Trash—it’s inevitably everywhere and there always seems to be more being generated. Here in the United States, the trash concept is simple: we take our trash and recyclables to the curb on our given garbage pickup day and it disappears via the garbage to truck to a landfill or recycling center. However, in Indonesia, trash is a huge issue—lining the street and rivers since the country is too economically impaired to fund municipal projects like trash pickup.
One artist, Ann Wizer, has helped create a special project aimed at not only helping clean Jakarta, Indonesia streets, but also establish well paying jobs, and create some really cool new items out of plastic consumer packaging. XSProject, Wizer’s foundation, keeps trash out of landfills—she hires local trash pickers to collect (usually colorful) branded packages, and repurposes them into usable bags, binders, pillows, and a variety of other products and literally turning one man’s trash into another’s treasure.
While this article isn’t exactly advertising centric, I think that XSProject and other similar groups are creating a solution and spreading awareness about the global trash issue to create functional and trendy items to be sold in the marketplace. While branding is so important to creating awareness among consumers, I think that advertisers have an obligation to be socially and environmentally conscious in regards to product packaging. According to XSProjectGroup.com, “only 1 in 10,000 products are created with the environment in mind,” and “98% of all products are throw out within 6 months of purchase.
I think that what XSProject is doing is a wonderful service to the people of Jakarta—creating new goods, establishing viable business opportunities, and cleaning up the streets.
To see some examples of their work and to learn more about the project, please visit: http://www.xsprojectgroup.com.
Showing posts with label Global. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Brand Z Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands Summary
As you’re well aware, brands are vital to corporate success. Brands are commodity that create sustainable competitive advantage, drive demand and market share, and help to improve margins by leveraging premium pricing and supplier time. To better understand the importance of branding and also focus attention on some of the world’s most valuable brands, I attended the Brand Z Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands webinar last week.
By combining financial and consumer research data, the Brand Z Top 100 list is an annual ranking of the world's 100 most powerful brands and is considered the most comprehensive brand valuation report in the world. This ranking allows us to better understand consumer behaviors and brand perceptions, and how to make more informed decisions based on this information.
Even with the economic downtown in 2008, the resiliency of the Top 100 brand thrived – growing in overall value by nearly 2% or $2 trillion from 2007. Consumers have developed coping strategies and purchasing “brands that contribute to their pleasure, quality, purpose, and security of their lives.” Nine of the top 10 brands, and 85 of the top 100 brands remained ranked from the previous year. Of the 17 categories, 11 grew in value. Here is a list of the top three brands and their value ($M) in each category:
Apparel: H&M Clothing (12,061), Nike (11,999), and Zara (8,609)
Beer: Bud Light (6,655), Budweiser (6,637), and Heineken (5,063)
Bottled Water: Aquafina (810), Evian (750), and Perrier (689)
Cars: Toyota (29,907), BMW (23,948), and Porsche (17,467)
Coffee: Nescafe (5,648), Nesspresso (2,451), and Folgers (1,331)
Fast Food: McDonalds (66,575), SUBWAY (10,997), and KFC (6,721)
Financial Institutions: ICBC (38,056), China Construction Base (22,811), and Bank of China (21,192)
Gaming Consoles: Nintendo DS (9,659), Nintendo Wii (8,256), and Microsoft Xbox 360 (4,581)
Insurance: State Farm (6,922), Allianz (5,669), and AXA (3,701)
Luxury: Louis Vuitton (19,395), Hermes (7,862), and Gucci (7,468)
Mobile Operators: China Mobile (61,283), Vodafone (53,727), and AT&T (20,059)
Motor Fuel: BP (5,936), Shell (4,151), and Mobile (1,525)
Personal Care: Gillette (22,919), L’Oreal (14,991), and Colgate (12,396)
Retail: Wal-Mart (41,083), Tesco (22,938), and Amazon (21,294)
Soft Drinks: Coca-Cola (53,315), Coke (Diets, Lights, and Zero) (14,310), and Pepsi (12,761)
Spirits: Smirnoff (5,201), Bacardi (3,519), and Johnnie Walker (2,571)
Technology: Google (100,039), Microsoft (76,249), and IBM (66,622)
I was most surprised by the by the categories of Beer, Cars, and Coffee. The value of beer increased by 15%, with Bud Light surpassing Budweiser in brand value and thus reflecting the consumer shift to light beers (possibly as a result of increasing health concerns). Overall, the Cars category dropped by 22% -- every carmaker on the list dropped in value with the largest brand value drops being Chevrolet at 60% and Ford at 46%. Lastly, Insurance, which has been heavily scrutinized by the media, has declined by an astounding 48%.
