Networked Blogs on Facebook

Search This Blog

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Marketing 102 Archives

Logic teaches us that you can't fool all of the people all of the time--unless they're still babes in the woods.....!

Pax, dave buehler
Yrobdtsvt.blogspot.com

======================================

Citation 1: Hebrews 5:11-14:

About this we have much to say that is hard to explain, since you have become dull in understanding. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of right- eousness. But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.


Citation 2:
" Effects of Fast Food Branding on Young Children's Taste Preferences"
Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine 2007;161:792-797.

Thomas N. Robinson, MD, MPH; Dina L. G. Borzekowski, EdD; Donna M. Matheson, PhD; Helena C. Kraemer, PhD

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161:792-797. http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/161/8/792

======================================
Summary: Stanford Study: Marketing Tricks Tots' Taste Buds

(AP) STANFORD, CA Anything made by McDonald's tastes better, preschoolers said in a study that powerfully demonstrates how advertising can trick the taste buds of young children.

Even carrots, milk and apple juice tasted better to the kids when they were wrapped in the familiar packaging of the Golden Arches.

The study had youngsters sample identical McDonald's foods in name-brand and unmarked wrappers. The unmarked foods always lost the taste test.

"You see a McDonald's label and kids start salivating," said Diane Levin, a childhood development specialist who campaigns against advertising to kids. She had no role in the research.

Levin said it was "the first study I know of that has shown so simply and clearly what's going on with (marketing to) young children."

Study author Dr. Tom Robinson said the kids' perception of taste was "physically altered by the branding." The Stanford University researcher said it was remarkable how children so young were already so influenced by advertising.

The study involved 63 low-income children ages 3 to 5 from Head Start centers in San Mateo County, Calif. Robinson believes the results would be similar for children from wealthier families.

The research, appearing in August's Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, was funded by Stanford and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The study will likely stir more debate over the movement to restrict ads to kids. It comes less than a month after 11 major food and drink companies, including McDonald's, announced new curbs on marketing to children under 12.

McDonald's says the only Happy Meals it will promote to young children will contain fruit and have fewer calories and less fat.

"This is an important subject and McDonald's has been actively addressing it for quite some time," said company spokesman Walt Riker. "We've always wanted to be part of the solution and we are providing solutions."

But Dr. Victor Strasburger, an author of an American Academy of Pediatrics policy urging limits on marketing to children, said the study shows too little is being done.

"It's an amazing study and it's very sad," Strasburger said.

"Advertisers have tried to do exactly what this study is talking about—to brand younger and younger children, to instill in them an almost obsessional desire for a particular brand-name product," he said.

Just two of the 63 children studied said they'd never eaten at McDonald's, and about one-third ate there at least weekly. Most recognized the McDonald's logo but it was mentioned to those who didn't.

The study included three McDonald's menu items—hamburgers, chicken nuggets and french fries—and store-bought milk or juice and carrots. Children got two identical samples of each food on a tray, one in McDonald's wrappers or cups and the other in plain, unmarked packaging. The kids were asked if they tasted the same or if one was better. (Some children didn't taste all the foods.)

McDonald's-labeled samples were the clear favorites. French fries were the biggest winner; almost 77 percent said the labeled fries tasted best while only 13 percent preferred the others.

Fifty-four percent preferred McDonald's-wrapped carrots versus 23 percent who liked the plain-wrapped sample.

The only results not statistically clear-cut involved the hamburgers, with 29 kids choosing McDonald's-wrapped burgers and 22 choosing the unmarked ones.

Fewer than one-fourth of the children said both samples of all foods tasted the same.

Pradeep Chintagunta, a University of Chicago marketing professor, said a fairer comparison might have gauged kids' preferences for the McDonald's label versus another familiar brand, such as Mickey Mouse.

"I don't think you can necessarily hold this against" McDonald's, he said, since the goal of marketing is to build familiarity and sell products.

He noted that parents play a strong role in controlling food choices for children so young.

But Robinson argued that because young children are unaware of the persuasive intent of marketing, "it is an unfair playing field."

