IMC Hawks Blog

Tag: Coke

  • You can’t have your Coke and drink it too

    It’s one of the pillars of successful marketing, target your audience. Individualizing ads to particulars groups or regions of consumers ensure that messages have the most impact. But what happens when a company features a controversial scene in a spot, then removes it for some audiences and not others? Good marketing move or failure to take a stance?

    In its newest global campaign, “Reasons to Believe” Coca-Cola set out to inspire consumers that no matter what happens in life, it’s those small happy moments that make life worth living.

    Check out the commercial below.

    In most European countries the ad contains a scene of two gay men holding hands in front of their wedding party. However, in the Irish version (the video below) the scene has been replaced to feature a bride and groom.

    The Irish LGBT publication, EILE Magazine, brought attention to the issue, calling the removal an “inexplicable move”. In response to the criticism, Coca-Cola said that the advertisement had been tailored to individual markets so that the ad resonates with the people in each country where it is shown. The company defends the decisions saying that grooms were excluded from the Irish version because gay marriage is not legal in the country. EILE Magazine claims the Coca-Cola reasoning moot. The footage of the two grooms is known to be a video clip from a same-sex union ceremony in Australia – equivalent to a civil partnership in Ireland. Yet gay marriage is also illegal in Australia, but shown there. EILE claims the spot should have been suitable for Ireland as well.

    Coca-Cola has unequivocally made public their supporting stance on same sex marriage. Since 2006, the Human Rights Campaign continues to award Coca-Cola with a 100 percent ranking of their company polices and practices regarding LGBT. The Coca-Cola Company notes on their website, “To achieve a perfect score, companies must have fully inclusive equal employment opportunity policies, provide equal employment benefits, demonstrate their commitment to equality publicly and exercise responsible citizenship”

    Many are saying that Coca-Cola’s recent actions were hypocritical. Coca-Cola claims to support gay marriage, but their choice to remove a gay marriage scene from a commercial in Ireland, in which law does not prohibit such imagery, is misleading of the company’s values. Similarly, another beverage icon, Starbucks, has also gained attention for their hypocritical actions.

    Bryant Simon discusses the company Starbucks in his book Everything But the Coffee. Through his research he comes to discover that Starbucks isn’t delivering what they are promising in their brand – good coffee with little environmental impact. Claiming to buy fair-trade coffee from Rwanda and Nicaragua farmers, Starbucks was actually buying from bigger farmers and only buying 5-6 percent of fair-trade out of all the total coffee purchases.

    Much like Starbucks claiming to be environmentally friendly yet not taking the necessary steps in order to be green, Coca-Cola’s actions were just as misleading; claiming to support gay marriage yet removing a scene from one version of a commercial for the sole purpose of trying to please everyone.

    As future and current brand ambassadors we have to remember that every decision we make, including company policy decisions, become an integral part of brand, and when decisions are made that contradicts that it hurts the brand.

    On the other side of things, as consumers (and as Simon states in his book) we have to remember pursuing “solutions to highly complex social problems through buying and buying alone” doesn’t fix the problem or change the ideology. We have to stop relying and believing that buying certain brands is going to change a social issue.

    So, does Coke’s decision to take out the gay marriage scene hurt its brand identity? Should companies take stances on social issues? What practices do you follow to make sure this brand conflict doesn’t occur in your company or with your clients?

    – Savannah Valade, Caroline Robinson, Elizabeth Harrington

  • Do the (RED) Thing

    One of the most successful examples of cause marketing is the Product Red campaign that was launched in 2006. This was when the Red foundation paired up with recognizable brands such as Starbucks, Gap, Coke and Apple to raise money for HIV/AIDS. Since its launch, the organization has raised $215 million. This money goes straight to The Global Fund, who invests 100% of the earnings to HIV/AIDS programs in Africa. This marketing seems to be benefiting both parties because while the nonprofit is raising money and visibility, the for-profit is gaining customers who support the cause. BRSL_Lockup_October2013

    The reason cause marketing is so popular is because it gives consumers an extrinsic and intrinsic reward  for their purchases. The extrinsic motivation to buy the product is the product itself. While the intrinsic motivation is to walk away knowing that you just donated money to a good cause. In the book Cognitive Surplus, Clay Shirky describes how times are changing and people are now doing things just because they want to, not because they are getting rewarded. I agree with him and believe that people are still going to buy products that they already wanted or needed before they found out it was connected to an organization. If someone wants Starbucks, they are going to get it whether or not it is on the day that the company is donating to the Red foundation.

    What do you think? Have you ever gone out of your way to buy a certain product, because you knew a percentage of your purchase was going to go to a good cause? Would you buy a Red iPod, even though you wanted the green one? Take a minute and think about if you are more driven by intrinsic or extrinsic motives.

    -Ashley Creps

  • Healthy Competition

    Ever heard of the term “Healthy Competition?” Well perhaps instead of seeing competition as a driving negative force behind brands going head to head in their advertisements (i.e PCvsMAC or PEPSIvsCOKE), we as consumers actually get an insight into a wider variety of products that we can choose to purchase/support.

    First, let’s look at the how competition helped, rather than hurt, pepsi/coke in these advertisements.

    Coke zero was implemented into markets in 2006, starting out in western Europe. Considering it is still in stores, selling out shelves and soda machines is not only encouraging, but motivating! Just after two years of selling and marketing this new Coke product, sales went up 34% from when Zero began! USA Today reports, “Men are about 45% of Diet Coke drinkers but about 55% of Coke Zero buyers. It has a stronger, more Coke Classic-like flavor and seems to be holding onto Male customers who’ve become more calorie-conscious with age but still want more flavor than most diet colas.”

    Seeing the success in Coke Zero, Pepsi knew that such a strong competitor couldn’t go unnoticed. While PepsiMAX was created in 1993, Pepsi took action in response to Coke Zero’s success, as they strategically changed their name “Diet Pepsi” to “PepsiMAX” in 2009. These advertisements prove that the two companies have the exact same product, can cause argument between better tastes, but ultimately, they are putting each other in the spotlight for the consumer to decide for themselves.

    Also, PC got their fair share of shots from MAC, with the MACvsPC commercials featuring Justin Long and John Hodgman.

    MAC took focus on how much “cooler”, more “Attractive”, more “Stylish” and efficient their models were to PC. One can’t deny that these commercials weren’t strategic, effective, and fun to watch, but they were so hard to touch on PC’s weaknesses that Window’s gained enough strength to improve and implement an entire new Vista system.

    It mimics the idea of MAC’s leopard operating system, all while adding non-mac features like the tablet touch screen, TV recorder, and WiFi with WPA 2 support. But what did MAC do in return? Welcome, Snow Leopard.

    So hopefully we see now that competition is nothing short of evoking advancements in every product/line in the business. Competition helps business’s not only thrive upon existing technology, but drive improvements and innovations in this evolving economy.

    -Maxann Keller