How will the Instagram Update Affect Marketing?

This week, I've heard a lot of my friends talking about the new Instagram update, and how it will supposedly "ruin" the social media photo sharing platform that we've all grown to love. Because I heard this update dramatically changes Instagram, I decided to turn off my automatic update settings on my iPhone to give myself time to decide if I want to get the update or not. The new update will no longer show photos on a person's news feed in chronological order. Now, the photos that will come up are going to be based off of who the user interacts with the most. This will be extremely similar to the way the Facebook news feed is set up.

After learning about this new update, I instantly thought of how this change will affect marketers. Instagram is one of the widely used social media platforms by brands, and I was curious to learn if it would help them or hurt them. I found an article online from Internet Marketing Inc. that discusses all of the details. Because the update will involve such a drastic change in the way photos appear on users' feeds, it is important that brands adjust their strategies accordingly. I'm going to discuss a few points and tips from the online article I read.

Because engagement is huge in all aspects of a brand's marketing strategy, post engagement will definitely be affected by the new update. Without the photos being shown in chronological order, marketers will no longer have a guarantee that their followers, or other consumers for that matter, will see their photos at a particular time. I remember at my internship, I would have to schedule various social media posts for clients. I wonder how this will affect post scheduling, since it seems like the order photos will be shown in is determined by each individual's use of the platform. The online article suggests that it is necessary for brands to continue engaging with their consumers, with the hope that they will engage with brand content. By engaging with consumers, hopefully it will increase the reach of the posts.

Another key issue the article discussed was regarding post frequency. Brands are now unable to tell stories to their consumers based off of a chronological time frame. This means that the time element of the Instagram posts is not as critical, but the content itself might be more important. I think to successfully avoid running into issues regarding this topic, brands should create posts that can be seen at a variety of times to accommodate different consumers using Instagram. Brands need to ensure that regardless of when consumers see their photos, that they have valuable content and are worth noticing.

Overall, it is interesting to look at different social media platforms and how their updates and changes will affect brands. This ties into the ongoing theme that marketing is always changing- especially because of its strong ties to social media. The best piece of advice I can give to brands regarding this topic is to constantly stay on top of the latest trends and updates. If your brand is using a social media platform to engage with consumers, be sure to check out updates frequently to see how they'll affect your marketing strategy

Will "1893" be a hit in 2016?

While I was working on my Brand Analytics Assignment on Coca-Cola, I was looking at competitors' websites. I was intrigued when I looked at Pepsi-Cola's home page, where they had a photo and short description of their newest product, "1893" cola. This interested me not only because it was relevant to my analysis of Coke's competition, but because it shows how a successful brand has to reinvent itself from time to time in order to have a competitive edge.

Although my research has shown that Coca-Cola is a stronger brand than Pepsi-Cola (and better tasting in my opinion!), Pepsi-Cola is extremely successful as well, and it looks like they are heading in the right direction with this new product. So, what exactly is this 1893 cola? The name sure is interesting.

I did a little research and found an article about 1893 and why Pepsi has decided to launch it. 1893 is made with a "bold combination" of real sugar, sparkling water, and kola nuts to try and give consumers a new and "unexpected" taste. The year 1893 is significant in Pepsi's history because it is the year that Caleb Bradham, a drugstore owner in North Carolina, started selling his own drink known as "Brad's drink", that eventually became Pepsi.

This soda is targeted at millennials, who are said to care about "really long, legally worded brand names". With that in mind, Pepsi is including "from the Makers of PepsiCola" on the packaging below the product name. I think that this is creative and definitely appealing to millennials, especially with the hipster/rustic packaging look. The main reason for the creation and launch of this new product has to do with the long-term decline in soda consumption. I think it is important for Pepsi to consider these social factors, and use them as fuel to come up with new products that will appeal to consumers who are more health conscious, Not only are the ingredients of this new cola appealing to millennials and health-conscious individuals, the packaging has an "earthy" vibe to it. To me, that screams healthy (well in this case, healthier).

This topic reminded me of our constant discussion in class about how brands need to always keep up with the times and change themselves according to what consumers want and need. If consumers shift toward healthier livings, brands need to adjust accordingly. Moving to this new line of soda helps Pepsi stay true to their historical roots and classic nature, while appealing to millennials and working with societal trends. This would have been an interesting element to add to my Brand Analytics Assignment if I weren't writing about their competitor!

Worker Experience > Customer Experience?

In a recent article on the American Marketing Association website, Nick Romano, a marketing news writer, discussed how "worker experience" is becoming increasingly important within companies. In class, we are constantly talking about the consumer experience. Even yesterday, my group determined that if we could say one thing about marketing in today's society and how it's evolving, we would say, "consumer". It is so drilled in our minds that as marketers, we must constantly cater to our consumers. What are their wants, needs, and desires? Now, this article is making me question that thinking, and wonder if the worker's experience is just as, or even more important.