© 2007 The Associated Press.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "John Spangler" jspangler@ltsg.edu
I don't follow the logic here. Branding doesn't replace content. Of course
it enhances the content nicely when well done, but does not substitute. The
original question didn't seem to run down the road that you took this,
either.

jrs


_______________________
John R. Spangler
Gettysburg Seminary

-----Original Message-----
From: davebuehler@comcast.net [mailto:davebuehler@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 4:21 PM
To: John Spangler; 2007_CWA_IN_CHICAGO.topic@faithgroups.com

Subject: RE: ELCA Seal


John,

Following that rationale, I guess we might as well turn over responsibility
for our
Church's Catechetics to a " New 'Brand' Developer."

Guess what....ELCA has been there and done that!?

And here I thought I was the Curmudgeon...

S.G.D.,

Dave B.












-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "John Spangler" • jspangler@ltsg.edu
Seals and emblems (logos) are different animals. An official seal must
serve
in a capacity different from logos, with seals functioning on official
documents pressed or printed. Logos must function across media, in very
public ways, on everyting from signs to pens to video screens.

_______________________
John R. Spangler
Gettysburg Seminary

-----Original Message-----
From: davebuehler@comcast.net [mailto:davebuehler@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 12:22 PM
To: 2007_CWA_IN_CHICAGO.topic@faithgroups.com
Subject: Re: ELCA Seal

Good point, Steve.

Could it be because the ELCA mounted a Media Image Campaign
complete with Videos, etc. about 7 or 8 years ago?

We heard a lot about lot about it for a few months and then it
fell off (my) radar screen....So much for our Persona !?

Rev. David A. Buehler, Ph.D.
Providence College (RI)


-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: STEVE HELMREICH • STEVE.HELMREICH@ecunet.org
Note #16 from STEVE HELMREICH to 2007 CWA IN CHICAGO:


In preparation for the CWA, I've been slogging through the constitution
and
bylaws. Just wondered why the seal hasn't been changed to reflect the
new
ELCA
volleyball logo?

Steve Helmreich
Las Cruces, NM (currently in Chicago)

*** For instructions on using this system (including how to UNJOIN this
meeting), send e-mail to mailrequests@ecunet.org






-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "John Spangler" • jspangler@ltsg.edu
I don't follow the logic here. Branding doesn't replace content. Of course
it enhances the content nicely when well done, but does not substitute. The
original question didn't seem to run down the road that you took this,
either.

jrs


_______________________
John R. Spangler
Gettysburg Seminary

-----Original Message-----
From: davebuehler@comcast.net [mailto:davebuehler@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 4:21 PM
To: John Spangler; 2007_CWA_IN_CHICAGO.topic@faithgroups.com
Subject: RE: ELCA Seal


John,

Following that rationale, I guess we might as well turn over responsibility
for our
Church's Catechetics to a " New 'Brand' Developer."

Guess what....ELCA has been there and done that!?

And here I thought I was the Curmudgeon...

S.G.D.,

Dave B.












-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "John Spangler" • jspangler@ltsg.edu
Seals and emblems (logos) are different animals. An official seal must
serve
in a capacity different from logos, with seals functioning on official
documents pressed or printed. Logos must function across media, in very
public ways, on everyting from signs to pens to video screens.

_______________________
John R. Spangler
Gettysburg Seminary

-----Original Message-----
From: davebuehler@comcast.net [mailto:davebuehler@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 12:22 PM
To: 2007_CWA_IN_CHICAGO.topic@faithgroups.com
Subject: Re: ELCA Seal

Good point, Steve.

Could it be because the ELCA mounted a Media Image Campaign
complete with Videos, etc. about 7 or 8 years ago?

We heard a lot about lot about it for a few months and then it
fell off (my) radar screen....So much for our Persona !?

Rev. David A. Buehler, Ph.D.
Providence College (RI)


-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: STEVE HELMREICH • STEVE.HELMREICH@ecunet.org
Note #16 from STEVE HELMREICH to 2007 CWA IN CHICAGO:


In preparation for the CWA, I've been slogging through the constitution
and bylaws. Just wondered why the seal hasn't been changed to reflect the
new ELCA volleyball logo?

Steve Helmreich
Las Cruces, NM (currently in Chicago)

No comments: