Commercial Craze

As I was watching t.v. today, a Diet Pepsi commercial with Sofia Vergara aired during the break. To watch the full commercial click here. Pepsi used specific elements to promote their product. The music and wedding scenario gives the commercial an upbeat vibe. Popular celebrity Sofia Vergara comes into the scene, already attracting viewers with her Spanish. During Vergara’s accidental wedding toast, her distraction to the Diet Pepsi creates humor for the viewers.  Vergara is wearing a blue, form fitting dress and bright red lipstick. With her white smile, the three colors recreate the Pepsi logo.

Pepsi and other companies spend a lot of money on t.v. and online commercials.

Kantar Media, a marketing research firm, says that the total money spent on t.v. ads increased 3% in 2012 and the total for video ads increased 27% percent. Companies are spending more money on advertising their products and services because there is constant competition. The music, setting, people, colors, and even small details are all considered to attract potential customers. In the commercial, Pepsi does not focus on the product itself. There is no detail of the taste or texture of the actual drink. Companies are using the commercial to sell this false emotion of feeling good when drinking Pepsi. Viewers may think "if Sofia Vergara loves it, it must taste great," or "she's pretty and popular; she knows what's in trend." Americans are being sold feelings and perceptions, not the truth.

Why do companies put attractive celebrities or actors? Fast or slow music? Specific scenarios? What kinds of emotions do they want Americans to feel when they watch their commercials? Are companies tricking us? What are your thoughts on this competition? How are Americans reacting to this commercial craze?

Pumpkin Spice and Everything Nice

We’re in the heart of pumpkin season, and companies have gone “pumpkins”! I made a trip to the grocery store over the weekend and was overwhelmed by the number of pumpkin products in the store: spreads, candles, cookies, lotions, and more. Bruce Horovitz agrees that the pumpkin is “everywhere these days” and says that the “number of pumpkin offerings domestically jumped nearly 19% last year.” The taste and smell of pumpkins are great, but why are so many companies trying to come up with pumpkin flavored and scented products? 

2013 marks the 10th year anniversary of Starbucks’s Pumpkin Spice Latte. In the past 10 years, Starbucks has sold more than 20 million of these drinks, about 2 million annually. When Fall comes around, Americans spend around $80 million total on the latte per year. Micheline Maynard  says that Starbucks is evening trying to make a vegan friendly version because of so many requests from customers.

Because Starbucks has gained immense popularity and profit from this drink, other companies have tried to use pumpkin in their products. Starbucks’s Pumpkin Spice Latte fueled the popularity of pumpkins. Pumpkins have been in the U.S. since the 1500s, but why the popularity now (www.history.com)? I think that many Americans follow current trends. We're becoming nostalgic because we miss old customs and simplicities. Numerous trends from the past, like scrunchies and black and white clothing, have come back with periods of popularity. So what is happening?

Are Americans reminiscing on the past? Are we losing touch and just recycling ideas? Why are trends from the past coming back? Why do Americans follow trends at all? Have we all just gone “pumpkins”?

Breathing with a Cost

For some people, breathing comes with a cost. About 40 million people in the U.S. have a chronic disease called Asthma. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute says that asthma is a “lung disease that that narrows the airways” and “causes wheezing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and coughing.” Asthma can be easily treated with inhalers and medication, but for many, buying the medicine is not easy.

New York Times says “Pulmicort, a steroid inhaler, generally retails for over $175 in the United States” and “pharmacists in Britain buy the identical product for about $20 and dispense it free of charge to asthma patients.” On the article from New York Times, there is a visual that compares the number of inhalers, allergy sprays, and medication one could get for $250 in the U.S. and in other countries. The differences are huge, and other countries sell Asthma medication for a lot less compared to the U.S. The annual cost for asthma is more than $56 billion. Many avoidable hospital visits and more than 3,300 deaths, that dealt with Asthma, involved patients who were frugal with or did not take their medication.

After reading the article, I started to wonder why medications have such high costs in the U.S. compared to other countries, like France and Belgium. Even though the article blames new packaging for one of the causes of the increase in price, there must be a bigger reason why the prices keep increasing. The price of medicine wasn't always this high. An Albuterol inhaler costs anywhere from $50-$100 now, when it retailed for less then $15 a decade years ago. In 2012, generic medication has increased 5.3% in prices, while name brand medication has increased 25% (Health Care Cost Institute). 

So why have prices increased over the past decade? Why does the U.S. sell these asthma medications at a higher cost than other countries? Should the cost of asthma medication remain the same if it means hindering someone from breathing? What are Americans doing about the problem, if they are? Should Americans even care about the situation at all?

To the internet or to the mall?

Transitioning from summer into fall, Americans are starting to buy new clothes, appliances, and decor for the season. With all the shopping, one would expect to find clusters of people at the mall, but there aren’t. People are still shopping but they’re using the Internet to do so.

Forrester Research predicts that online shoppers in the U.S. will spend “$327 billion in 2016.” That’s a “45% [increase] from $226 billion in [2012] and 62% [increase] from $202 billion in 2011” (internetretailer.com). As the rate of online shopping is increasing, Americans are becoming more comfortable with buying items online as opposed to going to the store to make their purchases. In a 2012 study, 71% of customers said that they prefer making purchases online, while 59% prefer in-store shopping (pymnts.com).

So are Americans getting lazier? Yes, online shopping is definitely a quicker process compared to in-store shopping, but people are using time as an excuse to stay at home. Shoppers dismiss the interaction with others that comes with shopping. The action of actually going out to buy something is lost when Americans sit behind their computers and click on buttons (as I sit here blogging behind my laptop). Americans want everything to be fast, easy, and comfortable. 

What Americans want is for their own self, but shouldn't we be creating relationships and expanding our horizons in the world outside of our own comfort zone? What do these statistics say about American shoppers? Is it better to shop online, in stores, or are they equal? How does the way people shop affect their connection with society? As fall progresses, think about these questions and the interactions you have with others in society.