G.M. and Mountain Dew Pull Ads after Criticism for Racial Insensitivity

I found this article on the New York Times website, and it shows that you have to be careful when putting together ad that may be insensitive to certain audiences. G.M. just pulled back an ad for the Chevrolet Trax, a small utility vehicle that is sold in countries including Canada, that takes place in the 1930s and features a modern remix from a song of that era that included references to Chinese people using phrases like "ching ching, chop-suey."Advertising standards  Canada advised GM to remove the lyrics from the song and just keep the melody. GM decided that the best decision would be to remove it from the canada TV completely and from the online websites in Europe where it was also airing.

Mountain Dew's ad featured a battered waitress, bandaged and on crutches, trying to identify the suspect who had hurt her when she ran out of Mountain Dew to serve. The lineup included African-American men, with names like LBoy, Tiny and Beyonte,  and a goat. The waitress, who happens to be white, struggles with the decision while a menacing voice over for the goat claims that he did it. The goat threatens her and she backs out of the identification process too scared to make a choice. 

Its easy to see how these two ads can be perceived as insensitive or hurtful to people. Race is not something that can be taken lightly at this present time. 

Why would a company even take a risk at developing an ad that could be insensitive to race? How could they view that as a good risk to take?

Response to Melissa's post on Dunkin Donuts

How do you think this will effect doughnut customers? Will they still think of Dunkin Donuts when looking to find a doughnut if DD's isn't marketing towards doughnut eaters anymore? How will this effect Dunkin Donuts?

I don't see the discontinuation of the marking of doughnuts hurting DD's that much. People do not need to be reminded that they Dunkin Donuts sells Doughnuts. They will always know that they are their even if they are not constantly reminded of it. The marketing their other breakfast foods is what will bring new customers in. People who want their doughnuts will always come in, but people looking for a different kind of breakfast can be drawn in by the new sandwiches, frozen drinks, and coffees.

Do you think DD's would ever consider to stop selling doughnuts all together? Or even just cut back on the varieties that they offer? If so, Wouldn't they have to change their name then?

Lionsgate's New Logo

Lionsgate unveiled a radically different logo recently, disregarding its gates and looking to underscore its new growth. This new logo starts with a big bang-type moment in space revealing the constellation Leo and ends with the Lions gate name breaking through clouds during an eclipse of the sun.

The goal is to make the point that they are now part of a bigger and more exciting universe. I believe this is more intestering logo then their previous one. Its a good change and has the potential attract the attention of more fans, but what it will come down to is whether or not Lionsgate will continue to produce successful movie franchises.

What do you think of the new logo? Is it better than the old one? Will it give them a competitive advantage over the other movie studios?

Response to Jade's post on the Dollar Shave Club

"Would you invest your life savings in an idea that you were fairly confident in? Or would you have to be completely confident?"

I would have to be completely confident, or very close to it. To risk it all like that, I would need a guarantee that I would be making money and not throwing away all the money that I worked so hard to earn. I believe that there are some risks that are worth taking, but then there are risks like putting all of your savings on the line that take a great deal of thought and time to consider the consequences. Which is why I could not do it if I was only fairly confident.

Do you have to be a person with a general high level of confidence to take risks like these?

Brittney Griner a Game Changer for the WNBA?

The WNBA  is attempting to rebrand itself in its seventeenth season, and Brittney Griner has the chance to become the face of the campaign. Its Draft will air in prime time for the first time and the college star Griner is more than likely to be the first player taken. The league has a new logo, an extended television deal with ESPN, and an orchestrated drive to promote three highly visible rookies who will be selected in the upcoming draft; Griner, Skylar Diggins, and Elena Delle Donne.

The campaign to spotlight Griner, Diggins, and Delle Donne is a continuation of ESPN's "3 to See" promotion during the recent college season. It calls for a realization that women's basketball must provide a united front to succeed. 

Griner is so significant because at Baylor she may have had the greatest impact of any player in the women's game; setting an NCAA record for blocked shots, finishing second on the career scoring list, and miking highlight reels with her dunks. The WNBA is hoping she creates a similar buzz at the pro level and thus Phoenix, the team that is expected to pick her in the draft, is scheduled to appear in 6 of the 14 games that air on ESPN and ABC. 

I belive the WNBA has a good plan in place and is heading in the right direction to gaining more interest in the league. Talented players, like the three they have coming into the league, can easily fill the seats in the stands. When you look at the NBA, people will just come to games to see the likes of Lebron James, Kevin Durant, and Carmelo Anthony. The WNBA has a chance achieve this as well, as long as these new players live up to their potential and are able to land new sponsors and marketing deals. 

What do you think of the WNBA's chances of drawing more interest with this current plan in place?

Response to Nick's post on Infomercials

'What is your take on infomercials? Are they a good marketing tactic for a company?'

I do not see infomercials being a very successful marketing tactic. I find them more annoying than useful. They all try to push across the same message, about how great their product is in the most obnoxious way possible. They can be very difficult to take seriously at times. I never end up paying any attention to them, because they can be so repetitive. The prices are always the same too. No matter what the product, it always seems cost $19.95; plus you get a second one free or some other related product free. I just don't understand how anyone can really fall for these ads.

Have you ever bought a product from an infomercial, or know anyone who has?

Adidas's Kevin Ware T-shirts

Adidas has stopped selling T-shirts featuring the jersey number of injured Louisville guard Kevin Ware, calling it a "logo issue." The shirts read "Rise to the Occasion" with Ware's number 5 substituted for the "s" in "Rise.

Louisville had stated that they waived the royalties for the shirt so it would not be profiting from Ware's injury. Adidas agreed to make donations to the schools scholarship fund. 

The bigger element of this story is that an on-going lawsuit against the NCAA and Electronic Arts over the rights to use player's images without compensation claims that Louisville should not be able to sell the shirt. The money from the T-shirt sales going to the scholarship fund does not change things. If they did not ask Kevin's permission, then they can not sell the shirt. If they did ask Kevin permission and he said yes, then Kevin would be ineligible. The whole thing seems a little bit out of hand and more complicated that it actually should be. Louisville should be able to sell the shirt with the profits going to charity or their scholarship fund in my opinion. However, with that lawsuit going on and the debate on whether college athletes deserve to be paid for their efforts, situations like this will remain complicated. 

Who do you think has more right to sell the Kevin Ware T-shirts, Adidas or Louisville?