Saturday, February 27, 2010

Deodorant!

Deodorant is a product that with time has become almost indistinguishable by brand. While each brand has different scents, most strive to be clear and clothes residue-free and almost all are antiperspirants as well as deodorants. Deodorant, however, is an important part of our daily lives, and the many brands out there have to distinguish themselves from the others in some way. Secret deodorant has a clinical strength version, apparently it's as strong as a prescription deodorant. Dove also has a clinical protection deodorant. Deodorant brands such as Dove and Secret interest me because they market strictly to women. Companies such as Axe target men as consumers, but the buff men in commercials and reaction of women to the Axe men, make women feel that buying Axe for their boyfriends might make their lives as exciting as the people in the Axe commercials. Dove and Secret deodorants are almost entirely targeted to women. Commercials for Dove Go Fresh deodorant show average looking women putting deodorant on and testing its effect. Dove markets itself as being for "real women." How do other brands advertise themselves? Others out there are Ban and Lady Speed Stick, and all must find a way to pose themselves as better than the others. Do they market to certain groups of women or do they try to cover all women out there. Below is an advertisement from 1985 for Secret deodorant.


The commercial emphasizes the important of female based products, and appeals primarily to women. It shows a girl beating her significant other at a sport. Also, she disproves his idea that women's perspiration is more "delicate." The phrase at the end, "Strong enough for a man but made for a woman," empowers women to embrace having the strength of a man while still acknowledging the difference between their bodies. Interestingly, this commercial teaches some dependence on men as the woman has been taught to play by her significant other and asks him to hand her his deodorant. At the same time, she has beat him and doesn't allow him to use her deodorant. Modern commercials also use this technique of showing that women can have exactly what men have, only in a form that's better for their bodies. There's a razor commercial out there showing that a woman doesn't need to steal a man's razor, but can have one with the same number of blades and level of effectiveness, but with a shape that is special for a woman's body.

Secret has stuck with its slogan "strong enough for a man, but made for a woman," yet their recent commercials don't usually involve important male characters. This commercial (below) calls attention to the secret nature of secret, how Secret doesn't stain dresses and can help cover for a girl who wears her roommate's dress without asking. The images of the woman dancing and partying make Secret seem like a brand for party animals who just need to cover up their misdeeds from the night before. Secret is giving women the power to do what they want and not have to pay the price the next day, in not having a stained dress and a knowingly betrayed and angry friend.


Secret's deodorant containers also contribute to the idea that it's for women who are going out on the town and women who are girly girls. The "scent expressions" give women the power to choose how they smell and how they show themselves to the world. The colors are bright and fun, the bottle sleek. There's no mistaking that this product is for a girl.




Above is a commercial for the Dove Go Fresh challenge. This is a European commercial, but it's primarily the same as American ones. It targets women in normal clothes who just want to be able to wear tank tops. It's hard for me to see the connection between a deodorant and a white tank top, as deodorant doesn't appear on white shirts nor does deodorant prevent hair growth, but in general the commercial makes dove seem particularly accessible and effective. Also, its clinical protection deodorant boasts being aluminum free and as natural as possible, so the company appeals to women who are normal and also want to pollute their bodies less.


Dove has launched a promotion of sorts to encourage women to be self confident and comfortable with themselves. Above is a really interesting commercial showing how a normal looking woman can be changed into a billboard model using makeup and photoshop. It renders models unreal and fake and shows the girls features being reshaped into something more "beautiful." Dove's Real Beauty Workshops fit into their desire to provide women with the products they need to live their lives. While dove has made their deodorant seem to be for down to earth, normal women, they have commercials now that make their products seem sexier. The below commercial, while for a body wash, is part of their Go Fresh line which includes deodorant.


The commercial portrays Dove as fun. It's incredible bright, the images are interesting. The whole commercial makes the woman seem sexy, and her experience with Dove doesn't attribute pleasure to men or sex, rather she's having fun with Dove body wash. The commercial below is just a short one about Go Fresh deodorant, it's similar to the body wash one.



