both brands believe in the suits they wear?
5. How Speedo athletes are treated VS. Nike athletes: getting paid on time, getting suits when ordered, do the reps for each brand know what they’re doing
6. Currently unsponsored athletes: Elizabeth Wycliffe, Elizabeth Tinnon, Craig Chapman all training for Olympics but are not sponsored by either company. If they could chose who to sponsor them, who would they choose and why?
E. Strengths and Weaknesses
1. Speedo strengths: market domination, brand recognition, established company, great product
2. Speedo weaknesses: established dominance but might not know how to maintain it, favor certain athletes, apparel needs work, improve brand image
3. Nike strengths: great marketing history, dominant brand in other markets, great apparel, experienced in creating an exciting company image
4. Nike weaknesses: less experience with competitive swimwear, is the research & technology there?
F. Conclusion
1. If Speedo doesn’t change, they will lose substantial market share – are they aware of the challenge of Nike and are they doing anything about it?
2. Possibility of Nike buying out Speedo like they did with Converse, Hurley, etc.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
A Psychic Journey
Dr. Rapaille is a market researcher who first got his start studying psychology in Europe and working with autistic kids. When he worked with them, he tried to figure out what they were trying to say to him without actually using words, which lead to his trying to decode their behavior. Rapaille came to the conclusion, that if he could decode people’s behavior, he could determine their reasons for the buying the products they buy. Just asking people isn’t good enough because he doesn’t believe what they say. He wants to know why people do what they do.
According to Rapaille, consumers are driven by unconscious needs and impulses; they themselves do not know the reasons for buying what they do, and many times their justifications for buying a product do not make sense considering the product’s actual use. An example he gave was people in Manhattan driving a Hummer to go buy groceries. A Hummer is more of an off-roading type of vehicle which is hardly the type of vehicle needed in a city like Manhattan, much less to go grocery shopping.
In order to discover these unconscious needs, or as Rapaille puts it, the “reptilian hot buttons” that compel consumers to action, Rapaille conducts a series of focus groups. For the luxury sector, the focus group began with Rapaille asking people how they felt about luxury and what associations came to mind. This is the easiest part of the exercise, and the part that seems to be the most normal. After this segment, the focus group gets a break. When they get back, the focus is on their emotions. This time Rapaille asks the group to pretend that he is a five year old child from another planet and asks the members of the focus group to tell him a story. By the time the focus group leaves for their second break, the members are very confused, which Rapaille likes. When the group comes back for the third session, all their chairs are gone. Rapaille has everyone lay down on the floor while he turns off the lights and tells everyone to relax. He wants them to go back to the state of mind they are in when they first wake up in the morning because he believes this is the time people remember things from long ago, and this is the key to unlocking the “code”. This is the code he can read and understand why consumers like certain products and not others. Using this code, he told car companies to make SUVs bigger with tinted windows because SUVs portrayed dominance in the code.
Rapaille considers his focus groups to be a “psychic journey” where he takes participants through three stages and tries to get to their psychic core. This kind of research, to me, is very unusual, but I think that’s why I like it. In this field of market research, you have to do something different in order to stand out, in order to obtain information that hasn’t already been found. I’m also a firm believer that psychology and business go hand in hand, not only in just marketing but in other areas as well, such as management. Understanding how people behave is fundamental in understanding how to work with them, manage them and figure out what they want. I think Rapaille is 100% correct in saying people do not know why they want or like the things they do – and it is up to market researchers to figure that out (as far as retailing goes). I think any industry that is looking to upgrade or renovate a product would really benefit from this kind of research. The product already exists, which is a good start, but people are always looking for bigger and better. What better way to do that than by trying to go into their minds and figuring out their “code”? As strange as Rapaille may be, I think there must be some method to his madness.
According to Rapaille, consumers are driven by unconscious needs and impulses; they themselves do not know the reasons for buying what they do, and many times their justifications for buying a product do not make sense considering the product’s actual use. An example he gave was people in Manhattan driving a Hummer to go buy groceries. A Hummer is more of an off-roading type of vehicle which is hardly the type of vehicle needed in a city like Manhattan, much less to go grocery shopping.