So, what exactly is the "worker experience"? The article discusses how millennials are taking over the workforce, accounting for the largest percentage of the U.S. workforce. In addition, "research shows that the majority of millennials want to work in a place where they can make a difference, and that they prefer a collaborative work culture". This is really interesting to me, but not extremely surprising. As a millennial, I agree that a company's work culture is extremely important. At my internship last semester, I worked with individuals who were hardworking, passionate, and enthusiastic about their jobs. Their positive energy made working in the office even better, and inspired me to always do my best work. They also try to do an "office fun night" every few months, to get together with one another and enjoy drinks and appetizers. This company culture is really important because it improves relationships among co-workers and makes working at the company more enjoyable.

I agree with the article regarding the importance of the worker experience. Although the consumer experience has an overwhelming affect on brand equity and value, I can see why worker experience also does. Think about Google. Google is not only a well-known, well-respected brand because of what it offers consumers. Google is also known to be one of the top places in the world to work, having great programs and opportunities for their employees. If a brand pleases both its workers and its consumers, it seems to have it all. This ties back to our discussions about a brand's inner and outer layer matching up with consumers'. In order for a brand to successfully target their consumers and understand their inner and outer layer, they need to improve and understand their own. And, what better way to do so than improving company culture and their work environment.

I found it interesting when the article mentioned the influence that the worker experience has on customer communication. Giving employees more freedom and leeway when it comes to customer communications could in fact lead to positive results. I think that this article was a good read, and it opened my eyes to the fact that there is a lot more to a brand's evaluation than just their ability to provide a memorable and valuable consumer experience. As a soon to be college graduate looking to enter the marketing field, I am happy to see that there is also a strong emphasis on the worker experience as well!

Will Consumers Ever Stop Fixating on Price?

This week, we've done a lot of discussion about how pricing can influence marketing strategies. People have varying perspectives on how pricing plays a role in consumers' likelihood to purchase items and re-purchase. We discussed EDLP (everyday low pricing), as opposed to Hi-Lo pricing. Which is more effective? I'd have to say that is subjective, as well as dependent on the particular company enabling the strategy. One of the articles we read was entitled How to Stop Customers from Fixating on price, by Marco Bertini and Luc Wathieu. This article had a lot of interesting information about how marketers can utilize pricing strategies to gain an advantage, and stimulate interest from their consumers.

The article discussed four pricing moves that are perceived to be ways to diminish the salience of price in a purchase transaction. The four moves are; use price structure to clarify your advantage, willfully overprice to stimulate curiosity, partition prices to highlight overlooked benefits, and equalize price points to crystallize personal relevance. Of these four points, I think that the first two are extremely relevant and interesting. In our discussions about marketing strategy, it is always stressed that brands clearly let consumers know what their advantage is. What is your brand's USP that will help gain an edge over competition? Not only is it important to understand it as a brand, it is important that consumers understand it. By using price structure to do this, consumers may get a better understanding about why your brand has an advantage that justifies paying more than what you would pay for a competitor's product.

"Willfully overprice to stimulate curiosity": immediately when I read this, I thought of materialism. Although a lot of consumers are price sensitive, many are also materialistic. Why buy a plain black fleece at the store for $30 if you can pay over $100 to have the North Face label? I'm not really sure. Although I am definitely guilty of leaning toward name brand products, it's kind of silly when you think about it. You are paying a significantly larger amount for a product that might be almost the same. This goes for low-involvement products as well as high involvement products. But, even though "materialistic purchases" could be wasting consumers' money, it is putting a lot of money in the hands of these companies.

What exactly is a materialistic purchase? I'd say, it is when a consumer buys a brand over its competitors because their higher pricing because they think it means it has higher value. This is genius for marketers. Why do you think Apple is so successful? Yes, I think that their products work very well for my personal technological needs, but are they REALLY worth the amount of money I pay? Maybe not. I might just be one of those consumers looking to have the "trendiest" and well-known technology, made by the most popular brand in the industry. This reminds me of groupthink. This is a concept I've learned in a number of marketing courses as well as communication courses. People often make decisions, including purchase decisions (in this case), based on what the group of people around them do. If one person buys the most expensive brand because they think it has the highest quality, their friend might do the same thing. This high price will stimulate curiosity, as stated in the article, and lead to another purchase. That curiosity may lead to extensive W.O.M. among consumers. "Why do you pay so much for Apple products?", might lead to a conversation about why Apple products are so great.

So, I don't think consumers will ever stop "fixating" on price. In a world where people often make money to spend money, it's tough to say that prices won't have a large influence on purchase decisions. But, marketers can use this to their advantage and let pricing aid their marketing strategies.