The above commercial is from the 50s, when Dove soap was a new product. Interestingly the soap has stayed in that shape, and still boasts moisturizing power and creaminess. This commercial appeals to women, just as the ones now do. The woman seems wealthy and upper-class, so Dove at the time seemed to be appealing to the upper-class. In some ways, Dove seems to continue to appeal to the upper-class. The all-natural and organic craze that has spread through supermarkets is definitely a product of the upper-class. Whole Foods is incredibly expensive, and all the organic products they sell there can only be bought by a select few. Dove, with it's natural products and fancy showers, seems to be targetting upper-class women. The real women" who use Dove and were part of the Dove challenge commercial could certainly be from all socio-economic groups, but people who have time to test deodorants and report on them usually tend to not need to work really hard for their money. I'm wondering how products like this really get women of all ages, ethnicities, and socioeconomic groups interested in them. The commercials show women who are primarily white and young. Do these companies, Secret and Dove, rely on people's need for deodorant? Do they market differently in other countries? While searching for commercials I found a lot that were the American version in other languages. One was the Go Fresh commercial, showing a white blonde girl, in Chinese. Are these deodorant companies using the idea of the American dream in promoting commercials showing very American products being used by white girls? America is still considered a land of freedom and prosperity, so does putting American product commercials overseas elicit consumers who are hoping to one day be wealthy and free like the women in the commercials. They have the choice to buy whatever deodorant or soap they want in an array of scents. Is it productive for these companies to only portray themselves as American?

Friday, February 26, 2010

Competition or Cockiness? Can anyone really beat Google?

Ken Auletta's Googled has unearthed and provided evidence for the idea that Google might not be an everlasting power. What with potential government intervention or internal struggles Google's clout in the technological world and its ability to innovate might eventually weaken. Another potential source of Google's decline could be the appearance of another powerhouse. The search engine is still a new and changing invention. While Google first developed a search engine that functioned to give users a fast way to find what they wanted, there seems to be real room for improvement or change.

There's certainly a lot of science and theory that goes into predicting the success of a company, including search engines. I'm nothing close to an expert in this subject, but I've decided to educate myself by conducting a little experiment. I'm interested to know what is different about each search engine. I know there are many hidden things that go into the business and economic successes of companies but most of them aim to in part please users. I've decided to start with a random site called dogpile. Apparently, it compiles Google, Yahoo, Bing, and Ask into one search engine. I wonder how it really works, and how it combines all the different methods each engine employs. I'll put "restaurants in boston" in each search engine, as it will certainly yield results in all, but isn't too broad. When I searched in dogpile, the first few hits were "Boston Dining Guide" and a link to zagat.com. Interestingly, below the top few hits it said "Sponsored: Ads by Google." Has Google Ads or their advertising clients sponsored these hits? What about with Yahoo? Below the top few it starts saying "Found on: Google, Bing, Yahoo! Search..." Most of these sites are meant to educate people on restaurants, but don't focus on one, nor do they provide links to specific location or food variety searches. The aren't websites saying "we are the best restaurant in Boston," it's purely links to things such as Yellowbook.com. As a viewer this site seems pretty helpful. If I was from another place, this would be a good start for finding a restaurant I liked in Boston, although it might take me a while to weed through all the hits. I'd like to also know more about how dogpile came into existence and how it amalgamates the four search engines.

The next site I'll test is Yahoo Search. Although Bing and Yahoo have merged they still appear as two separate sites. Interestingly, Yahoo has a very simple home page, similar to that of Google. Yahoo elicited first three different restaurants, Pizzeria Regna, Finale, and Pagluica's Restaurant and showed their locations on a map. Apparently these are under "Local Results" and clicking on a link can bring you to 7022 more local results. Yahoo also gives links to specific places, such as Back Bay, Beacon Hill, and Kenmore Square. The first two regular results are at local.yahoo.com. It's interesting that Yahoo so obviously endorses itself. It contradicts with how Google CEO Scmidt is hesitant to allow Google to become content creators as he worries that it will favor Google's content and will become less trustworthy to the public (Auletta's Googled). I don't know how I feel about Yahoo favoring its own site. I suppose it does make me trust the search engine less, but at the same time I trust Yahoo to help me with restaurant choices. Below the first two Yahoo links are links to the "Best restaurants" and then below follows the yellowpages, similar to Dogpile. In general Yahoo Search makes me feel like I'll get somewhere faster than Bing. If I know anything about Boston, such as that the North End has Italian Food, I can specify The North End and get a map of a few restaurants there.

