Oversaturation of the Twitter Market?

Is Twitter making us THAT narcissistic?

There is no doubt that Twitter is quickly becoming the premiere Social Media tool (of both casual users and and the media elite).  It’s incredibly useful with respect to media and public relations, as you can keep track of who is where and working on what.  It’s the nature of Web 2.0.

But like most fads (slap bracelets, leisure suits, fanny packs and more….)–if Twitter is just a fad–after a astronomical rise to fame and use (or wear), there’s often a backlash that comes with such over-exposure.

From my little lifestyle PR pedestal, I like to keep watch over what people in other industries (and related industries) are chattering about, and how I can constructively introduce myself into the conversation.  But it seems, as innocent as my contentual (and yes, I fully acknowledge that’s a made up word) grazing is, others are no so innocuous.  

In an article posted on Twine.com, there is an interesting take on whether or not Twitter can “survive what is about to happen to it.”  But what is about to happen to it?  And why?

Well, the “what” seems to deal mostly with Twitter’s growing popularity amongst “mainstream consumers” and how, with it’s growing popularity, other outlets on the internet are going to push to incorporate Twitter into their services or site.

Now, Twitter is no doubt a great way to make connections.  New York public relations is all about networking, and so is Twitter, but it seems that playing the game could also cost you the came?

What?

Well, a few of the noted ways in which people are starting to misuse and abuse Twitter, though seemingly harmless, are as follows:

Hypertweeting: People don’t necessarily care about what you ate for breakfast (or lunch), but they might be interested in knowing about a great new tech client’s launch PR campaign.  Personally, I’m not a fan of someone launching 18 consecutive tweets so that my “FriendFeed” is compiled of one person’s musings.

Hashtag Spam: Any topic that’s popular usually winds up with a hashtag so people can follow the conversation around it.  However, often times marketers or advertisers will latch onto this and start spamming with self-indulgent ads rather than information.

There are certainly more ways that people can burn Twitter (and its users out), but those are two biggies that seem to most directly affect social media marketing and lifestyle pr, both of which I track.

The article goes on further to note ways in which people can filter their Twitter accounts and make their tweets more effective.  It’s some very good reading if you have the time, and if you didn’t catch the link up top, check out “Can Twitter Survive What is About to Happen to It?”

At the end of the day, Twitter is, at least for now, a force to be reckoned with.  So my best advice is do your research, learn how to optimize your time spent on Twitter, and follow at least a couple people that make you laugh (I recommend @michaelianblack and @cwalken).

Jackie for AMP3pr.com

@JackieBrook

*Thanks to Nova Spivack for the great blog-sparking article!

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

“A” For Effort: Jim Cramer’s Futile Attempt at Damage Control

Admittedly, I slept through Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday’s episodes of “The Daily Show,” however, since they run about 4 times a day, I was always able to catch up some how some way.  Watching the escalation of this pseudo-war between Jon Stewart and CNBC was titillating, and my anticipation for Thursday’s big blow out was paramount.

Needles to say, Jim Cramer knew what he was getting himself into, and the look in his eyes screamed “take mercy on me, as I’m only here as CNBC’s sacrificial lamb.”  When working in Public Relations, you can tell when a person or company goes into “damage control” mode.

And who better to plead mea cupla than the frenetic “Mad Money” host?

With a documented history of explaining to others how to manipulate the markets (as Stewart so delightfully had cued and ready to go), and an admission of wrong doing straight from the horse’s mouth, Cramer was easy to cut loose.

(I’m also fairly confident that he didn’t help his cause much when he was noting that there was more he could have done, there was more CNBC could have done, and they were to blame from not having journalistic integrity.  It was as though he was flailing to bring down as many people a he could, but was doing so to no avail).

Now, here’s what I’m interested in: why go on the show?

Earlier in the day, a more animated Cramer was on the Martha Stewart Show discussing Jon Stewart (while simultaneously beating some dough, an allusion not lost on Stewart).  It seemed as though he knew he was going to be stepping into a minefield, but that he was confident he could come out with at least one good leg.

Turns out, that didn’t seem to be the case.

After Santelli backed out of appearing on the show, Stewart opened his arsenal of sardonic wit and went after the financial news channel.  CNBC’s options, it seemed, would be to ignore Stewart’s barbs or to send someone into the trenches to do battle.