In order to discover these unconscious needs, or as Rapaille puts it, the “reptilian hot buttons” that compel consumers to action, Rapaille conducts a series of focus groups. For the luxury sector, the focus group began with Rapaille asking people how they felt about luxury and what associations came to mind. This is the easiest part of the exercise, and the part that seems to be the most normal. After this segment, the focus group gets a break. When they get back, the focus is on their emotions. This time Rapaille asks the group to pretend that he is a five year old child from another planet and asks the members of the focus group to tell him a story. By the time the focus group leaves for their second break, the members are very confused, which Rapaille likes. When the group comes back for the third session, all their chairs are gone. Rapaille has everyone lay down on the floor while he turns off the lights and tells everyone to relax. He wants them to go back to the state of mind they are in when they first wake up in the morning because he believes this is the time people remember things from long ago, and this is the key to unlocking the “code”. This is the code he can read and understand why consumers like certain products and not others. Using this code, he told car companies to make SUVs bigger with tinted windows because SUVs portrayed dominance in the code.
Rapaille considers his focus groups to be a “psychic journey” where he takes participants through three stages and tries to get to their psychic core. This kind of research, to me, is very unusual, but I think that’s why I like it. In this field of market research, you have to do something different in order to stand out, in order to obtain information that hasn’t already been found. I’m also a firm believer that psychology and business go hand in hand, not only in just marketing but in other areas as well, such as management. Understanding how people behave is fundamental in understanding how to work with them, manage them and figure out what they want. I think Rapaille is 100% correct in saying people do not know why they want or like the things they do – and it is up to market researchers to figure that out (as far as retailing goes). I think any industry that is looking to upgrade or renovate a product would really benefit from this kind of research. The product already exists, which is a good start, but people are always looking for bigger and better. What better way to do that than by trying to go into their minds and figuring out their “code”? As strange as Rapaille may be, I think there must be some method to his madness.
Monday, November 5, 2007
TedTalks: Michael Shermer
I really enjoyed this episode (is that what they’re called?) of TedTalks. Michael Shermer is absolutely hilarious. I thought it was very interesting about what he said about all the various myths and how he proved very logically how each one wasn’t true.
One of my favorite parts was when he played the clip of the Led Zeppelin song forward, then played it backwards to hear for the subliminal satanic message. The great part was that you couldn’t really hear much when it was played backwards, until he put the “lyrics” up on the screen to read and follow along as the song went on. Once the words were put up, it seemed obvious that the song backwards was a legit song with demonic lyrics. I also liked the faces on the moon as well as the animal shapes he showed. Each of these examples shows how humans think and react to certain images.
Shermer said that people tend to look for faces, which is why we see the image of a happy face on the moon or a person on a sandwich. It’s true that we tend to look for familiarity, and I think our brains automatically try to categorize an image and break it down into something familiar because familiarity is comforting. Somehow the moon seems like a more perceptible object when there is a human face hidden on its surface than if no image was there at all. That’s also why the cloud game is so much fun: just about everyone has looked up at the clouds and looked for an animal or face or building of some sort in them. It’s just natural for us to seek out familiar images.
As far as the “lyrics” go, once we are able to read what the backwards words are saying, the gibberish suddenly becomes clear. Our minds seek out the words, imagine how they would sound, and then project them into meaningful words once the song is played again. If, however, you were to listen to the song again, but don’t read the lyrics, you’ll go back to not being able to discern a single word – at least that’s how it was for me.
I think this relates to consumer insights in a similar way to one of the articles we had to read for class. The article talked about how consumers oftentimes did not know why they liked what they did and couldn’t define it at all. With no reference point, they were at a loss. I think this is similar to the lyrics. Without the reference of the backwards lyrics being posted, there is no way I would’ve been able to tell what the song was saying backwards. Likewise, when asked an open ended question with no options or references to choose from, consumers have a hard time pinpointing why they like a certain product.