For a complete list of the brands, and their category rank, please visit http://thestorewpp.wtms.com/report.pdf.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Mainstream Green
Tomorrow, April 22, is Earth Day—a day promoting awareness and change for environmental issues including global warming, pollution, wildlife, alternative energy, going green, etc. With the arrival of Earth Day, I am inspired to discuss the consumer movement (and reactions of advertisers) towards going green.
So why are consumers going green?
About 35 million Americans are going green and willing to pay 5 to 10% higher prices for eco-friendly products, and thus defying recessionary trends – meaning potential profits for those companies who are willing to and can meet consumer demand. Labels and ads are focus on words like ‘all natural,’ ‘eco-friendly,’ and ‘organic’ – buzz words meant to attract consumers’ desire for environmentally friendly products.
Havas CEO Fernando Rodes Vila says that “Companies who are committed and respect the environment will be favored by consumers…And in most markets, consumers are ready to reward companies who do right by the environment”
Several companies have already taken steps towards becoming green. FedEx, UPS, and Coca-Cola are all converting their delivery fleets to hybrid vehicles. Cargill and SC Johnson are using trash/waste to power factories to make environmentally friendly products. Car makers are turning towards production of hybrid and alternative energy vehicles. In my own office, employees are asked to power off computers and lights at the end of the day, recycle paper, and conserve water. Here are a few examples of some other companies exploiting their own green initiatives:
General Electric – Ecomagination
http://ge.ecomagination.com/site/index.html#ads
Chevron – Power of Human Energy
http://www.chevron.com/about/advertising/
Apple MacBook
While companies are capitalizing on inflated prices of green products, they should also note that their point of differentiation will fade as consumers demand more and more environmentally friendly products at a lesser price. However (at least time being), companies and advertisers should exploit this consumer trend, which will most likely prove profitable for companies, consumers, and especially the environment.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Day
http://adage.com/article?article_id=136091
http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2007-06-22-cannes-green-usat_N.htm
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=136116
http://www.csrwire.com/News/1782.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/fast-company-staff/fast-company-blog/sustainability-green-age-advertising
http://www.etftrends.com/2009/01/are-consumers-serious-about-going-green-etfs.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12040418/
Weather Channel (TV Show)
So why are consumers going green?
About 35 million Americans are going green and willing to pay 5 to 10% higher prices for eco-friendly products, and thus defying recessionary trends – meaning potential profits for those companies who are willing to and can meet consumer demand. Labels and ads are focus on words like ‘all natural,’ ‘eco-friendly,’ and ‘organic’ – buzz words meant to attract consumers’ desire for environmentally friendly products.
