Posse HOGs

Do you believe brand communities like Harley-Davidson result in greater involvement with the brand?
I absolutely think brand communities are important in consumer involvement. If a consumer sees that there are people who share their devotion to a specific brand, they are more willing to express that devotion publicly. This is especially true for brands that are the face of a lifestyle, like Harley-Davidson. I think that social acceptance of a behavior is the most essential factor in most people's decisions to exhibit that behavior or subscribe to a certain way of life. When a brand puts a bunch of people who agree with and accept each other's way of life together under the umbrella of their brand, the result is not only a new, engaged community, but a feeling among that community that the brand cares about their well-being.

What elements of the Posse Ride do you believe enhance the meaning of the brand for the riders?
The "Posse Oath" is a genius idea. It serves so many purposes: it makes clear to participants that they are really part of something; it clearly lays out the way of life that accompanies the brand; it serves as a bond or pact between participants; it inspires participants to adopt the brand's lifestyle; it immerses participants completely in the world of the brand for the extent of the tour. Making the consumer feel like he is individually important while at the same time creating a sense of camaraderie is quite a feat, and I think the idea of the "Posse Oath" does just that.

Should Harley-Davidson get more involved in the ride or would that dilute the ride's meaning to the participants?
Honestly, I know very little about the Harley Life. I have no personal interest in motorcycles. But from what I've read about the Posse Ride, I think that with the introduction of the Posse Oath and the various themed rides, they have hit a perfect harmony between brand saturation and organic inspiration. The participants know going into it that the ride is sponsored and led by Harley, but they are encouraged to personalize their experience as well.

In addition to experiences such as the Posse Ride, what other ways could Harley increase involvement in the brand?
Just off the top of my head, it would be interesting to see a chain of Harley Hostels. Harley-Davidson could introduce a number of hostel-like environments in various cities around the country, operated by HOG members, that could serve as checkpoints on personal cross-country motorcycle trips (not necessarily the Posse Ride) where riders could sleep, rest, or grab a meal with other fans. It could be a way to engage fans not only with the brand, but with each other, as well as promote and proliferate the brand name. But now that I think of it, that might already exist.

-Saige

Sony's Sorry Attempt at Marketing the PS Vita

When I was thinking back to products that had been released both successfully and catastrophically in my lifetime, I found that many of them were electronic products. I think this is simply because in the last hundred or so years, technology has advanced so rapidly that there have been an overwhelming number of new electronics to be invented and released. But not all of these products can be winners, and it's relatively easy to point out the losers based on the products' lack of attention to consumer behavior and how it motivates people to make purchases.

Back in February of 2012, Sony released the PlayStation Vita (PS Vita) in the United States. It was meant to be an update on the popular PlayStation Portable (PSP), released in 2005. But the product, though highly anticipated, flopped within months of its release. I read several articles on the PS Vita and it seems the main reasons for the flop were the available games and the price point. These reasons can be attributed to consumer behavior, and specifically that of the "gamer" market. 

When a video game console is released, much of what draws to the console is what they are able to do on it (understandably). This means that for the release to be successful, it must be accompanied by several promising release titles. New games that are exclusive to the coming console are what draw in the avid gamers. They want to be among the first to try the new games, and especially new titles from their favorite series. Unfortunately, the PS Vita did not have the all-important aid of popular and anticipated release titles. And since it had only a few attention-grabbing features that weren't already present in the PSP, the product just didn't pan out.

An obviously important aspect of any product release is the price point. In the gaming market, however, it seems gamers are willing to spend more money on a console if they know they're going to get something exclusive or special out of it. But the PS Vita's release price was just under $300. Even for a full-size console, that is an extremely high price. Given the lack of promising release titles and innovative new features offered by the PS Vita, this price was just not justifiable among gamers, who ultimately decide a product's worth among other consoles. The release also fell just a few months after Nintendo dramatically lowered the cost of its Nintendo 3DS to $169, and that product offered 3D gameplay, a feature the PS Vita could not rival. The PS Vita sold only 2.2 million units in the first six months, compared to the Nintendo 3DS' 3.6 million in its first month alone. 

It seems that Sony disregarded the tried and true behavior exhibited by the gamer market with its release of the PlayStation Vita. Sony has a huge fan base surrounding its PlayStation line, but even hardcore fans of the console series could not get behind the release of this product because it simply didn't appeal to the ideals of the gamer: innovation, firstism, and playability. And on top of that, Sony failed to readjust the price to compete with the increasing popularity of smartphone and tablet gaming, which is considerably cheaper. And even following a slight price drop and the introduction of an exclusive title in the Call of Duty series, the PS Vita remains a huge flop, and ultimately, an embarrassment to both Sony and the gaming community.

-Saige

WWF Says: Stop Killing Stuff

The World Wildlife Fund was formed in 1961. It's worked hard ever since, as their mission statement says, "to build a future in which people live in harmony with nature." Since the foundation has been around so long, it has been able to reach all corners of the world with its helping hands, and do a great deal to achieve that goal. Some quick statistics from their website (http://www.wwf.org/) give a glimpse at just how far that reach has gone: WWF has five million supporters spanning 100 countries, led by more than 5,000 staff. 

Given the huge amount of campaigns dedicated to such diverse environmental issues, I want to focus on a couple of the more current campaigns to combat the slaughter of wildlife for unnecessary human use, such as fashion or decoration, that I feel are particularly powerful. 

Evolution Campaign

I love the simplicity of this campaign. It's very straightforward - you know from looking at it that WWF is discouraging the slaughter of wildlife. It speaks to a wide range of viewers because of its simple, easy-to-understand imagery, and I think the lack of copy makes it even more powerful. It's almost saying, "you should already know that this is wrong without being told." And the decision to cut off the evolution in the middle of the page with blank space under it really emphasizes the idea that should a species go extinct, its story can go no further. Simplicity in advertising is something I think many people respond positively to, and this campaign does a great job of evoking a response.