Some of the images, such as the one of the Virgin Mary on the side of a building, drew huge crowds, and the image wasn’t even real. From a marketing aspect, this seems like it was a great marketing campaign without meaning to be. People will believe what they want to believe, and some things just sell themselves because of that. If companies can figure out what makes people do these sorts of things – believe in objects and images that are not real – the marketing capabilities are endless. Consumers wouldn’t even know they are being advertised or marketed to. It would almost be a flawless marketing tool.
One of my favorite parts was when he played the clip of the Led Zeppelin song forward, then played it backwards to hear for the subliminal satanic message. The great part was that you couldn’t really hear much when it was played backwards, until he put the “lyrics” up on the screen to read and follow along as the song went on. Once the words were put up, it seemed obvious that the song backwards was a legit song with demonic lyrics. I also liked the faces on the moon as well as the animal shapes he showed. Each of these examples shows how humans think and react to certain images.
Shermer said that people tend to look for faces, which is why we see the image of a happy face on the moon or a person on a sandwich. It’s true that we tend to look for familiarity, and I think our brains automatically try to categorize an image and break it down into something familiar because familiarity is comforting. Somehow the moon seems like a more perceptible object when there is a human face hidden on its surface than if no image was there at all. That’s also why the cloud game is so much fun: just about everyone has looked up at the clouds and looked for an animal or face or building of some sort in them. It’s just natural for us to seek out familiar images.
As far as the “lyrics” go, once we are able to read what the backwards words are saying, the gibberish suddenly becomes clear. Our minds seek out the words, imagine how they would sound, and then project them into meaningful words once the song is played again. If, however, you were to listen to the song again, but don’t read the lyrics, you’ll go back to not being able to discern a single word – at least that’s how it was for me.
I think this relates to consumer insights in a similar way to one of the articles we had to read for class. The article talked about how consumers oftentimes did not know why they liked what they did and couldn’t define it at all. With no reference point, they were at a loss. I think this is similar to the lyrics. Without the reference of the backwards lyrics being posted, there is no way I would’ve been able to tell what the song was saying backwards. Likewise, when asked an open ended question with no options or references to choose from, consumers have a hard time pinpointing why they like a certain product.
Some of the images, such as the one of the Virgin Mary on the side of a building, drew huge crowds, and the image wasn’t even real. From a marketing aspect, this seems like it was a great marketing campaign without meaning to be. People will believe what they want to believe, and some things just sell themselves because of that. If companies can figure out what makes people do these sorts of things – believe in objects and images that are not real – the marketing capabilities are endless. Consumers wouldn’t even know they are being advertised or marketed to. It would almost be a flawless marketing tool.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
bears. beets. battlestar gallactica.
I don’t watch a lot of TV for the most part. I usually try to catch “The Hills” on MTV on Monday nights (quality reality television right there) and “The Office” on Thursday nights. I got into The Office in the beginning of this past summer, after I borrowed seasons one and two from a friend and finished them in one and a half days. Needless to say, I was hooked and couldn’t wait for season 4 to begin. (I watched season 3 online through various websites since the DVDs weren’t out yet.) Anyways, the show is absolutely hilarious. It’s very smart and well written, and a few of my friends who are already out in the working world say that it’s very relatable.
The show is about this mid-sized paper distribution company, Dunder Mifflin. The manager of the Scranton, Pennsylvania branch, Michael Scott, is kind of dumb in a funny way and ignorant about many issues. What makes him so great though is how much he cares about the people in his office and his customers. Because Dunder Mifflin is a smaller company, its prices on paper are considerably higher than those of its competitors such as Staples. Michael tries to sell his company on customer experience and customer service, two areas that are harder for the bigger companies to implement on a personal level. In a recent episode, Michael decided to personally deliver gift baskets to all their customers who recently left Dunder Mifflin for a bigger company in order to try to win them back. Also in this episode, a website for the company was about to be launched, which Michael opposed because he – not realizing that people preferred the convenience and speed of ordering online – thought that the website took away from Dunder Mifflin’s approachability and made the company less personal.