From a PR standpoint, doing nothing would have been a bad idea.  Though Stewart is “a comedian,” he is also incredibly educated and articulate with a following that holds similar values and ideals.  As he stated in his interview with Cramer, Stewart admits that what he’s selling is snakeoil; by virtue of disclosing the fact that he knows he’s not reporting the news, but rather reporting on how the reporting is done, Stewart earns some credibility points (points Cramer and CNBC seem to be lacking).

Allowing Stewart to continue lambasting CNBC without addressing him (on his own turf or in a CNBC studio–though, they probably learned after Tucker Carlson that Stewart at least shows restraint when he’s playing host) would have seemed cowardly and, perhaps, as though he were right (which, it turns out, he sort of is).

So they go for option two: send Cramer into the fray and hope for the best.

At this point, Cramer was met with a fork in the road; one path would have him come out swinging, attacking Stewart and his show as a being just as guilty as CNBC or any other outlet for not doing something to make things better, but rather making things worse by mocking the current situation and propagating an air of distrust in our leaders.  The other, the one he chose, the smart path, was coming on humbly, speaking when spoken to, not getting irked when interrupted, apologizing and acknowledging his very big shortcoming.

Cramer was turned into a scapegoat by CNBC at large.  IF one man were to be held responsible for the actions of a network, I’d have to assume it would be the person in charge of that network.  So let’s scapegoat Mark Hoffman.

The problem with tackling an issue like this head on is that no matter what, Cramer was going to come out looking like a fool.  Whether he was an aggressor or a stooge, Cramer didn’t have the week long build-up, he didn’t have the home court advantage and he certainly didn’t have the conveniently cued videos.

From this point forward, the best thing for Cramer (and CNBC) would be to actually do something to cultivate change within the way they report the news.  If you know someone is lying to you, try investigating it and getting to the bottom of the source.  If you know a company is about to tank, let people know.  And if you’re not going to let them know, don’t go encouraging them to put their hard earned money into it.

At the very least, assume the responsibility of running a financial news show.  Because when a “variety show” as Cramer put it, does more for the American people with respect to their money than a cable finance network does, that says a lot.  And none of it’s good.

Jackie for AMP3pr.com

@jackiebrook

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Twitter: the Technology Behind Narcissism ?

Not too long ago, a piece was published that hypothesized that the number of friends a person had on Facebook was directly related to how narcissistic that person was.  Upon reading the article, I could definitely see the correlation there, but there’s another side of the coin (for people like me), and that’s just being too lazy to “de-friend” someone or to apathetic to not accept someone’s friend request (I mean, if that’s not the ultimate in passive aggression, then what is?).

Today, a new piece came out in the LA Times about Twitter being the newest form of “digital narcissism.”  However, not all Twitter users are out to promote a product or service or employ a sort of public relations campaign, or even themselves.  There are those user, like Jay Rosen, an NYU professor, that look to “mindcast” rather than inundate the Twitterverse with more meaningful Pink Floyd quotes.

The real question that comes to the forefront is whether or not, with a constant barrage of messages from any number of the people you follow (and some people follow thousands), how are we supposed to find that one gem of knowledge that’s actually useful to us.  This type of social media (and the marketing therein) hardly seems like it could be effective.

And if we know that we’re spending our time sifting through otherwise inconsequential microblogs, can our participation in the Twitter dialogue be attributed to our own narcissism.

To read more, check out “On Titter, mindcasting is the new lifecasting.”

Jackie at AMP3pr.com

@jackiebrook

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Is it Possible that We’ve Exhausted the Blogosphere?

 

How much further down the blogging rabbit hole can we go?

Despite the fact that we have an ever-growing number of blogs inundating the internet every day, are these blogs losing their potency?

It would make sense that in a Web 2.0 world where everyone has the capacity to post their thoughts online (and/or claim expert status), no niche is left unfilled and we’re bordering on redundancy.  Much like public relations, where you can have tech PR, lifestyle PR, fashion PR, music PR, etc., sometimes the lines get blurred between who your best resource to turn to is when you’re presented with so many options.

There’s more at stake than redundancy, though, with the overabundance of new blogs infiltrating the Internet each day; “potentially valuable linkbacks are increasingly shared in micro-communities and social networks and its affecting detouring attention and time away from formal blog responses,” states Brian Solis.

Then there’re real time applications like Twitter that further separate bloggers from the herd, shepherding them towards microblogging.

To read more about whether or not blogs are overpopulating the internet to their own demise, read more Brian Solis’ “Are Blogs Losing Their Authority to the Statusphere?”

