Suffocating ads

Suffocating ads

The general trend for tobacco companies in common opinion recently has not been in their favor. Years ago their advertisements were ripped from magazines, television and billboards in many states. The future for marketing this product doesn’t look good. A controversial topic at the least, I can’t help but feel frustrated for this continually bashed industry. Although not a smoker, I can only imagine the feat of trying to market a product so many people try to ban from everyday life. It has to be a tough job knowing that first your product was ban from inside bars, and then in many public places. The article below explains a move towards battling tobacco companies once again-

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/16/opinion/green-tobacco-education/index.html?iref=allsearch

It mentions that the advertisements across the country are totaling $54 million dollars. The Center of Disease Control is addressing the bill for this one, and is ultimately comprised of taxpayer dollars. Although it’s not the worst use of taxpayer money by any means in my opinion, I believe it’s common knowledge smoking is bad for you and shouldn’t be wasting the money that could be placed elsewhere. This is sort of a double-whammy on the tobacco companies, their product is unable to be displayed as the company would like, and some of the money they pay to the government is funding an anti-campaign against them. It’s not that the tobacco companies are right in distributing an addictive product, but the assumption it is bad for your health is clearly marked by laws, labels and common knowledge. I feel that there is enough going against any tobacco company, and marketing their product would be nearly impossible these days.

Alive or not?

Which way would you go?
Marketers have plenty of options when looking for endorsers or ways to endorse 
their product. The safest way, using either a fictional personality or dead 
celebrity has worked for many companies. "Charlie" the tuna has been the mascot 
for Chicken of the sea and has never once gotten arrested or had an affair. Just 
as well, when people think of Popeye almost immediately spinach comes to mind. 
He would be a perfect candidate for representing the vegetable, even though he 
has a temper and odd lifestyle. 
On the other side, having a concrete and real representative of a product or 
service can be just as good if not better. Even long after the endorsement ends, 
people can still associate the product with the person (This could obviously be 
good or bad!). At the same time, while being the endorser, they could win a 
championship, award or respect of the public. Media outlets have more insight to 
people's personal lives than ever, and that's a dangerous tool against any 
endorser. Any possible endorser has to weigh their options very carefully before 
having anybody sign a contact to represent the product/service/company. Which 
would you pick, the dead or fictional representative  or alive and well? Why? Do

you think an audience can identify well enough with a fictional character?

Leaving on a jet plane

Leaving on a jet plane
When looking at all of the places today marketers have to leave their mark, airplane travel can't be ignored. The terminals for each airline are littered with advertisements for everything under the sun. From travel destinations to business solutions advertisements are there with you the entire trip. After boarding, a passenger is still a potential customer of additional services offered. For example, many planes come with televisions in the headrests, which you may watch silently, or pay $2 for a headset to listen in. That's usually the time I start lip synching, or turn to a foreign channel so I can finally watch without being frustrated by the lack of understanding language. However, both the television and airline are trying to reach you, and regular headphones will do the trick. When you're "plugged in" the advertisements from anywhere can flow in, and they've got you all ears with nowhere to go.
You'd think your safe at thirty thousand feet from spending cash, right? Well, not exactly, there are credit card slots next to the televisions. This way you may make a phone call ($3.99 a minute Jet Blue), order an on demand movie ($4.99-8.99), or order from the advanced meal menu. While there has always been beverage services, the ease of ordering everything else is amazing. Many times you don't even have to speak a word before a quick "thanks" to the delivering attendant; you can tap and purchase whatever you'd like from the television in front of you. I would like to see the revenue collected from a single flight. Although it is definitely not where the airlines make their money, it's another way to keep the initial price of a flight down. The industry is mature and crowded enough that any new incentive is welcome.

Have you been on a flight recently to see some of this? What do you think?