Throughout the episode, Michael went to the heads of the companies who left Dunder Mifflin and gave them each a gift basket telling them that there were no hard feelings, but to remember the personal experiences they had with Dunder Mifflin. He was met with pretty much the same response from each executive, which was mostly just a weird look and awkward thank you as they all told him their company would most likely not go back to Dunder Mifflin. This episode, while hilarious, made me kind of sad.
These days, business is being geared more towards customers, doing whatever they need, and making the experience as personal as possible. Everything is done to make the customer experience better. That’s why it’s sad watching Michael Scott trying to connect with all of this clients and then getting rejected time and time again. He is trying to be more personal but at the end of the day, his job is to sell paper. It might not be as important for him to be so friendly with all of his clients, though it is honorable, as much as it is for him to offer the lowest price possible.
Of course, the show doesn’t get too serious, and it’s hard to really feel bad for Michael because he gets so frustrated that none of his clients are returning that he pitches a fit at the last company he goes to and yells for them to return his gift basket and refuses to move from their couch until they do so.
Bottom line is this show is great, and at the same time I’ve learned a few things about business in a sort of off-hand, weird way.
Also, the title of this entry probably makes absolutely no sense unless you watch the office... I actually have no personal interest in bears, beets or battlestar gallactica.
The show is about this mid-sized paper distribution company, Dunder Mifflin. The manager of the Scranton, Pennsylvania branch, Michael Scott, is kind of dumb in a funny way and ignorant about many issues. What makes him so great though is how much he cares about the people in his office and his customers. Because Dunder Mifflin is a smaller company, its prices on paper are considerably higher than those of its competitors such as Staples. Michael tries to sell his company on customer experience and customer service, two areas that are harder for the bigger companies to implement on a personal level. In a recent episode, Michael decided to personally deliver gift baskets to all their customers who recently left Dunder Mifflin for a bigger company in order to try to win them back. Also in this episode, a website for the company was about to be launched, which Michael opposed because he – not realizing that people preferred the convenience and speed of ordering online – thought that the website took away from Dunder Mifflin’s approachability and made the company less personal.
Throughout the episode, Michael went to the heads of the companies who left Dunder Mifflin and gave them each a gift basket telling them that there were no hard feelings, but to remember the personal experiences they had with Dunder Mifflin. He was met with pretty much the same response from each executive, which was mostly just a weird look and awkward thank you as they all told him their company would most likely not go back to Dunder Mifflin. This episode, while hilarious, made me kind of sad.
These days, business is being geared more towards customers, doing whatever they need, and making the experience as personal as possible. Everything is done to make the customer experience better. That’s why it’s sad watching Michael Scott trying to connect with all of this clients and then getting rejected time and time again. He is trying to be more personal but at the end of the day, his job is to sell paper. It might not be as important for him to be so friendly with all of his clients, though it is honorable, as much as it is for him to offer the lowest price possible.
Of course, the show doesn’t get too serious, and it’s hard to really feel bad for Michael because he gets so frustrated that none of his clients are returning that he pitches a fit at the last company he goes to and yells for them to return his gift basket and refuses to move from their couch until they do so.
Bottom line is this show is great, and at the same time I’ve learned a few things about business in a sort of off-hand, weird way.
Also, the title of this entry probably makes absolutely no sense unless you watch the office... I actually have no personal interest in bears, beets or battlestar gallactica.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Zappos!
I have never really been a fan of online shopping. Don’t get me wrong, I love browsing and can spend literally hours on end looking at website after website of clothes, shoes, electronics and whatever else it is that is available to purchase online, but I’ve rarely actually purchased something off the Internet. I always wonder about the quality of the product or – especially if it’s clothing or shoes – what it looks like on or how it will fit. Then of course there’s the issue of giving credit card information and all that good stuff, but for some (irrational) reason that bothers me less than the thought that I could receive clothing that doesn’t fit right or isn’t how it looked in the pictures online.