Jackie for AMP3pr.com

@Jackie Brook

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Suffering in Smudged Silence

Rocky Mountain News Final Issue

The media industry is changing (not to mention the social media marketing industry), and some of our heartiest newspaper stock are folding in ways that can only be described as “frighteningly fast.”  The culprit, it seems, would be the proliferation of smart phones and other devices that can access the Internet in a portable capacity.  We can even evade annoying ads by downloading social networking sites to our phones and sending status reports and tweets and any other bit of microbloggery without being near a computer.

Some even speculate that our head first dive into Web 2.0 might have the ripple effect of affecting local TV stations whose programming can typically be easily accessed online (as Alec Baldwin’s infamous Hulu commercial notes). 

To read more about this quo vadis dilemma, visit Media Relations in the Internet Age

 Jackie for AMP3pr.com

@JackieBrook

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

I May Be a Little Late to the Party, but What is the Deal with FML?

Microblogging is all the rage.  People are so interested in everyone else’s business, but rather than taking the time out to express genuine concern, or allot the amount of time necessary to form valid, cogent opinions, we want to be flippant, hear a sound bite, and pass judgment.

I’ve recently been introduced to the treasure trove that is FMyLife.com, where people share their tragic tales of woe (often in 50 words or less), leaving off with the tagline of “FML” or “<expletive> my life.”

There used to be Livejournal and Deadjournal for bearing one’s soul.  Then we moved onto Friendster and MySpace, sites that were less about content and more about friends.  Next came Facebook, a more sterile version of all its predecessors, and finally we’re rolling with Twitter, a 140 character means of expression.

Status updates, tweets, FML posts, they’re all this form of microblogging that I don’t fully understand.

I don’t want that statement to be taken in a crotchety, “it’s new so I don’t like it” way, but rather, I’m wondering how devolved our interpersonal relationship have become.  Working in Public Relations, you realize very quickly that so much of what you do is based on networking and actually interacting with people.  With each great technological advance with the supposed goal of connecting us to other people with greater ease, we seem to be closing ourselves off and hiding behind whatever devices allow us to update, tweet and re-tweet.

What is even more interesting to me is that the news seems to be recycled.  These microblogging sites seem to be taking away our ability to produce original content. 

In Twitter, I searched, “Chris Brown” and this is what I came up with:

In the four seconds I started scanning all the responses, another 7 people mentioned Chris Brown.  There’s so much chatter, but none of it’s original. 

I think microblogging becomes confusing for me with respect to, well, why we actually need it.  What intense vainglory do we all have that we not only feel compelled to update people (sometimes by the minute) as to what we’re doing/thinking/feeling, but we also believe that people are equally interested?

Yes, I have personally found some significant use in sites like Twitter, but none of the opportunities I’ve come across were ones that wouldn’t translate to another medium.  A reporter looking for sources can tweet about it, can update their Facebook status, or can send an email to known contacts that might be able to assist him.  Odds are, all the people that follow the reporter on Twitter and are his friends on Facebook would be at the top of his email address book.

So there we have it, the reduction of our social media to 140 characters.

Then comes along a site like FMyLife.com which kind of turns things on its head.

How so, you may ask…

Well, now we’re not establishing a personal forum for which we can microblog about ourselves, but rather there’s a community outlet by which we can anonymously share our own failures while also anonymously engaging in Sschadenfreude  AND getting to vote on whether or not the people who are putting themselves out there actually deserve to suffer.

Here’s a small sampling of what sort of misery people post about themselves on the site:

 Maybe it’s the old soul in me, or perhaps the part of me that doesn’t necessarily want to broadcast that my one-night-stand recommended via text that I “take care of the pimples on [my butt]**,”  or maybe it’s the sliver of my personality that actually enjoys being understated, but this just seems like the beginning of the end.  How much more condensed can our conversations become?  We’re almost at the point where our interactions are just a series of links from one article to comment to blog to fansite to what-have-you.

I don’t really know what the best way to combat this epidemic is.  I don’t even know if this is really an epidemic to be worried about.  But I do know that the more we communicate via these types of sites, the less we’re able to communicate in person.

Tweet if you’re with me.

Jackie for AMP3pr.com

@JackieBrook 

**That was another FMLer;  I do not have one-night stands nor do I have acne on my butt.  Not that there’s anything wrong with either of those things…

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Do You Even Know Why We Bother With Daylight Savings Time?

Every year, we fall back and spring forward one hour for reasons that, as far as I can tell, range from conserving energy to permitting more convenient farming hours.