It appears Yahoo has done some redesigning as the text colors have changed to purple, and the homepage, while still simple, has moved around a bit. Also going to search.yahoo.com brings you to a page that no longer is called Yahoo Search. I wonder if the Search part has been used in the merger with Bing. Below is the old Yahoo search:


My next variable is Bing. My first impression of it is that it's incredibly different from Google. It has more color variation, the background is grey, and it displays pictures of American Olympians on the homepage. It's incredibly interesting that Bing is displaying itself as pro-American. Google considers itself universal, so maybe Bing is trying to seem more wholesome and All-American, a company that would never run into issues with China's government and one that would never violate anti-trust laws. Bing's logo interestingly is much more simple than Google's (color and font wise), and its use of onomatopoeia make me feel like I'll get results instantly. I can almost hear a bing sound as millions of search results are produced! If I wasn't looking at Bing's homepage with a critical lens I would probably think it more personal than Google. It seems less stark and cold. Links at the bottom to the Medal count and other olympic events make it seem more like a magazine, but it's not as in your face as most magazine's sites so I think I'd be more willing to click on the links and less likely to exit out of the site from being overwhelmed.

When I Binged (interestingly the name can be turned into a verb like "googled") "Restaurants in Boston" I got something similar to Yahoo. It was five rather than three restaurants with a map of Boston showing where they are all located. The first it was from boston.com, the Boston Globe's site. I was pleasantly surprised to see a newspaper site as the first hit. I trust the Globe and seeing a responsible source first makes me trust Bing. After a few hits Bing starts giving users new options. First is : Top Boston Restaurants." A few are displayed but a link takes you to more if desired. The next is "Best Restaurants in Boston," the next "Famous Boston Restaurants." Other's involve different food types or locations. This seems to demonstrate the concept of vertical search that Auletta discusses in Googled. Each of these different links bring a person to a very specific type of search, using key words such as "top" and "best". It's more specific than I recall Google being. In all honesty I feel that Bing is giving me more of what I want. When I want to browse articles about a broad topic, such as health care, I like Google. I'm exposed to lots of different view points and ideas. It's funny that Google wants to give me what I want, yet gives me the viewpoints of other people. Maybe it really is all-knowing and knows I like doing research before making my own opinions! I understand the argument that Google will prevent us from being exposed to many different viewpoints, but I don't think that has happened yet. With Bing I feel like the information will be easier to sort through, and for searches such as these that's what I'm looking for. It won't be blogs of people talking about restaurants, but sites bringing me to top rated restaurants. While Google organizes its results with the less bloggy and more official sites first, it's so easy to find oneself still pursuing a search in the fifth page of Google, where it's often less official.

Bing also has a little module that says "Ask your friends to recommend restaurants" with logos and links of facebook and twitter. Bing seems to be doing what MIT grad student Kwan Lee mentioned Google doesn't in Auletta's Googled. Google doesn't take into account social networks and gravitations of its users. Google displays things by using a CPU to find them and categorize them, but people like Lee argue that the brain wants more than just what a computer thinks they want, they want interaction with people. Bing is giving users an option to branch out and receive oppinions, and make connections all from their search engine.

Bing's logo:

My final test is the Google control. When I typed "Restaurants in Boston" into Google I received many results, however they didn't feel organized. Some of the websites were the same as the other search engines, but they weren't categorized. Interestingly, the first site was a sponsored site. I know Google avoids taking bribes or money to rank a site higher in the search. Maybe since they say it's sponsored they assume people won't count it as a real search result. Google out did the rest of the sites on their map. They had seven different restaurants bubbled on a map of Boston at the beginning! Google really does do everything bigger. I'm still trying to decide if they really do things bigger and better though! It feels as if Google's page is visually disorganized. There was no categorizing of any apparent kind. I suppose Google hopes to study a person's mind and know what kind of category they're searching, but it didn't achieve that for me. They would have known that I favor North End italian restaurants, but few of those popped up on the map of local results. Maybe if I constantly ordered pizza through Domino's online service it would display pizza results on the first page or if I often Googled a certain restaurant, that same restaurant would appear on the map. Overall, Google is a bit of a mystery to me. I wonder if these sites are actually arranged in a way that would aid me in my search better than another search engine. The people behind Google are so intelligent that I feel like they've figured out some kind of visual or subconscious mechanism triggering arrangement of the sites that will make me wake up tomorrow feeling as if Google is the one and only. Who knows? Maybe my next post will have me raving about Google or maybe I'll be raving about Bing. In the mean time though, I'm going to try to use them both to see if I can detect other differences between them.