Very few websites give me any incentive to purchase anything off of them and usually I’ll just look up what I want online and then go to the actual store to try it on and then buy it. That is, until I found zappos.com. Zappos.com sells hundreds of brands of clothes and shoes. The website shows a detailed, clear picture of each product as well as product details. For example for shoes it will show the shoe in every color it comes in, along with how tall they are, what they are made of and how much they weigh. The best part of it is that Zappos offers free overnight shipping. It’s absolutely amazing. And if the product is not what you expected, you can ship it back for free too. I think the fact that the consumer can get what she wants right away for no extra charge is what made me fall in love with Zappos. The company really made me trust it just because I knew that I could get what I wanted right away and I if didn’t like it, I could return it just as quickly. I felt like it was safe to shop online with them. The experience was great. I just ordered a pair of shoes, my first purchase from the website, and they came in today. The fact that the shoes came on time, looked exactly like the picture and fit perfectly just cemented my good opinion of Zappos.
Not only does Zappos do a great job with customer experience, but it also knows how target their market segment. The website has bright colors to draw the consumer’s attention to new products or popular items. The navigation buttons on the top are big and easy to see, the search box is right next to them and everything on site is written in big, easy to read font. For women who like to shop online and may not be good with computers, this site is great and very easy to use. Just in case a consumer does get confused, Zappos offers a 24/7 customer service number for anyone who might need help with the site or has questions about a product. It also has a “price protection” policy where Zappos will give a 110% refund to any consumer who bought a product off of Zappos but found the same item at a different store for a cheaper price. It doesn’t get much better than that. The website knows exactly what women want when it comes to online shopping: easy browsing, convenience, fast shipping and a sense of confidence in the company. I really believe anyone who has purchased a product from Zappos will not hesitate in returning to the website in the future and buying from it again. The experience at Zappos was, for me at least, different from any previous online shopping incident I’ve ever experienced. Not only have I told my friends about this wonderful website (I was also referred to this website by a friend) but I will have no problems buying from it again.
Very few websites give me any incentive to purchase anything off of them and usually I’ll just look up what I want online and then go to the actual store to try it on and then buy it. That is, until I found zappos.com. Zappos.com sells hundreds of brands of clothes and shoes. The website shows a detailed, clear picture of each product as well as product details. For example for shoes it will show the shoe in every color it comes in, along with how tall they are, what they are made of and how much they weigh. The best part of it is that Zappos offers free overnight shipping. It’s absolutely amazing. And if the product is not what you expected, you can ship it back for free too. I think the fact that the consumer can get what she wants right away for no extra charge is what made me fall in love with Zappos. The company really made me trust it just because I knew that I could get what I wanted right away and I if didn’t like it, I could return it just as quickly. I felt like it was safe to shop online with them. The experience was great. I just ordered a pair of shoes, my first purchase from the website, and they came in today. The fact that the shoes came on time, looked exactly like the picture and fit perfectly just cemented my good opinion of Zappos.
Not only does Zappos do a great job with customer experience, but it also knows how target their market segment. The website has bright colors to draw the consumer’s attention to new products or popular items. The navigation buttons on the top are big and easy to see, the search box is right next to them and everything on site is written in big, easy to read font. For women who like to shop online and may not be good with computers, this site is great and very easy to use. Just in case a consumer does get confused, Zappos offers a 24/7 customer service number for anyone who might need help with the site or has questions about a product. It also has a “price protection” policy where Zappos will give a 110% refund to any consumer who bought a product off of Zappos but found the same item at a different store for a cheaper price. It doesn’t get much better than that. The website knows exactly what women want when it comes to online shopping: easy browsing, convenience, fast shipping and a sense of confidence in the company. I really believe anyone who has purchased a product from Zappos will not hesitate in returning to the website in the future and buying from it again. The experience at Zappos was, for me at least, different from any previous online shopping incident I’ve ever experienced. Not only have I told my friends about this wonderful website (I was also referred to this website by a friend) but I will have no problems buying from it again.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
speedo vs. nike swim
I’ve been swimming competitively since I was about eight years old. Growing up with the sport, I’ve seen it evolve from world records breaking to changes in swimsuit design. The brand most commonly thought of with competitive swimwear is Speedo, and I’ve worn my fair share of Speedo suits. Nike, however, has entered the competitive swimwear market and is establishing itself as a serious contender to chip away at Speedo’s share of the market. What I’m really interested in researching is how Nike’s marketing and customer service is different from Speedo’s and what Speedo is going to do (if anything) about Nike’s competition.