I guess giving farmers more better hours by which to work by light conserves energy in some way, so let’s work with that theory…

I mean, the idea is that we’re pushing our very-relative notion of time to accommodate us having our daylight hours while we’re typically awake.  So, in that respect, I suppose we’re conserving energy… somehow.

Well, there’s some dissent as to whether or not we actually conserve any energy during Daylight Savings Time (DST).  A case study was done in the ‘70’s in Indiana to determine whether or not we were actually cutting down our usage of natural resources by implementing DST.

Turns out, per the research done, DST “increases residential electricity demands.”  In Indiana, the cost of rising electricity bills cost state households upwards of $9M per year, and found the “estimated social cost of pollution emissions [ranged] from $1.7 to $5.5M per year. 

Now, growing up, DST was like a second birthday, Hanukkah and Chocolate Day all rolled into one (at least it was for my mother); I was raised to look forward to the re-positioned hour of sunlight.  However, now that I’m older and work a job that requires me to, well, get up in the morning, I don’t really see the need to have this confusing hour shift.

Especially when we as a country, let alone globally, cannot come to a consensus as to whether or not this is even a worthwhile practice.

Taken via Wiki

Possibly, before farming technologies were as mechanized as they’ve become, it would be more convenient to wake up an hour later and work later into the day in the sun, but does the same notion hold true these days?

True, there are additional arguments that having the daylight last longer into the evening prevents crime, traffic accidents, etc., but I have yet to see any empirical data to support that.  How can we guesstimate how many people WEREN’T killed because of DST?

With DST coming up this Sunday morning (March 8^th at 2pm, a mere 4 hours after Amanda Dolan’s Exhibit Opening ends….), perhaps it’s time we start to readdress why we have this seemingly antiquated practice to begin with.

Logistically, I would think that DST would have to be an all or nothing venture.  Especially when you have parts of states adhering, while other parts done.  Nations (like Australia) divided by daylight.  Anecdotes range from children having problem adjusting to the extra hour (or loss of an hour) and it throwing their bedtime habits off track, yielding bed-wetting and fussy nap times to tourism industries yielding better takes when it’s light out later.

Do I like the idea of yearlong DST?  Sure.  As of now, for months out of the year, I get out of work when it’s dark, and I often get to work when it’s dark.  As Spring draws near, I can certainly tell that there’s more spring in my step when I’m able to don sunglasses to AND from work.  But is the mere desire to have “more” light enough to enact a real change?

DST, much like MANY other policies we continue to run with without objectively reviewing their continued usefulness.

At this point, DST seems superfluous, an antiquated relic of farming days, perhaps?  A bungled effort at conserving energy?  Who knows.

All I know is that there are staunch supporters on both sides of the fence, and I’d be hard pressed to anticipate a resolution to this debate.

However, in the muddled darkness of the debate, there is one articulate argument I feel compelled to share:

One dissenter's take on DST

  Jackie for AMP3pr.com

@JackieBrook

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

How Far Will Some States Go in Order to Save Some Bucks During the Recession?

As of this posting, 36 of these United States (including the US Government and the US Military) allow the death penalty as a suitable punishment for the most egregious of crimes.  I’ll also note that, at the time of this posting, I was unable to find reliable statistics as to the average cost of keeping a prisoner for life v. the average cost of killing a prisoner.  However, the general consensus seems to be that, it costs more to put someone to death than it does to house them for life.

In any event, this post has nothing to do with the moral or legal discussion surrounding the death penalty.

Instead, there’s a financial conversation to be had surrounding the death penalty.

As each state in our glorious union has the right to decide whether or not they want to offer the death penalty as a suitable punishment for heinous crimes, they then, presumably, have the right to determine whether or not it is a wasteful expense given these tough economic times.

A number of states at present are considering repealing the death penalty, not because they view it as a cruel means to an end or as a savage remnant of Hammurabi, but because it costs too much to fulfill the punishment. 

This can raise myriad questions:

Can we put a price on justice?

What about victims’ rights?

Why does it actually cost so much to kill someone?

Have too many people seen, “The Life of David Gale?”

Are there other means of cutting a budget without cutting justice?

If ever there were a wake up call that our economy were in trouble, it’s when we start legitimately looking at options for fixing it that involve saving the life of those we deem irredeemable.

Then there is another means by which citizens are promoting we battle the depression: legalizing and harvesting marijuana.