I also found this interesting article about competition and rivalry between Microsoft and Google.
It seems Microsoft's interference has caused a problem for Google from foreign governments, something Ken Auletta posed in his book as a threat to Google's dominance.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Amp energy...

Amp energy drinks have notoriously crazy commercials. In all honesty, most of the commercials I've seen have made me not want to drink Amp. They feature people doing ridiculous things to their bodies that seem both painful and unnecessary.


This commercial makes Amp seem more than a little scary to me. If after drinking it I feel like I have the power to jack a car using stellar dance moves, I'd be a little concerned. Also, Amp and other energy drinks have gotten a lot of negative criticism because of all the sugar they contain, so seeing a rather over weight man drinking Amp makes me a little wary of drinking it. I'm sure that man didn't gain weight solely because he drank Amp, but after hearing stories of how much sugar one Amp contains, and knowing that excess sugar gets converted to fat in the body, I'm a little hesitant to buy it. I guess Amp now has a sugar free version, so I suppose a lot of the energy comes from caffeine rather than sugar in this drink. Fake sugars are also not great in large concentrations, and even sugar free Amp is ridiculously sweet so drinking sugar free Amp seems dangerous. I suppose Amp might be trying to spin itself as a brand for everyone. It's not just for athletes or teenagers. A lot of energy drinks focus on how energy can give athlete's power. Amp does too at times, but maybe this commercial is meant to counteract that image of them only being for major athletes who need all that energy. The guy is sorta average. Not in clothes or behavior, but in size and facial appearance. Every day normal Americans find themselves in exhausting situations or find themselves in need of a car jack, just like this man.


So why do people drink Amp rather than Red Bull or other energy drink brands? Is it purely out of necessity, they need energy and Amp is the biggest energy drink that gives the best energy boost? Or does Amp promote individuality and freedom? As ridiculous as these two commercials are, the actors are doing extraordinary things. Both of them are completely impossible for normal people to do if not impossible for everyone to do (start a car using dance moves?) Even though what the actors are doing in the commercials is out of this world what does it say about Amp? Is is it primarily to exaggerate the influence Amp has on a person? In some ways Amp has spun itself as allowing people to live on the extremes. They sponsor or have some kind of partnership with Dale Earnhardt Jr. a race car driver and they sponsor snowboarding. Their website has a "sports section" with "racing" and "snowboarding" under it. Both of these sports are extreme. By sponsoring them Amp seems to be pegging itself as a brand for people who not only like to be active but who push their limits, are adrenaline junkies, and don't mind have a racing heart beat. Amp coupled with race car driving seems like a horrible idea as with Amp your heart races very fast at times, and I can imagine driving a race car would raise your heartbeat so that would be a double whammy to the old ticker, part of that punch coming from a sugary caffeinated artificially flavored and died drink. The commercials showing normal, maybe unathletic people doing other crazy, potentially dangerous things adds to this image of Amp=extreme for everyone.

I wonder who wants to buy these drinks? I'm the only one out of my friends who has never bought Amp in order to stay up late, and many teenagers do. It seems like most of them buy it because it really does give them an energy boost, but why do they pick Amp. The Den only carried Amp energy drinks but they also had a lot of Starbucks energy drinks. Most people chose Amp. I suppose Amp might give a person a bigger energy boost, but I would imagine it would also provide a bigger energy crash. I guess if a teenager needed just two more hours to study and then planned to sleep, a perfectly timed Amp-induced energy deterioration would be perfect and put them right to bed. It's funny that the Amp commercials have nothing to do with studying, and I've never seen someone drink an Amp before a sporting event. A few people have said Amp makes them feel sick even without exercising. A lot of my friends at home drink Amp, even though they readily have access to grocery stores and pharmacies.