Imagine This Is Yours Campaign

The moment I saw these ads I felt a twinge of guilt. The campaign speaks directly to perhaps the most basic human (and animal) instinct: protect your young. It forces the viewer to see the slaughter of wildlife from a different, more easily relatable standpoint. It was probably created for an older audience of parents, but I think the meaning is clear enough to impact people of any age. The brief slogan, "Imagine this is yours," is just enough to guide the viewer's thoughts, but not so overbearing that it stops the imagination from running rampant with horrible thoughts of guilt. 

In its time, WWF has tried countless approaches to reach the widest audience possible. I find that the general theme of little to no copy with simple, striking imagery is particularly impactful given the message that's relayed: there's a simple fix for the unnecessary slaughter of wildlife, and that's to stop doing it.

-Saige

Rose Petal NOTtage

When I looked the ad up on YouTube so I could watch it again, I read through some of the comments. They ranged from extreme disapproval to reasonable defense to complete nonsense, as is the norm with YouTube. One comment that received a lot of dislikes was this:

"funny huh.... when a girl wants to be in the army or something manly everyone "praises her and will fight for her wants" when a girl just wants to be a house wife... everyone thinks she's weak and no one will let her have what she wants...."

I thought this was a good attempt at reason. The commenter clearly has good intentions, but I think he or she looked at the ad from the wrong angle. I agree completely that if a girl wants to be a housewife, she should not be subjected to criticism. But the problem that the commenter is not addressing is that this ad is addressing young, impressionable girls with the idea that being a housewife is a "dream, dream, dream." Some of the tag lines for the product include  "For little girls with big dreams" and "A place where she can contain her imagination." These phrases very clearly give off the idea that a little girl cannot dream any bigger or go any further or imagine any greater than being a housewife. Yes, being a housewife is a perfectly honorable route in life, as is being a soldier, but that doesn't mean that it is okay to give young girls the impression that being a housewife is the best and only path they can take.

Anyway, as far as making a new ad, I think it's a pretty easy fix. I would change the name, first of all, and give it a more fun, gender-neutral name such as "Kidville Playhouse." That's the name my group came up with. Then I would change the color scheme. I would replace the pastels with bright primary colors, giving it a not-so-serious vibe, because I think it's important that this toy does not too closely resemble an actual house in order to avoid having kids grow up too fast. 

For the action in the ad, I am picturing an adaptation of the Out of the Box theme song. This was one of my favorite shows when I was a kid, and I think it definitely helped me expand my imagination. I think the ad should picture kids of all races and both genders helping each other set up the house and then assuming various roles in groups, some groups all girls, some all boys, some a mix. The playhouse would be pictured on a field of green grass, with kids surrounding it on all sides doing different activities.

I think the most important element of the ad should not be the housework accessories, but the imagination required for a kid to make an actual house out of a four foot wide hunk of plastic. This way, gender is not even addressed, and rather than teaching girls how to do housework, it's teaching kids how to make something great out of something that's just okay. I know that's what I would have wanted to get out of it when I was that age. In fact, that's what I want to get out of life now.

-Saige  

It's a Boy Girl Thing

Advertising has its principles and standards that will always be in place, but it is not a stationary industry. Just like the technology industry, advertising is always improving and being innovated and reaching more people and fitting into a modern lifestyle. And just like the technology industry, advertising must constantly be aware of what people want in order to be successful. I think that in 2013, what people want is to be shocked. Because of the internet we have this idea that we’ve seen it all, so when something surprises us or makes us laugh, we want more of it. 

This concept can result in both positive and negative changes to gender stereotyping in advertising. On the one hand, wanting to see something new encourages advertisers to go against the grain that’s been going one way since before advertising was born and picture women as the superior gender to men. This reverse can empower women and create an idea of women as strong, intelligent, and capable people, an image that has been suppressed for generations. On the other hand, it encourages advertisers to caricature the traditional idea of a dominant man and submissive woman, an image that has been used to devalue women for far too long. Sexism in advertising today is very complex. It’s usually present, but rarely goes so completely overboard that a random passer-by would get offended. 

This ad for Muscle Pharm is a perfect example of that complexity. It pictures a beautiful woman in revealing clothing, which sexualizes her. But she is also standing in a powerful pose with a determined look on her face, and the ad reads, “Strong is the new sexy.” The phrase addresses the sexualization of women and uses it to communicate that the traditional image of “sexy” is changing. The ad empowers women to be strong, but still relies on women’s insecurities to do so. 

This Old Spice campaign was extremely successful, and for good reason. It’s funny, unique, and memorable. But the caricature of traditional gender roles is quite obvious in the ad. While the man in the ad is actually addressing women, he is still describing a situation in which the man must be the rich, suave, manly, good looking provider and protector. I think it’s clear that the advertisers did not create this ad to downplay women, but it is still masking gender stereotypes in a cloak of humor and extreme imagery. While it may not really be right to hide sexism behind humor, it is certainly a type of humor that is hugely popular in our society. The popularity of this humor alone can be used to justify it, because the general justification process for most trends in popular culture is “everyone is doing it, so it must be okay.” 

Many products, such as athletic cups or feminine products, are meant for only one gender. Does this mean advertisements can generalize and stereotype genders in order to sell to only one? I could honestly argue from both sides. Advertising is not a stationary industry. Traditional gender roles are definitely being challenged, and while we have a long way to go, I think that’s a step in the right direction. Katherine Frith said, “Not only does advertising shape American culture; it shapes Americans’ images of themselves.” Advertisers have the power to make huge strides in the right direction, and I hope to one day be a part of that.

-Saige