As an athlete on the University of Texas Women’s Swimming & Diving Team I have been sponsored by both Speedo and Nike. My freshman and sophomore years the team was sponsored by Speedo. Then we had a coaching change, and our new head coach decided to switch our team to Nike. When it comes to athletic apparel, it’s obvious that Nike does a pretty good job. Our warm ups, shoes and workout clothing are all made for serious athletes, not to mention they are very cute (apparently something girls are concerned with even when working out). When it comes to fast swimming, however, the company has its work cut out for them. Speedo has been doing the research and developing the cutting edge, faster swimsuits that reduce drag for years and years. Nike though has responded quickly coming out with a new suit this year to compete with Speedo’s fastest suit yet, the FSPro.
Speedo, however, doesn’t seem to care much about its consumers. Kirsty hasn’t been paid since 2005. Since then she’s won multiple World Championships and come close to breaking the world record in 3 different events. That doesn’t seem like the way to treat a top client. The company was just as unresponsive with the women’s swim team, which is why we switched to Nike. The only reason the men are still with Speedo is because Eddie Reese (one of the best swim coaches in the world) doesn’t care enough about sponsorships to switch over, but he hasn’t been treated any better. The thing in the swimming world is it’s not very big. Everyone knows everyone, so if Speedo is not treating the best swimmers in the world and one of the top universities in the country (a huge part of its target market) well, how does it expect to keep its business going? Especially with a successful, established company like Nike out to get them?
The article I found talks about Speedo’s marketing strategy, which seems to be based mostly off of reputation. The company gets high profile Olympic athletes to do technique clinics and give motivational speeches as well as talk about how innovative the Speedo suits are. It depends heavily on using well-known athletes to promote its suits. It also says the company is trying to expand its market by developing beach-sports related products.
The only concern I have with this topic is that there might not be much information available when it comes to Speedo’s and Nike Swim’s marketing campaigns. Speedo isn’t a widely talked about company and Nike Swim is definitely not Nike’s most prominent division. It is a very interesting topic to me though so I hope to find enough about both companies to make this my report.
article citation:
Conti, Samantha. "SPEEDO'S MARKETING STRATEGY: FROM BOTTOM TO TOP." WWD (July 18, 2003): 14B. General OneFile. Gale. 3 Oct. 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
nature's own
One of my favorite channels on TV to watch is the Food Network. Usually if I’m busy doing something and I just want some background noise, I’ll just turn the TV to that station and let it play. Because I watch it so much, I am also familiar with the commercials that run on that station, and one that I absolutely love is for Nature’s Own bread. I don’t buy that brand and I don’t eat wheat bread (although I know I probably should) but that commercial is great, and I think it does a great job of appealing to a few SEMs.
The first thing about the commercial that caught my attention is the song playing in the background, obviously appealing to the SEM of sense (sound). The music is catchy in a relaxing, summer day kind of way and the lyrics are perfect for the message the company is trying to get across. The commercial starts off singing “I don’t love you much do I, just more than all the stars in the sky” which kind of made me “awww” inside (SEM of feel, but we’ll get to that later). The song perfectly matches the commercial because the commercial shows several families having fun together playing football outside, scrambling to get everything ready in the chaos of the morning or snuggling on the couch – obviously families that care and love each other very much. It’s a very picture perfect, all-American type scene which the music captures.
The next SEM is of feel. Watching the commercial made me happy because you’re watching happy families interact. There’s a little kid running around with a pasta strainer on his head, banging a metal bowl with a wooden spoon – very cute, and it made me smile. Then there’s the family that’s playing in the sprinklers. I mean, who doesn’t love playing in the sprinklers, right? Those kinds of happy, fun images elicit cheerful, caring emotions and at the very least leave the viewer with a sense of contentment. It almost makes you feel that no matter what goes wrong in the world or at work or at school, at the end of the day, your family will always be there for you and love you. That’s pretty powerful for a bread company.