It seems as if the company is trying to make up for their reputation as being unhealthy. Even though teenagers do crazy things to their bodies, most can recognize when their bodies are becoming groggy or overloaded with sugars and fats, and many try to counteract that. Whether it's because spring break is approaching swiftly or because they have athletic competitions to prepare for, regular sugar binges can lead to needing a change. Amp has created a Sugar Free variety, and they now have Amp Energy Juice in Orange and Mixed berry flavors for the morning! It boasts being 100 percent juice so I don't understand what's so new or special about it, but I suppose an avid Amp drinker might choose an Amp OJ over a Tropicana one if they saw them next to one another.

Amp commercials and branding seem unoriginal to me. Many companies and products try to peg themselves as being extreme. A lot of times beer commercials show people doing crazy things as do car commercials. Why is Amp so successful? What is greater, the attraction to Amp they spark in consumers or their viewers need for extra energy on a regular basis? Are Amp commercials meant to just put the idea of Amp in the minds of stressed teenagers so that next time they need to study late at night they'll remember Amp? I wonder if Amp is slightly addictive too. I know caffeine is addictive, as people often get headaches if they don't drink coffee after months of drinking it in the morning. Even if Amp isn't physically addictive I wonder if it makes people think they need it. Do students believe that once they start drinking Amp they'll not be able to work past say eleven without it?

Amp's competitor Red Bull has a very similar approach to advertising. It's website focuses on extreme sports such as motorcycle/motorbike (I can't tell the difference!) racing and it shows girls jumping off a very high cliff into a stunning caribbean ocean. When you first enter the site it gives you the option of going to the redbullusa.com or the regular site. I can't tell the difference between the two, but maybe one is devoted exclusively to American athletes and the regular site to athletes from around the globe. Both sites have articles about featured athletes and teams and the vibe is very similar to that of Amp. Red Bulls commercials though tend to appeal less to athletes and more to people who lead busy lives.


The above commercial shows a normal business man trying to get to work after missing a bus or unsuccessfully hailing a taxi. Red Bull "gives him wings" and allows him to use the cans to move/fly/speed to work. He ends up drinking a Red Bull at the end, but the commercial doesn't show Redbull making him stronger. It shows Redbull being there for him. Redbull helps you when you need it most, it keeps you on track, and it recognizes that you aren't a major league athlete or Olympian and you have to go to work every day. Redbull likes the common man, and it understands that he needs energy too. This commercial distinguishes Red Bull from Amp and other drinks, although the advertising and marketing for the two companies still remains very similar.

Looking at these somewhat similar companies makes me wonder how they both stay afoot. Are they appealing to equal numbers of people? Why hasn't one of them launched some crazy campaign that targets a broader age group. It seems as though they've both stuck to the 15-30 group. Old people get tired more easily and a lot of them have to work! Now that the economy is such a train wreck I imagine people will retire later as they'll have to rebuild savings that have either disappeared or depreciated in this economy. Although there's a generation gap between Amp creators and the elderly, I'm sure they could find some way to appeal to the elderly. They've replaced coffee in young people, why haven't they tried to do the same in old people? I suppose this is me being entirely cynical and thinking that energy drink companies would have no problem with trying to sell their poison to the elderly. However, if they're willing to make people think they'll be a contortionist if they drink energy drinks, then it seems like they're not that worried about sticking to strong morals. I wonder if there are health problems that come with drinking Amp and could be worse for the elderly. This is all just speculation, but I wonder why one company hasn't come out on top. Maybe it has nothing to do with selling more drinks but is limited by the law. Do antitrust laws prevent one energy drink company from buying out another? I wonder if Amp or Redbull has the money to buy out the other but can't because they'd get thrown in jail or fined a trillion dollars.

According to topnews.in (http://www.topnews.in/red-bulls-growth-rate-halved-2008-2120124) Red Bull had sales of 3.32 billion euros (4.28 billion dollars) in 2008, but their growth rate was cut in half. They had a rise of 16.6 percent in 2006 but only 7.9 percent in 2008. It looks as if Red Bull is continuing to make the big bucks, but isn't really growing as much.

Amp is owned by Pepsi, which made $43 billion in revenues (rather than sales) in 2008, which is much greater than that of Redbull. I wonder if Pepsi wants to buy Red Bull out but just can't because of our country's monopoly preventing policies?

And what's there to say about Monster, another competitor of Amp and Redbull?