Now, this is an argument I had with my 9^th grade health teacher Mr. Millevoi.  Not advocating the use of marijuana, the simple commoditization of it is something that states are looking into.  Should we legalize marijuana, there’ll be a legal and fiscal domino effect:

Marijuana is legalized ? Government obtains control in the regulation of marijuana (much as they do for tobacco and alcohol and firearms) ? Government run facilities hire workers to grow the marijuana (this means job production) ? Government is able to regulate the sale of marijuana (age of use, quantities, uses) ? Government is able to TAX sale of marijuana (thus earning money)

I’m not well enough versed in both sides of the argument to know what’s the correct course of action is, and I (along with AMP3) don’t advocate the use of illicit drugs.  But, from what I do know, there is a lot of money to be made in the legal production and controlled distribution of marijuana.

The only idea that the states don’t really seem to be toying with is <gasp> cutting back on spending, re-evaluating their budgets, figuring out what is actually necessary, and then only purchasing those things.

I look at Long Island where I grew up.  We have the LIE (sometimes known as the world’s longest driveway).  The LIE, for anyone that’s ever been on it, or knows someone that’s been on it, or heard a comedian talk about being on it, is constantly under construction.

About every seven years, the same patch that was completed seven years ago gets ripped up and repaved.

Now, I’ve been told that it’s because of the wear and tear that gets done to the road, but some more diabolical minds seems to think it’s a way of perpetually keeping jobs on the market.  If we fixed everything that needed construction work, what would happen to the people whose jobs it is to fix things?  What about the suppliers that give the materials to the guys that fix things?  Up the ladder we go, and at every rung, there is someone with something to gain from decrepit roads.

But why not give it a shot?  Why not fix something well and see if we can allot the other monies elsewhere?  Say, to our schools?  To health care facilities?  To any place else that might benefit from an injection of funds?

With the state that our nation’s in, I can understand looking to extremes in order to make money, but why not look towards realistic options first?  Why do we always jump to the sensationalist option, the one that’ll ruffle the most feathers or cause the most controversy in its implementation?

The savvy publicist in me wants to say that it could be a misdirection on the part of the Government; have us rally over here in order to keep us from noticing what’s going on over there.

The question then becomes, what  are they distracting us from?

Jackie for AMP3pr.com

@JackieBrook

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Are Commercials Actually More Than Obtrusive Interruptions From Television Watching?

There are a number of people that confuse Public Relations with Advertising.  Often times, people think that we pay to have articles written about our clients (and I’m sure that that’s happened before, but for above-board firms like AMP3, every placement is earned).

When I try to explain to people the key differences between Advertising and PR, it comes down to paying for a guaranteed placement v. paying someone (usually substantially less) to try and get someone to cover your story/campaign/product for free.

PR becomes an investment, whereas advertising is guaranteed.

Now, commercials can obviously be classified as advertising (save for PSAs; Chris Brown doing a PSA about domestic violence would totally be a PR move, should that ever happen….).  Because of that, there’s a hyper-awareness that any time a commercial comes on, someone is spending money to try getting you to spend money.

That’s why, when I came across the Time article, “Do TV Commercials Make You Happier?” I was intrigued.

My gut reaction is, “no, they don’t make me happy. They interrupt my preferred viewing and often hock things I have no interest in.”

But the Time article makes some interesting point: the longer you sit and watch what you want, the less you actually enjoy it.  Commercials, the 2-3 minute interlude, gives your brain time to “miss” the show you’re watching, therefore making the program more enjoyable once it comes back on.

Now, I have to take that notion with a grain of salt, as I don’t particularly like cliffhangers or being pulled from an emotionally involved episode of “House” just to catch commercials for “Burn Notice” or, heaven forbid, “Monk.” 

And if commercials were truly these happiness-inducing recess, why aren’t they in movies (and NO, I am not advocating that commercials be put into movies.  The obvious product placement is more than enough for my liking)?  Granted that’s really a rhetorical question, wouldn’t the same theory prevail—that we’d like a movie more after a brief break?

I, for one, don’t like watching commercials.  I would rather turn on a different program, one I enjoy less than my initial show, and follow a plot than become embroiled in 3-4 30-40 second clips of advertisements.  Then, by the time I realize my program is probably back on, I miss an integral 30 seconds of dialogue or meaningful stares that I’ll never get back.  I’m angry at the commercial break that forced me to miss part of my beloved program.