Havas CEO Fernando Rodes Vila says that “Companies who are committed and respect the environment will be favored by consumers…And in most markets, consumers are ready to reward companies who do right by the environment”
Several companies have already taken steps towards becoming green. FedEx, UPS, and Coca-Cola are all converting their delivery fleets to hybrid vehicles. Cargill and SC Johnson are using trash/waste to power factories to make environmentally friendly products. Car makers are turning towards production of hybrid and alternative energy vehicles. In my own office, employees are asked to power off computers and lights at the end of the day, recycle paper, and conserve water. Here are a few examples of some other companies exploiting their own green initiatives:
General Electric – Ecomagination
http://ge.ecomagination.com/site/index.html#ads
Chevron – Power of Human Energy
http://www.chevron.com/about/advertising/
Apple MacBook
While companies are capitalizing on inflated prices of green products, they should also note that their point of differentiation will fade as consumers demand more and more environmentally friendly products at a lesser price. However (at least time being), companies and advertisers should exploit this consumer trend, which will most likely prove profitable for companies, consumers, and especially the environment.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Day
http://adage.com/article?article_id=136091
http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2007-06-22-cannes-green-usat_N.htm
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=136116
http://www.csrwire.com/News/1782.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/fast-company-staff/fast-company-blog/sustainability-green-age-advertising
http://www.etftrends.com/2009/01/are-consumers-serious-about-going-green-etfs.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12040418/
Weather Channel (TV Show)
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Don’t Blame Advertising for the Current Economic Crisis
I just read an article on Adweek entitled "Let's Blame Advertising" by Mark Dolliver, and was intrigued enough to voice my opinion on the by the number of people who are blaming advertisers for the downfall of the American economy.
According to the article, Adweek Media surveyed over two thousand adults, and an astounding 66% of the sample (7% “complete responsibility,” 26% “great deal of responsibility,” and 33% “some responsibility”) felt that advertisers were responsible for causing people to buy items that they couldn’t manage to pay for.
But, is advertising really to blame for the state of the economy?
This article reminded me of a business philosophy class discussion at Georgia State University. The class was asked to assess the morality of targeting advertising a form beer with high alcohol content to minorities in poverty-stricken, alcohol and drug infested, violent neighborhoods. It was argued that promotion of alcohol would encourage the destructive nature of the community. While I don’t think that the product will improve any of the ailments of the community, I would have to argue that the community demands that the beer (and other similarly damaging products such as hard liquor, cigarettes, condoms, etc.) be available, and advertisers have not only the right, but the responsibility to promote the product to meet that demand. If beer was not offered in the marketplace, wouldn’t consumers just go elsewhere to suffice that demand? Maybe purchase something far more harmful than beer—drugs, weapons, or other products that are far more damaging to society’s welfare.
In reference to the original Adweek article, consumers – and not advertisers – must be blamed for their own purchase decisions and thusly the downfall of the economy. Advertisers are exhibiting products that are available to the marketplace and in demand by consumers, but consumers are the ultimate decision makers and must accept responsibility for their own purchase decisions. Although the repercussions are immense and long lasting, I am hopeful that the current economic crisis will encourage consumers to learn to better manage their buying decisions.
According to the article, Adweek Media surveyed over two thousand adults, and an astounding 66% of the sample (7% “complete responsibility,” 26% “great deal of responsibility,” and 33% “some responsibility”) felt that advertisers were responsible for causing people to buy items that they couldn’t manage to pay for.
But, is advertising really to blame for the state of the economy?
This article reminded me of a business philosophy class discussion at Georgia State University. The class was asked to assess the morality of targeting advertising a form beer with high alcohol content to minorities in poverty-stricken, alcohol and drug infested, violent neighborhoods. It was argued that promotion of alcohol would encourage the destructive nature of the community. While I don’t think that the product will improve any of the ailments of the community, I would have to argue that the community demands that the beer (and other similarly damaging products such as hard liquor, cigarettes, condoms, etc.) be available, and advertisers have not only the right, but the responsibility to promote the product to meet that demand. If beer was not offered in the marketplace, wouldn’t consumers just go elsewhere to suffice that demand? Maybe purchase something far more harmful than beer—drugs, weapons, or other products that are far more damaging to society’s welfare.
In reference to the original Adweek article, consumers – and not advertisers – must be blamed for their own purchase decisions and thusly the downfall of the economy. Advertisers are exhibiting products that are available to the marketplace and in demand by consumers, but consumers are the ultimate decision makers and must accept responsibility for their own purchase decisions. Although the repercussions are immense and long lasting, I am hopeful that the current economic crisis will encourage consumers to learn to better manage their buying decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