The third SEM the commercial appeals to, is that the viewer can relate to it. I’m fairly certain no one wishes to be a part of a torn-up, screwed up family so watching these “ideal” families interact kind of makes the viewer think “yeah, I want my family to be like that”. The tagline at the end reading, “You give your best every day. So do we.” speaks directly to the viewer. It’s very compelling for mothers especially because which mom out there would actually think “no, I don’t think I’ll do everything I can for my kids today”? Hopefully not very many. The commercial practically screams “if you buy our bread you too can have the ideal family with the cute kids and all the quality family time in the world” but in a gentler, more subtle way. It makes the viewer want to be a part of a family like the ones shown in the commercial. Also, parents want their families to be healthy, as a general rule. Surely the happy, loving parents in the commercial would feed their families only the best, healthiest bread. Meaning anyone who gives a squat about their families would be smart and buy Nature’s Own bread. Therefore people can relate to the commercial in this second aspect.
I think this commercial does a great job of appealing to these three experiences because they were all very easy to describe. I could easily distinguish each experience in the commercial, and I think the fact that I loved this commercial – but wasn’t quite sure why – before this blog was even assigned just further proves its effectiveness. Seeing as I don’t have a family of my own and am not thinking about starting one soon, I feel like my only bias is that I am kind of a sappy, cheesy person and am a sucker for cute commercials such as this one. Still, I believe that even a rational person can watch the commercial and come away feeling good.
The first thing about the commercial that caught my attention is the song playing in the background, obviously appealing to the SEM of sense (sound). The music is catchy in a relaxing, summer day kind of way and the lyrics are perfect for the message the company is trying to get across. The commercial starts off singing “I don’t love you much do I, just more than all the stars in the sky” which kind of made me “awww” inside (SEM of feel, but we’ll get to that later). The song perfectly matches the commercial because the commercial shows several families having fun together playing football outside, scrambling to get everything ready in the chaos of the morning or snuggling on the couch – obviously families that care and love each other very much. It’s a very picture perfect, all-American type scene which the music captures.
The next SEM is of feel. Watching the commercial made me happy because you’re watching happy families interact. There’s a little kid running around with a pasta strainer on his head, banging a metal bowl with a wooden spoon – very cute, and it made me smile. Then there’s the family that’s playing in the sprinklers. I mean, who doesn’t love playing in the sprinklers, right? Those kinds of happy, fun images elicit cheerful, caring emotions and at the very least leave the viewer with a sense of contentment. It almost makes you feel that no matter what goes wrong in the world or at work or at school, at the end of the day, your family will always be there for you and love you. That’s pretty powerful for a bread company.
The third SEM the commercial appeals to, is that the viewer can relate to it. I’m fairly certain no one wishes to be a part of a torn-up, screwed up family so watching these “ideal” families interact kind of makes the viewer think “yeah, I want my family to be like that”. The tagline at the end reading, “You give your best every day. So do we.” speaks directly to the viewer. It’s very compelling for mothers especially because which mom out there would actually think “no, I don’t think I’ll do everything I can for my kids today”? Hopefully not very many. The commercial practically screams “if you buy our bread you too can have the ideal family with the cute kids and all the quality family time in the world” but in a gentler, more subtle way. It makes the viewer want to be a part of a family like the ones shown in the commercial. Also, parents want their families to be healthy, as a general rule. Surely the happy, loving parents in the commercial would feed their families only the best, healthiest bread. Meaning anyone who gives a squat about their families would be smart and buy Nature’s Own bread. Therefore people can relate to the commercial in this second aspect.
I think this commercial does a great job of appealing to these three experiences because they were all very easy to describe. I could easily distinguish each experience in the commercial, and I think the fact that I loved this commercial – but wasn’t quite sure why – before this blog was even assigned just further proves its effectiveness. Seeing as I don’t have a family of my own and am not thinking about starting one soon, I feel like my only bias is that I am kind of a sappy, cheesy person and am a sucker for cute commercials such as this one. Still, I believe that even a rational person can watch the commercial and come away feeling good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)