Also, take into consideration the advent of DVR; if we really had a true desire to have a break from our televisions shows or made-for-TV movies, why would we want to rush through the commercials that are meant to bring us joy?

The only time commercials are of interest are during the Super Bowl, and that’s because most of the commercials are brand new and over the top.  If we knew that we were going to be watching the same schlock we get on a daily basis, we’d probably pay less attention to the commercial and more attention to re-filling the cooler with imported beer.

Regardless of what the research shows (it shows that for some types of programs shown to some types of audiences, some of the people were happy that their show was back on.  Really ground-breaking research…. Glad we got that cleared up before, oh, say… Cancer?), I still personally believe that commercials are obvious intrusions into what is supposed to be my mindless enjoyment of… something. 

Regardless of what purpose commercials serve, it’s obvious that they serve one (whether that purpose is proactive or destructive is another matter for another time…)

Jackie for AMP3pr.com

@JackieBrook

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

What is the Reasoning Behind a Re-Brand When Your Original Brand Was Clearly Better?

I’m no marketing wiz.  I’m just someone who’s observant and can (tries to, at least) make logical deductions. 

That said, I read an interesting article at Consumerist today about the backlash Tropicana is feeling from “Loyal Customers” after changing the widely-recognizable Orange and Straw.

The new packaging, which is softer in color and features a glass of orange juice (SANS STRAW!) as opposed to the original, still boldly notes the brand names, and even better gets across the message that the carton is packed with “100% Orange.”

In terms of passing along pertinent knowledge, I have to give points to the new branding.   The font is easier to read, the layout is crisp and less cluttered, and the minimalistic quality gets rid of some of the superfluous text on the old box.

Now, a question that comes to mind is, why was there the push for a re-branding in the first place? The new Tropicana carton seems to follow in the lines of some similar rebranding, such as Pepsi’s, whereby a new age polish seems to have softened the older logo, as can be seen here with 33 other brands.

It’s obvious that, at times, we need to freshen up our image in order to attract new customers or to keep the ones you already have.  But with a brand like Tropicana, was their iconic packaging working against them, or did they, perhaps, get swept up in that “out with the old, in with the new” sentiment that has settled over the states in these last few months?

The thing that I find interesting is that there’s usually a major (often evident) strategy behind a re-branding effort.  The time and money that goes into a creative team figuring out the right move, the PR implementation for the announcement of such a big re-branding, the user testing… these are all things that must be taken into consideration before revamping a brand such as Tropicana.

But now there’s a backlash.  People are upset that their beloved straw-in-orange packing is gone in favor something more “generic.”

Is it possible that this was a branding strategy done on the part of Tropicana to lure value-conscious into foolishly reaching for their over-priced juice?  Could Tropicana be so evil as to disguise them as a value brand with the sole intention of getting you to purchase them when you wouldn’t otherwise?  Is it fair to even think they’d be so ruthless?

Maybe it is.

In a climate where people are eschewing name brands in favor of their identity-less counterparts, it would make sense that Tropicana, too big for its britches, masks itself amongst the other pauper orange juices in an effort to stay viable.

Countless reports have come out (including anecdotal stories of AMP3 workers falling for the rouse as well) of people being confused by the new branding, wondering what the difference is between low sodium, extra pulp, regular…  Tropicana, in going generic, has created a anarchy from which we can’t seem to rebound.

That is, until Tropicana goes back to it’s original branding—would that make it a re-re-branding or a de-branding?—and everyone is happy to know upfront that they’re paying more for a product they can purchase just as cheaply three cartons over.

Perhaps I, like Tropicana, am a marketing wiz.

The only thing that’s more bothersome than Tropicana seemingly sneakily trying to trick me into purchasing their high priced wares is the fact that we’re blaming Tropicana for actually pulling it off.

Where is the culpability of the shower to actually read what they’re purchasing?  Why should it matter what the container says since we don’t eat the container.  This isn’t a “New Coke” v “Classic Coke” dilemma. 

Here’s a helpful tip for consumers: be more concerned with what you put in your body than the package in which it comes. 

If Tropicana was looking to take advantage of our (more) frugal ways by appealing to a proven aesthetic, then I say all the power to them.  Clearly they knew their audience and they knew you could be duped, and the only one you have to blame is yourself.  Stop being so predicable and susceptible to their marketing campaigns, and then maybe they’ll come up with ones that actually appeal to you rather than harness your blind stupidity

I, for one, prefer Simply Orange, anyways….

Jackie for AMP3pr.com

@jackiebrook

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »